• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Experimental Shock Options and Reviews

Thanks Roddy for your input.
You are correct, I did not witness the incident.
I will take your suggestion to heart and respectfully bow out of this conversation.

And Rob,
thank you for your service to our nation.

Doug
 
Certified market where what belongs? What does that mean? Customer support isn't limited to the certified market.


Hi SB,

I am a stickler for customer service, and I have no doubt the service from the companies discussed in this thread is stellar. That was not my point, and there is a good chance that we don't agree on what was my point :oops: but in the event that I just wasn't clear I will give it another shot...

I am of the opinion that when purchasing a certified part for a certified airplane, that will be operated in accordance to it's design, that parts functionality, performance and longevity, should be calculable and repeatable. Each and every time. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but ...

A part built to those standards requires an exact understanding of the aircraft it's going on, it requires engineering, testing during the design phase, testing during the certification phase, it requires a company with the financial backbone to weather litigation (read; it's going to cost more)


I am also of the opinion that for the majority of us who are gravitating towards experimental certification, the draw is the speedy availability of new technology, coupled with what is quite often a substantially better price point. But these two points just can't happen if we're to assign the standards required to meet the certified world.

You just can't have it both ways!

I agree that customer service is not limited to any one market, I just tend to believe that when you sign up for that blank canvas that comes with the experimental certification, you also sign up for a different kind of responsibility with regards to the construction of your aircraft. YOU are the designer / builder / test pilot. You are the guy who has to determine what parts will be compatible. And ultimately YOU are going to get to find out what works together well and what doesn't. And when it doesn't work well, you need to suck it up and try the next experiment, not bash the guys who are making this all possible.

I agree with oliver that when someone produces something 'for profit' they should be prepared to stand behind their product, but I also believe there is a limit to what we can reasonably expect within those parameters.

You (SB) said in another thread that " 'Cub wings' isn't as generic as you'd think". I agree with that sentiment, and would add that it spans the entire aircraft. Consequently, I'd say it's a pretty tall order to ask a component manufacturer to stand behind a piece as if it were going to be a 'one size fits all'. Could it be done? sure, but at what cost in time and money?

I really would have liked to say something catchy and simple like "I have no dog in this fight" but the truth is... I do... and it's name is GA. and I'd really like to not run another aspect of it into it's grave before my grandson gets to enjoy it.

Take care, Rob
 
Last edited:
Hi Doug,

Thank you. FWIW, I get what you're saying.
I personally watched one of the new really trendy tailwheels leave an airplane clean in two pieces. Looking it over, I could see what I perceived as a smalll design flaw (one that I understand has been remedied), but a more direct contributing factor was the fact that this wheel had been successfully operated at substantially lower weights for quite some time on this a/c. Then while off for an extended vacation and loaded heavy it failed. In other words it was set up to be run one way, and then flown in a whole different realm.

The owner picked up the picked up the pieces, and with a little help, the vacation went on to be quite a success. The tailwheel supplier helped him out on another one, a little learning and design change ensued as well. The whole thing was a win-win for everyone. That's experimental at it's finest.


As a side note, I watched this happen. It happened after landing while taxing out over some tussocks. You would have swore this was a 'while taxiing' failure, but on closer inspection of the arm, it was evident that this had probably began much earlier in the trip, probably in a landing phase.

Take care, Rob
 
Steve,
i am not an engineer, nor was I present when failure occurred.
my opinion: considering everything else remained intact, mounting bolts should have been the weakest link, at least they were with bungee set up.
I have never seen the bolts fail, always a component, attach fitting, hydrosorb or gear leg.
 
When my prop failure happened, all 4 bolts held although 2 serverely bent. Not so with 3 of the thick gauge 4130 mounts.
 
So am I to believe if my hydrosorb that univair supplied fails that they should be doing something to stand behind the product or financially compensate me? Or Atlee or airframes gear leg? Run what you think is best. If you don’t like acme’s, don’t run them
 
Hi SB,

I am a stickler for customer service, and I have no doubt the service from the companies discussed in this thread is stellar. That was not my point, and there is a good chance that we don't agree on what was my point :oops: but in the event that I just wasn't clear I will give it another shot...

I am of the opinion that when purchasing a certified part for a certified airplane, that will be operated in accordance to it's design, that parts functionality, performance and longevity, should be calculable and repeatable. Each and every time. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but ...

A part built to those standards requires an exact understanding of the aircraft it's going on, it requires engineering, testing during the design phase, testing during the certification phase, it requires a company with the financial backbone to weather litigation (read; it's going to cost more)


I am also of the opinion that for the majority of us who are gravitating towards experimental certification, the draw is the speedy availability of new technology, coupled with what is quite often a substantially better price point. But these two points just can't happen if we're to assign the standards required to meet the certified world.

You just can't have it both ways!

I agree that customer service is not limited to any one market, I just tend to believe that when you sign up for that blank canvas that comes with the experimental certification, you also sign up for a different kind of responsibility with regards to the construction of your aircraft. YOU are the designer / builder / test pilot. You are the guy who has to determine what parts will be compatible. And ultimately YOU are going to get to find out what works together well and what doesn't. And when it doesn't work well, you need to suck it up and try the next experiment, not bash the guys who are making this all possible.

I agree with oliver that when someone produces something 'for profit' they should be prepared to stand behind their product, but I also believe there is a limit to what we can reasonably expect within those parameters.

You (SB) said in another thread that " 'Cub wings' isn't as generic as you'd think". I agree with that sentiment, and would add that it spans the entire aircraft. Consequently, I'd say it's a pretty tall order to ask a component manufacturer to stand behind a piece as if it were going to be a 'one size fits all'. Could it be done? sure, but at what cost in time and money?

I really would have liked to say something catchy and simple like "I have no dog in this fight" but the truth is... I do... and it's name is GA. and I'd really like to not run another aspect of it into it's grave before my grandson gets to enjoy it.

Take care, Rob


and that is exactly why i wont own either of them, my univair bungee hydrosorb setup has been perfect for 21 years. with bungees no oil or air to take a crap. bought a t3 though, going to take the chance, havent put it on yet.
 
Last edited:
To the original question,

I love my TKs. The more I use them the more that's true. I wouldn't hesitate to use Acmes but I believe TKs suit my heavier airplane better. I handed my T3 back to airframes and got a pawnee spring. And not for lack of service. Dan D was a prince. I simply didn't want it on my plane. Shelved the Matco tailwheel and went with a BBW. Discarded my kit's gear and bought Airframes super duty. Overall with respect to suspension? I couldn't be happier with what I have. The exp Cub category is in great hands with innovative products and responsive suppiers. It just keeps getting better. I honestly think the exp category represents premium planes and parts when compared to certified Cubs. Enjoy the process.
 
Last edited:
That Acme picture did not happen just taxing through rough stuff that is for sure. That may have been when it failed.

Why did the airplane get damaged if he was just taxing and those failed? No safety cables....

There is way to many red flags to say Acme is a crap company that did not stand behind their product. Certified or Experimental, it does not matter... You can't fix stupid!

I got a shock back that I had made 10 years ago probably. Each unit had bent strut rods, one had a cracked weld. I talked to the IA that was working on the airplane, it had a broken fuselage, broken ABI-10650 wheel (wheel used on 35" ABW). I fixed it for him for no charge. Here is the deal though, I have landed in super rough places with that same shock and never broken anything. When you start breaking/bending parts on the fuselage, breaking wheels etc. , then you expect a manufacturer to step up and pay to fix your airplane you are a problem to this community/hobby that we all love so much. I for one will take responsibility for breaking my ****. Anything on an airplane can be broken use some common sense. That video of the Carbon Cub... Just Dumb!
 
I just put a T3 on the tail of my BCSC. I can't help but laugh when the tail comes down. You can't hardly tell it's touched. It just sticks down. Makes the taxi out on rough ground smoother.

JP
 
Nope. Just run em naked.

9be8b4fef4370a76e2c164b3.jpg
 
I'll have covers on mine when I get an engine back on it. My Vetterman exhaust dumps onto the shocks and the residue is a maintance item. Covers should resolve it.
 
Just an observation but Super Cubs have been landing in nasty places for over 60 years with plain old bungees but now your a hack if your not running the latest and greatest shock setup? Like a lot of things that the old guard did forever with basic systems we now think we need to spend thousands of $ to go where they went with stock equipment and a lot more smarts then we are willing to earn before trying it first.

Glenn
 
I appreciate your point and often agree. But I suppose if your hydrosorbs are pretty beat and will need replacing sooner than later a fella should contemplate finding a better mouse trap even if you end up sticking with the old technology. My rotary phone works just fine, but it’s not my first choice any more.
 
Glenn
Ya back in the day they did with what they had. But, today I don't see guys running 29 tires on gar arrow rims going into a new/tough strip!! They strap on a the best gear you can find because the hunter is paying 30,000 dollars to get the moose!! It pays for itself in one trip. I can do all the flying I want with hydrosorbs but ASOS on my cub is night and day so why not upgrade when you have the chance? In a cub if you only need 300 ft to stop, old school is fine but if you need to stop short without wind or skill you might want to spend some money.
DENNY
 
For me changing to TK1's in the front and T3 in the rear wasn't about going into places I couldn't go before, it was about transferring MUCH less shock to the landing gear, attach points/hardware, and the airframe. And that's a good thing.
 
Just an observation but Super Cubs have been landing in nasty places for over 60 years with plain old bungees but now your a hack if your not running the latest and greatest shock setup? Like a lot of things that the old guard did forever with basic systems we now think we need to spend thousands of $ to go where they went with stock equipment and a lot more smarts then we are willing to earn before trying it first.

Glenn

You obviously haven't tried TK-1s or Aeros. Better is better and in this case? A lot better.
 
I'll have covers on mine when I get an engine back on it. My Vetterman exhaust dumps onto the shocks and the residue is a maintance item. Covers should resolve it.

Is he making covers for the TK1's now? I have talked to him a couple of times about covers as I was thinking about building my own. Never heard if he has them available. Or did you make your own?
 
There going to make fabric covers right? I was thinking of using aluminum.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Busters upholstery made some streamlimed fabric covers that have foam to support the leading edge.

I heard impressive cruise speed gains over regular naugahyde covers.
 
TKs have soch a small forward profile I'm not concerned with streamlining. My covers will be about keeping the gunk off the moving parts.
 
the naugahyde streamline covers from Busters were made for, and tested on TK's. I believe the speed increase was "about 5 mph".
 
TKs have soch a small forward profile I'm not concerned with streamlining. My covers will be about keeping the gunk off the moving parts.

They look draggy as hell to my eye, I'd expect a min. Of 5 mph increase in cruise, with a fairing, not just a keep the gunk off cover.
 
Back
Top