• 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!

Beringer ALG vs. Acme Aero for FX3

stewartb said:
So, if my Grove brakes and ABW wheels hold 240-ish HP twisting a CS prop at full power on 35s.... why should I change? Serious question.
Click to expand...

It sounds like for your applicationyour brakes are doing everything you need them to do, plus you already have them on the plane. The OP is starting with a clean slate, so imho why wouldnt wouldnt he go with the lightweight powerfull option such as Beringer? I did not have Grove on my plane but rather Cleveland set ups. For me they would not hold my IO540 with CS prop so I made the change and now have the ability to hold even WOT if I choose to.

Maybe the Grove brakes would have worked, but I have zero regrets with Beringer. BTW Beringer isnt exactly new to the brake world either.

While bugees are well proven you will never convince me to remove my Acme and Install them. Come to think of magnetos are well proven too but it did not stop me from putting electronic ignition in either. Did I mention I am removing the well proven vacuum pump and going with a elctronic dash.

In the end we all get to decide how and what we build, after all isn't that the fun part, I mean besides flying of course.
 
hawgdrver

You’ll get good training with TacAero and that’s an important, good call. From my observation the problem with buying/transitioning to a high performance CC product is that after you endure the wait to get a new one, you’ll be eager to dive right in and your former flying experience may let your brain tell you “I’ve got this” before you do. Problem is that if you bend your bird and many, even experienced TW pilots have (been there got “the Hat”), it my take even longer to get it fixed than it did to originally get it because the repair industry has not expanded with the growth in the market and factory parts come off the same production line as new planes.

I don’t personally know that any landing gear options will making your FX3 safer, unless there are some bad ones out there, but I still fly bungee gear, that comes with 100LL thru the tanks so be patient. In the beginning I’d recommend placing firm wind limits on yourself that your head will call you a wimp over, especially if you’re doing the fly-off in Yakima (been some get torn up in that process) and especially if you’re not but plan on ferrying it home.

Be safe, land into the wind and enjoy your new bird.
 
I have been reading this thread with interest as I am always trying to learn being a newly minted TW student solo pilot. Of course with my primary training in a Rans S-20 tailwheel I don’t have the bad habit of coming in fast and my preference is to bring it in low and slow and add power to drag it over the fence if necessary... and this allows for very slow landing speeds. With 17.3 hours and 79 landings it is not an issue if you come in slow. The only times I have had minor issues is if I carry 3-5 mph extra speed over the numbers.

I am sure the OP will be fine with good speed control.

But what do I know as a newbie :-?
 
skywagon8a said:
It is always important to match the master cylinders to the brakes. A lot of the braking difficulties are because this was not done.
Click to expand...

How do we do that? Stock diaphragm brakes lacked pressure. Your North River boosters helped dramatically. I had them and they worked great. Then Steve's and Dakota Cub came out with vented masters. I've never seen any comparison between the three regarding pressure but it seems like pressure is where the magic happens. It's sure true with my own brakes and the transition from not good to really excellent. All I changed was the masters. Bottom line, and it applies to Carbon Cubs more than most based on weight, Cub's aren't very hard to stop. Cubs like to nose over from aggressive use of brakes. That's why 3" forward gear exists.
 
stewartb said:
How do we do that? Stock diaphragm brakes lacked pressure. Your North River boosters helped dramatically. I had them and they worked great. Then Steve's and Dakota Cub came out with vented masters. I've never seen any comparison between the three regarding pressure but it seems like pressure is where the magic happens. It's sure true with my own brakes and the transition from not good to really excellent. All I changed was the masters. Bottom line, and it applies to Carbon Cubs more than most based on weight, Cub's aren't very hard to stop. Cubs like to nose over from aggressive use of brakes. That's why 3" forward gear exists.
Click to expand...
That is basically it. Pressure and volume requirements. The original Cub expander tube brakes required a higher volume of fluid than the Clevelands and only 350 lbs of pressure. The smaller piston on the Clevelands required higher pressures and lower volume.
 
Scouter said:
Lots of info at CubCrafters forum site on beringer landing gear

http://forum.cubcrafters.com/showth...laskan-Landing-Gear-System?highlight=beringer

Jim
Click to expand...

That was I thread I started over on the CubCrafters forum. Here is my latest update after 3 years with the Beringer ALG System, ALIR controller and Beringer brakes and wheels. The Beringer ALG is a stout replacement for the now 80 year old legacy cub landing gear system.

Brad Damm posted a very frank assessment of the "legacy-type gear on the cub" back in 2017 with the introduction of the new XCub landing gear. There are many problems with the legacy cub gear but the biggest issue involves how it fails. This is what Brad said and he is right.

"One weakness of the legacy-type gear on a Cub is that when a landing load reaches the limit of the suspension, the gear will often fail completely, or the excess landing load will be transferred into the airframe causing damage. In either case, it will be difficult and expensive to repair."

The Beringer ALG is a very strong landing gear system. I am running it on a Carbon Cub SS so it is way over built for this light Cub. As tough as it is the full Beringer ALG system and braking system with ALIR is, it weighs 5 lbs less than the legacy cub gear with AOSS that I replaced.
unnamed-XL.jpg
 
So perhaps pilots should learn to fly the plane!! Then the gear would not matter when it failed. Ya but the way if the gear fail because the pilot has an issue, you will have to look at engine, wing, tail, and fuselage. Throwing money at a plane will not help a poor pilot. LEARN TO FLY!!!!!
DENNY
 
DENNY said:
So perhaps pilots should learn to fly the plane!! Then the gear would not matter when it failed. Ya but the way if the gear fail because the pilot has an issue, you will have to look at engine, wing, tail, and fuselage. Throwing money at a plane will not help a poor pilot. LEARN TO FLY!!!!!
DENNY
Click to expand...

Better proficiency helps but the problem (as clearly stated by CubCrafters) is the the legacy cub gear tends to fail catastrophically when pushed beyond design limits. Modern gear systems should fail locally when overstressed to avoid collateral damage to the prop, engine and the wings. That is the issue. These are airplanes that operate in areas where gear damage is part of normal operation. The gear system should fail by local breaks and bends, not full collapse. The heavier CubCrafters FX-3's seem to be especially prone to full collapse, most often with big tires operating on paved surfaces.

Screen%20Shot%202020-10-03%20at%203.04.46%20PM-XL.jpg
 
So what happens when you touch down at 70 and get the berringer gear sideways? That will fail too. The problem isn’t the landing gear that’s been around for 80 years. The problem is the people flying the airplane. How come most failures of the gear happen so early on? Is this the gears fault too?

https://youtu.be/ZNwfgbnFrZs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RaisedByWolves said:
So what happens when you touch down at 70 and get the berringer gear sideways?
Click to expand...

Not on my list to test. Everything will fail. The issue is the failure mode. Part of the solution are stronger components that take the loads with better energy dissipation. Dissipation loads vertically through hydraulics or laterally with shock absorbers.

IMG_4480_Painterly-XL.jpg
 
it is interesting that these pictures show a hard runway either below or behind the aircraft. I have been landing off airport in very rough places for almost 20 years now and never seen gear fail landing a rough spot.

Well one exception to that statement. I was landing testing out my new extended gear and had the rear tube bend allowing the left wheel to come up vertical into the strut, no damage other then the gear leg. This gear leg was undersized tube. I went from 1 1/4" diameter tube to 1 1/2" diameter same wall thickness and never failed a gear leg because it was not stout enough. I broke and axle off but it had a crack through it and was bound to fail with the sleeved design (also just poor engineering on my part).

If you look back at the places Loni and I were landing our airplanes in Big Rocks Long Props Vol. 1. He was in a cub with 3" extended gear and hydrosorbs and I was in a experimental Maule with 5" extended gear that I made. We did put side loads occasionally but for the most part we kept the aircraft over the wheels and going straight never had a problem. I would love to see video of why these CC are failing the gear system at a paved airport. This just blows my mind, I typically go out and do 40-50 landings a week in rough places and never worry about the gear failing. Something is going on an no amount of money or fandangled suspension is going to make it better for some of these guys buying the CC.
 
Mauleguy;787374I said:
would love to see video of why these CC are failing the gear system at a paved airport. This just blows my mind, I typically go out and do 40-50 landings a week in rough places and never worry about the gear failing. Something is going on an no amount of money or fandangled suspension is going to make it better for some of these guys buying the CC.
Click to expand...

My theory is the extended gear, with heavier weights, big tires and paved surfaces all conspire to create lateral loads in excess of design limits for the legacy cub gear. These big tundra tires with high wetted surface area do no slide on a nice asphalt runway with grooves. They just stick when loaded laterally. Same combination on dirt, the tires will just slide.

Screen%20Shot%202020-09-29%20at%203.16.49%20PM-L.jpg
 
Mauleguy said:
.... Something is going on an no amount of money or fandangled suspension is going to make it better for some of these guys buying the CC.
Click to expand...
All of this discussion about damaging CCs and Beringer gear reminds me of the old often stated stories about Doctors and Bonanzas.
Lots of $$$$ don't make a pilot.
 
haven't read who thread yet, but after reading a few at end of this thread, the words of my first instructor comes right back.... "keep your ass behind you and the plane will take a ton of abuse... if you don't it will bend..."
 
turbopilot said:
Better proficiency helps but the problem (as clearly stated by CubCrafters) is the the legacy cub gear tends to fail catastrophically when pushed beyond design limits.
Click to expand...

Hmmm imagine that, something will fail when pushed beyond it's design limits....

Looks like a bunch of people with more money than skill getting behind on the rudder and ripping gear off. Yes, Bushwheels on pavement can grip hard and rip the plane around which is why you don't do that specific thing until you are comfortable with getting the plane slow and keeping things going in a straight line. I don't see how the softer shocks on the Beringer gear would help with this except perhaps allow you to drag a wing even harder before it departs the aircraft.
 
Excellent point from MauleGuy. Where are the pictures of collapsed gear where the landing was conducted away from the hard surface? Grass/gravel/dirt is very forgiving. Asphalt/concrete is not. Grass/gravel/dirt allow the tires to spin up at touchdown at a somewhat slower rate which will help eliminate some of the shock load to the gear. Big tires were NOT designed for pavement pounding.

An interesting study would be to see if there is a correlation of gear collapse incidents and multi aircraft owners. IE: persons who own a Cub type plane and a Cirrus. I have owned a 12 and a C180 concurrently for years and found my 12 skills deteriorating rapidly and approaching and landing faster.

I don't think there is a problem with "legacy" gear just like there isn't a problem with a three on the tree in your old pickup. We ALL must learn the limitations of our equipment. It's been said before, "There are folks that can break an anvil with a rubber mallet."
 
skukum12 said:
I don't think there is a problem with "legacy" gear just like there isn't a problem with a three on the tree in your old pickup. We ALL must learn the limitations of our equipment. It's been said before, "There are folks that can break an anvil with a rubber mallet."
Click to expand...

I can't keep up with all the old sayings, but I do have a fair amount of data the collaborates the CubCrafter position.

CubCrafters very clearly stated the legacy gear was the problem in 2017. I took their position seriously.


Out of 91 Carbon Cub FX-3's in the FAA database, 11 have made it to the NTSB reports web site in 2.5 years of operation. Here is the bottom line from the NTSB.

8 landing ground loop / loss of control1 takeoff loss of control
7 on paved RWY’s
2 on dirt/grass RWY’s
1 engine out
6 gear collapses
No injuries

So I think CubCrafters got it right in 2017 when they moved to the new XCub aluminum spring gear. For all the cubs running on the old legacy gear there needs to be a solution. However, there are very few choices. Changing shock absorbers between the axle and the V cabane does not work and may actually make the problems worse depending on type.

Here is the only FX-3 landing accident in the NTSB database with a partial failure of the legacy cub gear. This one was on pavement too. This aircraft had wing damage but not damage to the prop and engine. If the gear all failed like this it would be a different matter. But they don't normally fail in this manner.

