Jump to content

Strenght of nose gear?


Buckaroo

Recommended Posts

I'm a new 2007 ctsw owner and after doing a lot of reading on this great forum have just a bit of concern!

 

I have done a lot of reading about the front gear being suseptable to bending causing expensive damages to the fire wall etc. This occures on grass fields and hitting holes etc.

 

My question for the experts is the front gear unusually weak or fragile compared to say a Cessna 152 or 172?

 

I plan on flying into some unimproved but well known unpaved strips here in Montana and Idaho.

 

My plane is coming with the Tundra package.

 

Can these ct's take some pounding if not put in a hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a few posts that make the nose gear sounding like a weak link in the aircraft! Not sure what to think at this point! Even the mains are in question as well!

 

My plane is in transient so it may too late but in the final consideration the landing gear strength is important to me!

 

I'm not interested in a plane that has a flimsy front gear that's going to collapse in a tough landing!

 

I'm planning on flying to Alaska in tough fields!

 

I'd like a comparison compared to a Rans 7 for example!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big difference - fabric tailwheel tandem designed for bush flying versus carbon fiber tricycle gear side-by-side.  

 

As I suspect you know, the RANS can be equipped with serious landing gear intended for unimproved conditions.  

 

I have owned my CTsw for seven years and I trained for my certificate in it.  I have 2700 landings and the gear are fine.  But... I have only landed on paved and well-groomed grass fields.

 

I like the CTsw a lot.  It has excellent short field performance.  So does the RANS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Gotta agree, it should work just fine.  If you are going to operate on un-even ground, get a tail dragger.  All tricycle gear planes have risks associated with the nose.  I can't say I've seen any more reports of CT nose gear problems than any other tricycle.  Given the early LSA transition problems with experienced pilots thinking they knew everything, there were a notable number-of-loss of control while landing incidents.  Off into the weeds they went, usually through a ditch or two.  You can't blame the gear for that.

 

I've taken my 2 CTs down to Mexico several times, often landing on some dirt/sand strips that were less than perfect... so far, so good.  Just use your flaps and land slow, keeping the weight off the nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its perfectly reasonable to land a CT on other surfaces right up to the point where it isn't.

 

There are incidents with CTs on paved runways in good condition so there will be incidents on other surfaces as well.  Condition probably has more to do with it than the type of surface.

 

CTs can do well on unimproved surfaces too but I would want to walk it first to make sure.  Dry Lake beds are one example of unconditioned fields that can be smooth enough.

 

I have landed in pumice one time thinking it was a hard surface and came to an almost instant stop but didn't nose over.  The more adventurous the more risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet a 152/172 or a cherokee's gear would take more abuse than a CTSW. In a flight school environment the gear may well be the weak link.

 

My experience is similar to Fred's.  The gear are fine for me but I wouldn't offer it as a rental.

 

I offered my CTSW as a rental. I had it for 350 hours, and most of that would have been instruction or rental. I never had an issue, but I was the only instructor who checked people out to fly it. I now offer my CTLS, which has just over 600 hours. I have not had any major issues with the landing gear.

I would have to agree though, that it will not take as much abuse as your typical Cessna or Piper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a new 2007 ctsw owner and after doing a lot of reading on this great forum have just a bit of concern!

 

I have done a lot of reading about the front gear being suseptable to bending causing expensive damages to the fire wall etc. This occures on grass fields and hitting holes etc.

 

My question for the experts is the front gear unusually weak or fragile compared to say a Cessna 152 or 172?

 

I plan on flying into some unimproved but well known unpaved strips here in Montana and Idaho.

 

My plane is coming with the Tundra package.

 

Can these ct's take some pounding if not put in a hole?

 

There are pictures of CTs with destroyed nose gears.  You can destroy it landing on it first (it has a bungee chord spring).  You can also get a tail strike if you pitch too high landing.  The newer CTs have a Teflon block on the under-tail to minimize damage when that happens.  You can also crack the fuselage where the main-gear is attached if you do hard landings enough.  The mains are bolted on separately and are not on a single common spar under the fuselage.  You can also pop a tire on nose or mains if you land hard or sideways.   And finally you can wear out the brakes prematurely if you are not gentle on them.

post-940-0-48289300-1479252844_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are pictures of CTs with destroyed nose gears.  You can destroy it landing on it first (it has a bungee chord spring).  

 

Not sure what you mean. There are no bungee cords on mine. Nor springs.

 

 

 

 

 And finally you can wear out the brakes prematurely if you are not gentle on them.

 

I taxi at 1900-2000 RPM which means I am on the brakes continually. With my Matco brakes I have very little wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are pictures of CTs with destroyed nose gears.  You can destroy it landing on it first (it has a bungee chord spring). 

 

All CTs have pushrod controls for the nosewheel, and the shock absorbers are essentially rubber donuts.  there are no springs or bungees anywhere that I'm aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a spring in the nose gear suspension on all CTSW's. When Flight Design introduced the CTLS it switched to the plastic elastomer suspension. Flight Design offered a free kit to upgrade all of the older airplanes to the new system. I think by now most have been changed. The big difference is the spring would would come to a hard stop when the coils of the spring touched. The plastic simple offers increasing resistance without the hard stop.

 

There is also the rudder centering spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are pictures of CTs with destroyed nose gears.  You can destroy it landing on it first (it has a bungee chord spring).  

 

Not sure what you mean. There are no bungee cords on mine. Nor springs.

 

 

 

 

 And finally you can wear out the brakes prematurely if you are not gentle on them.

 

I taxi at 1900-2000 RPM which means I am on the brakes continually. With my Matco brakes I have very little wear.

 

 

Aw yes, it was he Zodiak that had the bungees.   And you will wear the breaks out prematurely and overheat them if you ride them...No matter Matco or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw yes, it was he Zodiak that had the bungees.   And you will wear the breaks out prematurely and overheat them if you ride them...No matter Matco or not.

 

I can't argue the fact that riding the brakes will wear out the pads quicker. However, I get about 100 hours of mostly one hour flights before i need to replace them.  For me, that's every other annual.

 

For my CTSW, keeping the tach in the green means keeping at least 1800 RPM. I end up using 1900-2000 RPM. That engine speed and not tapping the brakes frequently, results in a GPS taxi speed in excess of 15K which I consider too fast.

 

That's my experience and preferences. Others probably differ and that's OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a spring in the nose gear suspension on all CTSW's. When Flight Design introduced the CTLS it switched to the plastic elastomer suspension. Flight Design offered a free kit to upgrade all of the older airplanes to the new system. I think by now most have been changed. The big difference is the spring would would come to a hard stop when the coils of the spring touched. The plastic simple offers increasing resistance without the hard stop.

 

There is also the rudder centering spring.

 

 

 

Tom - I was referring to there not being any springs in the nose gear. I should probably be a little clearer in the future since our readership has varying levels of knowledge about the CT. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...