Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Cessna 120/140 wheel extension

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7

    Cessna 120/140 wheel extension

    I have seen wheel extensions on Cessna 120/140 to move the wheels about 2 or three inches forward to put mor weight on the tail. I want to use something simular on my baby ace can someone give me a discription (material and dementions) Mike

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by babyace View Post
    I have seen wheel extensions on Cessna 120/140 to move the wheels about 2 or three inches forward to put mor weight on the tail. I want to use something simular on my baby ace can someone give me a discription (material and dementions) Mike
    The Cessna wheel extenders are 5" long by 2-3/4" wide by 5/8" thick, made from steel plate. Combined weight of both extenders is 5 lbs. They move the axle forward 3". They have eight holes, two holes in one end are counterbored for clearance with the original Goodyear brake disc clips. Counterboring is not necessary for Cleveland brakes. The original axle bolts were 1/4" dia., later they were increased to 5/16". There is substantial shear forces on the bolts that hold the extenders to the gear leg, which was the reason for up sizing the bolts. I think that will prove to be a challenge if you are using the stock baby ace gear.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now, what kind of reading do you get?

  4. #4
    If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now, what kind of reading do you get?

    I agree with the above - if you move your gear forward, you are putting even more weight on the tailwheel. That, in turn will increase the tendency to swap ends if the tail begins to come around. The most easily controllable taildragger will have the maximum percentage of the aircraft total weight on the main gear wheels and only a minimum amount of weight on the tailwheel (50 lb. or so).
    -Joel Marketello

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    The original post does not give a reason for wanting to move the main wheels forward.

    I will suggest that weight on the tailwheel is a trade-off. As is the position of the main wheels. Moving the main wheels forward will make the airplane more resistant to nosing over. Moving the main wheels forward moves the CG a little forward. The weight on the tailwheel will increase, but not by a lot. A few, and I mean 5lbs or so, more pounds on the tailwheel will not make the airplane significantly more likely to swap ends assuming that the vertical fin and rudder are the right size in the first place.

    Last month I threw my Pitts up on the scales. Empty weight is 1058 with 62 lbs on the tailwheel. Weighed my Swift a number of years ago. Empty weight 1366 with 37lbs on the tailwheel. Much easier to nose over the Swift. I will guess that the weight that you want on the tailwheel is actually a percentage of the empty (or gross) weight.

    So what is the goal?

    Best of luck,

    Wes
    N78PS

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7

    baby ace wheel extensions

    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    If you put a bathroom scale under your tailwheel now, what kind of reading do you get?
    I get 35lbs with a wood prop. but I am going to an 0-200 engine and I think the tail will be even lighter. Thanks for the reply..Mike

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7
    Thank you so much for the info...and for the reply...Mike

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7

    baby ace wheel extensions

    The goal is to keep the Ace from nosing over. It does not have a tendency to be really "mean" on the ground but I want to go to an 0-200 to replace the Cont. 65 The plan calls for a standard J-3 gear. That was the reason for the questions on mod. Thanks for the reply. Mike

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    A quick internet search suggests that the dry weight of the C-65 and the dry weight of the O-200 are almost the same if you do not add heavy accessories. So there may not be a need to move the wheels forward.

    I will suggest that the Cub gear is so simple that you might just weld up new gear legs with the axles in the location that you want.

    Best of luck,

    Wes
    N78PS

  10. #10
    JimRice85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a house with my laptop.....somewhere in Collierville, TN
    Posts
    185
    I agree, excessive tail weight isn't good. I had a Starduster Too that had over 100# on the tailwheel. It wasn't squirrelly, but it wasn't the easiest in the ground handling either because of the weight. I also have a Swift and it is light on the tailwheel too, despite moving the battery behind the seats. I've lifted the tail before taxiing slowly when the sole of my boot hung up between the pedal arm and the pedal. The first thing I learned that day was choice of foot ware matters. Second was an appreciation for just how easy it is to accidentally lift the tail. I think the 50# on my Cub tailwheel is about right and it weighs 726# empty.
    Jim Rice
    Wolf River Airport (54M)
    Collierville, TN

    N4WJ 1994 Van's RV-4 (Flying)
    N3368K 1946 Globe GC-1B Swift (Flying)--For Sale
    N7155H 1946 Piper J-3C Cub (Flying)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •