• 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!

NORSEE approval for shocks??

akavidflyer

akavidflyer

FRIEND
Soldotna AK
Acme posted on FB that the shocks they have for the 170/180/185 are approved for use through NORSEE?? Anyone care to explain how this could be? If that is the case, the props and anything else we want to bolt onto a plane should be "approved" with just a letter right?
 
I saw that too, and I call BS. The Norsee approved items are listed on the FAAs website and their shocks weren’t listed. There’s no way the FAA is going to allow that without destructive testing, drop test, and flight testing. The items on the norsee list are items like Rosen visors, carbon monoxide monitors and iPad mounts. If it is field approved I would be highly surprised.
 
7GCBC said:
I saw that too, and I call BS. The Norsee approved items are listed on the FAAs website and their shocks weren’t listed. There’s no way the FAA is going to allow that without destructive testing, drop test, and flight testing. The items on the norsee list are items like Rosen visors, carbon monoxide monitors and iPad mounts. If it is field approved I would be highly surprised.
Click to expand...
Acme went to the FAA seeking a one time STC on Warren's Cessna 180 and the NORSEE approval they got was the FAA's idea and guidance. It is all removable via quick release pins.
PXL_20221029_151427404.jpg


PXL_20221029_151508095.jpg


PXL_20221029_151512886.jpg
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20221029_151427404.jpg
    PXL_20221029_151427404.jpg
    167.1 KB · Views: 971
  • PXL_20221029_151508095.jpg
    PXL_20221029_151508095.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 1,002
  • PXL_20221029_151512886.jpg
    PXL_20221029_151512886.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 934
Steve Pierce said:
Acme went to the FAA seeking a one time STC on Warren's Cessna 180 and the NORSEE approval they got was the FAA's idea and guidance. It is all removable via quick release pins.

View attachment 65238
Click to expand...
That's interesting. By clamping the upper end of the shock strut to the gear in that location the bending components of the original spring gear are totally changed. I wonder if they demonstrated drop tests in this configuration? When a hard point is introduced in a former flexible component, the structural moments are totally changed possibly introducing a failure point which had not been foreseen.
I'd be interested in hearing a stress engineer's expertise on this.
 
skywagon8a said:
That's interesting. By clamping the upper end of the shock strut to the gear in that location the bending components of the original spring gear are totally changed. I wonder if they demonstrated drop tests in this configuration? When a hard point is introduced in a former flexible component, the structural moments are totally changed possibly introducing a failure point which had not been foreseen.
I'd be interested in hearing a stress engineer's expertise on this.
Click to expand...

I guess we will see what happens. Warren drops it in on a regular basis on these STOL contests.
 
7GCBC said:
I saw that too, and I call BS. The Norsee approved items are listed on the FAAs website and their shocks weren’t listed. There’s no way the FAA is going to allow that without destructive testing, drop test, and flight testing. The items on the norsee list are items like Rosen visors, carbon monoxide monitors and iPad mounts. If it is field approved I would be highly surprised.
Click to expand...

FAAs listing of NORSEE approvals is about a year behind. There are a lot of NORSEE approvals that have not been added to the web site. The Landing Height System I installed on my PA-30 has been NORSEE approved July of last year but still doesn't show on the web site.
 
huh... pretty interesting that they can approve this through NORSEE but make us jump through our a$$es on other things that could be considered "safety enhancing" devices.
 
The just I got of it was it was not a permanent installation and could be installed and removed by simple means.
 
Thing is if the Acmes fail the standard gear is still there in tact. If anyone can tear it up Warren can. It sure was impressive at the Lonestar STOL contest at Gainesville last year. Didn't bounce like normal 180s do. PooPah it or whatever, I say kudos for getting it done and approved in whatever means possible.
 
I would speculate that this Acme installation is a damper only. Its failure would simply return the gear to standard configuration. Acme Black Ops struts used on Cub style landing gear are a required structural member that provides both spring and damper. A failure results in major damage to the aircraft if it isn't saved by safety cables.

