Hello!
Does anybody have any experience with Matco main wheels?
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Does anybody have any experience with Matco main wheels?
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Matco wheels
- Thread starter Mander
- Start date
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
If you're using Piper axles, be sure when you talk with Matco that they are aware of that. There can be an issue with axial length between bearing faces. Also, the bearings have big radii between bore and face such that the nut and the inboard spacer don't contact the bearings correctly. Talk with Andy there; he understands the issues.
courierguy
MEMBER
Inkom, Idaho
Matco brakes, I like them. George, owner of the company, is a airplane guy, FWIW. They talk airplanese.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
I have single puck Matco on the J3.
So far, so ok.
could use a little more braking power, and this is just with little 8x4 tires. But the product seems quality and I dont have the issues Gordon spoke of. However, I was not the original installer, so probably that was already handled
So far, so ok.
could use a little more braking power, and this is just with little 8x4 tires. But the product seems quality and I dont have the issues Gordon spoke of. However, I was not the original installer, so probably that was already handled
gbflyer
Registered User
PAGS
The single puck brakes are worthless past 6.00X6. We run double single pucks, that setup will stop. I’m sure somebody will jump on and say you don’t need brakes on a Cub blah, blah. I need them, and VG’s, flaps, and all the other help I can get.[emoji1]
His stuff is OK. It’s light. Kinda looks like it should be on your kids go cart though. He’s a very helpful fellow if you have an issue and they stand behind their products.
courierguy
MEMBER
Inkom, Idaho
Stupid question: what is a brake puck?! I find my SINGLE CALIPER Matco setup works well enough with my 29's, while I see many planes like mine with DUAL CALIPER setups. Never saw triple calipers, maybe I'm thinking wrong. Interchangeable terms?? or we talking how many pistons in the calipers? I can't use dual calipers as they would interfere with my wheel skis, and besides, I think heavy braking on landing is cheating. Being on skis changes your idea of good brakes, ANY brakes are great. Having a T-Craft also skewed my idea of what good brakes are.
gbflyer
Registered User
PAGS
Yes dual calipers then. Not really a fan of the little tube that connects the two. Ours is plastic...seems to work but doesn’t look too aircraft- like in my opinion. If you get by with singles that’s great. You’re a way better stick than I’ll ever be. I’ll take cheating all day long[emoji1]
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
wow. am I losing my mind. I have Grove single puck (single piston) on the J3
sheesh
sheesh
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
An update to my post at #2. In the EAB -12 I'm working on we have Matco WHLW600 wheels and brakes, which are just a little bit too long thru the bore to fit on the standard Piper axles. In phone calls and emails with George at Matco he indicated that they could rebore the outer wheel half by 0.200", provide the correct axle spacer, and specified a finished dimension, with a +/- tolerance of 0.050", from the flange that is welded to the axle to the face of the outer bearing. If those dimensions were certain, then the modified wheel would work fine. I explained that to George.
I also requested confirmation that the weight-bearing capacity of the wheel would not be compromised, and requested a concentricity tolerance for the new bore alignment with the existing bore.
George called me this morning and said the entire operation would be entirely "at my risk", and when pressed about the dimensions he had given me, he told me that they are "not guaranteeing anything". Well - so much for that project. As the manufacturer, they should be able to guarantee the machined dimensions of their products well within +/- 0.050", but he expressed unwillingness to do so.
As a vendor, they don't "have to" do anything they don't want to, but I am thoroughly displeased with their attitude and response. We are out the round trip shipping on the wheels, and will not be using Matco products.
I rarely, if ever, have "bashed" a vendor online, and that isn't really my intent here. However, the fact is that I have invested hours messing around with these wheel/brake assemblies and communicating with the factory, only to be told rather undiplomatically that the factory won't assure dimensions for their rework. Seems to me that the experience is worthy of being shared. Bottom line, if you use Matco products, be certain in advance that the product will be exactly what you want, as it comes out of the box.
I also requested confirmation that the weight-bearing capacity of the wheel would not be compromised, and requested a concentricity tolerance for the new bore alignment with the existing bore.
George called me this morning and said the entire operation would be entirely "at my risk", and when pressed about the dimensions he had given me, he told me that they are "not guaranteeing anything". Well - so much for that project. As the manufacturer, they should be able to guarantee the machined dimensions of their products well within +/- 0.050", but he expressed unwillingness to do so.
As a vendor, they don't "have to" do anything they don't want to, but I am thoroughly displeased with their attitude and response. We are out the round trip shipping on the wheels, and will not be using Matco products.
I rarely, if ever, have "bashed" a vendor online, and that isn't really my intent here. However, the fact is that I have invested hours messing around with these wheel/brake assemblies and communicating with the factory, only to be told rather undiplomatically that the factory won't assure dimensions for their rework. Seems to me that the experience is worthy of being shared. Bottom line, if you use Matco products, be certain in advance that the product will be exactly what you want, as it comes out of the box.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Gordon, you have always brought level headed comment and thinking to our discussions here on sc.org!
Thank You for that.
Your statement above about dealing with Matco seems so outlandish that I would like to hear the other, other side of the story or maybe give Matco one more chance for satisfaction.
Wow! how can they get away with what you describe?!
Thank You for that.
Your statement above about dealing with Matco seems so outlandish that I would like to hear the other, other side of the story or maybe give Matco one more chance for satisfaction.
Wow! how can they get away with what you describe?!
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
I hear you Dave. The essence of the problem is several pieces:
1. The wheels didn't fit, but I wasn't involved in the purchase and I do not blame that on Matco at all - it's just one of those things that can easily happen.
2. When I first called Matco I asked to talk with somebody in engineering, and spoke with Andy. A pleasant conversation, and he told me they know what to do for Piper axles. Good - so I sent the wheel/brake assemblies in. I included a detailed letter of what was needed, including photos of measurements on the existing axles.
3. George sent me an email, stating that after rework (deepening the bearing bore by 0.200" on the outboard wheel half) the axial measurement from axle flange to outboard bearing face would be "about 5.16". In return, I requested a plus or minus tolerance on that measurement. He wrote back, plus or minus .050.
4. I compared the worst case finished dimension to what is required on these axles, and it would be satisfactory. I wrote back, confirming the dimensions, and asked them to proceed, subject to maintaining coaxiality to the existing bore within .0005 (appropriate for the size tolerances of bearing bore), and to assure that the load rating of the wheel would not be reduced.
5. George called me to state that this rework was entirely my responsibility, and that they would make no guarantee. I asked repeatedly that the only guarantees I was requesting were the dimensions he stated, together with coaxiality. He refused to even guarantee the 5.16" +- 0.50" axial length, which he had stated in his email.
The upshot - we won't be doing this.
The other side? I don't know. I was in the machine shop business when I lived in Juneau, and I know darn well that if I couldn't hold +- .050" (a HUGE tolerance, that we routinely worked to 1/100th of) there would be a very good reason beyond my control that I would gladly explain to a customer. I can understand reticence to guarantee suitability for an application, especially since he doesn't know anything about me or my measuring. But to adamantly refuse to guarantee a dimension, with very loose tolerance, I simply do not understand.
Again, I'm not trying to bash anybody, but these are the facts.
1. The wheels didn't fit, but I wasn't involved in the purchase and I do not blame that on Matco at all - it's just one of those things that can easily happen.
2. When I first called Matco I asked to talk with somebody in engineering, and spoke with Andy. A pleasant conversation, and he told me they know what to do for Piper axles. Good - so I sent the wheel/brake assemblies in. I included a detailed letter of what was needed, including photos of measurements on the existing axles.
3. George sent me an email, stating that after rework (deepening the bearing bore by 0.200" on the outboard wheel half) the axial measurement from axle flange to outboard bearing face would be "about 5.16". In return, I requested a plus or minus tolerance on that measurement. He wrote back, plus or minus .050.
4. I compared the worst case finished dimension to what is required on these axles, and it would be satisfactory. I wrote back, confirming the dimensions, and asked them to proceed, subject to maintaining coaxiality to the existing bore within .0005 (appropriate for the size tolerances of bearing bore), and to assure that the load rating of the wheel would not be reduced.
5. George called me to state that this rework was entirely my responsibility, and that they would make no guarantee. I asked repeatedly that the only guarantees I was requesting were the dimensions he stated, together with coaxiality. He refused to even guarantee the 5.16" +- 0.50" axial length, which he had stated in his email.
The upshot - we won't be doing this.
The other side? I don't know. I was in the machine shop business when I lived in Juneau, and I know darn well that if I couldn't hold +- .050" (a HUGE tolerance, that we routinely worked to 1/100th of) there would be a very good reason beyond my control that I would gladly explain to a customer. I can understand reticence to guarantee suitability for an application, especially since he doesn't know anything about me or my measuring. But to adamantly refuse to guarantee a dimension, with very loose tolerance, I simply do not understand.
Again, I'm not trying to bash anybody, but these are the facts.
Last edited:
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
Agreed.
I can machine the deepened bore to spec right here. The question is whether the resulting axial dimension from axle flange to outboard bearing face would be 5.16 +/- .050, using the factory spacer from flange to inboard bearing. That is strictly a function of factory dimensions, and so far what I have been unable to obtain factory assurance of.
Thanks -
bob turner
Registered User
I don't think Gordon's comment is a "bash". Matco is surely within their rights to refuse to guarantee stuff. There is an implied warranty on almost all commercially available stuff, but it doesn't extend to customer specified modifications.
Gordon is going to try stuff from one of the best machinists I know. That should cure his dilemma.
Gordon is going to try stuff from one of the best machinists I know. That should cure his dilemma.
PerryB
FRIEND
Chico, CA
Well, that dilemma anyway...
