If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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! -- Unless you put in an STC'd booster from Steve's Aircraft Then you really have brakes whenever you really need them. :-) Cheers: Paul N1431A |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bad timing...
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... LOL :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bad timing... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 39 | March 13th 07 08:19 PM |
timing holds | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | February 17th 05 12:18 AM |
Approach Timing | john smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | September 9th 04 03:37 PM |
Timing light for electronic ignition | Ron | Home Built | 4 | August 20th 04 05:18 PM |
Timing on Subaru EJ22 ??? | Randy | Rotorcraft | 1 | November 9th 03 06:15 AM |