Tailspring Bushing 0442114

[5836]

Regarding Technical Support - there is a great article by Neal Wright on the website for Tailwheel Leaf Springs and related mounting hardware. The article addresses Leaf Spring attachment per IPC Page 44 & 45, Fig: 23.

My question in this thread concerns the following for IPC Fig: 23, Item: 23-50, P/N: 0442114, Description "Bushing". I have checked and have not found this "Bushing" at any of the Parts Suppliers. TO: "edidin" is this the bushing that you contacted Textron and obtained the dwg specifications ???

In the Neal Wright article (on pg. 4) he only mentions a "rubber" bushing 7/16 or 3/8 ID (depending on bolts size) with an 5/8 OD. So is this bushing (Item 23-50) rubber or steel ?? Did Neal leave out the reference to a steel bushing. Should I make a steel bushing from raw stock from edidin's spec's from Textron?

Br,
Mike "5836"

[2356]

The bushing is a piece of hose with the proper inner and outer diameter.

[wingspinner]

There seems to be conflicting info on this “bushing”. Another 140 on my field has a metal bushing whereas mine had a price of rubber hose. Cessna parts book calls it a bushing which is not what they would call something of made of rubber.

I might add that the 170 has what appears to be a sintered bronze or bronze plated steel “bushing” part number 0442129-1.
Can anyone clarify for sure which is correct?

Thx

[wingspinner]

With further research I found the 140a parts book lists the same part number (0442129-1)as is used on the 170 (photo attached to my previous post) which implies it supersedes the 0442114 part number found in the older revision of the 120/140 parts manual available on the site. 0442129-1 is clearly a steel bushing based on the Textron photo.

[6643]

Food for thought:
What is the point of the rubber cushions (0442119) on top and bottom of the spring if you have a steel bushing running through the leaves and the bracket?

[wingspinner]

I'm not interested in debating the design or redesigning it. I just want to find the correct part.

Having built a couple of homebuilts (an airplane and a helicopter) and owned numerous certified airplanes that I've done all my own work on (under IA supervision) over the last several decades, I personally am loath to replace any parts with other than manufacturer parts on important things like attachment points of the landing gear on any airplane. Using a length of rubber hose instead of a steel bushing ,or visa-versa, on the airframe attach point of the tailwheel clearly affects the mechanics of that attach point. Because it's on the landing gear, such a change would normally require a Cessna service bulletin, an STC, or at least a field approval to justify the change (and also to be "legal" which is less important than being correct and safe in my book). All would require documented testing.

So, since I'm in the process of rebuilding my tailwheel assembly, I want to identify the correct part Cessna intended and where to get one (or the specifications to fabricate one) and if there is any data to justify not using Cessna part. Cessna wants over $200 for the steel bushing part identified for the 140A and the 170 so it seems it could be more than just a plain steel bushing (maybe it's a steel sleeve with a softer material bonded to the outside). I don't know at this point. The fact that the 140A tailwheel leaf springs attachments appear to be exactly the same design as the older 120/140 designs gives me some confidence that the bushing used on the 140A will work as intended on my '47 140 but I'm puzzled as to exactly why so many 140's have rubber hose and if Cessna started with a plain rubber hose and changed to the one currently specified for the 140a/170 later or what.

Anyhow, to simplify this whole thing it would be useful to know if anyone has the original bushing that came from Cessna on their 140 and could post a photo of it or a service note documenting a change, etc.

[6643]

You make a good point about modifying the landing gear, however, the 140A part is not the part in the 140 parts catalog and so would itself be a modification. Unless Cessna specifically says it is a superseded part, then it's no more legal than a piece of rubber hose, and maybe less.

The author of the documents posted here, Neal Wright, was a personal acquaintance and went to tremendous lengths to get the right answers. If he says it's a rubber hose, and there is no conflicting documentation from Cessna, that's good enough for me.

I posed the question to point out that it doesn't make engineering sense to allow movement with the rubber cushions and then prevent movement with a steel bushing. Understanding the design may shed light on the correct part.

