The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Look at the picture of a Scott 3-24B installation recently discovered.

Can you find 2 things that are wrong with this tailwheel installation. We are not talking rust. We are not talking extra chain.

George is totally DISQUALIFIED and Bill Kelsall please don't spill the beans if you remember the one thing I noticed and told you at the auction.

The bracket appears to have been repaired all the way back on the nose under the stiffener.

And the guard is missing from the bottom side of the shackle which ties the three lower leaves together.

Perhaps the hardware store nuts, without cotter keys or nylocks?

I will throw in my two cents worth. The first thing that I believe is wrong are the springs, they are for the larger scott tail wheel the original springs for the small tail wheel had two springs one inside the other. The second thing that I think is wrong is there are two spring leaf clamps.
Is there a prize?
Ragwingrick

The angle looks wrong also.

John

sfarringer wrote:And the guard is missing from the bottom side of the shackle which ties the three lower leaves together.

We have one right answer. One more to go.




As for the other guesses.

I can't tell from the picture if the hardware is AN or not but didn't see any common hardware when I inspected the plane. There is no repair to the bracket, that is the early bracket came.

ragwingrick wrote:The first thing that I believe is wrong are the springs, they are for the larger scott tail wheel the original springs for the small tail wheel had two springs one inside the other.

Rick, if these were the bigger 3239 connector springs you would be correct, they'd be wrong. These connector springs do look a bit larger in the picture than the 2151 springs you get today but I believe them to be correct 2151 connector springs so that is not what I'm looking for. As for two springs one inside the other that is never correct. Are you thinking of the Maule compression springs. Don't use these, they may damage your airframe which we discuss elsewhere on the forum. And there should be a clamp on the bracket and a clamp on the springs no matter what 170 or tail wheel setup you have.

Looks to me as if the bolt holding the tailwheel to the spring is upside down.

OK, wrong answer!
But I just cheated and looked at the parts manual...

flat strap and bolts being used as substitute for the u-bolt?

wingnut wrote:flat strap and bolts being used as substitute for the u-bolt?

The U-bolt was not used on the early assy.

It looks like there are two leaf springs going to the tail wheel.

Watkinsnv wrote:It looks like there are two leaf springs going to the tail wheel.

No there isn't two main springs and you wouldn't be able to see that from this angle. I only know only one 170 with two mains springs and it's not flying at the moment and the bolt never did shear in 10 years. But that is another story to be told over a beer sometime.

15A wrote:OK, wrong answer!
But I just cheated and looked at the parts manual...

It's not cheating to look at the IPC. I look at all three of them and the engine IPC all the time. Now I just downloaded a C140 IPC so I'll have to look at that when doing research for the '48.

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:[...I only know only one 170 with two mains springs and it's not flying at the moment and the bolt never did shear in 10 years. But that is another story to be told over a beer sometime.

You were warned that airplane would end up damaged, tho'.