I don't know !!!!! I've seen what we can do to the hardware attaching the Cessna Ag spring gear after a year of improved dirt strips.
Can't imagine what the attach points on those will look like after a few years of unimproved strips.
It's just really hard to beat the beefed up original style Super Cub Landing gear for any type work.
I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
turbopilot, can you educate me on where to search out the data?
mike mcs repair liked this post
Thank you. Not much reported. 57 total X Cubs built, 6 accidents reported. 1 ran out of fuel, the rst were lose of control resulting in gear failure, wing and fuselage damage.
Steve Pierce
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
Will Rogers
I forgot to post the interesting parts. Most of these airplanes had 20 or so hours on them with one having just over 100. Time in make and model was 12-30 hrs with total time as PIC 330-7100 hrs. The NTSB evidently doesn't track tailwheel time like the insurance carriers. The other interesting thing is the X Cub I had worked on that had been wreck 4 times has only one NTSB report. A couple of the pilots said they were trying to apply rudder and inadvertently got their foot on top of the pedal and applied brake. There is the data I gathered on the X Cub, I will let the reader dissimilate the way they see fit.
Steve Pierce
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
Will Rogersmam90 thanked for this post
Did any of those events result in total landing gear failure in that XCub? Low time pilots and accidents will happen. The whole point of the discussion to date has been (with many off topic diversions) around the subject of landing gear failure leading to complete gear collapse, versus accident events leading to failure of some components but not total failure. Cubcrafters had two stated goals for the XCub aluminum gear: better aerodynamics and more robust protection for other components of the airframe when the gear was taken beyond design limits. Did the NTSB data and your experience suggest that goal has been achieved?Originally Posted by Steve Pierce
Last edited by turbopilot; 11-06-2020 at 09:57 AM.
All five were compete gear failure, wing and fuselage damage.
Steve Pierce
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
Will Rogers
Just so I understand you said there were 6 NTSB events out of a fleet of 57 XCubs. Were 5 of those 6 events total gear failure with one fuel exhaustion? What were the 4 events with the single XCub you work on.
Actually not all completely failed the gear. Will have to put my data together when I have some time.
From my few X-Cub flights I found the spring gear to be really sweet (and I came really close to purchasing one) but then again I (slowly) learned not to land a spring gear taildragger until it is FULLY DONE flying and of equally importance that its a good thing to touch down with a reduced final sink rate. That said I have also burned all documentation of my first 1000 or so 180 landings.
Mix a low time TW or almost as bad (IMO) a low time spring gear pilot with spring gear and bouncy ass 26's and I can understand why CC's would have such a restriction.
Lastly from my time around the camp fire I have heard way more than one pilot blame their ground loop on "gear failure," when in all likelihood I would be willing to wager that the majority of gear failures are the direct result of the ground loop or a sideways landing.
Remember, These are the Good old Days!
Busy sending airplanes off, receiving others and trying to get one out the door today. Search model CC19 in this search engine and you will find the data. http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/AccidentQuery#SUBMIT
Apparently you lost interest and buried the headline in the review of the CC19 NTSB Accident reports. Could it be because thus far the NTSB reports underscores the point I was trying to make in all the dialog above? So here is the summary of the 6 reported XCub NTSB accidents. As we know there were probably more not reported to NTSB.
Bottom line there were 6 NTSB reports. One was fuel exhaustion and 5 were ground loops. Of the 5 ground loops, 2 involve partial right main gear collapse. There were no total gear collapses reported. There were no reports of prop or engine damage. This profile is entirely different than the reports involving the cub legacy gear equipped FX-3 aircraft where collapse of the legacy cub gear was the rule, not the exception.
So experience to date completely supports the assertions made by Brad Damm at CubCrafters in 2017 and the point I have been trying to make in this thread. Legacy gear cub tend to totally collapse when stressed beyond normal operating limits. So far XCub aircraft experience partial gear collapse which appears to spare the $12,500 Hartzell composite prop and save the engine from a teardown as well as other aircraft damage associated with total gear collapse.
N97LL - Right ground loop, left wing damage, no gear collapse, no engine/prop damage
N70DD - Fuel exhaustion
N82XX - Left Ground loop, right wing damage, right main gear collapse, no mention of engine/prop damage
N711XC - Left Ground loop, right wing and aileron damage, no gear collapse, no engine/prop damage
N53XC - Right Ground loop, left wing and aileron damage, no gear collapse, no engine/prop damage
N533AL - Left Ground loop, right aileron and empennage damage, right main gear collapse, no engine/prop damage
So to bring you back on point, do you have reports of ground-looped CC Cubs with Beringer gear where they had no damage? And can you quantify 'ground loop" to equalize all events as to speed, surface, and severity?
What type of landing gear does not collapse when stressed beyond normal operating limits? It is normal to expect a failure of anything when stressed beyond normal operating limits.
N1PA
"Apparently you lost interest and buried the headline in the review of the CC19 NTSB Accident reports. Could it be because thus far the NTSB reports underscores the point I was trying to make in all the dialog above? So here is the summary of the 6 reported XCub NTSB accidents. As we know there were probably more not reported to NTSB."
Steve, shame on you! How could you put your livelihood ahead of this critical topic?
You like many others here may on occasion offer an opinion but more times than not you take time out of your work day to educated guys like me for free and for that I thank you! Now let's get focused on the gear thing.
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!
Asked and answered repeatedly in this thread. Of course everything will break at some point but we are talking about catastrophic failure versus limited failure. FAIL SAFE FAILURE.
So far with the XCub experience, ground loop induced partial gear collapse would appear to save the cost of replacing a $12,500 composite prop and an engine tear down.
So back to my point and the subject of the this thread. If you have a legacy cub gear system there are two paths to a better landing gear system that is more robust. Sell your airplane and buy a $500k XCub. Or covert your legacy cub gear to a stronger gear, more likely to "fail safe" than totally fail.
One Hartzell Trailblazer composite prop costs $12,500 (found on every FX-3 and XCub). Totally converting a legacy cub gear system to the Beringer ALG costs $10,600. Do the math. So far it looks the odds of a destructive ground loop that in NTSB reportable (we know there are more) is around 12% in the FX-3 and XCub fleet. Overtime that number will grow as fleet time rises.
My daughter did a school presentation on conformational bias. Conclusions drawn, search facts that support conclusion.
This is a very entertaining thread with some education thrown in too
That door swings both ways. Data rules.
Yes, and that’s my point.
Legacy Cub gear has been around since 1937, with how many units delivered? I am not a statistician, but my guess is the sample size of XCub aircraft is not sufficient to draw any significant conclusions. I think we should revisit this in say, 85 years or so....
I just thought of a solution for this whole entire problem! With every new purchase of any CubCrafters aircraft, you receive a “complimentary” (free) clapped-out legacy 65hp J-3 cub. Do with it what you like......give it to the kid/neighbor, shoot it, part it out, but hopefully fly it. After you’ve run it out of fuel, put it on its nose, ground looped it and tore the legacy gear off it you’ll be ready to push your pristine Carbon Cub out of the hangar and appreciate it a little more.
So now, the new price of an FX3 just went from roughly 330k to 348-355k depending on how many silver patches are on the “complimentary” cub.
Can you believe it, in the time it took for one bowel movement, I solved the entire problem. You guys are overthinking this....really!
Last edited by KevinJ; 11-08-2020 at 11:27 AM.
We have been around this merry go round several times in this thread. In 2017 CubCrafters (largest manufacturer of legacy cub gear aircraft) made a clear and unequivocal statement about the legacy cub gear system. In my opinion they got it right and it was a bold move. Then they introduced a product to solve the problem. If you don't agree with the position, take it up with CubCrafters. I am just the messenger. I took their advice and did what I could do on my 2014 legacy gear SS by exchanging the gear system.
Right?? My favorite movie is Secondhand Lions. There’s a scene in which Robert Duval says “hell kid, just because somethings not true doesn’t mean you can’t believe it.” We can all believe and buy what we want!
And Turbo, you don’t owe anyone an explanation for what you bought and why, nor need to defend that position here or elsewhere. Theres just a bunch of us on here that have always flown legacy gear, never had a problem and wonder about this stuff when it comes up. These type threads, even when they get a little contentious are good for all of us.
Last edited by mam90; 11-07-2020 at 10:32 AM.
Fair comparison to the two idiots in this threads thinking. To bad they don’t just learn how to land.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Deleted FaceBook, join me at https://www.mewe.com/i/mikeskup
Videos http://www.youtube.com/user/mcsrepair https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIk...C-rmr3wpSuMT8g Pictures https://photos.google.com www.mcsrepair.com
www.SkupTech.com
Red Flag Knock it Off...
Okay folks, this thread is out of control. There are a lot of biases going on here and I don't agree with everything I'm reading and you probably don't either, that's fine. Let me offer my opinion on the matter to this point from my military career as an aviator and over 30 years blah blah blah.
NTSB reports are not accident reports. We don't know the full story and not one person here can or should draw any conclusions from the information read. While I have never been on an accident board nor was I a safety officer in the Air Force I'm sure some of you here have been and feel free to offer your inputs on accident reviews.
Some here have offered PIC time is what's important. NO IT'S NOT. A pilot can have thousand of hours of PIC time or even time in type yet not have flown in the last X days or even the last year. They strap on their mighty cub and their cross check is not there, they fail to fly in conditions that are conducive to their recency, i.e. maybe they chose a high crosswinds day to fly and shouldn't. We've all been rusty, I know what it felt like flying A-10's after taking 30 days leave and being IFR in S. Korea in the clouds from gear up to gear down. Not a pleasant feeling. Did the pilot have a good nights sleep? Is the pilot having personal issues or any stressors. Have they been taking medication to combat a cold? So many human factors to list here, none of which we are privy to.
Did the pilot attempt to fly beyond the published conditions. I've seen enough YouTube videos of pilots flying cubs outside the published crosswind limits. Great example...NOT!
I recently completely my TW checkout and the first day the hurricane had just passed by (at a distance) but we had crazy winds. I asked the instructor if it was good enough to fly, he shook his hand waving it back and forth in the so-so way. We flew, it was fine, thankfully all grass strip work. I videod a J3 landing before it was my time to fly as I was sure it would ground loop in what was probably 15 kt winds (straight windsock) but it didn't, thankfully.
Many aircraft out there have peculiar landing characteristics. The T-38 was a bitch to learn to land with it's tiny wings. Imagine the F-104. P-51 I'm sure as well as the F4U Corsair have some interesting landing characteristics. This is what training is for.
The FX3 has a CS prop and there is word about the flap design blanking the tail at a point in the landing phase. You have to train for and learn these peculiarities and learn to fly the plane you're flying safely.
Big wheels little wheels shocks whatever, they have their purpose but in no way replace the FLYING of the aircraft properly. I loved flying the A-10 fast around the final turn, probably 20 kts over the actual speed. 145'ish felt unsafe especially with turbines slow to spool up (hence why it has speed brakes out in the final turn). You can't do that in these airplanes, adding kts for mom, pop, the kids, and dog. You have to set these down on speed and aligned with the runway to avoid sideloads. I'm in no position to be instructing but that's what I've learned, it's not rocket science.
Each system has pro's and con's, I'm not completely sold on the Beringer design and that's why I bought TK1. Heck, I'd be fine with the stock bungees as again this is about flying your airplane properly. It's Beringer's problem to market and prove their product. Right now from all I've discussed with but one they are not on board with Beringer landing gear. Yes to their wheels and brakes, but not shocks.
No one will sell me on the NTSB data, it does not tell the real story like accident reports and full investigations do. There are a lot of factors involved here much of which we don't know about. Faulty shock designs are a factor in some cases, pilot error in most cases.
Banter all you want, sell your choice all you want, for anyone in the market such as I have been with my FX3 coming next May/June do your research.
It is all we have. Otherwise we are left with anecdotal one off stories by mechanics and owners.
By the way I served on 5 Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards (T33, F4 (times 2), A7 and F111) and participated in smoking hole initial investigations in many other Air Force accidents and I often stay in Holiday Inns. I know the drill.
And I will say it one more time for all the folks who want to argue based on marginal information. The largest manufacturer of legacy cub landing gear has taken a position. If you think that position was solely based on the desire to leverage XCub sales, then that is about all that can be said. The data suggests their position is spot on.
@hawgdrvr, you are about to take delivery of an airplane with legacy cub gear system, that the manufacture has clearly stated has some problems. Fancy high priced shock absorbers will do nothing to change that problem and may actually make it worse. Of course they would like to convert your position from an FX-3 to an XCub, much more margin. But it appears, based on the data, that they are on solid ground in taking the position. Data rules.
This is interesting, here we have two highly experienced military aviators telling the civilians, some of whom have in excess of 60 years of experience in all types and sizes of airplanes what is best for their airplanes. Not all the military aviators are so opinionated.
So you can’t ground loop the berringer gear?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This thread sure strayed far from Beringer vs ACME. Now it's looking like Cub gear vs spring gear.
I'd still like to see how the Beringer gear fails under a sideloaded condition. Their axles are aluminum which has been shown to bend on Cessnas under sideloads as well as the gear itself attaches to the stock cabane vee and even further uses that cabane partially in a compression load state where it was meant to be loaded in tension. Unfortunately we do not have any data to show the Beringer gear would survive a ground loop of the type that is being discussed. My guess would be that the load is transferred up the gear and collapses the cabane vee causing the gear legs to tuck. Maybe not as bad as stock landing gear but it's still a failure.
Just postulation/stirring the pot. I'd like to see what the real thoughts are behind the idea that Beringer's ALG would not collapse in a sideload where stock gear would fail. So far it has only been shown that stock -18 landing gear would fail but there has been no evidence to show that Beringer gear would NOT fail under the same circumstances.
Good questions. There just are not enough Beringer ALG in the cub community to draw any conclusions. I have never seen a cub with Beringer ALG after a ground loop. I am trying to avoid that data point if I can.
As to side loading failure, until last year the Beringer ALG system for the cub included two extra struts from the V cabane back to the aft gear attach. This was obviously done to stabilize the V cabane during side loading. These struts have now been deleted by Beringer in currently shipping gear sets. I talked to an engineer at Beringer about this change. He said during the process of obtaining the STC for the SuperCub it was determined that this strut was structurally not necessary. They did leave the very beefy V cabane doubler.
Here is an image of the aft V cabane struts:
Last edited by turbopilot; 11-07-2020 at 01:52 PM.
https://generalaviationnews.com/2017...doctor-killer/
Any parallels here?
Dang, that is one clean plane in the pic. Guess I better get to work on cleaning mine.
Good questions. There just are not enough Beringer ALG in the cub community to draw any conclusions. I have never seen a cub with Beringer ALG after a ground loop. I am trying to avoid that data point if I can.
As to side loading failure, until last year the Beringer ALG system for the cub included two extra struts from the V cabane back to the aft gear attach. This was obviously done to stabilize the V cabane during side loading. These struts have now been deleted by Beringer in currently shipping gear sets. I talked to an engineer at Beringer about this change. He said during the process of obtaining the STC for the SuperCub it was determined that this strut was structurally not necessary. They did leave the very beefy V cabane doubler.
Here is an image of the aft V cabane struts:
i like the brake line holder, who makes them like that?
Last edited by tempdoug; 11-07-2020 at 06:50 PM.
Not velcro. It's an over/under clip.
Cable Clips
Peel off the cheap sticky stuff than comes with clips. The use 3M VHB tape instead.
3M VHB Heavy Duty Mounting Tape
Getting it cleaned up. It will be for sale in December or January.
Last edited by turbopilot; 11-07-2020 at 07:01 PM.
Selling it because of the gear?Just kidding, no flaming please.
Berringer looks like a glorified Champ gear . Does it feel like champ gear or does it have a solid feel?
To me mushy gear sucks when working in trying conditions.
I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
Those CC airplanes sound like pieces of sheet. The data suggests they turn average pilots into Fuktards. Why would a guy buy one?
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks