Originally Posted by Crash, Jr.
Two very valid arguments against the Beringer design.
Also only time will tell if their floating brake disc design will stand up any better than previous floating disc designs. Those were high maintenance. The Cleveland fixed disc design was a vast improvement, which is why those early floating ones virtually disappeared.
N1PA
Question for you guys who fly 180s. That gear brings the wheels to zero camber when the full weight of the airframe is on them. It sounds like the Berringer is the same. However the 180 spring gear is not "bottomed out" anywhere near that zero camber position. My question: How much trouble is the 180 gear tucking in off-camber, turning situations. I have no experience with it. Then, how does that relate (or not) to the Berringer setup?
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
Could you please explain more? I've had the Bodell brakes (floating fiber disc) on my -12 for decades, with never a maintenance issue (yet!). Thanks -Also only time will tell if their floating brake disc design will stand up any better than previous floating disc designs. Those were high maintenance. The Cleveland fixed disc design was a vast improvement, which is why those early floating ones virtually disappeared.
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
The floating disc which I referred to was a single disc. I've forgotten the make (Goodyear? Goodrich?). Back in the day when I was wrenching for a living, those brakes were a constant problem. Your Bodells are multiple discs as I recall. Multiple discs don't seem to have the same issues as they support each other being separated by semi-fixed discs.
N1PA
With any of the spring gear tail wheel Cessnas when in hard turn/ground loop scenarios, the side under buckling load moves toward and under the fuselage center line. This increases the capsizing tendency. The Beringer appears to possess the same characteristic. When this capsizing tendency is then increased further the side loads on the gear legs increase to the point of failure. The stock Piper style gear remains outboard and upright reducing the capsizing tendency.
N1PAmike mcs repair liked this post
The floating disc design is used on almost every large aircraft wheel design currently so I doubt it will be an issue. It's only the little airplane guys that use antiquated fixed discs and floating brake calipers.
Those are multiple disc brakes. Altogether different. The Beringer closely resembles the old poor single disc design. Beringer does appear to have outside angle clips of a different materiel bolted to the wheel. Perhaps these will solve the question? Time will tell.The floating disc design is used on almost every large aircraft wheel design currently so I doubt it will be an issue. It's only the little airplane guys that use antiquated fixed discs and floating brake calipers.
N1PA
Yes, I understand that - I should have been clearer with my question. How much of a problem is that in the tailwheel Cessnas?With any of the spring gear tail wheel Cessnas when in hard turn/ground loop scenarios, the side under buckling load moves toward and under the fuselage center line. This increases the capsizing tendency. The Beringer appears to possess the same characteristic. When this capsizing tendency is then increased further the side loads on the gear legs increase to the point of failure. The stock Piper style gear remains outboard and upright reducing the capsizing tendency.
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
In Skywagons the side loading may break the gear attach bolt allowing the gear leg to come through the floor and injure the pilot. That's why many guys add a PPonk gear kit even though occurrence is rare. Cessna gear can try to "walk" into a tucked position while rocking in the wind in the tie down.
I've posted this pic before. Big side load on the tire, no problem for the gear. I've intentionally ground looped on straight skis with slick ice. Lots of ice spray, lots of hopping from the skags grabbing and releasing, no issue with the gear. It would have made a good video!
They were Goodyear, single disc, wheel/brake assemblies. And, yes, they sucked when it came to maintenance and parts life. They were factory install on Otters, and maybe Beavers?
You'll notice not many people know about them because they were replaced, usually by Cleveland wheels and brakes.
Web
Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
They were very common in the 6" wheel size with a large number of different airplanes.
N1PAwireweinie thanked for this post
Yep, had them on my ragwing 170.. Until I could afford to replace them with Cleveland’s and throw them in the inlet!!
Originally Posted by AkPA/18
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
Sure seems like there is a problem somewhere. 10% of the fleet wrecking on runways in in 2.5 yrs.
Do Supercubs have this problem also?
Turbo, If this is and it probably is a stupid question, Let me know or disregard and I won't ask again. I was really looking for your input here that might clarify my confusion as your points are not adding up to me.
http://thrustline.com/
Takeoffs are optional--Landings are mandatory
I only reviewed SS and FX-3 NTSB reports. I did not look at other cub types. As I recall there was only 25 EX-3 CubCrafters in the FAA database and not many in the NTSB reports. There was one recent fatal accident for the EX version. It would not be hard to do a review of the P18's.
Just to keep things in perspective, there have been more FX-3 accidents that you would expect but the human safety record for the SS/FX cubs is exceptional. I guess this is related to the low energy associated with runway accidents.
Turbo,
I understand. Just trying to figure out if the legacy gear is that crappy on runways on the legacy aircraft. I really find it hard to believe. Did you jot down the pic times on the ntsb reports?
I did not do a systemic review of the PIC times in the NTSB accidents but that would be a good idea. No doubt less experienced pilots are over represented. The 80 year legacy cub basic design has made it's way into many airplanes. It certainly makes a significant statement when the gear collapse in a new $400,000 FX-3. When they fail in an old beater cub it is just another day at the office. A full gear collapse in a recent model FX-3 will cost more to repair than the full value of many of the older cub models. This fact has clearly been recognized by the aircraft insurance companies.
Turbo,
I think these remarks about beater Cubs are kind of off topic to the subject but--- my beater cub that I make a living with has gone uninsured for the first time in 30 yrs. It will not be another day in the office if I wreck especially if I wreck during the season. I suspect it will be more of an impact to me than to an fx3 owner if I wreck my beater cub. I do know I have been priced out of the insurance market partly because of the accidents you describe. No offense to fx3 owners i am sure they are good folks.
Could you post the pic times as it seems that is one of the more important missing links of your data.
I meant no offense to the beater cub community but you picked up on the problem. All these tail draggers are lumped together by the insurance underwriter community. So when all these high end FX/SS crash we all share the expense with higher premiums, or worse no coverage at all.
I hear lots of talk of a direct correlation between "these accidents" and insurance prices. Do you have any data on that?
You made a comment earlier that you can insure a $400K FX3. Who's insuring E-AB airplanes in that value range?
What was the N number?
No data just in conversation with my broker, ex broker
There's one burr under my saddle, and that is the concept of a component failure causing complete landing gear failure, as compared to partial failure, when the system is stressed beyond design limits - like failure when stressed beyond design limits is bad??? So I've been thinking about that, and haven't been able to really comprehend the notion.
My thinking is the the concept of what I call "balanced design". In other words, each component is designed for the same input loads. I.e. nothing is overbuilt, and nothing is underbuilt. I don't see "progressive failure" for energy absorption as applicable to landing gear, except in a pancaked "landing". Even then, what should fail first? Atlee's safety cables do address that, but that's not inherent to any particular gear arrangement.
Furthermore, what loads should be mitigated? Drop-ins (vertical), obstructions (horizontal), lateral (ground loop, off-camber)? How would one design a gear such none of those would result in failure. Sure, make the gear and attach points bigger/stronger. Then what about the stuff they attach to? There goes the "balanced design" objective - - -
I've made more than my share of really poor (ok, atrocious) landings, and my 80 year old gear design has held up.
Maybe somebody can clarify for me.
Last edited by Gordon Misch; 11-04-2020 at 10:35 PM.
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
How can you objectively look at data on gear failures and leave the PIC time out of the equation?
I maintain one of the first FX3s to be built. 400 plus hours in the first year, another 300 plus the second. No gear issues. I know of one X Cub that has been ground looped 4 times by 4 different owners having to go back to the factory each time. Would be interesting to crunch the data on the X Cub and see how inherently bad that landing gear design is using your same analysis theory used on the Carbon Cubs. Then for shits and grins look at the PIC times and see if there is a trend. Nice thing about data, you can look at certain parts of it to come to any conclusion you want. I will be willing to bet if you go back and look at your gear failure data there was also low PIC time that attributed but I could be wrong.
When you crash, the gear can break. This whole thread is somewhat baffling to me. And I’ve been flying legacy Cub gear, a lot of it in Alaska working, for a long time. Attempts to make airplanes pilot proof to stabilize insurance rates? What’s next, parachutes on airplanes?
Didn’t you know you’ve been flying wrong all these years??When you crash, the gear can break. This whole thread is somewhat baffling to me. And I’ve been flying legacy Cub gear, a lot of it in Alaska working, for a long time. Attempts to make airplanes pilot proof to stabilize insurance rates? What’s next, parachutes on airplanes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
100%. Even more important like you mentioned is hours per year, not so much overall logged time. It's really easy to get out of practice when you're only doing 25-50 hours per year and the first thing to go in my experience is yaw control.
The more time I spend on this site, the more I realize I never knew anything..........
And I am not opposed to new technology at all. Some of these gear designs are probably great. Where I struggle is when we start using more “forgiving” systems to mask poor technique or skills. If my dog pees in my truck, I want to address the source and clean out the pee, not hang an air freshener to cover up the smell. And blaming “legacy” gear?? Please....
My neighbor is a long time pilot who used his planes for remote business transportation. He still has a Cub but it's in need of a rebuild. I asked him why he hasn't started it yet. He says because in his observation any time there's 3-4 Cub pilots around the conversation inevitably turns into a contest to see who has a bigger dick and he has better things to do. I found that comment very interesting. And sad.
That's his reason? Sad it is!
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be
found in all corners of the earth."
Then he made the earth round... and He laughed and laughed and laughed!
Easy answer. Whoever has the smallest tires is the most “gifted”. Mine is on 35s. What size are on yours Stewart?
Which airplane?
I hope hawgdriver and turbopilot shrug off the wolves and stick around. Diversity of opinions and experiences is a good thing. We're all here for the same reason. When new (or old) guys get stifled and stop participating all we're left with is the same old guys. They say GA is dying. If we aren't part of the solution, we're part of the problem. And it's never too late to change, or so my wife has been telling me for 35 years.
And let's face it. 3x3 gear DOES look like standard old gear.
That's a because it kind of is lol...just 3" farther forward...and with those terrible milled fittingsAnd let's face it. 3x3 gear DOES look like standard old gear.
(It's getting a little to chummy in here, let's argue gear again)
I searched for the accident data and came up with a blank. Curious where turbopilot got the data. I would like to search the CC19-180 X Cub and see what it shows.
So are you saying that size makes up for technique?Easy answer. Whoever has the smallest tires is the most “gifted”. Mine is on 35s. What size are on yours Stewart?
Just brought an X Cub down to the work hangar from the storage hangar and remembered something. Cub Crafters will not let an X Cub leave the factory on 26" Goodyear's tires because all of the accidents have been with those tires. Now they use 26" Bushwheels.
Steve, Is the gear leg drilled for the hydraulics? I don't see the brake line.
N1PA
Yes, the gear is gun drilled. Grove makes the gear.
Last edited by Steve Pierce; 11-05-2020 at 03:55 PM.
I found some pictures from the inspection of the top of the gear leg where the brake line comes out.
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks