Something I've been doodling on....


Side view:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/t-one-01.jpg

Front View:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/t-one-02.jpg

I'm detailing main gear, and wonder if you guys might
be able to help.

On the front view...

Main Gear Legs are 5/8" thick aluminum plank sawed to shape.

They are not bent - and left and right legs are identical.

Mounting the main gear?
The main gear legs have a couple of steel fittings.

The Hinge Point (where the leg attaches to the airframe)
is a thick steel U, bolted to the top of the leg.
A pin passes thru this U - and the airframe structure - to "mount"
the leg.

The top end of the leg is supposed to have a steel
fitting that makes a pad for a rubber donut.
And another pad below the donut (pinned to airframe).

But I'm really wondering if the rubber donut is
necessary and maybe just make another U'ie that
will bolt to the bottom side of the leg end.

And get's pinned to the airframe same as the
first one, and - yer done?

The leg is supposed to flex...

Any thoughts?

Richard
(the cavelamb one)

"Richard Lamb" > wrote

> But I'm really wondering if the rubber donut is
> necessary and maybe just make another U'ie that
> will bolt to the bottom side of the leg end.
>
> And get's pinned to the airframe same as the
> first one, and - yer done?
>
> The leg is supposed to flex...
>
> Any thoughts?

Perhaps the flex of the plate alone, is a bit too stiff?

How far down, from the attach point, is the donut? If it is very far down
from the hinge, it might put a point of stress on it, that would bend the
plate, before it flexes.

Also, you have to consider the stress on the airframe attach point of the
donut. If it were a solid mounting, instead of a donut, a sudden impact of
a rough landing could over stress the frame. The donut spreads the load out
over a period of time, lowering the peak stress, I would think.

All in all, this is mostly conjecture, because the drawings and your
description do not contain enough detail for me to fully and accurately
understand all of the implications of the structures.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 08 May 2006 02:21:34 GMT, Richard Lamb
> wrote:

>
>
>Something I've been doodling on....
>
>
>Side view:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/t-one-01.jpg
>
>Front View:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/t-one-02.jpg
>
>I'm detailing main gear, and wonder if you guys might
>be able to help.
>
>On the front view...
>
>Main Gear Legs are 5/8" thick aluminum plank sawed to shape.
>
>They are not bent - and left and right legs are identical.

>The leg is supposed to flex...
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Richard
>(the cavelamb one

My Grumman TR2 had a flat fiberglas laminate plank bolted to a cast
aluminum fitting on the spar. It seemed to work pretty good. The nose
gear leg was bolted to a torsion bar which ran across the front,
inside the firewall, that also worked pretty good.

Ed Sullivan wrote:
>
> My Grumman TR2 had a flat fiberglas laminate plank bolted to a cast
> aluminum fitting on the spar. It seemed to work pretty good. The nose
> gear leg was bolted to a torsion bar which ran across the front,
> inside the firewall, that also worked pretty good.

My KR-2 fixed gear has the same setup with the fiberglass plank and aluminum
fitting on the spar.
John

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
> > But I'm really wondering if the rubber donut is
> > necessary and maybe just make another U'ie that
> > will bolt to the bottom side of the leg end.
> >
> > And get's pinned to the airframe same as the
> > first one, and - yer done?
> >
> > The leg is supposed to flex...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Perhaps the flex of the plate alone, is a bit too stiff?
>
> How far down, from the attach point, is the donut? If it is very far down
> from the hinge, it might put a point of stress on it, that would bend the
> plate, before it flexes.
>
> Also, you have to consider the stress on the airframe attach point of the
> donut. If it were a solid mounting, instead of a donut, a sudden impact of
> a rough landing could over stress the frame. The donut spreads the load out
> over a period of time, lowering the peak stress, I would think.
>
> All in all, this is mostly conjecture, because the drawings and your
> description do not contain enough detail for me to fully and accurately
> understand all of the implications of the structures.
> --
> Jim in NC


I know how you feel, Jim.
I often feel the same way after staring at it for a while...

Richard