Yeeehaaaa!!! New Gear is On!!!!

[Willja67 144]

It took forever but my little fox has her new legs!!!

[TJay 1041]

Oh your gonna like that. Looks great.

[akflyer 1427]

I hope that is not the gear that highcountry made.  Joey hates his as it sits too low and kills the AOA and he has way longer take off runs than they should be.

 

[Allen Sutphin 705]

Still looks good!  But for now, I'll play with the original gear till the kitty gets built back up.

[Willja67 144]

I hope that is not the gear that highcountry made.  Joey hates his as it sits too low and kills the AOA and he has way longer take off runs than they should be.

 

Nope it's made by Stace Schrader of Rocky mountain wings and it's definitely at least a few inches taller than the stock gear

[1avidflyer 1983]

I hope that is not the gear that highcountry made.  Joey hates his as it sits too low and kills the AOA and he has way longer take off runs than they should be.

 

Speaking about Joey, he sure has been quiet for a while.  I can't remember the last post he made.  Hope all is well with him.  JImChuk

[akflyer 1427]

Jim,

Joey is all good just wrapped up in his new job.  I think he is out of town dong some training this week.

 

 

[Willja67 144]

Ok guys got a question regarding the new gear and the trailer.  I'm having to modify the trailer because the new gear is 2 ft wider, which is fairly easy to do.  There's 2 ways to go about modifying the trailer.

1. the easy simpler stronger way which raises the front end of the plane up 3.5" in addition to the increase in height the new gear gives the front end, or

2. The slightly more difficult not quite so strong but definitely adequate way that doesn't raise the front of the airplane(the gear still adds a couple inches) 

I'm just wondering if the increase in angle on the front of the plane and the resulting increase in wind load particularly on the top of the wings is something to be concerned about? Ive been thinking about a way to raise the tail if that is indeed a concern. 

[wypaul 448]

I would build a stand to get the tail up (or a ramp).  You will want something for a stand to ge the weight off of the tail spring any way.  We haul ours with the fuselage level and the weight off the spring.

[Cloud Dancer 69]

Wings level make the most sense, the wing area provides a spoiler effect with the tail down making the weight on the tail even greater when your dragging it down the road.

[Willja67 144]

I would build a stand to get the tail up (or a ramp).  You will want something for a stand to ge the weight off of the tail spring any way.  We haul ours with the fuselage level and the weight off the spring.

Good to know, thanks. 

 

In other news:

The wheels are on!!!! Just have to plumb the brake lines now. 

Also had the guy whos helping me welded some reinforcements on my rudder pedals and added a mount point for the master cylinder on what used to be the passengers right rudder pedal. 

 

Thanks to an awesome gentleman my plane is getting a lot done on it. I'm really excited!

Edited 24 Apr 2019 by Willja67
Spelling

[Willja67 144]

I'm prepping the fuselage to get bead blasted and powdercoated. I'm also removing every single little tab that I don't think I'll use. For instance i removed the throttle mount in the middle of the instrument panel and  cable the reverser.

I already cut off the knobs that the original bungees wrapped around. Now I'm wondering if i can remove the tubes marked in red? Since the bungees aren't there anymore I don't see a reason to keep them. Is there?

Edited 17 Oct 2019 by Willja67

[1avidflyer 1983]

I wouldn't weaken the seat truss, in fact, I would maybe add some gussets along the top of the bottom tube to resist the inward pull of the cabane on hard landings.  JImChuk

[wypaul 448]

1+ what Jim said.  Also I would have all of those holes in the upper tube tig weld closed after you get it blasted.  I hate to see holes drilled into tubes, great place for rust to get into the tube. .035 tubing is paper thin to start with and the seat truss is a weak point.

[akflyer 1427]

I wouldn't weaken the seat truss, in fact, I would maybe add some gussets along the top of the bottom tube to resist the inward pull of the cabane on hard landings.  JImChuk

1+ what Jim said.  Also I would have all of those holes in the upper tube tig weld closed after you get it blasted.  I hate to see holes drilled into tubes, great place for rust to get into the tube. .035 tubing is paper thin to start with and the seat truss is a weak point.

X3.  Beef up the truss and fuse sides.  A pound or two here is much better than a wrinkled up wreck.

[Willja67 144]

For you guys running the cub style cabane gear,  how much vertical travel do you guys limit your wheels to? I figure that I could have almost a foot of travel if I do a wheel landing and still have a couple inches before i smack the prop.  

[Allen Sutphin 705]

What wall tubing does Stace use in his gear. I like the design of his gear better than some I've seen. But it appears to me to be a tad on the weak side if he uses .035 wall tubing. Considering the extended length of the gear. But it could be one of them thar optical delusions that I have from time to time. But unless one does regular carrier landings should work fine. Contrary to what some like, I prefer bungees to springs. Oleo struts are my favorite type and I have tested them on occasion. But for now, I guess the original gear will have to do the job for me.

[Good old number 29 158]

The notch in the early Cub bungee struts allowed 3.5 inches of travel, giving approximately 8" max vertical wheel travel with standard gear. I allowed for 10" travel on my cabane gear. As of yet, untested.

[Willja67 144]

What wall tubing does Stace use in his gear. I like the design of his gear better than some I've seen. But it appears to me to be a tad on the weak side if he uses .035 wall tubing

I don't know what wall thickness he used. The forward tube is 1" and the aft tube is 7/8".

The notch in the early Cub bungee struts allowed 3.5 inches of travel, giving approximately 8" max vertical wheel travel with standard gear. I allowed for 10" travel on my cabane gear. As of yet, untested.

I'm playing around with an air shock suspension idea. I had to get my truck worked on and the shop that did the work builds custom Rock crawlers and I asked them for their take on the suspension. They came up with a quick and dirty design that I'm playing around with. Using the basic geometry I could have the landing gear droop down about 4 inches lower than it will now go(in flight no load). With the current setup with the aircraft in the level flight attitude sitting on the mains I have 14" of prop clearance. So if I set my max vertical travel for 12" past where it would sit statically loaded and add those 4 inches that would give me 16" of vertical travel total. That would be a massive amount of travel to soak up those carrier landings. 

 

Edited 16 Nov 2019 by Willja67

[Allen Sutphin 705]

Don't guess it matters much. Whatever the wall thickness, it seems to do the job and do it well.

[Willja67 144]

Don't guess it matters much. Whatever the wall thickness, it seems to do the job and do it well.

Well it may matter and it may not. From talking to Stace it sounds like he designed the gear to take as much abuse as a unmodified airframe. Which means if I beef up the seat truss and fuse sides they may hold up and the gear legs might fail. 

[Allen Sutphin 705]

Don't guess it matters much. Whatever the wall thickness, it seems to do the job and do it well.

Well it may matter and it may not. From talking to Stace it sounds like he designed the gear to take as much abuse as a unmodified airframe. Which means if I beef up the seat truss and fuse sides they may hold up and the gear legs might fail. 

He designed it for the Ridgerunner and a couple of them has the same gross wt as the Avid/fox. Plus since he worked for Kitfox at one time, he should know the airframe design limits. Any gear can fail if hit hard enough. I would prefer to have the gear bend over the fuselage structure. Its just a bolt on structure and doesn't require the work to repair the fuselage tubing. Sadly, its usually both that get damaged.  I've talked to Stace a few times and he seemed to know what he was talking about.

[akflyer 1427]

Don't guess it matters much. Whatever the wall thickness, it seems to do the job and do it well.

Well it may matter and it may not. From talking to Stace it sounds like he designed the gear to take as much abuse as a unmodified airframe. Which means if I beef up the seat truss and fuse sides they may hold up and the gear legs might fail. 

He designed it for the Ridgerunner and a couple of them has the same gross wt as the Avid/fox. Plus since he worked for Kitfox at one time, he should know the airframe design limits. Any gear can fail if hit hard enough. I would prefer to have the gear bend over the fuselage structure. Its just a bolt on structure and doesn't require the work to repair the fuselage tubing. Sadly, its usually both that get damaged.  I've talked to Stace a few times and he seemed to know what he was talking about.

The reality is, when the gear fails, it usually leads to hanging upside down in your seat belts.  Been there done that.  The trick is to get both to take the normal landings as well as the occasional rock or bump you did not see prior to touch down.  I would say that tires have just as much if not more to do with this than the gear legs.  The best gear in the world will still jar your butt to the core if you run over a rock with smaller tires that have more than a few PSI in them.

Valdez and the flying cowboys seems to have fascinated everyone with the carrier landings.  Which have very little if any usefulness in the real world back country flying.

[Willja67 144]

Don't guess it matters much. Whatever the wall thickness, it seems to do the job and do it well.

Well it may matter and it may not. From talking to Stace it sounds like he designed the gear to take as much abuse as a unmodified airframe. Which means if I beef up the seat truss and fuse sides they may hold up and the gear legs might fail. 

He designed it for the Ridgerunner and a couple of them has the same gross wt as the Avid/fox. Plus since he worked for Kitfox at one time, he should know the airframe design limits. Any gear can fail if hit hard enough. I would prefer to have the gear bend over the fuselage structure. Its just a bolt on structure and doesn't require the work to repair the fuselage tubing. Sadly, its usually both that get damaged.  I've talked to Stace a few times and he seemed to know what he was talking about.

The reality is, when the gear fails, it usually leads to hanging upside down in your seat belts.  Been there done that.  The trick is to get both to take the normal landings as well as the occasional rock or bump you did not see prior to touch down.  I would say that tires have just as much if not more to do with this than the gear legs.  The best gear in the world will still jar your butt to the core if you run over a rock with smaller tires that have more than a few PSI in them.

Valdez and the flying cowboys seems to have fascinated everyone with the carrier landings.  Which have very little if any usefulness in the real world back country flying.

In this case carrier landings are a concern due to the ham handedness of the pilot. Gotta make sure the aircraft lasts long enough to be enjoyed.

[Allen Sutphin 705]

There are rare times and conditions that mandate getting it on the ground NOW! And keeping it on the ground. I've only had one of these conditions in my flying career and thankfully pulled it off and no damage. As some who fly in the mountains know, storms, wind conditions and other abnormal situations can occur in the next valley within a few minutes and weather service has no clue what is occurring below a certain altitude. They don't have the coverage in these areas or coverage is sparse at best.  Every time I think I've got this mountain flying thing figured out, it teaches me a new trick.