[6643]

OK. I have in my possession the only original copy I have ever seen of the Illustrated Parts Catalog dated April 15, 1946. It is fraught with errors. For example, the bushing in question is notated as "50" in the illustration, but item 50 in the listing is the bolt. Item 41 in the listing is pn 0442114, but item 41 in the illustration is the tail post. However, the description for part 0442114 reads "Bushing - Tailwheel attachment rubber".

Neal had a copy of this parts catalog.

[Edit] I just realized, the 1959 version of the Illustrated Parts Catalog calls it "Bushing - Tailwheel attachment rudder". That makes no sense. It is not attached to the rudder... I confirmed the '46 version says "rubber".

The illustration is the same, with the same parts notated 41 and 50.

[wingspinner]

Hi guys,

With regards to:
“If he says it's a rubber hose, and there is no conflicting documentation from Cessna, that's good enough for me.”

I’m glad you respect Mr. Wright’s knowledge, He seems to know his stuff. However, what he actually has written in his tailwheel document is: “Reinforced rubber tube, 5/16ths or 3/8ths ID, bolt dependent, and 5/8ths OD. Some planes have been noted with this item of steel, not rubber.”

With regards to the post: “OK. I have in my possession the only original copy I have ever seen of the Illustrated Parts Catalog dated April 15, 1946. …”

I too also have an original “Illustrated Parts Catalog” yellowed pages and all. Was in the massive pile of original documents that came with the airplane when I bought it including the original owners manual, all 337s and log books from and since 1947. A local IA here also has an original. Mine is at the airport right now but as I recall it’s dated 1947. Anyhow both my manual and the local IAs reads exactly the same as the 1954 version available on this website and doesn’t have any of the errors you speak of nor does it say the bushing is rubber as you write.

Anyhow, you folks can obviously choose whatever parts you want to use on your airplane. I’m am absolutely not on a mission to claim you are wrong or judge how you choose to decide which part or parts you use.

For me, there is a lack of clarity with regards to this particular part of the tailwheel assembly. The following is why I hold that opinion:

1. Cessna and all PMA manufacturers have marked the bushing part number 0442114 as “Discontinued” while they continue to offer part number 0442129 )which is definitely not rubber).
2. I have verified that the Cessna specified part for both the 140A and all the 170s is currently available and is definitely not rubber.
3. A recognized expert mentions that some 140s have a steel bushing.
4. A respected IA here at my field who owns a 1946 140 that his family purchased new and the owner/A&P of an FBO here who has a 1948 140 both confirm their airplanes have a steel bushing while mine has a rubber tube. Also, the 1948 uses an AN6 bolt while the 1946 uses an AN5.
5. I have read about this particular bolt failing in some 140s

I’m not trying to create needless controversy here. I just would like to get clarity as to what is current correct part per Cessna if possible. It would also be interesting to know if there is a service bulletin floating around that addresses this issue and as well as which part was used in the aircraft that have had the bolt break.

[6643]

For me, there is a lack of clarity with regards to this particular part of the tailwheel assembly.

No argument there.

By "original parts catalog" I meant "first edition". Anything with a later date is not what I meant by "original"; that would be "updated". (Anything earlier invalidates my claim to originality.)

"Discontinued" does not necessarily mean "superseded". Regardless, if the plane was certified with a rubber bushing then it would take an AD to force a change.

If, as I suspect, my 1946 rolled off the line with a rubber bushing, and there is no service bulletin or AD changing it, then there is no reason I cannot use a rubber bushing today. (There are no service bulletins or ADs that address this issue. All service bulletins are available on the main web page and ADs are checked annually.)

"Some planes have been noted with this item of steel, not rubber.” What Neal was saying was that he's seen planes with steel bushings. That doesn't necessarily mean they were (or were not) built that way

It sounds like the only answer you're likely to get that will satisfy you must come from Cessna. Have you tried calling them? Otherwise, you're going to have to make an educated guess. Now, at least you have the same information I do to help with that decision.