Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:18 AM - Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Thruster87)
2. 02:37 AM - Re: Nose wheel fork failure (aussiech650)
3. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (LarryMcFarland)
4. 08:43 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Rick Lindstrom)
5. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (jeyoung65@aol.com)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (jeyoung65@aol.com)
7. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Bryan Martin)
8. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Rick Lindstrom)
9. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 12:58 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (LarryMcFarland)
11. 04:38 PM - Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Ron Lendon)
12. 05:05 PM - First Flight (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
13. 05:20 PM - Re: Re: Nose wheel fork failure (KARL POLIFKA)
14. 05:38 PM - Re: Nose wheel fork failure (Thruster87)
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: Nose wheel fork failure |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
> On the photo of the front gear is that extra stepped rod resting in the V
> block (below the main cross tube that links to the rudder pedals) your own
> addition or something from the factory? I'm guessing you had to add it when
> the cross tube on the factory part didn't reach the V because to the stop
> plate on the top of the gear. I think I can also see an extra shim fitted
> into the V of the black nylon part.
>
> -- Craig
>
> --
It was a mod I did to allow the nose wheel to move more freely.It has a stainless
steel rod with phosphor bronze bushes resting on a crom-moly plate bolted
thru the bearing material for the V.It really made the rudder pedals free up
and smooth to operate.As you can see it stayed intact even thro the nose leg tube
bent. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269310#269310
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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Alan, I have an XL601 nose leg that I will not be using. Give me a call if you
would like it.
Greg 0415610593.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269313#269313
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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Ron,
That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal
itself eventually.
The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able
to steer around potholes and rough fields is
a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both
types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear
it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking
mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but
it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel.
Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the
fork. Or it would seem
there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Ron Lendon wrote:
>
> Sorry to hear about that.
>
> I have been considering spring loading the front wheel so it can track separately
from the rudder. The front wheel really does need a good caster angle for
this to work, but I have been thinking about it.
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
> WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
> Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
> Corvair Engine Prints:
> http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
>
>
>
Message 4
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman
American airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your post.
Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free castering design,
its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parking or
simple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a draggy
brake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap on
the brake to maintain directional control.
The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but pads
are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any of
the other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, the
nose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing, so
any worry about side loads is moot.
Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'm curious,
in what way?
Best,
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
>
>
>Ron,
>That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal
>itself eventually.
>The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able
>to steer around potholes and rough fields is
>a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both
>types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear
>it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking
>mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but
>it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel.
>Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the
>fork. Or it would seem
>there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Message 5
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Could it be possible that the "free-caster nose wheel" is the problem? I
do not understand how this was accomplish!!!!Landing in with a crosswind
would indicate the nose wheel as cocked so when the nose wheel came down
a side load was appllied to it. Now with a caster nose wheel, the nose wh
eel would be forced to turn to it's limit. Thus the fork could bend. My $0
.02 Jerry of GA
-----Original Message-----
From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:07 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
m>
Ron,
That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal itsel
f eventually.
The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able to
steer around potholes and rough fields is
a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both types
. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear
it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking ma
ins. I know it's done in some aircraft, but
it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel.
Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the fo
rk. Or it would seem
there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Message 6
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Rick, you are talking about a gear that is design to have a castering gear
. The 601 nose gear was not designned for a castering nose wheel. On a cas
tering nose wheel the strut is in front of the wheel center so the wheel
is drag down the runway not pushed. Jerry of GA
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:42 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
.com>
Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in
Grumman
merican airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your
post.
Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free casteri
ng
esign, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parkin
g or
imple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a dra
ggy
rake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap
on
he brake to maintain directional control.
The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often,
but
ads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or
any of
he other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, th
e
ose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing
, so
ny worry about side loads is moot.
Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'
m
urious, in what way?
Best,
Rick Lindstrom
enVair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
m>
Ron,
That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal
itself eventually.
The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able
to steer around potholes and rough fields is
a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both
types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear
it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking
mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but
it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel.
Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the
fork. Or it would seem
there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
-========================
========================
===========
-= - The Zenith601-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
Message 7
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
I don't think you should try to strengthen the fork any more than it
is. If you make it too strong, in a hard landing it would shift the
first point of failure to some other component. From the looks of
those photos, the nose gear must have come down very hard and it
wouldn't have helped much if the fork had stayed intact. That fork
absorbed a lot of energy before it failed. It won't do much good to
make the fork indestructible if it causes the strut to shear off and
you plant the nose on the runway at 40 mph.
At 50 mph and full throttle, that elevator has a whole lot of
authority, you have to use a light hand on it. At full throttle, once
that nosewheel comes off, that airplane wants to get airborne in a
hurry. Be ready to chop the throttle and let it settle in.
--
Bryan Martin
CH 601 XL
Builder No: 64003
Message 8
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Yes, I know, Jerry.
My 601XL has a steerable nosewheel, just as designed. I was just responding to
Larry's assertion that free-castering nosewheels are inferior in some way.
The ONLY way you can impart a side load to the nose fork on the 601 is to land
with it cocked significantly to one side. This means either full rudder deflection
or something not right in the initial rigging. But it's just speculation
at this point, until the facts are in.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: jeyoung65@aol.com
>Sent: Oct 25, 2009 9:01 AM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
>
>Rick, you are talking about a gear that is design to have a castering gear. The
601 nose gear was not designned for a castering nose wheel. On a castering nose
wheel the strut is in front of the wheel center so the wheel is drag down
the runway not pushed. Jerry of GA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:42 am
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
>
>
>Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman
>merican airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your post.
>Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free castering
>esign, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parking or
>imple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a draggy
>rake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap on
>he brake to maintain directional control.
>The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but
>ads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any of
>he other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, the
>ose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing, so
>ny worry about side loads is moot.
>Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'm
>urious, in what way?
>Best,
>Rick Lindstrom
>enVair N42KP
>-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
>
>
>Ron,
>That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal
>itself eventually.
>The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able
>to steer around potholes and rough fields is
>a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both
>types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear
>it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking
>mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but
>it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel.
>Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the
>fork. Or it would seem
>there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>-===========================================================
>-= - The Zenith601-List Email Forum -
>-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
>-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
>-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>-= Photoshare, and much much more:
>-
>-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
>-
>-===========================================================
>-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
>-
>-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
>-
>-===========================================================
>-= - List Contribution Web Site -
>-= Thank you for your generous support!
>-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>-===========================================================
>
>
Message 9
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Hi Rick,
One problem I have had with "Yankee" type planes has to do with the
lack of nose wheel steering when taking off in a crosswind. I found
I had to apply brakes to one side while using takeoff power to keep
the plane pointed down the runway for the initial takeoff run. I
suppose the rudder will keep it pointed down the runway when enough
speed is reached for rudder effectiveness, but in the beginning you
are applying opposing forces, throttle and brakes, at the same time
in order to perform a normal operation. (My brief experience with
this problem was in a rented AA5 many years ago.)
I agree with your point about taxi control with the brakes. It works
just fine. However, I prefer the steerable nose wheel for taxiing
too. It is true that the free castering nose wheel can make a
tighter turn, but I have found the typical Cessna arrangement turns
tighter if you use both differential braking and nose steering together.
I am currently flying a Tecnam Echo that has a brake handle and nose
steering. This turns OK, but I find it won't turn quite as tight a
circle on the ground as I would prefer. It takes a little planning
to turn into the wind for run-up and then get back to the heading for
getting to the runway. This wouldn't be a problem with a large
run-up pad, but that is not what you find at my home airport.
Best regards,
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
At 08:42 AM 10/25/2009, you wrote
><tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
>Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000
>hours in Grumman American airplanes with free castering nose gear, I
>have to object to your post.
Message 10
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
Hi Rick,
I certainly understand your perspective and for fast maneuvering on the
ground, or ease of pulling thru uneven grass or avoiding objects during
taxi, the
steering nose wheel probably has an edge. I too have flown both types
and disliked having to rev the prop to get one wheel or the other loose
from soggy
ground. The free caster nose wheel can touch down out of the line of
travel and jerk the nose with it and the same thing for steerable, but
you have to be
inattentive for that to happen. On reverse handling for the steerable
you need a tow bar. For the Zenith the strut doesn't lend any structural
advantage
to a free caster nose wheel. On the Grumman, the designers took all
structural issues into consideration to accomplish their nose gear.
Respectfully,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Do not archive
Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>
> Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman
American airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your
post.
>
> Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free castering
design, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parking or
simple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a draggy
brake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap
on the brake to maintain directional control.
>
> The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but
pads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any
of the other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, the
nose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing,
so any worry about side loads is moot.
>
> Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'm curious,
in what way?
>
> Best,
>
> Rick Lindstrom
> ZenVair N42KP
>
Message 11
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>
> Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the
> fork. Or it would seem
> there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time.
>
Larry,
As I recall the XL plunks down the nose wheel right down after touching the mains
in a full stall landing (only flew one once). It also had the main gear reversed
from the design position. The photo guide has many pictures of the main
gear in the reversed position, it is noted that the pictures are not correct
but many people have followed those pictures and have a heavy nose wheel as a
result. Don't know if this is the case here but it merits discussion.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269390#269390
Message 12
| 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 |
|
Hi All
Well today after much aggravation with the Aero Carb on the Corvair engine
we decided to switch to a MA-3A and had it rebuilt with a MA-3SPA nozzle to
richen it up slightly. We taxied the plane 4 or 5 times thru all power
setting before our test pilot was called to duty. Ralph (test pilot) had
flown with me in the first 601xl I built so he was not as nervous as a first
time test pilot would be flying behind a Corvair or even the 601 for that
matter.
The first flight went off without a hitch and the Corvair preformed as
expected the prop is set at 10 1/2 degrees 2700 to 2800 static and 2900 109 MPH
climb out. The CHT's were around 300 and the oil temp was 210 degrees
before the cooler EGT's were around 1,200 degrees.
All the parts on this plane are from Aerolite and the new Tech that picks
up from the AC side of the alt worked great also (No more flywheel pickup).
The new cowling and ram air Baffles really keep the temps down but I know
our oil cooler setup works better than any other cooler out there when
combined with our baffles.
Tomorrow I will fit the wheel Pants and tinker with the trim a bit but all
and all a great day.
Watch the First Flight on U-tube
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwNrpIMhr_A_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwNrpIMhr_A)
Jeff
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com)
Message 13
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
I've stayed out of this but -- a couple of comments.
We've had one or more hard landings because of the nose thump-down habit
-- more than one in gusty conditions. This eventually led to a firewall
and stiffener replacement -- along with the phenolic block in the lower
main gear.
We've changed a few things, besides the repairs. Half flap approaches,
full nose up trim, 60 kias on final to touch down. Makes for a much
smoother landing and virtually no touchdown nosegear thump. Also, BTW,
hold the stick back with some nose up trim on takeoff -- it takes the
pressure off a weak point in this airplane.
As to this incident -- it certainly appears that you had rudder in you
didn't realize or something was really wrong with the rudder-nose gear
pushrods after taxi started. Prop strike -- hope you are getting an
engine teardown to check the interior!
Karl
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Lendon
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:38 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
<rlendon@comcast.net>
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>
> Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail
the
> fork. Or it would seem
> there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the
time.
>
Larry,
As I recall the XL plunks down the nose wheel right down after
touching the mains in a full stall landing (only flew one once). It
also had the main gear reversed from the design position. The photo
guide has many pictures of the main gear in the reversed position, it is
noted that the pictures are not correct but many people have followed
those pictures and have a heavy nose wheel as a result. Don't know if
this is the case here but it merits discussion.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269390#269390
Message 14
| 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: Nose wheel fork failure |
A follow up on the discussion so far,main gear reversed to lighten loads on to
nose gear.As aircraft was starting to drift to the left a SMALL amount of right
rudder applied to straighten back to center of runway [sealed] .As the nose
was a foot or so off the ground when down elevator applied,I never dreamt that
it would bounce and thump from that hight. But I do now.Repair bill including
prop around $2000.00 :( Cheers T87
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269407#269407
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! --
|