Screen%20Shot%202020-10-03%20at%202.56.54%20PM-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
skywagon8a said:
All of this discussion about damaging CCs and Beringer gear reminds me of the old often stated stories about Doctors and Bonanzas.
Lots of $$$$ don't make a pilot.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Seems to me when a new person gets in a cub they aren’t ready for the airplane to fly so soon. Same thing on landing. They aren’t used to going that slow. When they touch down fast and get a bounce and it starts to get out of sorts. If they landed 20mph slower it wouldn’t have bounced. That’s my experience from
Sitting in the back with a new cub driver up front


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last pic looks like another ground loop damaged landing gear. Yeah, that happens if you loop the plane.

CC didn't go to spring steel gear because it was stronger but because it is more aerodynamic and the Xcub was built to go fast. The strength and resistance to side loads is just a happy coincidence that marketing can capitalize on. Don't forget that the bending force has to go somewhere so it won't be a surprise when ground looped Xcubs start bending axles or twisting fuselages when their skilled pilots get sideways.
 
There is a tendency to land too fast, I see it all the time. If you land fast, you’ve got to be extra good at keeping the thing straight for a longer period of time, leaving you open longer for a ground loop. Followed by heavy side load and down she comes. Why the fast landings?? Make it easy - land slower! When asking the new pilot “why did the plane bounce”, they reply almost always “I touched down too hard”. No. You touched down too fast significantly above the stall speed.
When last did you see anyone air taxi? No one does that. Learning to air taxi is a must- fly that things as low and slow as you can without touching down. Keep that thing straight as an arrow. Pick your spot and ease off on the throttle and hold that thing in the air a foot high and touch down with your flying speed all but gone.
What’s with these things smacked on asphalt runways with fat tires? I see lots of grass to land on. Want to avoid unnecessary costs and lower you’re landing risk, land on gravel or grass! As much as possible. Go way out of your way to avoid pavement! Your tires and plane will love you for it. And, land that thing slow and straight.
 
Crash said:
CC didn't go to spring steel gear because it was stronger but because it is more aerodynamic and the Xcub was built to go fast. The strength and resistance to side loads is just a happy coincidence that marketing can capitalize on. Don't forget that the bending force has to go somewhere so it won't be a surprise when ground looped Xcubs start bending axles or twisting fuselages when their skilled pilots get sideways.
Click to expand...

My goodness. Read before you type. That is exactly what Brad Damm said in this blog that I provided in the post above documenting CubCrafters position. Yes, the aluminum spring gear will bend and distort depending on maximum loads but it does not tend to fail catastrophically like the legacy cub gear. That is the whole idea, provide a gear that will locally fail at the extremes but not bring the airplane down on the belly, no matter how bad the pilot may be.
 
WOW!! If only someone had told all the pilots in Alaska that spring gear was Soooooo much better than than cub gear for rough work. Good to know, now I will send in the Cessna pilots first to check out a strip so I won't hurt my weak cub gear. Oh ya buy the way just how does that long lever arm work when you get a big front load on spring gear compared to cub gear? DENNY
 
Last edited:
RaisedByWolves said:
So what happens when you touch down at 70 and get the berringer gear sideways? That will fail too. The problem isn’t the landing gear that’s been around for 80 years. The problem is the people flying the airplane. How come most failures of the gear happen so early on? Is this the gears fault too?

https://youtu.be/ZNwfgbnFrZs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This video shows one of my pet peeves!!! Get clear of the runway when you stop!! Worst place to be is at the middle right at the edge of the runway with the prop turning when other planes are landing/taking off.
DENNY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
TK1 vs. Acme Aero (SEP 2020)
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
56K
stewartb
S
Farmboy
Reports of a Carbon Cub Rookie
Replies
21
Views
7K
Farmboy
Farmboy
sj
Super Cub Purchase Spousal Approval Document
Replies
6
Views
5K
Anne
Anne
CloudDancer
Chains and Padlocks
Replies
8
Views
14K
CloudDancer
CloudDancer
Iflylower
Wow, a letter from the LEE BOTTOM folks about the EAA and Oshkosh.....
Replies
20
Views
6K
stearmann4
stearmann4
Back
Top