Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:43 AM - Re: Can anybody confirm this? (mark_trickel)
2. 08:15 AM - Re: Can anybody confirm this? (Owen Baker)
3. 03:51 PM - Re: Re: Can anybody confirm this? (Galin Hernandez)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can anybody confirm this? |
OC Thank you for fielding a few of my goofy questions.
On Gear #1 Thanks for pointing out there is a shoulder that the shoe fits around
to take into account. I do not have a nose gear on my TR-1.
No, I did not mean to try and come up with dozens of washer combinations in order
to get the right torque and have the cotter pin slot line up on a single oversized
slot. I meant that the Belleville spring disks have a little leeway in
them and a stack including them on this gear may have been adequate and you may
have been able to zero in on the single oversized cotter pin slot. If you currently
have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against the aluminum shoe
on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and the torque setting will
diminish and a shimmy may again develop. Even the thinnest of steel washers
between the Belleville washers and the shoe would be better than none.
Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment as well as consumer
goods where a moving joint needs to maintain a given tension. I recently scrapped
out an old lawnmower and was surprised to find many them in use. Rich included
them on his homemade nose gear that still remains on the stolen KIS TR-1
#1.
I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber covered.
I have recent experience working with carbon and that stuff is like steel.
I did not mention the engine, when it comes to airplanes and the KIS project
Ive been around the block a few times and I know a wood prop strike is different
than a metal prop strike. I understand the prop was factory repaired I just
thought it was unusual.
I understand your desire to have a new main gear made mainly because canting the
current gear forward enough to put the gear in the proper position will most
likely result in the center part of the gear hanging below the well-depression
molded into the bottom of the fuselage. This would require a very custom fairing
to smooth the airfow under the belly. If you are considering this move I
would consult with Lyle as he was the supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus,
I believe he would be a little more reasonable than the Grove guy. I have
redesigned the rudder pedal set up on my TR-1 to lower the floor and make it
a little more comfortable and I found that Matco master cylinder prices are considerably
less than Grove.
A little history on the TR-1 landing gear:
Rich introduced his new airplane at Oshkosh in 1991, it had a carbon fiber main
gear and his home-made nose gear. The airplane also had a 80 hp VW up front.
Kits were selling pretty good and the first builders were flying by 1993. Metal
parts were supplied by Ken Brock and a nose gear similar to Richs was designed
and produced. Builders that were able to either go to the factory and fly
Richs plane or those who had above average piloting skills did OK. Some builders
were able to get Rich to come and do the first flights and get a few important
pointers. But there were pilots that did not have the ability to figure it
out quickly and a bunch of nose gears were getting banged. Back at the factory
Rich and the engineers started beefing up the gear. I think there were three
versions of the first gear. But still nose gears were getting banged. The engineers
Nate and Vance did not always agree but Vance came up with the final articulated
arrangement in 1996 or 97, and it was put into production. Builders
on their own came up with the idea to extend the elevator and this fix was a great
help but not a total solution. Sales slowed and despite Tri-Rs emphasis on
the Super Cruiser there just wasnt enough business to keep the company going.
In 2000, the designs were sold to Pulsar. During the Tri-R years nobody was
able to figure out what was going on, not until a certain young engineer bought
a flying example of the TR-1. And it didnt take to long for him to add the final
piece to the puzzle the main gear was in the wrong place! Weight on the
nose gear needed to be reduced. Now those who frequent the forum are at least
aware of the situation but there are many who builders and owners that are not
computer savvy and are unaware and therein lies the problem.
MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467793#467793
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can anybody confirm this? |
3/29/2017
Hello Mark, You wrote:
1) "If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against the
aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and the
torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop."
I agree and wanted to avoid that situation.
2) "Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and
the shoe would be better than none."
I agree, but unfortunately when I use a full depth AN310-12 castel nut (my
preference) there is insufficient length of the 3/4 inch diameter portion of
the vertical stub to permit that. Lyle made the 3/4 inch diameter portion of
my weldments #2 and #3 longer at my request, but he declined to make them as
long as I wanted.
