On Aug 17, 10:17 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:

...

First - you would be surprised how rigid the airframe is.

...

I guess I don't follow why there would have to be flexure in the
structure for the gear to move freely. The gear legs piviot on the
bolts. And, BTW, how far is the gear going to move anyway?

In reverse order, it must move, else the bungies would serve
no purpose.

Now, imagine two bars arranged in a Vee. Pin the two ends
to a flat surface and pin the two bars together at the apex, but
do not pin the apex it to the surface. The Vee is rigid. Neither
bar is free to pivot about the end pinned to the table.

Now, move the two ends pinned to the table so that they
overlap and pin both to the table t that point. Now they
pivot because the pins are coaxial.

The TP landing gear is a 3-D version of exactly that
situation.

The effect is clear. The magnitude is what makes it
important or not.


I don't know about any changes in toe-in/toe-out changes with gear
movement. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I've never had a reason
to worry about it. My airplanes all tracked straight.


And I suppose that means the flexure in the airframe is real
small. It would be interesting if someone building a TP were
to look carefully at it while the fuselage is inverted.

KISS

Yes, that is what is very attractive about the TP. It has one
of the shortest build times of the scratch-builts, less than
many kitplanes, and relies on simple technique.

--

FF