Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Mod 70

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: Mod 70

It was not. Really. Just couple of hours and one good  friend.

 The necessity...there is no exact answer - you have to  decide it by yourself.

 I did it anyway and there was not any force to do  it.

 And no question - it is better.

 What ever can be better.

  

 Changing bungee for springs must have been much more  challenging task!

  

 Springs - I am interested!

 Do you have maybe pics and details?

  

 Raimo OH-XRT Finland (not in the US!)

 [quote]   ---

christoph.both(at)acadiau
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject: Mod 70

I agree,  

Not such a big deal. I did it on my own in about 2 hours. It was a very good test for me to see if all the access hatches and panels were are the right places and BIG enough. A small lockable vice grip to hold the nuts was all what was required as a “special tool”. No need to even open up the baggage bay panel.  

DO IT. It is a measure of safety – the replacement mass balance is much more sturdy – we can save weight somewhere else – not al essential primary flight control linkages.  

Christoph Both  

#223 TRI (ready to be painted fuse)  

Wolfville, NS Canada  

   

       

From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Raimo Toivio

 Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:45 PM

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Mod 70  

  

  

     

It was not. Really. Just couple of hours and one good friend.  

    

The necessity...there is no exact answer - you have to decide it by yourself.  

    

I did it anyway and there was not any force to do it.  

    

And no question - it is better.  

    

What ever can be better.  

    

   

    

Changing bungee for springs must have been much more challenging task!  

    

   

    

Springs - I am interested!  

    

Do you have maybe pics and details?  

    

   

    

Raimo OH-XRT Finland (not in the US!)  

   	  Quote: 	
		      

----- Original Message -----   

    

From: Curtis Jaussi (cjaussi(at)gmail.com)   

    

To: europa-list-digest(at)matronics.com (europa-list-digest(at)matronics.com)   

    

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 6:21 PM  

    

Subject: Mod 70  

    

   

    

I'm just getting back to getting N6125 in the air again after a couple of years away from flying.  I am upgrading the engine to a Jason Parker 914 turbo, fuel injected and other mods that have come out since I put things in mothballs.  I ahve installed the springs that replace the bungie and am pleased with how that went.  The question I have is about the necessity of the mass balance arm replacement as it seems to be a challenging job.  How important do others find it for a tri-gear flown from paved runways.  Have most builders in the US made this change?  What are the opinions?   It's great to be back to the Europa.  

    

   

    

Curtis Jaussi  

    

Tri gear 914  

    

40 hours flown in 2006   

   	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c 	
   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
3

      [quote][b]

budyerly(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject: Mod 70

Curtis...

 If you built the mass balance arm properly and didn't bugger up the holes or have a tail wheel type C the original mass balance arm seems to be holding up.  But over time C side play will wallow out the 3/16 holes and that is what we were concerned about.

  

 I hope you have  a good sized access hole.  If you do C it takes 2-4 hours depending on turnbuckles C cables C your tower width C etc.  Pretty much a no brainer.  

  

 The new part is properly made and will serve many years without fail.  If you install the TP18 butterfly attachment for the cables it takes 4 hours.  So cut the old cables C pull out the arm with weights.  Assemble the new arm on the bench.  Rig up a small turnbuckle from A/C Spruce and throw the thing in.  As for the phenolic parts C I use #8 screws as they countersink easier.  I use a dab of double back sticky tape to set the rub strip where I want it then add just a dab of slow setting thick superglue C check it again and hit it with the accellerator.  I have an angle drill that makes the premade holes I make easy to do by feel.  Insert the nuts and screws C and pull down.  I have some one handed gimicks I use like a cut off stubby screwdriver that wedges into the post slot and holds the screw.  Then I put on the nut and crank her down.

  

 Call me when you need one.

  

 Bud Yerly



Custom Flight Creations (813) 653-4989

 Europa Dealer

 

  Date: Thu C 9 Apr 2009 09:21:07 -0600

Subject: Mod 70

From: cjaussi(at)gmail.com

To: europa-list-digest(at)matronics.com



 I'm just getting back to getting N6125 in the air again after a couple of years away from flying.  I am upgrading the engine to a Jason Parker 914 turbo C fuel injected and other mods that have come out since I put things in mothballs.  I ahve installed the springs that replace the bungie and am pleased with how that went.  The question I have is about the necessity of the mass balance arm replacement as it seems to be a challenging job.  How important do others find it for a tri-gear flown from paved runways.  Have most builders in the US made this change?  What are the opinions?   It's great to be back to the Europa.

