Wheel extenders

[7677]

Hi folks,
Just had our landing gear redone by Jim Hayton at North Sound Aviation. The plane has wheel extenders, and he had mentioned that some folks were moving the axle back from the 3" forward the extenders put the wheels, to about 1.5 inches instead. Short of modifying the extender plates, has anybody here done that?

Thanks,

Ken Hamilton
OR78

[4012]

A number of years ago I completely removed the wheel extenders on my 1946 C140.
It improved ground handling immensely and on roll out the tail popped up very easily.
The only caviat to that is be careful when applying heavy or abrupt braking as the aircraft will have more tendency to nose over. But if you are careful it works just fine,
The 46 had strait landing gear legs.

[8155]

I removed my extenders 8 years ago. Best thing ever. Yes you can raise the tail if you are hard on the brakes. Buts its handles great.

[5422]

Another ditto on removing extenders. The (our) plane handles way better without them. Even on 29” AK Bushwheels it’s pretty docile.

[V529]

Hi folks,
Just had our landing gear redone by Jim Hayton at North Sound Aviation. The plane has wheel extenders, and he had mentioned that some folks were moving the axle back from the 3" forward the extenders put the wheels, to about 1.5 inches instead. Short of modifying the extender plates, has anybody here done that?

Thanks,

Ken Hamilton
OR78

Ken, I'm not certain exactly what you're describing?
A. removing the extenders
B. removing the extenders and determining the "arm" of where the wheels are now located?
C. determining if there is a safety issue after removing the extenders?
D. something I didn't consider?

I've flown with and without extenders and if it helps, ............
With extenders and the airplane is a real "3 pointer".
Without the extenders it's still a "3 pointer" but makes for better wheel landing touchdowns.

I"m with the above posters regarding extender removal. Extenders are best used for fishing sinker weights after a "newby" learns to fly in the aircraft.

[2066]

...removed from our '46 140 29 years ago. IMO they "solved" a problem that didn't exist while putting more stress on the airframe than was anticipated by original design. If "graduating" from another taildragger brand with mechanical brakes (or, poorly functioning brakes of any kind) it's certainly possible to "accidentally" jam on the Clevelands (or, Goodyears, for those that still hav'em) to get the tail up...and, I'm confident that it accelerates quickly if allowed to continue. While I'm unaware of any official study, it seems there's been a significant reduction in TD "noseovers" over the years as pilots have become accustomed to good hydraulic disk brakes. It's important to recognize the possibility, to get good instruction, to practice and stay current & alert...and, always when landing, don't trust it 'til either tied down or in the hangar. Mac

[6277]

I also got rid of the extenders years ago. Can't believe how much better it handles, not to mention it looks a lot better too!

[6643]

Ken, I'm not certain exactly what you're describing?

I could be misunderstanding things, but I assumed he meant moving the axles from the +3 position on the extenders, back to a position equal to +1.5, maybe using the second and third sets of bolt holes instead of the third and forth sets (with first and second being the ones holding the extender to the leg.)

[6183]

...removed from our '46 140 29 years ago. IMO they "solved" a problem that didn't exist while putting more stress on the airframe than was anticipated by original design. If "graduating" from another taildragger brand with mechanical brakes (or, poorly functioning brakes of any kind) it's certainly possible to "accidentally" jam on the Clevelands (or, Goodyears, for those that still hav'em) to get the tail up...and, I'm confident that it accelerates quickly if allowed to continue. While I'm unaware of any official study, it seems there's been a significant reduction in TD "noseovers" over the years as pilots have become accustomed to good hydraulic disk brakes. It's important to recognize the possibility, to get good instruction, to practice and stay current & alert...and, always when landing, don't trust it 'til either tied down or in the hangar. Mac

Excellent point Mac!
I've never been able to find original type brakes as utilized on any stock Luscombe, Piper J-3/PA-11, Aeronca Champion/Chief or Taylorcraft BC-12D aircraft as effective as is/was the original OEM Goodyears (now mainly Clevelands) that were installed on C-140 and C-120 aircraft. The brakes on the Cessna were so much more effective with stopping power many a pilot in the time frame that these aircraft were manufactured found that the misuse of the brakes could put the aircraft up on the nose. That is just poor pilot technique plane and simple. As you've mentioned adequate instruction in the proper use of the brakes on these aircraft is essential for safe operation. According to a good friend, flight instructor, and mentor of mine now is 89 years young who used instruct in 140's and 120's when they were new, wheel extenders were purely a marketing item by Cessna to sell more airplanes to pilots who not accustomed to utilizing the brakes correctly.

[kelliweed]

I have a 140 with an O-290-D engine, significantly heavier on the front than a stock engine. It also has the wheel extenders. It would be great to remove them, but I’m pretty worried that they're on there for a good reason with my particular engine? Does anyone have this engine on this airplane without the wheel extenders and can speak to the handling characteristics? If I remove the extenders will I have to add more weight in the back to be safe, and the cost of precious useful load? Also I cant seem to find paperwork on the extenders with my airplane, I assume its an STC? Thanks for the advice!