[NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business

[Paul LaChance]

Well, I do not know if it makes much difference in pattern planes, but sport 
planes with gear really far forward are very difficult to taxi and take off 
with.  I have a top flight elder which is a BLAST to fly but can be a 
handfull on take off.  It actually flies so slow, that it is funny when it 
groiund loops and normally keep the engine running and you just try again, 
but it is difficult to take off and maintain good control.  The main gear is 
WAY up front on it.

Just food for thought,
Paul


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <glmiller3 at suddenlink.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] BOLLY out of business


> Gray,
>
> I think that this may be a theoretical issue without practical importance. 
> Modern pattern designs have such a long tail moment, that unless they are 
> really nose heavy, there is enough weight on the tail wheel to keep them 
> tracking until the vertical fin can take over to prevent "ground loops". 
> In fact, the closer the main gear is to the CG, the LESS weight there is 
> on the tail wheel and the greater the tendency to ground loop.....I would 
> think.  I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that the tricycle gear 
> design is ALL forward of the CG and they aren't noted for 
> instability...just the opposite.
>
> I have some pattern ships that won't turn around in a cross wind, but none 
> that has a problem tracking for takeoff.
>
> G
> ---- Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> John
>
> Yours is the first post with a technical reasoning for sweep, and it makes
> sense. I of course have a AeroSlave Symphony with an ES gear and have not
> experienced ground issues. I am sure other designs do have issues as you
> describe. How common is this problem?
>
>
>
>
> Gray Fowler
> Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
> Radomes and Specialty Apertures
> Technical Staff Composites Engineering
> Raytheon
>
>
>
> John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> 01/16/2009 11:13 AM
> Please respond to
> jpavlick at idseng.com; 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,
> My understanding of why we try to move the wheels as close to the C.G as
> possible is to increase yaw stability on the ground (decrease the tendency
> to ground loop). Tail draggers are inherently unstable because the landing
> gear is located in front of the C.G. Since we don't have brakes on modern
> Pattern planes, the wheels can be pretty far back without causing much of
> a problem. Especially on smooth surfaces. The closer you place the wheels
> to the nose of the airplane (further ahead of the C.G.), the more tendency
> there is to ground loop. Also, it sometimes makes it hard to get the plane
> to rotate if the wheels are too far forward.
> If Pattern planes were designed with the gear location further back, we
> wouldn't need swept gear.
>
> 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, 4:37 PM
>
>
> Why do you prefer sweep?
>
>
>
>
> Gray Fowler
> Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
> Radomes and Specialty Apertures
> Technical Staff Composites Engineering
> Raytheon
>
>
>
> Richard Strickland <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
> Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> 01/15/2009 05:17 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If I were to complain about anything on Matt's gear (I'm not) I would
> prefer a little sweep which would preclude 'a one side fits both"
> arrangement.  How are most of you guys mounting them--two or three bolts?
> I've been using three 4-40s but just bought one and the former owner had
> two per side.
>
> RS
>
>
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> From: gfowler at raytheon.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:56:48 -0600
> 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
>
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion