RVBottomly
FRIEND
Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought of a good reason to push the stick forward. It's to position it out of the way when you unlatch your seatbelt upside down....
Beringer ALG vs. Acme Aero for FX3
- Thread starter hawgdrvr
- Start date
I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought of a good reason to push the stick forward. It's to position it out of the way when you unlatch your seatbelt upside down....
If you’re slick enough to remember to do that while you’re sliding upside down, I bet you’re slick enough to not get it on its back to begin with.
Can somebody please clarify this for me..
My understanding that the standard EX-FX3 gear is 3x3 gear (the axis of the wheel is 3 inch forward compared to the legacy gear).
It makes tail heavier in the roll but reduces chance to put the plane on its back.
Beringer has "legacy" geometry - Beringer suspension will have the axis 3 inch closer to CG - am I correct?
My understanding that the standard EX-FX3 gear is 3x3 gear (the axis of the wheel is 3 inch forward compared to the legacy gear).
It makes tail heavier in the roll but reduces chance to put the plane on its back.
Beringer has "legacy" geometry - Beringer suspension will have the axis 3 inch closer to CG - am I correct?
turbopilot
Registered User
Depending on strut pressure, the Beringer ALG puts the airplane 2.5" to 3" higher with the axles at the same C/G location as stock cub legacy gear. So you get half of a static 3X3 gear sitting on the ground not moving. What is very different about the strut based Beringer ALG, which you can only appreciate by actual experience, is that the struts slowly extend as the airplane moves faster on the ground. That is because air moving over the wing creates enough lift to unload the hydraulic strut and allow them to extend. In my very light Carbon Cub SS, the aircraft static ground pitch angle moves from around 12 degrees nose up to 15 degrees nose up taxiing at 15 mph. The result is that during the take off roll up to flying speed the pitch angle of the airplane rolling along the ground on all three gear progressively increases before any wheel is off the ground. So the struts are actually giving the wing a higher angle of attack progressively during the ground roll above the static increase of 2.5" to 3" provided by the higher gear. Suffice to say the airplane gets into the air very fast. One downside of this phenomena is that in a strong wind on the nose while taxiing you have to slow down in order to see over the nose.
You can watch this process in reverse in the video below starting at :30 below. As the airplane slows below 20 mph after landing watch the struts slowly compress. Same thing happens in reverse when taking off. The pressure in the struts is raising the nose during takeoff.
Last edited:
TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
Just for reference sake: When comparing any style of gear to spring steel gear, So folks can get a feel for how far this actually
goes back in years. A cleaver builder of Cubs(Tinny Headland in Illiamna Ak) started putting C172 and later C170
Gear legs on 18's in early 1980's, He built some for other guides, I got to fly one in mid 1980's, that was built for Bob Tracy of
Non Dalton, one fall I worked with him, my accesment of that gear, jumping back and forth from my Cub on standard gear: Was it was certainly impressively smooth
In really rough tundra, and over big rocks, on the old 30" Airstreaks. It very well could have been tryed much earlier; somewhere else? But the point being, there is certainly nothing NEW about spring gear on a Cub, So realistically, Cub Crafters are certainly very late to that party! By at least 30 years.[emoji2955]
Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
goes back in years. A cleaver builder of Cubs(Tinny Headland in Illiamna Ak) started putting C172 and later C170
Gear legs on 18's in early 1980's, He built some for other guides, I got to fly one in mid 1980's, that was built for Bob Tracy of
Non Dalton, one fall I worked with him, my accesment of that gear, jumping back and forth from my Cub on standard gear: Was it was certainly impressively smooth
In really rough tundra, and over big rocks, on the old 30" Airstreaks. It very well could have been tryed much earlier; somewhere else? But the point being, there is certainly nothing NEW about spring gear on a Cub, So realistically, Cub Crafters are certainly very late to that party! By at least 30 years.[emoji2955]
Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Last edited:
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
It's actually the increasing lift from the wings as the speed increases which is lifting the nose.
Since I know Skywagon, and know he won’t bring it up, thought I’d mention he has quite a bit of certification flight test experience.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Yes, the EX/FX3s come with 3" extended and 3" forward gear. The 363 engine and the constant speed prop tend to move the CG more forward thus putting more weight on the tail with the 3x3 gear makes them less prone to going on their back. They like to 3 pt. or a tail low wheel landing. Have flown several SSs that were very light on the tail and tippy when you used brakes.
Last edited:
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
An old thread that you and I both responded to with pictures of the Cessna spring gear on a Super Cub and how it attaches. https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?47982-Flat-spring-steel-gear-legs
My Backcountry has provisions for Cub gear, Porter-style gear, and spring gear. I know planes with the Cub and Porter options. I've never seen one that used spring gear. There's nothing wrong with spring gear but for my Cub? Cub gear works better. https://www.groveaircraft.com/landing_gear.html
TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
Lol, I forgot all about that old thread Steve.
And even though I run Cub gear, I do like the looks of Cessna gear legs on a Cub.
However I am certainly in your camp on
trying to mod yourself into being a "real pilot"
Far as I know the best of the best, do amazing things with "stock Cubs".
Keep em straight
E
Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
And even though I run Cub gear, I do like the looks of Cessna gear legs on a Cub.
However I am certainly in your camp on
trying to mod yourself into being a "real pilot"
Far as I know the best of the best, do amazing things with "stock Cubs".
Keep em straight
E
Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Rob
Registered User
AZ06
What a bizarre thread :lol:
I'm not sure where anyone suggested CC birds were substandard? every example I have been around seemed to score high on performance as well as fit and finish? Maybe out of my budget, but that certainly doesn't negate their craft.
I also don't see where anyone suggested new technology and innovative components were not superior to old 'legacy components' (I take those terms to mean 'time tested standards' BTW) Technology is Good, and Innovation is Great! Legacy? Legacy stood the test of time.
The OP started as a good question. Where it went amok as I see it, is where it suggested that somehow a catastrophic gear failure would be better remedied by improving the gear than the technique. Furthermore it suggested that improving the gear would minimize the repair expense when the inevitable wreck occurs (I say inevitable because at this point we can extrapolate that the OP has elected to spend money on gear vs experience).
points to offer;
Legacy... you say it such that I can almost taste the disdain....
Shame... I watch farms get liquidated because the heirs have no idea of the value they carry.... Legacy....
Legacy gear? please reevaluate Beringer, Acme, Porter, or any other gear fixable to a cub, and then report back. there is nothing *new* here... Shiv... they don't even make the Porter anymore :roll: They're ALL legacy, and done well they're all good! Match the gear type to the mission, and you will be miles ahead of matching the gear type to what the 'Jones's' are doing.
CHEAPER IN A WRECK?!?:evil: WTF
Are you really trying to convince me you're going to select the cheapest gear to crash with in a $300K cub? :evil:
First of all.... we will dismiss the fact that a little avgas well spent would have removed the accident sequence.
My stumbling block is the suggestion that legacy gear has a tendency to catastrophically fail, leading to a prop strike that wouldn't occur if you had better gear.
Based on what? OK let's give you the idea that the legacy gear just fell apart... and the *good gear* didn't. What precipitated this event? A ground loop? OK the *good* gear didn't pancake... what happens next?
Oh oh..., pick me.... the cub with xxyyz gear goes further sideways, till the wheels chatter, next the outboard wingtip contacts terra firma, followed by the (say it with me) PROP!, and then the inboard wingtip.... shizzzz... there goes that damned $12K prop
I guess it was a cheaper event... to the tune of a couple gear legs and some fitting work....
No sir... flying an A10, F18, F35, or 777 does not impress.... not if a day knocking around in a cub is on the menu. How you treat your cub, that's the ticket, and that ticket is first filled by cub hours. The same could be said in reverse, it's not a cub thing it's a mission thing. If your military / airline / sprayer ego won't let you admit that, you'll buy a few props.... Plain and simple.
This is one of the very first FX3's (yes on legacy gear).
My only point here is that after receiving the call from RCC to check on the ping, I landed (2 up and heavy) next to this bird 3 times during the reconnaissance / help . I am a mediocre cub stick at best, but current and proficient. This cub should not have been parked this way, but that's what happens when money comes easier than experience. I am not bashing the pilot, he was a gentleman, and as I understand it, sought higher training after the event. Excellent idea, I bet (no.... I know) he would agree that a few more hours appropriately spent prior to the event would have resulted in a completely different outcome.
In closing I would say we all want the best gear (pardon the pun) we can afford. But buy it because you want it, buy it because you can afford it, buy it because it's your damn money and you will buy whatever you damn well want... but don't try and snow the rest of the *experienced* world in to believing your buying it because it is the safer thing to do...
Take care, Rob
I'm not sure where anyone suggested CC birds were substandard? every example I have been around seemed to score high on performance as well as fit and finish? Maybe out of my budget, but that certainly doesn't negate their craft.
I also don't see where anyone suggested new technology and innovative components were not superior to old 'legacy components' (I take those terms to mean 'time tested standards' BTW) Technology is Good, and Innovation is Great! Legacy? Legacy stood the test of time.
The OP started as a good question. Where it went amok as I see it, is where it suggested that somehow a catastrophic gear failure would be better remedied by improving the gear than the technique. Furthermore it suggested that improving the gear would minimize the repair expense when the inevitable wreck occurs (I say inevitable because at this point we can extrapolate that the OP has elected to spend money on gear vs experience).
points to offer;
Legacy... you say it such that I can almost taste the disdain....
Shame... I watch farms get liquidated because the heirs have no idea of the value they carry.... Legacy....
Legacy gear? please reevaluate Beringer, Acme, Porter, or any other gear fixable to a cub, and then report back. there is nothing *new* here... Shiv... they don't even make the Porter anymore :roll: They're ALL legacy, and done well they're all good! Match the gear type to the mission, and you will be miles ahead of matching the gear type to what the 'Jones's' are doing.
CHEAPER IN A WRECK?!?:evil: WTF
Are you really trying to convince me you're going to select the cheapest gear to crash with in a $300K cub? :evil:
First of all.... we will dismiss the fact that a little avgas well spent would have removed the accident sequence.
My stumbling block is the suggestion that legacy gear has a tendency to catastrophically fail, leading to a prop strike that wouldn't occur if you had better gear.
Based on what? OK let's give you the idea that the legacy gear just fell apart... and the *good gear* didn't. What precipitated this event? A ground loop? OK the *good* gear didn't pancake... what happens next?
Oh oh..., pick me.... the cub with xxyyz gear goes further sideways, till the wheels chatter, next the outboard wingtip contacts terra firma, followed by the (say it with me) PROP!, and then the inboard wingtip.... shizzzz... there goes that damned $12K prop
I guess it was a cheaper event... to the tune of a couple gear legs and some fitting work....No sir... flying an A10, F18, F35, or 777 does not impress.... not if a day knocking around in a cub is on the menu. How you treat your cub, that's the ticket, and that ticket is first filled by cub hours. The same could be said in reverse, it's not a cub thing it's a mission thing. If your military / airline / sprayer ego won't let you admit that, you'll buy a few props.... Plain and simple.
This is one of the very first FX3's (yes on legacy gear).
My only point here is that after receiving the call from RCC to check on the ping, I landed (2 up and heavy) next to this bird 3 times during the reconnaissance / help . I am a mediocre cub stick at best, but current and proficient. This cub should not have been parked this way, but that's what happens when money comes easier than experience. I am not bashing the pilot, he was a gentleman, and as I understand it, sought higher training after the event. Excellent idea, I bet (no.... I know) he would agree that a few more hours appropriately spent prior to the event would have resulted in a completely different outcome.
In closing I would say we all want the best gear (pardon the pun) we can afford. But buy it because you want it, buy it because you can afford it, buy it because it's your damn money and you will buy whatever you damn well want... but don't try and snow the rest of the *experienced* world in to believing your buying it because it is the safer thing to do...
Take care, Rob
Attachments
Last edited:
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
turbopilot, I got to thinking how passionate you are about the Cub landing gear design and wonder if you had a gear failure and if so can you shed some light on what happened?
behindpropellers
Registered User
NE Ohio
I'm concerned about flying my supercub with the legacy gear after reading this thread.
cubflier
FRIEND
Palmer, AK
mike mcs repair
Registered User
chugiak AK
RVBottomly
FRIEND
Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
Heh. I was kicking around the idea of ever fancier gear until reading this thread. Now I'm leaning back to bungees! I already have new ones hanging on the wall....
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
I'll take time tested old crap over new and improved any day
Glenn
Glenn
wireweinie
FOUNDER
Palmer, AK
There are no good seats at a tennis match.
Web
Web
RVBottomly
FRIEND
Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
LOL. I think that describes me at this point.
Akbushrat
Registered User
TVATIVAK71
SPONSOR
ANC
Unless I’m watching Maria Sharapova play.....this thread is almost worthy of Airline Pilot Central. Hahaha!
Normally it’s good to at least get the cross hairs on the target. Shooting from the hip is rarely effective.
40m
GONE WEST
Shoreham, VT
glenn, i sortve like my t3 tailshock.
So does he, he just put one on his Jeep:lol:
RaisedByWolves
FRIEND
Tx
Similar threads
