 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:15 am Post subject: Can anybody confirm this? |
 |
|
3/29/2017
Hello Mark, You wrote:
1) "If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against the
aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and the
torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop."
I agree and wanted to avoid that situation.
2) "Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and
the shoe would be better than none."
I agree, but unfortunately when I use a full depth AN310-12 castel nut (my
preference) there is insufficient length of the 3/4 inch diameter portion of
the vertical stub to permit that. Lyle made the 3/4 inch diameter portion of
my weldments #2 and #3 longer at my request, but he declined to make them as
long as I wanted.
3) "Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment....."
Yes, I am familiar. In fact Vance and I had an email exchange going on my
proposal to use Belleville washers under the heads of bolts clamping wooden
props to an adapter or crankshaft flange. See here:
http://www.oocities.org/vjaqua/prpblvl.html
I had purchased many different Belleville washers and run many tests in an
attempt to come up with the right washer. I sort of gave up because of the
difficulty in finding suitable washers and Vance passed away. Since that
time other people (Paul Lipps and Mark J. Zeitlin) have moved far beyond my
initial testing. See here:
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Prop_Bolt_Bellville_Washer/
4) "I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon
fiber covered." and "I understand the prop was factory repaired I just
thought it was unusual."
Back in 2001 when I initially purchase my Prince P-Tip prop Lonnie Prince
was covering some of them with fiberglass cloth. That happened to mine --
they may have used the word composite in describing the prop and I may have
paid extra for that feature. You could just barely make out the fiberglass
weave peeping through the paint in the right light angle. The shift to an
optional carbon fiber covering at more cost came later. By the way, the new
Prince prop that I ordered is now sitting in my hangar unused and still in
its factory delivery box. I could be convinced to sell it.
5) "If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the
supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little
more reasonable than the Grove guy."
This is news to me and I thank you for it. I am afraid that a new custom
made main gear would arrive too late. I am 84 years old and do not have the
energy level or time remaining to launch such an effort. My plane will be
put up for sale one of these days.
6) ".... there just wasn’t enough business to keep the company going."
Wasn't there also a lawsuit problem back then? I always felt a bit guilty
about that because I had met the gent at Osh Kosh and spoke so highly of my
KIS TR-1 and Tri R Technologies that I think I sent him in Rich's direction
and it did not end well. I never got any of the details.
7) "Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced."
It is a lousy partial solution, but weight can be carried back in the
baggage compartment to help a bit.
OC
====================================
From: mark_trickel
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 8:43 AM
To: kis-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Can anybody confirm this?
OC – Thank you for fielding a few of my goofy questions.
On Gear #1 – Thanks for pointing out there is a shoulder that the shoe
fits around to take into account. I do not have a nose gear on my TR-1.
No, I did not mean to try and come up with dozens of washer combinations in
order to get the right torque and have the cotter pin slot line up on a
single oversized slot. I meant that the Belleville spring disks have a
little leeway in them and a stack including them on this gear may have been
adequate and you may have been able to zero in on the single oversized
cotter pin slot. If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked
up against the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the
shoe and the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop.
Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and the
shoe would be better than none.
Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment as well as
consumer goods where a moving joint needs to maintain a given tension. I
recently scrapped out an old lawnmower and was surprised to find many them
in use. Rich included them on his homemade nose gear that still remains on
the stolen KIS TR-1 #1.
I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber
covered. I have recent experience working with carbon and that stuff is like
steel. I did not mention the engine, when it comes to airplanes and the KIS
project I’ve been around the block a few times and I know a wood prop
strike is different than a metal prop strike. I understand the prop was
factory repaired I just thought it was unusual.
I understand your desire to have a new main gear made mainly because canting
the current gear forward enough to put the gear in the proper position will
most likely result in the center part of the gear hanging below the
well-depression molded into the bottom of the fuselage. This would require a
very custom fairing to smooth the airfow under the belly. If you are
considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the supplier of
the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little more
reasonable than the Grove guy. I have redesigned the rudder pedal set up on
my TR-1 to lower the floor and make it a little more comfortable and I found
that Matco master cylinder prices are considerably less than Grove.
A little history on the TR-1 landing gear:
Rich introduced his new airplane at Oshkosh in 1991, it had a carbon fiber
main gear and his home-made nose gear. The airplane also had a 80 hp VW up
front. Kits were selling pretty good and the first builders were flying by
1993. Metal parts were supplied by Ken Brock and a nose gear similar to
Rich’s was designed and produced. Builders that were able to either go to
the factory and fly Rich’s plane or those who had above average piloting
skills did OK. Some builders were able to get Rich to come and do the first
flights and get a few important pointers. But there were pilots that did not
have the ability to figure it out quickly and a bunch of nose gears were
getting banged. Back at the factory Rich and the engineers started beefing
up the gear. I think there were three versions of the first gear. But still
nose gears were getting banged. The engineers Nate and Vance did not always
agree but Vance came up with the final articulated arrangement in 1996 or
‘97, and it was put into production. Builders on their own came up with
the idea to extend the elevator and this fix was a great help but not a
total solution. Sales slowed and despite Tri-R’s emphasis on the Super
Cruiser there just wasn’t enough business to keep the company going. In
2000, the designs were sold to Pulsar. During the Tri-R years nobody was
able to figure out what was going on, not until a certain young engineer
bought a flying example of the TR-1. And it didn’t take to long for him to
add the final piece to the puzzle – the main gear was in the wrong place!
Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced. Now those who frequent the
forum are at least aware of the situation but there are many who builders
and owners that are not computer savvy and are unaware and therein lies the
problem.
MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467793#467793
| | - The Matronics KIS-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
galinhdz(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 pm Post subject: Can anybody confirm this? |
|
|
Caveat, I consider myself very good with electronics and avionics but consider myself a novice at mechanical “things” so here goes. I think Rich once told me not to use flat washers between the Belleville washers and the nose wheel fork. I think he said something like with two Belleville washers, they rotate on each other not on the fork. Maybe this is true only if you use two Belleville washers with the narrow portions against each other not if you only use one Belleville washer.
FWIW my TR-4 has always had four Belleville washers, two together with the narrow portion against each other, like shown in the attached diagram. Is this correct or did I understand wrong?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Owen Baker <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> KIS-List message posted by: "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)>
3/29/2017
Hello Mark, You wrote:
1) "If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop."
I agree and wanted to avoid that situation.
2) "Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and the shoe would be better than none."
I agree, but unfortunately when I use a full depth AN310-12 castel nut (my preference) there is insufficient length of the 3/4 inch diameter portion of the vertical stub to permit that. Lyle made the 3/4 inch diameter portion of my weldments #2 and #3 longer at my request, but he declined to make them as long as I wanted.
3) "Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment....."
Yes, I am familiar. In fact Vance and I had an email exchange going on my proposal to use Belleville washers under the heads of bolts clamping wooden props to an adapter or crankshaft flange. See here:
http://www.oocities.org/vjaqua/prpblvl.html
I had purchased many different Belleville washers and run many tests in an attempt to come up with the right washer. I sort of gave up because of the difficulty in finding suitable washers and Vance passed away. Since that time other people (Paul Lipps and Mark J. Zeitlin) have moved far beyond my initial testing. See here:
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Prop_Bolt_Bellville_Washer/
4) "I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber covered." and "I understand the prop was factory repaired I just thought it was unusual."
Back in 2001 when I initially purchase my Prince P-Tip prop Lonnie Prince was covering some of them with fiberglass cloth. That happened to mine -- they may have used the word composite in describing the prop and I may have paid extra for that feature. You could just barely make out the fiberglass weave peeping through the paint in the right light angle. The shift to an optional carbon fiber covering at more cost came later. By the way, the new Prince prop that I ordered is now sitting in my hangar unused and still in its factory delivery box. I could be convinced to sell it.
5) "If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little more reasonable than the Grove guy."
This is news to me and I thank you for it. I am afraid that a new custom made main gear would arrive too late. I am 84 years old and do not have the energy level or time remaining to launch such an effort. My plane will be put up for sale one of these days.
6) ".... there just wasn’t enough business to keep the company going."
Wasn't there also a lawsuit problem back then? I always felt a bit guilty about that because I had met the gent at Osh Kosh and spoke so highly of my KIS TR-1 and Tri R Technologies that I think I sent him in Rich's direction and it did not end well. I never got any of the details.
7) "Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced."
It is a lousy partial solution, but weight can be carried back in the baggage compartment to help a bit.
OC
===========
From: mark_trickel
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 8:43 AM
To: kis-list(at)matronics.com (kis-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Can anybody confirm this?
--> KIS-List message posted by: "mark_trickel" <marktrickel(at)gmail.com (marktrickel(at)gmail.com)>
OC – Thank you for fielding a few of my goofy questions.
On Gear #1 – Thanks for pointing out there is a shoulder that the shoe fits around to take into account. I do not have a nose gear on my TR-1.
No, I did not mean to try and come up with dozens of washer combinations in order to get the right torque and have the cotter pin slot line up on a single oversized slot. I meant that the Belleville spring disks have a little leeway in them and a stack including them on this gear may have been adequate and you may have been able to zero in on the single oversized cotter pin slot. If you currently have the Belleville spring disks stacked up against the aluminum shoe on gear #3 they will eventually wear into the shoe and the torque setting will diminish and a shimmy may again develop. Even the thinnest of steel washers between the Belleville washers and the shoe would be better than none.
Belleville washers are commonly used in industrial equipment as well as consumer goods where a moving joint needs to maintain a given tension. I recently scrapped out an old lawnmower and was surprised to find many them in use. Rich included them on his homemade nose gear that still remains on the stolen KIS TR-1 #1.
I asked about the prop because some of the Prince P-tips are carbon fiber covered. I have recent experience working with carbon and that stuff is like steel. I did not mention the engine, when it comes to airplanes and the KIS project I’ve been around the block a few times and I know a wood prop strike is different than a metal prop strike. I understand the prop was factory repaired I just thought it was unusual.
I understand your desire to have a new main gear made mainly because canting the current gear forward enough to put the gear in the proper position will most likely result in the center part of the gear hanging below the well-depression molded into the bottom of the fuselage. This would require a very custom fairing to smooth the airfow under the belly. If you are considering this move I would consult with Lyle as he was the supplier of the main gears to Richard. Plus, I believe he would be a little more reasonable than the Grove guy. I have redesigned the rudder pedal set up on my TR-1 to lower the floor and make it a little more comfortable and I found that Matco master cylinder prices are considerably less than Grove.
A little history on the TR-1 landing gear:
Rich introduced his new airplane at Oshkosh in 1991, it had a carbon fiber main gear and his home-made nose gear. The airplane also had a 80 hp VW up front. Kits were selling pretty good and the first builders were flying by 1993. Metal parts were supplied by Ken Brock and a nose gear similar to Rich’s was designed and produced. Builders that were able to either go to the factory and fly Rich’s plane or those who had above average piloting skills did OK. Some builders were able to get Rich to come and do the first flights and get a few important pointers. But there were pilots that did not have the ability to figure it out quickly and a bunch of nose gears were getting banged. Back at the factory Rich and the engineers started beefing up the gear. I think there were three versions of the first gear. But still nose gears were getting banged. The engineers Nate and Vance did not always agree but Vance came up with the final articulated arrangement in 1996 or ‘97, and it was put into production. Builders on their own came up with the idea to extend the elevator and this fix was a great help but not a total solution. Sales slowed and despite Tri-R’s emphasis on the Super Cruiser there just wasn’t enough business to keep the company going. In 2000, the designs were sold to Pulsar. During the Tri-R years nobody was able to figure out what was going on, not until a certain young engineer bought a flying example of the TR-1. And it didn’t take to long for him to add the final piece to the puzzle – the main gear was in the wrong place! Weight on the nose gear needed to be reduced. Now those who frequent the forum are at least aware of the situation but there are many who builders and owners that are not computer savvy and are unaware and therein lies the problem.
MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467793#467793
====================================
List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List
====================================
FORUMS -
_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
| | - The Matronics KIS-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
9.67 KB |
| Viewed: |
4438 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark_trickel
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 101
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Can anybody confirm this? |
|
|
OC,
Yes, there was one TR-4 sale from Oshkosh in 1999. The guy took delivery and a couple of months later he wanted to return the kit and he wasn’t going to ask for the shipping cost back either (so thoughtful). Lawyers got involved and it turned into a mess. The bottom line was (IMO) the guy bit off more than he could chew and was looking for an out. The out was the original TR-4 prototype was sold and shipped to China, and the clam in the law suit was the airplane would not perform as advertised, because legally he could not return the kit plus the guy did a lot of work before he decided to quit on the project. In the judges eyes the Super Cruiser prorated was not good enough so Rich lost the suit. Rich’s lawyer sucked! Wayne Gifford still had his TR-4 in flying condition and would have gladly helped Rich out in a heartbeat. For that matter, it should have never been a law suit Rich should have worked out sometime with the idiot before lawyers with greedy hands were called out. I can’t say for certain that Rich didn’t try to negotiate with the guy but if I remember correctly that did not happen. The guy eventually attached the company bank account and he cleaned out a whopping $4800.00 from the High Tech checking account (I am not sure how he could have done that since Tri R was the KIS airplane company not High Tech, I guess because Tri R had no money).
I would not worry about taking any responsibility for this guy, I had a bad feeling from him also. You know if Martin Hollmann did not like you or he thought you weren’t going to build his airplane the way he wanted you to he would not sell you one – period!
There were other extenuating circumstances at the time with Rich personally, mainly a nasty divorce that went on for six long years. But fact remains sales were just not there. If a few other sales were happening it would have worked out. The law suit happened at the worst possible time and after surviving for so many years this time Rich couldn’t. Perhaps instead of concentrating on the 4-place he should have done the TR-2 a bigger version of the TR-1 for robust real world sized people – RV sure did. 4-place homebuilts are a very very small segment of our world even though the TR-4 is a great airplane possibly even greater than the TR-1.
If you want to do the main gear I’d be happy to put it on for you, I can’t imagine it would take more than a weekend to remove the current gear grind off the wedge and install a modified main gear and line everything up. It will cost you a couple of rides plus my Corgi, Piper Cub, will have to come with me and hang out in the hanger, she hates hanging out with my wife.
MT
| | - The Matronics KIS-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:16 pm Post subject: Can anybody confirm this? |
|
|
3/30/2017
Hello Mark, Thanks for the report. You wrote:
1) "Yes, there was one TR-4 sale from Oshkosh in 1999." and "I would not
worry about taking any responsibility for this guy, I had a bad feeling from
him also."
That would be the guy. Regardless of my role in the affair, large or small,
I still feel sad about how it all played out. Not that it is relevant of
anything, but I vaguely remember that the guy was retired US Army.
2) "If you want to do the main gear I’d be happy to put it on for you,"
and "I can’t imagine it would take more than a weekend..."
That is very generous of you, but the time frame that I have in mind to
consider is not just how long the installation would take, but how long I
would be around or have the airplane to enjoy the results of all the effort
that would be required.
3) ".... grind off the wedge ...."
No need for that, we'd just design the new gear axle position to achieve
whatever forward movement we wanted with the wedge left in place.
Another consideration in selecting either Lyle or Grove to make the new
custom gear (not that it is relevant to this pie in the sky discussion) is
that I extensively modified the bottom of the kit provided landing gear so
that it would permit me to install Grove axles, wheels, and brakes. I did
this by lying on my back and side on a cold concrete hangar floor in the
middle of the winter and used an electric drill with sanding discs and drum
sanders to make the needed material removal changes to the kit provided
landing gear. The thought of doing something like that today at my current
age causes me to shake my head and wonder how I could ever have been so
addicted.
OC
=====================================
From: mark_trickel
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:53 AM
To: kis-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Can anybody confirm this?
OC,
Yes, there was one TR-4 sale from Oshkosh in 1999. The guy took delivery and
a couple of months later he wanted to return the kit and he wasn’t going
to ask for the shipping cost back either (so thoughtful). Lawyers got
involved and it turned into a mess. The bottom line was (IMO) the guy bit
off more than he could chew and was looking for an out. The out was the
original TR-4 prototype was sold and shipped to China, and the clam in the
law suit was the airplane would not perform as advertised, because legally
he could not return the kit plus the guy did a lot of work before he decided
to quit on the project. In the judges eyes the Super Cruiser prorated was
not good enough so Rich lost the suit. Rich’s lawyer sucked! Wayne Gifford
still had his TR-4 in flying condition and would have gladly helped Rich out
in a heartbeat. For that matter, it should have never been a law suit Rich
should have worked out sometime with the idiot before lawyers with greedy
hands were called out. I can’t say for certain that Rich didn’t try to
negotiate with the guy but if I remember correctly that did not happen. The
guy eventually attached the company bank account and he cleaned out a
whopping $4800.00 from the High Tech checking account (I am not sure how he
could have done that since Tri R was the KIS airplane company not High Tech,
I guess because Tri R had no money).
I would not worry about taking any responsibility for this guy, I had a bad
feeling from him also. You know if Martin Hollmann did not like you or he
thought you weren’t going to build his airplane the way he wanted you to
he would not sell you one – period!
There were other extenuating circumstances at the time with Rich personally,
mainly a nasty divorce that went on for six long years. But fact remains
sales were just not there. If a few other sales were happening it would have
worked out. The law suit happened at the worst possible time and after
surviving for so many years this time Rich couldn’t. Perhaps instead of
concentrating on the 4-place he should have done the TR-2 a bigger version
of the TR-1 for robust real world sized people – RV sure did. 4-place
homebuilts are a very very small segment of our world even though the TR-4
is a great airplane possibly even greater than the TR-1.
If you want to do the main gear I’d be happy to put it on for you, I
can’t imagine it would take more than a weekend to remove the current gear
grind off the wedge and install a modified main gear and line everything up.
It will cost you a couple of rides plus my Corgi, Piper Cub, will have to
come with me and hang out in the hanger, she hates hanging out with my wife.
MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467837#467837
| | - The Matronics KIS-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?KIS-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
