Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Landing Gear, Wheels, Tires, and Brakes
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 06-23-2004, 12:58 AM
Steve parkins's Avatar
Steve parkins Steve parkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wa state
Posts: 2,163
Default build it and they will come

chrissy , that has got to be the most prittyest thing i have ever seen good job





I tryed some retroing stuff to, but it not as nice by i long way.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMGA0819.JPG
Views:	144
Size:	87.0 KB
ID:	127  Click image for larger version

Name:	IMGA0816.JPG
Views:	154
Size:	64.2 KB
ID:	128  
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-23-2004, 02:08 AM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Last Friday at Barns&Noble I flipped thru the July 2004 issue of KitPlanes, which has an article on a RV builder with two nearly identical RV's. They did differ in that one has fixed-gear with wheel pants and the second one has retracts. Speed gain was 5 to 8 knots for the retractor.

A couple weeks ago I read something similar on another mail-board from a LongEze guy who spent $4000 and some down-time to install retracts. He said he got a 5 knot speed gain. I'm trying to find that again.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-23-2004, 04:29 AM
Spodman's Avatar
Spodman Spodman is offline
Wannabe - with plans
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 486
Default

Marvellous work on the strakes, Grrls. Looks much neater than others I've seen pictures of, but has it cost you a lot of fuel?

I'm rather interested in the retractable oleo steerable nosewheel (arrgh! get yourself an acronym mate!) as I think the plans nosewheel is a bit of a weak spot. I read lots of "lost-the-nose-gear-in-a-pothole" stories. Any idea if it will still "kneel" for parking/loading etc.?
__________________
Mark Spedding - the Spodman
Darraweit Guim, Australia
Theoretical Cozy IV 1331 - Celebrating 2 years of not building anything
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-23-2004, 05:50 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

mmmmMMMMMmmmm
Lovely legs there girls!
I have considered retracts for my KR2S, I don't like the plans version retracts the KR2 has, but they do have the advantage of protecting the underside in the case of a wheels up. (The gear retracts backwards leaving about 1/3 of the wheel outside underneath the wing) Even so, I'd much prefer a full retract set like these.
The only problem I have is I really want to have a manual set, I don't want the extra weight of the hydraulics on top of the penalty I'll already pay by going from fixed to retract tail dragger.
The other plane (of my own design) is also going to be a retractable gear (tricycle) plane, and that too I want to be a manual lift.
I have yet to find a good set of manual retracts so I might even just bite the bullet with the KR and leave it a fixed gear plane and build my own set to go with my other one.
I can easily retro fit to the KR, as a second set of wings with the retracts in them would be an easy fabrication.

Last edited by StRaNgEdAyS : 06-23-2004 at 05:53 AM. Reason: left a word out
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-23-2004, 01:14 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

Quote:
I'm rather interested in the retractable oleo steerable nosewheel (arrgh! get yourself an acronym mate!)
How about... SOR Nose?
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-24-2004, 11:00 AM
Spodman's Avatar
Spodman Spodman is offline
Wannabe - with plans
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 486
Default

"Steerable oleo nose strut" - SONS? Think I like SORNOSE better.

I had a look at JD's site, it does kneel to park. (Kneeling SONS???)
__________________
Mark Spedding - the Spodman
Darraweit Guim, Australia
Theoretical Cozy IV 1331 - Celebrating 2 years of not building anything
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-28-2004, 07:47 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spodman
"Steerable oleo nose strut" - SONS? Think I like SORNOSE better.

I had a look at JD's site, it does kneel to park. (Kneeling SONS???)
SORE-NOSE would be appropriate. It finally occured to me this evening why I was thinking something was wrong with the oleo-nosegear idea. Spodman you originally said that an oleo solution might be better able to withstand potholes than the classic canard kind of nose gear. If you encountered a posthole or pothole in a sturdy oleo nose-gear which would cause a classic nosegear to fail, I tend to think you would have a failure of the structure which holds your oleogear. I can visualize bulkheads ripping out with your nosegear.

I'll ignore the significant CG effect of the heavier oleogear mounted in the nose.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-29-2004, 08:16 AM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

Ok, I feel I have to chime in here. I'm not a structural engineer or really very smart on anything having to do w/airplanes, but based on common sense, either our fuselageis strong enough to withstand pot-holes or else it's deficient.

Everyone toutes the advantages of this wonderful composite construction, yet start talking about potholes and people are worried that the bumps will rip apart the bulkheads, etc... When people suggest strengthening the nose gear bulkhead, others are quick to claim that this will just move the failure point to somewhere else in the fusilage.

Well, if that's true then this fuselage isn't as strong as is claimed. If a cesna can handle pot-holes, ours should too. I don't buy the arguement that you can't make any part stronger or you'll fail another part. If that's the case, then this design is deficient. No aircraft should be designed so that it can't be structurally improved. If the nose-gear bulkheads are too weak, then we need a new way of attaching them to the rest of the fuselage in a way that adequately transferes the loads.

Now why don't one of you smart guys figure out how that should be done?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-29-2004, 08:58 AM
Wayne Hicks Wayne Hicks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Carrollton, VA
Posts: 1,376
Default

Let's get a grip here. The Cozy nose wheel is a MUCH smaller diameter than the nosewheels on Cessnas and Pipers. The canard nosegear failures have come from sinking into potholes deep enough to completely swallow the tire. Do that to your Cessna or Piper and I guarantee something will break too. First the wheelpant will crack apart followed by bending the engine mount and/or possibly torquing the firewall.

Is the nosegear on the Cozy strong enough? Yeah, it's strong enough if you simply watch where you're going. I'll admit it probably isn't as durable as the Cessna or Piper, but the Cozy doesn't weigh 1800 pounds and it flies much faster than 110 MPH.
__________________
=============
Wayne Hicks, Cozy Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages...cks/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-29-2004, 09:31 AM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
but based on common sense, either our fuselageis strong enough to withstand pot-holes or else it's deficient.
Shale, I think you overlooked the qualifier part of my statement and perhaps Spodman's original statement of oleo benefits from his perspective. I did not say that you should be concerned about ripping bulkheads when hitting >any< pothole. My statement related to holes large enough to rip the wheels from the current configuration.

If Spodman in Australia were to utilize more unimproved strips, this topic is more of a real concern to him than to most of us here in the US. My understanding of available airstrips in Australia is based on Survivor Outback and Crocidile Dundee.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-29-2004, 09:42 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

That's a good point from TNT.
Here in Oz, when you get outback, it's not at all unusual to see planes pulled up at service stations, shops and pubs. Planes are often used in the place of cars out there where distances between your next door neighbors can easily be over 100km (60 Miles)
Out there, if you can put it down, it's an instant airstrip.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-29-2004, 12:37 PM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

I suppose there are limits to this. You don't want a 400 lb forged titanium gear/bulkhead combo that flips the plane over when you hit a hole instead of breaking....

Obviously the gear / bulkhead combo works well in the current set-up, but if people are going to be putting stronger struts & bigger nose wheels on this bird, then we should figure out a way of better transfering these stresses.

And of course, the easiest solution is don't drive into holes.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-29-2004, 07:50 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StRaNgEdAyS
Here in Oz, when you get outback, it's not at all unusual to see planes pulled up at service stations, shops and pubs.
Now THAT's my definition of FREEDOM!!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-29-2004, 10:48 PM
CBarber's Avatar
CBarber CBarber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 802
Default

Yeah, but to our chagrin, I betcha they are not canards....
__________________
Chris Barber
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
Houston, Texas
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-29-2004, 10:53 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
I suppose there are limits to this. You don't want a 400 lb forged titanium gear/bulkhead combo that flips the plane over when you hit a hole instead of breaking.... And of course, the easiest solution is don't drive into holes.
There was an aluminum airplane that flew by our California neighborhood at night that had its cs prop go flat. The guy managed to put it into a little field by moonlight but hit a little ditch on the other side, catching the nosegear and flipping the plane. No injuries. I would believe that if he had a LongEz/Cozy/SpaceShip1-like light-weight nose-wheel leg, he might have hurt his 3rd leg, maybe not, but probably not flipped. However chances are he would've ripped out any form of main gear.

Sponsored by the following shameless statement of personal preference. After having flown lotsa time in Pipers and Cessna's, one day it occured to me that I think Piper oleo gear stink. I hated the ride and how the mains deflated after landing, lowering the tail into a low, lazy looking position. Spring gear I like.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.