3) "Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment....."
Yes, I am familiar. In fact Vance and I had an email exchange going on my
proposal to use Belleville washers under the heads of bolts clamping wooden
props to an adapter or crankshaft flange. See here:
http://www.oocities.org/vjaqua/prpblvl.html
I had purchased many different Belleville washers and run many tests in an
attempt to come up with the right washer. I sort of gave up because of the
difficulty in finding suitable washers and Vance passed away. Since that
time other people (Paul Lipps and Mark J. Zeitlin) have moved far beyond my
initial testing. See here:
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Prop_Bolt_Bellville_Washer/
4) "I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon
fiber covered." and "I understand the prop was factory repaired I just
thought it was unusual."
Back in 2001 when I initially purchase my Prince P-Tip prop Lonnie Prince
was covering some of them with fiberglass cloth. That happened to mine --
they may have used the word composite in describing the prop and I may have
paid extra for that feature. You could just barely make out the fiberglass
weave peeping through the paint in the right light angle. The shift to an
optional carbon fiber covering at more cost came later. By the way, the new
Prince prop that I ordered is now sitting in my hangar unused and still in
its factory delivery box. I could be convinced to sell it.
5) "If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the
supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little
more reasonable than the Grove guy."
This is news to me and I thank you for it. I am afraid that a new custom
made main gear would arrive too late. I am 84 years old and do not have the
energy level or time remaining to launch such an effort. My plane will be
put up for sale one of these days.
6) ".... there just wasnt enough business to keep the company going."
Wasn't there also a lawsuit problem back then? I always felt a bit guilty
about that because I had met the gent at Osh Kosh and spoke so highly of my
KIS TR-1 and Tri R Technologies that I think I sent him in Rich's direction
and it did not end well. I never got any of the details.
7) "Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced."
It is a lousy partial solution, but weight can be carried back in the
baggage compartment to help a bit.
OC
===================================
From: mark_trickel
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 8:43 AM
Subject: KIS-List: Re: Can anybody confirm this?
OC Thank you for fielding a few of my goofy questions.
On Gear #1 Thanks for pointing out there is a shoulder that the shoe
fits around to take into account. I do not have a nose gear on my TR-1.
No, I did not mean to try and come up with dozens of washer combinations in
order to get the right torque and have the cotter pin slot line up on a
single oversized slot. I meant that the Belleville spring disks have a
little leeway in them and a stack including them on this gear may have been
adequate and you may have been able to zero in on the single oversized
cotter pin slot. If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked
up against the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the
shoe and the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop.
Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and the
shoe would be better than none.
Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment as well as
consumer goods where a moving joint needs to maintain a given tension. I
recently scrapped out an old lawnmower and was surprised to find many them
in use. Rich included them on his homemade nose gear that still remains on
the stolen KIS TR-1 #1.
I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber
covered. I have recent experience working with carbon and that stuff is like
steel. I did not mention the engine, when it comes to airplanes and the KIS
project Ive been around the block a few times and I know a wood prop
strike is different than a metal prop strike. I understand the prop was
factory repaired I just thought it was unusual.
I understand your desire to have a new main gear made mainly because canting
the current gear forward enough to put the gear in the proper position will
most likely result in the center part of the gear hanging below the
well-depression molded into the bottom of the fuselage. This would require a
very custom fairing to smooth the airfow under the belly. If you are
considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the supplier of
the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little more
reasonable than the Grove guy. I have redesigned the rudder pedal set up on
my TR-1 to lower the floor and make it a little more comfortable and I found
that Matco master cylinder prices are considerably less than Grove.