I would expect that attaching the damper close to the gear leg fuselage attach point would result in an insignificant change in the bending load.

Interesting approach and nice to see some innovation.
 
Last edited:
Steve Pierce said:
Thing is if the Acmes fail the standard gear is still there in tact. If anyone can tear it up Warren can. It sure was impressive at the Lonestar STOL contest at Gainesville last year. Didn't bounce like normal 180s do. PooPah it or whatever, I say kudos for getting it done and approved in whatever means possible.
Click to expand...
Just noticed it still has the spring gear intact. That is an interesting way of reducing bounce on the spring gear, and a way for getting the NORSEE approval since the original structure is still there. Unfortunately I can't see that as NORSEE for a SuperCub type gear as the original bungee struts and cabane V are part of the original structure. Replacing the original structure would require certification via STC or possibly DER approval or Field Approval (Based on the Major Repair and Major Alteration Job Aid, it looks like it could be done with DER approval).
 
338385320_610860640537529_4245500792187281128_n.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 338385320_610860640537529_4245500792187281128_n.jpeg
    338385320_610860640537529_4245500792187281128_n.jpeg
    177 KB · Views: 100
I would think with that rust at the base of the gear leg,a backup system might be adviseable for obvious reasons!
 
A lot of buzz on-line about this very recently,
and the Acme website has a pic & a blurb,
but no price listed.
Anyone know?
 
People are funny....

They will not hesitate to strap lawn chairs, bikes, canoes and all manner of things to their cubs with next to zero authority and say 'aw well people in such and such state do it all the time'.... then someone who actually jumps through a few hoops to gain authority, stumbles upon a fed or two who bumped their heads and elected to use a little common sense and streamline an approval path for a pretty benign (albeit visually, accentuating) product. And all said people do is challenge all parties involved...

While I can't see this product ever fitting my world, I think it is innovative and appreciate that there are guys out there that will innovate and then challenge the system instead of hiding behind the veil of 'experimental'.

I always thought of the experimental world as being the place innovation comes from, but today it seems to be the place the innovative minds go to market their wares so they don't have to rise to the challenge of making them legal for all. Enough bickering about guys like this will push them right behind that wall as well, potentially cost a fed or two a job, and ensure that yet another innovation stays behind the exp curtain... lose - lose for everyone.

I also can't imagine the logic that a shock absorber (read; cushion) placed at the thickest portion of the gear leg which coincidentally moves the least, is more detrimental than the 40+# increase in weight that are STC'd and installed on the skinniest most flexible part of the gear legs (big brakes, solid axles, huge tires, etc). I imagine these folks looked at a few numbers prior to selecting hardware and consequently the lock pins are probably more than adequate, they may have even considered making them the weak link so if one end failed the other would act as a 'fuse' and the whole thing leave the gear leg clean, which would still be a total non-event...

Nope, may not be for me, but still look well thought through and executed. What's not to like? I wish them success with the new product and hope their next one is something that fits my flying world.

People are funny...

Take care, Rob
 
skywagon8a said:
Is that 20,700 lb or 20,700 psi? If it's psi it would have a single shear of 2286 lb or 4572 lb in double shear.
Click to expand...

I provided a link to the Jergens catalog in a previous post. My recollection is that the specification is lb not psi.

edit to add - If specification was psi there would be no need for it to specify "double shear". The potential user would have to calculate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Guess your weight.
2
Replies
33
Views
13K
S2D
S2D
J
Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub
2 3 4
Replies
108
Views
51K
4Holer
4
Farmboy
The Wisconsin Flash. AKA, I picked up the XPA-11...
2 3
Replies
62
Views
18K
Farmboy
Farmboy
L
Jump seat or 5 person approval for 1959 180??
Replies
7
Views
3K
lwraith
L
N5126H
Pilot cannot tiedown here
Replies
12
Views
6K
On Patrol
On Patrol
Back
Top