Icy Runways

If in fact your fixed landing gear is stout. I would much rather be in
my Bo than in say a Cessna 120, 140, 170, 180, 185, Luscombe, etc.
There's a good reason the Pponk people came out with a gear mod for some
of those those planes.

Well, generally speaking, a structure that is designed to fold is going
to be inherently weaker than one that is not. There are certainly ways
to minimize this problem, but a solid piece of steel is going to be
stronger than a similar-sized one that has a hinge (or three) built
into it.

I know I've seen Cherokees and Cessnas survive some hellacious
landings, completely unscathed. One in particular scared the crap out
of me (I was a passenger in the back seat) when we stalled and dropped
it in from ten feet above the runway in a Cherokee 180.

I was astounded to note that the landing gear was not poking up through
the wings, as we rolled to a VERY short stop...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


Well, generally speaking, a structure that is designed to fold is going
to be inherently weaker than one that is not.


No, absolutely not. The Cessna 180/185 gear is famous for folding under
the plane if the plane gets sideways. And that's what we're talking
about, getting sideways. If you're just talking about the standard
vertical loads than I still want my Bo gear rather than the 182 I used
to have. The Bo is much more stout than it needs to be whereas the 182
is merely stout enough. That's why during a prepurchase for a 182 you
better look at the main gear attach points. My 182 had that area
repaired after a hard landing decades ago. You don't run into those
problems with a Bo and as a rule retracts don't fold a gear because of a
hard landing.



There are certainly ways
to minimize this problem, but a solid piece of steel is going to be
stronger than a similar-sized one that has a hinge (or three) built
into it.

You really need to see how the gear is attached to the plane. It's not
the leg that breaks but the connection to the airframe.

Well, generally speaking, a structure that is designed to fold is going
to be inherently weaker than one that is not.


No, absolutely not. The Cessna 180/185 gear is famous for folding under
the plane if the plane gets sideways. And that's what we're talking
about, getting sideways. If you're just talking about the standard
vertical loads than I still want my Bo gear rather than the 182 I used
to have. The Bo is much more stout than it needs to be whereas the 182
is merely stout enough. That's why during a prepurchase for a 182 you
better look at the main gear attach points. My 182 had that area
repaired after a hard landing decades ago. You don't run into those
problems with a Bo and as a rule retracts don't fold a gear because of a
hard landing.

Is is hard to find a stronger system than the Bo's trailing links.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:



Is is hard to find a stronger system than the Bo's trailing links.



The Bo doesn't have trailing link gear. It's a standard strut like
you'd see on the nose of a 182.

On 1/22/2007 6:27:21 PM, Newps wrote:

The Bo doesn't have trailing link gear. It's a standard strut like
you'd see on the nose of a 182.

Perhaps he was thinking of the Sundowner?

--
Peter

The Bo doesn't have trailing link gear. It's a standard strut like
you'd see on the nose of a 182.

Perhaps he was thinking of the Sundowner?

Thanks for the correction.

Peter

Jay Honeck wrote:

If in fact your fixed landing gear is stout. I would much rather be in
my Bo than in say a Cessna 120, 140, 170, 180, 185, Luscombe, etc.
There's a good reason the Pponk people came out with a gear mod for some
of those those planes.


Well, generally speaking, a structure that is designed to fold is going
to be inherently weaker than one that is not. There are certainly ways
to minimize this problem, but a solid piece of steel is going to be
stronger than a similar-sized one that has a hinge (or three) built
into it.

That is true if you fix the weight to be the same. If weight isn't
constrained, then there is nothing "inherently" stronger in fixed gear
vs. retractable. One can design the gear for any level of strength
desired. I do believe it would be impossible to build a retractable
landing gear as strong as fixed gear using the same materials and weight.

Matt