  

 Curtis Jaussi

 Tri gear 914

 40 hours flown in 2006 

[quote]



 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

ronics.com
	


ww.matronics.com/contribution



[b]

raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:14 am Post subject: Mod 70

Bud and all

  

 is there any mod that replaces bungee to spring(s) in  mono?

 I read Curtis Jaussi´s earlier message carelessly and  thought there is

 but understood later he has a trike and has replaced  trike´s bungee to springs.

  

 Raimo OH-XRT

  

 [quote]   ---

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: Mod 70

Raimo,

My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring reaction of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

Bob B



Sent from my iPhone



On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:19, Raimo Toivio <raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi (raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi)> wrote:



[quote]  Bud and all

  

 is there any mod that replaces bungee to spring(s) in  mono?

 I read Curtis JaussiÂ´s earlier message carelessly and  thought there is

 but understood later he has a trike and has replaced  trikeÂ´s bungee to springs.

  

 Raimo OH-XRT

  

 [quote]   ---

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: Mod 70

Robert Borger wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Raimo,



 My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring reaction 

 of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.



 Bob B

The important point is that rubber has a damping effect but steel does 
	


not. This is why rubber, (elastic) is better than steel (springs) for 

undercarriages.

Think about it, a spring goes "boingyoingoing" but a rubber band goes 

"thwack"

Graham

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: Mod 70

My own experience confirms this. A spring suspension on the mono would cause some very interesting landings. It's bad enough on a trike. Very similar to : removing the shock absorbers from the front suspension of your car C and driving it at 80 90 km/h along a bumpy grass field.

 Karl

 	  Quote: 	
		   Date: Wed C 15 Apr 2009 00:51:44 +0100

 From: grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Mod 70

 --> Europa-List message posted by: Graham Singleton <grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com>

 Robert Borger wrote:

 > Raimo C

 >

 > My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring reaction 

 > of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

 >

 > Bob B

 The important point is that rubber has a damping effect but steel does 

 not. This is why rubber C (elastic) is better than steel (springs) for 

 undercarriages.

 Think about it C a spring goes "boingyoingoing" but a rubber band goes 

 "thwack"

 Graham&g============

nwcmc(at)tiscali.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: Mod 70

I had a look at this and decided that it was probably not practical. The reason is because the tension on the bungee cord is relatively constant from the gear being fully up to fully down. This would be difficult to achieve with the limited length and extension of a conventional spring. The only way I could see it working is if the geometry was arranged so that the moment arm increased as the gear was raised. Space is quite limiting in this area so I gave up at this point 

Nigel Charles.



 [quote]----Original Message----

From: rlborger(at)mac.com

Date: 14/04/2009 20:25 

To: "europa-list(at)matronics.com"<europa-list(at)matronics.com>

Subj: Re: Mod 70



 Raimo,

 



 My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring reaction of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

 



 Bob B



Sent from my iPhone

 

On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:19, Raimo Toivio <raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi (raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi)> wrote:

 

 [quote]  Bud and all

  

 is there any mod that replaces bungee to spring(s) in mono?

 I read Curtis JaussiÂ´s earlier message carelessly and thought there is

 but understood later he has a trike and has replaced trikeÂ´s bungee to springs.

  

 Raimo OH-XRT

  

 [quote] ---

nwcmc(at)tiscali.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: Mod 70

Just to make the point clear. The bungee on the mono is nothing to do with suspension. It is there to assist the weight of the mainwheel for gear retraction. 

Regards 

Nigel Charles



 [quote]----Original Message----

From: rlborger(at)mac.com

Date: 14/04/2009 20:25 

To: "europa-list(at)matronics.com"<europa-list(at)matronics.com>

Subj: Re: Mod 70



 Raimo,

 



 My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring reaction of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

 



 Bob B



Sent from my iPhone

 

On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:19, Raimo Toivio <raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi (raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi)> wrote:

 

 [quote]  Bud and all

  

 is there any mod that replaces bungee to spring(s) in mono?

 I read Curtis JaussiÂ´s earlier message carelessly and thought there is

 but understood later he has a trike and has replaced trikeÂ´s bungee to springs.

  

 Raimo OH-XRT

  

 [quote] ---

houlihan(at)blueyonder.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: Mod 70

Karl.

I may be wrong on this as I am working from my memory which can be very 

suspect.

My understanding of the Mono undercarriage is that the rubber bungee's 

are there to assist with lifting the wheel assembly to the retracted 

position. The suspension is managed by the "rubber" block between the 

reaction plates. any damping is due to the "thwack" effect mentioned by 

Graham, or by the optional , at least it was optional on the Classic, 

twin shock absorbers fitted through the middle of the elastomer block.



Tim

Karl Heindl wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    



 My own experience confirms this. A spring suspension on the mono would 

 cause some very interesting landings. It's bad enough on a trike. Very 

 similar to : removing the shock absorbers from the front suspension of 

 your car, and driving it at 80 90 km/h along a bumpy grass field.

  

 Karl



 >

 > 

 <grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com>

 >

 > Robert Borger wrote:

 > > Raimo,

 > >

 > > My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring 

 reaction

 > > of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

 > >

 > > Bob B

 > The important point is that rubber has a damping effect but steel does

 > not. This is why rubber, (elastic) is better than steel (springs) for

 > undercarriages.

 > Think about it, a spring goes "boingyoingoing" but a rubber band goes

 > "thwack"

 > Graham

 &g============

 >

 >

 >

 *

 *

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

raimo.toivio(at)rwm.fi
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:18 am Post subject: Mod 70

Tim



I am not pro and should be more carefull but I am sure you are right.

Mono bungee has nothing to do with landing /suspension, damping or bouncing.

It is only to help pilot to retract.



Manual page 29-5: "To assist pilot in retracting the LG into the centre tunnel a bungee cord is used".



So, if you loose it, no worries.

I think mono is still retractable w/o bungee and if not - so what?



Coming back to my original question: 

I cannot see any obvious problem if changing bungee to spring.

Spring could be more permanent solution, easier to adjust and optimize and no time period.

Probably spring is heavier than bungee anyway and more expensive solution also.



For example I would like to have my bungee more powerful.

It is quite easy to retract but that exercise is not sophisticated enough (!).

Definetely I am not going to tighten it up because of hard labor.

Too taut bungee is probaly giving upp earlier.



So professors - how is a spring???



Raimo OH-XRT



---

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:04 am Post subject: Mod 70

Tim and Nigel C

 Thanks for putting me straight. I just assumed that the mono bungee had the same function.

 On the trigear question I don't see how the bungee or springs only come into play on a hard landing. I think it is exactly the other way round. The bungee is constantly stretching and contracting on every little bump. I can actually observe that through my bulkhead window. Only when the bungee/spring have reached their maximum stretch does the leg take over. 

 Tim mentions shock absorbers. Now that would have been ideal also for the trigear C especially to lessen the slingshot effect of the springs.

 Karl

[quote] Date: Wed C 15 Apr 2009 10:39:38 +0100

 From: houlihan(at)blueyonder.co.uk

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Mod 70

 --> Europa-List message posted by: Tim Houlihan <houlihan(at)blueyonder.co.uk>

 Karl.

 I may be wrong on this as I am working from my memory which can be very 

 suspect.

 My understanding of the Mono undercarriage is that the rubber bungee's 

 are there to assist with lifting the wheel assembly to the retracted 

 position. The suspension is managed by the "rubber" block between the 

 reaction plates. any damping is due to the "thwack" effect mentioned by 

 Graham C or by the optional  C at least it was optional on the Classic C 

 twin shock absorbers fitted through the middle of the elastomer block.

 Tim

 Karl Heindl wrote:

 > 

 >

 > My own experience confirms this. A spring suspension on the mono would 

 > cause some very interesting landings. It's bad enough on a trike. Very 

 > similar to : removing the shock absorbers from the front suspension of 

 > your car C and driving it at 80 90 km/h along a bumpy grass field.

 > 

 > Karl

 >

 > >

 > > --> Europa-List message posted by: Graham Singleton 

 > <grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com>

 > >

 > > Robert Borger wrote:

 > > > Raimo C

 > > >

 > > > My understanding from discussions with Nev is that the spring 

 > reaction

 > > > of a metal spring is incorrect for this application.

 > > >

 > > > Bob B

 > > The important point is that rubber has a damping effect but steel does

 > > not. This is why rubber C (elastic) is better than steel (springs) for

 > > undercarriages.

 > > Think about it C a spring goes "boingyoingoing" but a rubber band goes

 > > "thwack"

 > > Graham

 > &g============

 > >

 > >

 > >

 > *

 >

 >

 > *

 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 >

 >

 > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 

 >

 > 

 =====================

 _==========

   	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum