Bad timing...

"EridanMan" wrote in message
ps.com...
Ouch...

This is one of those stories that makes me glad that I didn't spend
the extra money (and lost useful load) to install Toe-Brakes in 61J...

Yes it was odd... for the first 5 minutes of taxiing.

After seeing two of my old club's planes go through a set of pads per
100 hour inspection (one of them having a similar catastrophic right
(I believe) break failure... only during a landing... only a VERY good
instructor prevented a ground-loop). And then hear stories like this
from a very experienced pilot no-less...

I can't say I miss them.


I have had a right break failure in a piper with toe brakes also right brake
stuck upon applying them.

Ouch...

This is one of those stories that makes me glad that I didn't spend
the extra money (and lost useful load) to install Toe-Brakes in 61J...

Yes it was odd... for the first 5 minutes of taxiing.

After seeing two of my old club's planes go through a set of pads per
100 hour inspection (one of them having a similar catastrophic right
(I believe) break failure... only during a landing... only a VERY good
instructor prevented a ground-loop). And then hear stories like this
from a very experienced pilot no-less...

I can't say I miss them.


I have had a right break failure in a piper with toe brakes also right
brake
stuck upon applying them.


This makes me just a little curious.

Is the handbrake on a Piper (without toe brakes) mechanical or hydraulic?

My reason for asking is that, if hydraulic, the same culd happen with the
handbrake--although the possiblility of inadvertantly dragging the right
brake while applying rudder would be eliminated.

Peter

Yes its hydraulic (Single Cylinder)... so yes, it could definitely
still fail.

The whole system is much simpler (And lighter, by about 8 lbs) than
the toe-brake system though, and according to my mechanic at least,
its basically bullet-proof...

This is simply according to him - but apparently fried right wheels/
brakes are a reasonably common (especially on Grummans and training
aircraft)... he attributes it simply to the subconscious dragging on
takeoff/taxi... At the very least, the right pads wear faster than the
left on most planes he looks at, even with experienced pilots.

The only planes he doesn't see it on are the few that don't have toe
brakes. That was enough for me... (Disclaimer, I am a young, low-time
pilot with ABSOLUTELY no experience in this matter, other than I
learned in a few toe-brake planes before I bought 61J, and I adapted
to no toe-brakes in about 5 minutes...)

I do tend to trust the opinion of a mechanic who tells me not to give
him money for things though...

-Scott

Yes its hydraulic (Single Cylinder)... so yes, it could definitely
still fail.

The whole system is much simpler (And lighter, by about 8 lbs) than
the toe-brake system though, and according to my mechanic at least,
its basically bullet-proof...

This is simply according to him - but apparently fried right wheels/
brakes are a reasonably common (especially on Grummans and training
aircraft)... he attributes it simply to the subconscious dragging on
takeoff/taxi... At the very least, the right pads wear faster than the
left on most planes he looks at, even with experienced pilots.

The only planes he doesn't see it on are the few that don't have toe
brakes. That was enough for me... (Disclaimer, I am a young, low-time
pilot with ABSOLUTELY no experience in this matter, other than I
learned in a few toe-brake planes before I bought 61J, and I adapted
to no toe-brakes in about 5 minutes...)

I do tend to trust the opinion of a mechanic who tells me not to give
him money for things though...

-Scott


Thanks.

Eight pounds is quite a weight saving, especially since Pipers have very
positive nose wheel steering, so the toe brakes provide only dedundancy. My
personal prejudice favors the greatest theoretical redundancy, meaning nose
wheel steering plus toe brakes, but I don't have the experience either--so
it is just opinion, and worth slightly less than you paid for it.

BTW, the Gruman Cheetah and Tiger models, and many of the newer training
aircraft, have castoring nosewheels--so steering is accomplished by
differential braking until the rudder becomes effective. That should cause
them to have faster right side brake wear than Cessna trainers, which have
spring steering which allows the nose wheel to lock straight ahead in flight
and which can become a little problematic; especially if the nose strut and
the springs are not maintained.

