[NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

Fri Jan 16 08:16:31 AKST 2009

Gray,
 I will tell you this:
I use your pipes primarily due to the weight and performance advantages. However, I know of a few instances where I've recommended them to others, only to have the guy tell me that it was so ugly (the pipe) when he got it that he decided to sell it and use something else. I guess it's a matter of personal preference but that's something to keep in mind.

John Pavlick

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com> wrote:

From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 4:57 PM

If "swept" gear are preferred for the appearance, and impact form fit and function, that is, there is a performace trade off to look cool, then all who prioitize in such a manner will be unhappy  with a gear set if we make it.  My priorties going forward will be: 

1. Performance =stiffness, weight, twist- balanced by 
2. Cost= material used, labor and cycle time 
3. Cosmetics= need to look good BUT it is #3 

If Cost were no issue We could make a gorgeous set of ultimate performing gear, but cost is a large issue and if AeroSlave does not follow through it will be because of cost. We must be able to cover  our non reccurring costs of engineering and especially molds which are very expensive. I am always a bit hesitant with the pattern crowd and the need for the plane's components to be prettier than the pilot or even his wife! I understand paint finish and such but making a landing gear perfectly gorgeous when scutinized up close may add $25 per set. Some will say this is a requirement, some will not. This is what I am trying to figure out at the moment. Lance and I have a big handle on the technical aspects, but things like sweep, finish etc can kill this (from a business apsect) before we get off the ground. Swept gear will require more molds =$$$. Almost everyone cuts a single gear into a left and a right.     

I do find all this input interesting, but Lance and I will have to figure out how to proceed. This feedback about stiffness, bouncing, toe in etc is great. We have prototypes performing very well, but now we need to productionize the design. 

Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and Specialty Apertures
Technical Staff Composites Engineering
Raytheon 

"Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com> 
Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
01/15/2009 09:45 PM 

Please respond to
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

To
"'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

cc

Subject
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

Gray, the toe in twist issue on the ES gear was definitely an issue I ran into, at least with the taller electric version. Also, on crosswind landings if I didn’t straighten it out just right before touching down it would start doing a sideways hoping action with the forward leg acting like a spring. I think you may have seen this in Lubbock. This is the only set of gear I’ve ever experienced this with. More ridged gear don’t seem prone to this behavior. 

As to straight vs. swept, straight may be easier to fabricate as a first attempt to get something to market and would provide interchangeability. On the other hand, if you dork one half of your gear you still have to buy a whole new set and there’s not much you can do with the other half, unless you have a habit of dorking gear.  The swept look is most definitely nicer. I’d go with what you think will sell the best, based on sex appeal, and will be structurally sound. I wouldn’t worry about giving the multiple gear dorkers the ability to use either half on either side. Besides, multiple gear dorkers will help keep you in business. J 

Keith 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Gray E Fowler
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:57 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business 

Anthony 

What did you think about the ES gear twist? That is the wheel going toe in- toe out hitting small bumps. ES had nothing but zero degree fibers. That is the one design issue I am conteplating at the moment. 

Also considering that all new planes are widebody that is what needs to be addressed..BUT having a 1 continuous gear will be more weight. I am thinking it is better to split the gear for a weight savings.  If we make two pieces, and either piece can be a left or a right, then a broken gear is only on one side. Any advantage to that?

Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and Specialty Apertures
Technical Staff Composites Engineering
Raytheon 

Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> 
Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
01/15/2009 04:18 PM 

Please respond to
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

To
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

cc

Subject
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

Graph Tech is not for us. I am sure their stuff is well suited for the IMAC style planes that they are designed for but too heavy and way too stiff for our use. 
I went through their website and picked a gear based on dimension of the ES. 2+ ounces heavier and twice as thick with zero flex. Broke the gear out of my Black Magic many times when hitting small holes in the runway. Rick donated his ES gear and life has been much better. 

Anthony

From: jlachow at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:59:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

Anyone have any luck with the Graph Tech RC stuff?  Only experience was with some smaller electrics that worked just fine. They have carbon pants and spinners, as well. 

From: tony at radiosouthrc.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:00:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

Thanks, Jim.  Those are $112.00 I think… about double that of the Bolly…. Not sure how that will go….. but if there are no other choices… 

Tony Stillman, President 
Radio South, Inc. 
139 Altama Connector, Box 322 
Brunswick, GA  31525 
1-800-962-7802 
www.radiosouthrc.com 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:52 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business 

Tony, 

Luiz at Net Box Hobby carrys the CA carbon gear. 

Thanks, 
Jim 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:36 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business 

I just received conformation that BOLLY has gone out of business.  Unfortunately, this is a major supplier of CF landing gear and wheel pants.  I have been awaiting a shipment of several items, and now it does not look like that will happen.  I am working now to determine if there are any gear/wheel pants available.   

The really bad thing is that I am not sure what options we have left, other than going with a kit/arf manufacturer’s gear.  Ed Skorpa dropped his gear last year… 

Tony Stillman, President 
Radio South, Inc. 
139 Altama Connector, Box 322 
Brunswick, GA  31525 
1-800-962-7802 
www.radiosouthrc.com 

Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. See how it works. 

Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. See how it works._______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090116/4d0f3f68/attachment.html>