A little history on the TR-1 landing gear:
Rich introduced his new airplane at Oshkosh in 1991, it had a carbon fiber
main gear and his home-made nose gear. The airplane also had a 80 hp VW up
front. Kits were selling pretty good and the first builders were flying by
1993. Metal parts were supplied by Ken Brock and a nose gear similar to
Richs was designed and produced. Builders that were able to either go to
the factory and fly Richs plane or those who had above average piloting
skills did OK. Some builders were able to get Rich to come and do the first
flights and get a few important pointers. But there were pilots that did not
have the ability to figure it out quickly and a bunch of nose gears were
getting banged. Back at the factory Rich and the engineers started beefing
up the gear. I think there were three versions of the first gear. But still
nose gears were getting banged. The engineers Nate and Vance did not always
agree but Vance came up with the final articulated arrangement in 1996 or
97, and it was put into production. Builders on their own came up with
the idea to extend the elevator and this fix was a great help but not a
total solution. Sales slowed and despite Tri-Rs emphasis on the Super
Cruiser there just wasnt enough business to keep the company going. In
2000, the designs were sold to Pulsar. During the Tri-R years nobody was
able to figure out what was going on, not until a certain young engineer
bought a flying example of the TR-1. And it didnt take to long for him to
add the final piece to the puzzle the main gear was in the wrong place!
Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced. Now those who frequent the
forum are at least aware of the situation but there are many who builders
and owners that are not computer savvy and are unaware and therein lies the
problem.
MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467793#467793
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can anybody confirm this? |
Caveat, I consider myself very good with electronics and avionics but
consider myself a novice at mechanical =9Cthings=9D so here goe
s. I think Rich
once told me not to use flat washers between the Belleville washers and the
nose wheel fork. I think he said something like with two Belleville
washers, they rotate on each other not on the fork. Maybe this is true only
if you use two Belleville washers with the narrow portions against each
other not if you only use one Belleville washer.
FWIW my TR-4 has always had four Belleville washers, two together with the
narrow portion against each other, like shown in the attached diagram. Is
this correct or did I understand wrong?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Owen Baker <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>
> 3/29/2017
>
> Hello Mark, You wrote:
>
> 1) "If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against
> the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and
> the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop."
>
> I agree and wanted to avoid that situation.
>
> 2) "Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and
> the shoe would be better than none."
>
> I agree, but unfortunately when I use a full depth AN310-12 castel nut (m
y
> preference) there is insufficient length of the 3/4 inch diameter portion
> of the vertical stub to permit that. Lyle made the 3/4 inch diameter
> portion of my weldments #2 and #3 longer at my request, but he declined t
o
> make them as long as I wanted.
>
> 3) "Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment....."
>
> Yes, I am familiar. In fact Vance and I had an email exchange going on my
> proposal to use Belleville washers under the heads of bolts clamping wood
en
> props to an adapter or crankshaft flange. See here:
>
> http://www.oocities.org/vjaqua/prpblvl.html
>
> I had purchased many different Belleville washers and run many tests in a
n
> attempt to come up with the right washer. I sort of gave up because of th
e
> difficulty in finding suitable washers and Vance passed away. Since that
> time other people (Paul Lipps and Mark J. Zeitlin) have moved far beyond
my
> initial testing. See here:
>
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/Prop_Bolt_Bellville_Washer/
>
> 4) "I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon
> fiber covered." and "I understand the prop was factory repaired I just
> thought it was unusual."
>
> Back in 2001 when I initially purchase my Prince P-Tip prop Lonnie Prince
> was covering some of them with fiberglass cloth. That happened to mine --
> they may have used the word composite in describing the prop and I may ha
ve
> paid extra for that feature. You could just barely make out the fiberglas
s
> weave peeping through the paint in the right light angle. The shift to an
> optional carbon fiber covering at more cost came later. By the way, the n
ew
> Prince prop that I ordered is now sitting in my hangar unused and still i
n
> its factory delivery box. I could be convinced to sell it.
>
> 5) "If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was
> the supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a
> little more reasonable than the Grove guy."
>
> This is news to me and I thank you for it. I am afraid that a new custom
> made main gear would arrive too late. I am 84 years old and do not have t
he
> energy level or time remaining to launch such an effort. My plane will be
> put up for sale one of these days.
>
> 6) ".... there just wasn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t enough business to keep
the company going."
>
> Wasn't there also a lawsuit problem back then? I always felt a bit guilty
> about that because I had met the gent at Osh Kosh and spoke so highly of
my
> KIS TR-1 and Tri R Technologies that I think I sent him in Rich's directi
on
> and it did not end well. I never got any of the details.
>
> 7) "Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced."
>
> It is a lousy partial solution, but weight can be carried back in the
> baggage compartment to help a bit.
>
> OC
>
> ========================
===========
>
> From: mark_trickel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 8:43 AM
> To: kis-list@matronics.com
> Subject: KIS-List: Re: Can anybody confirm this?
>
>
> OC =C3=A2=82=AC=9C Thank you for fielding a few of my goofy ques
tions.
>
> On Gear #1 =C3=A2=82=AC=9C Thanks for pointing out there is a sh
oulder that the shoe
> fits around to take into account. I do not have a nose gear on my TR-1.
>
> No, I did not mean to try and come up with dozens of washer combinations
> in order to get the right torque and have the cotter pin slot line up on
a
> single oversized slot. I meant that the Belleville spring disks have a
> little leeway in them and a stack including them on this gear may have be
en
> adequate and you may have been able to zero in on the single oversized
> cotter pin slot. If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacke
d
> up against the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into th
e
> shoe and the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop.
> Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and the
> shoe would be better than none.
>
> Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment as well as
> consumer goods where a moving joint needs to maintain a given tension. I
> recently scrapped out an old lawnmower and was surprised to find many the
m
> in use. Rich included them on his homemade nose gear that still remains o
n
> the stolen KIS TR-1 #1.
>
> I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber
> covered. I have recent experience working with carbon and that stuff is
> like steel. I did not mention the engine, when it comes to airplanes and
> the KIS project I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve been around the block a few t
imes and I know a wood
> prop strike is different than a metal prop strike. I understand the prop
> was factory repaired I just thought it was unusual.
>
> I understand your desire to have a new main gear made mainly because
> canting the current gear forward enough to put the gear in the proper
> position will most likely result in the center part of the gear hanging
> below the well-depression molded into the bottom of the fuselage. This
> would require a very custom fairing to smooth the airfow under the belly.
> If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the
> supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a litt
le
> more reasonable than the Grove guy. I have redesigned the rudder pedal se
t
> up on my TR-1 to lower the floor and make it a little more comfortable an
d
> I found that Matco master cylinder prices are considerably less than Grov
e.
>
> A little history on the TR-1 landing gear:
> Rich introduced his new airplane at Oshkosh in 1991, it had a carbon fibe
r
> main gear and his home-made nose gear. The airplane also had a 80 hp VW u
p
> front. Kits were selling pretty good and the first builders were flying
by
> 1993. Metal parts were supplied by Ken Brock and a nose gear similar to
> Rich=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s was designed and produced. Builders that we
re able to either go to
> the factory and fly Rich=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s plane or those who had
above average piloting
> skills did OK. Some builders were able to get Rich to come and do the fir
st
> flights and get a few important pointers. But there were pilots that did
> not have the ability to figure it out quickly and a bunch of nose gears
> were getting banged. Back at the factory Rich and the engineers started
> beefing up the gear. I think there were three versions of the first gear.
> But still nose gears were getting banged. The engineers Nate and Vance di
d
> not always agree but Vance came up with the final articulated arrangement
> in 1996 or =C3=A2=82=AC=CB=9C97, and it was put into production. Build
ers on their own
> came up with the idea to extend the elevator and this fix was a great hel
p
> but not a total solution. Sales slowed and despite Tri-R=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2s emphasis on
> the Super Cruiser there just wasn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t enough busines
s to keep the company
> going. In 2000, the designs were sold to Pulsar. During the Tri-R years
> nobody was able to figure out what was going on, not until a certain youn
g
> engineer bought a flying example of the TR-1. And it didn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t take to long
> for him to add the final piece to the puzzle =C3=A2=82=AC=9C the
main gear was in the
> wrong place! Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced. Now those who
> frequent the forum are at least aware of the situation but there are many
> who builders and owners that are not computer savvy and are unaware and
> therein lies the problem.
>
> MT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467793#467793
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|