Peter

Eight pounds is quite a weight saving, especially since Pipers have very
positive nose wheel steering, so the toe brakes provide only redundancy. My
personal prejudice favors the greatest theoretical redundancy, meaning nose
wheel steering plus toe brakes

Yes, but then you also might argue that toe brakes (requiring two
cylinders, two pressurized lines, etc) have twice as many failure
points for the same mission-critical system (Braking)... so while you
get redundant steering, you get it at the cost of more mission
critical parts to fail

I'm stirring the pot of course, I would gladly step up to a newer
aircraft with toe brakes if given the opportunity, I'm just saying I
don't miss them on my current bird

For me the 2k labor + 8lbs was the primary deciding factor (funny how
that works)

BTW, the Gruman Cheetah and Tiger models, and many of the newer training
aircraft, have castoring nosewheels--so steering is accomplished by
differential braking until the rudder becomes effective.

I've flown a friends cheetah... Going from my direct-drive, simple
rudder pedal steering too a toe-brake-only system was... interesting,
to say the least.

My biggest issue in that plane however was it was simply too small for
me... I could not get into a position where I could manipulate the
pedals comfortably... (same with most toe-brake equipped planes (I'm
6'4, 240), but the grumman was particularly bad)

Shame, because otherwise I love the grummans... great view and fun to
fly.

That should cause them to have faster right side brake wear than Cessna trainers, which
have spring steering which allows the nose wheel to lock straight ahead in flight.

I think the issue Any training airplane has is simply... trainees...
even aircraft Pipers and Cessnas... it takes a few flights to get in
the hang of keeping your foot off the brakes and on the rudder at
takeoff... for some (like me) its rather uncomfortable even

and which can become a little problematic; especially if the nose strut and
the springs are not maintained.

I read somewhere that Cessna Milked that patent for all it was worth
and despite the MX issues, I think its a smarter system... I still
live in fear (especially when fighting particularly gusty x-winds) of
touching down sooner than I anticipate with a nice heavily cocked
front nose wheel and hearing the control line go *SNAP*...

Peter

On 12 Mar 2007 15:30:12 -0700, "EridanMan"
wrote:

Eight pounds is quite a weight saving, especially since Pipers have very
positive nose wheel steering, so the toe brakes provide only redundancy. My
personal prejudice favors the greatest theoretical redundancy, meaning nose
wheel steering plus toe brakes

Yes, but then you also might argue that toe brakes (requiring two
cylinders, two pressurized lines, etc) have twice as many failure
points for the same mission-critical system (Braking)... so while you
get redundant steering, you get it at the cost of more mission
critical parts to fail

I'm stirring the pot of course, I would gladly step up to a newer
aircraft with toe brakes if given the opportunity, I'm just saying I
don't miss them on my current bird

Peter

NA stirring the pot would be to suggest that with the training wheel
on the front, long wide paved runways having one wheel brake is way
more than whats needed for safe operation.

NA stirring the pot would be to suggest that with the training wheel
on the front, long wide paved runways having one wheel brake is way
more than whats needed for safe operation.

I suddenly got an amusing mental image of an aircraft doing pirouettes
in the run-up area while the flight crew non-nonchalantly went through
their checks...

Eight pounds is quite a weight saving, especially since Pipers have very
positive nose wheel steering, so the toe brakes provide only redundancy.
My
personal prejudice favors the greatest theoretical redundancy, meaning
nose
wheel steering plus toe brakes

Yes, but then you also might argue that toe brakes (requiring two
cylinders, two pressurized lines, etc) have twice as many failure
points for the same mission-critical system (Braking)... so while you
get redundant steering, you get it at the cost of more mission
critical parts to fail

I'm stirring the pot of course, I would gladly step up to a newer
aircraft with toe brakes if given the opportunity, I'm just saying I
don't miss them on my current bird

For me the 2k labor + 8lbs was the primary deciding factor (funny how
that works)

This is a common topic of hangar flying sessions, and I am not really a
strong advocate either way. I only have a preference, if faced with two
otherwise equal airplanes at essentially the same price.

BTW, the Gruman Cheetah and Tiger models, and many of the newer training
aircraft, have castoring nosewheels--so steering is accomplished by
differential braking until the rudder becomes effective.

I've flown a friends cheetah... Going from my direct-drive, simple
rudder pedal steering too a toe-brake-only system was... interesting,
to say the least.

I can't argue with you there, although the only plane with toe-brake only
steering that I ever had occasion to taxi was an an Aero Commender.
Interestingly, the rudder was reasonably effective at a much lower speed
than I would have supposed. (I no longer recall the speed--or the wind
conditions)

Actually, the size of the rudder and its relationship to the vertical
stabilizer plays a major role in the need for toe brakes, nosewheel
steering, or even tailwheel steering. I have read that the Supermarine
Spitfire had no tail wheel lock and also no tailwheel steering--and I am
confident that some here will correct me if I am mistaken.

My biggest issue in that plane however was it was simply too small for
me... I could not get into a position where I could manipulate the
pedals comfortably... (same with most toe-brake equipped planes (I'm
6'4, 240), but the grumman was particularly bad)

Shame, because otherwise I love the grummans... great view and fun to
fly.

I've never gotten to try one on, but should find it a little easier. I'm a
little guy by comparison--6'1", 200#--and intending to lose 20#.

That should cause them to have faster right side brake wear than Cessna
trainers, which
have spring steering which allows the nose wheel to lock straight ahead
in flight.

I think the issue Any training airplane has is simply... trainees...
even aircraft Pipers and Cessnas... it takes a few flights to get in
the hang of keeping your foot off the brakes and on the rudder at
takeoff... for some (like me) its rather uncomfortable even

No argument there. In my case, it was simply a matter of putting my feet as
low a practical on the pedals. However, in the case of something like the
Gruman it would be a little more complicated, a lot would depend on whether
there was sufficient rudder authority just from the prop blast--if not, it
should be a matter of keeping my toes off of the left brake on the take off
roll.

and which can become a little problematic; especially if the nose strut
and
the springs are not maintained.

I read somewhere that Cessna Milked that patent for all it was worth
and despite the MX issues, I think its a smarter system... I still
live in fear (especially when fighting particularly gusty x-winds) of
touching down sooner than I anticipate with a nice heavily cocked
front nose wheel and hearing the control line go *SNAP*...

I flew Tomahawks in crosswinds while I was still plenty ham fisted (or is
that ham footed) and that was never a problem. The airplane's response was
so non-memorable that I have no recollection of it.

I suppose I should add that I was taught to hold the nose off untill a good
bit of speed was lost, rather than actively derotating. Actually, in the
worst case, I doubt that a nosewheel still cocked would do more than make me
appear clumsy--unless it was combined with a worse error.

Peter

On 2007-03-10, Peter Dohm wrote:
This makes me just a little curious.

Is the handbrake on a Piper (without toe brakes) mechanical or hydraulic?

I presume you're meaning on aircraft like the TriPacer which has the
hand brake, but no toe brakes.

In the TriPacer, a cable goes from the hand brake, around a few pulleys,
and ultimately it ends up under the pilot's seat. Under the pilot's seat
(and I'm not joking) you will find a Piper Cub heel brake, with a hole
in the back of the heel brake, where the cable connects.

The heel brake is hydraulic and applies both wheel brakes
simultaneously. The diaphragm has a habit of splitting just when you
really need the brakes, leaving you with nothing!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2007-03-10, Peter Dohm wrote:
This makes me just a little curious.

Is the handbrake on a Piper (without toe brakes) mechanical or hydraulic?

I presume you're meaning on aircraft like the TriPacer which has the
hand brake, but no toe brakes.

My Cherokee 140 has a handbrake with no toe brakes. It's hydraulic.