Ferguson taildragger conversion

[JoeBugger]

Rocket
A single picture is worth a thousand words.

[JPerkins]

I've seen the pacer Rocket speaks of. It used the univair gear to convert. Then added another tube to the original tri-pacer rear attach fitting.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[rocket]

Guy shows up to hunt moose in the fall ill ask him if I can post a photo. We talked about his gear mounting but it's been ten years or so and its a little hazzy.
I do recall him telling me to head most seriously the levil flight on the right tank placard as it had just caught him while in the pattern landing. He made it ok but made a point to share the info. Stuff like that sticks in my head.

Rocket

[cappt]

Blanton had some interesting thoughts on this subject in his V6STOL plans.

http://netmanifold.com/v6stol/v6_STO...al_SMALLER.pdf

Locating the main wheels of an airplane requires some careful consideration if it is done right regardless if it's conventional gear or tricyclegear. The pit fall of conventional gear is putting the gear too far forward. He then finds that he can't lift the tail and he can't get enough leafs in the tail spring and in flying the airplane he finds that you don't dare try a wheel landing because it will bounce 50 feet high and it wants to ground loop. If he lets it ground loop it's going to wipe out the airdrome. In the end he finds out that there are worse things than nosing up. Probably 50% of all the home-built airplane designs have had to move their wheels back after the first few flights. The old Piper drawing show their wheel center line 1 1/2 inch back from the wing leading edge. This is not a scientific way of doing it. There are no hand books on this subject. We have seen one hand book that said to put the wheels at a 25° angle from the C.G. this is way too far forward. To locate the wheels scientifically you find the H.A.C. of the airplane and then construct a vertical line to the horizontal center line of the airplane at the forward C.G. limit. From the forward C.G. limit on the horizontal center line draw a line at 12° to locate the axles. In the case of the Tripacer we used 15% H.A.C. for a forward limit. The chord is 63 inches,15% is 9.45 inches back from the leading edge, then drop a plumb bob down to the horizontal center line and mark that point, then use a straight edge and a protractor set at 12° to find the axle location. We did all of this scientifically and came out at the same spot Piper used; 1 1/2" back of the wing leading edge. Some of the F.A.A. approved kits weld a gear fitting on the next station forward to keep the front of the gear leg vertical. This is a bunch of baloney. The loads all go to the same place because they did not move the shock strut. There is no reason why we cannot angle the gear forward like the small German biplanes. The landing gear angled forward on the German Bucker Jungmeister and there's no reason why we can't do the same thing. We don't want to weld on gear fittings at the next station forward. The airplane was designed for the loads to go in at the stations the gear is on. We are using the same stations and putting the axles where they belong. If you arbitrarily move the wheels forward you will have so much weight on the tail that you can't lift it and you will not be able to get enough leafs in the tail spring. If the airplane starts a ground loop there will be no stopping it. You will not be able to make a wheel landing if you move the wheels forward. If you move the wheels back the airplane will nose up easily as you apply the brakes. 1 1/2" inch back from the leading edge in level flight is where Piper had the axles on the PA-14 and this is the optimum location. Don't change it. The type engine, the type propeller, and the gross weight have nothing to do with wheel location. You have the best dynamics with a 12° angle from the C.G. to the axles. But it will be like a Cessna 170, With flaps down and a little power it will make a beautiful wheel landing with two people in the front seat and the rear seat empty. If the rear seat is full you better 3 point it.-18-

V6STOL gear
v6.jpg

[Jim]

Hi,

...... We don't want to weld on gear fittings at the next station forward. The airplane was designed for the loads to go in at the stations the gear is on.

Wasn't the Pacer gear mounted a station forward and changed rearward for making a nose wheel version? The gear angled would certainly change the leverage exerted by where it's mounted. I'm not saying it doesn't work just fine either way, but it's certainly not the same stress situation in both mounting schemes.

[rocket]

Just put this in your tool box: 20 years out here in western ak and I've never seen a tripacer gear fail. Heard about one that had been compromised and on its next landing fine until the DOT tried to tow it backwards and the gear then buckled.
repairsc many pacers though that broke on terrain I had previously landed the Batplane on safly many tiles. About ten years j to dragging here around on 8:50 and skis a noted s couple small cracks around a couple of the tube gussets and u sent them to FA Dodge. Kracky calls me and askes about my SKIIS etc and asked if I wanted all the Gucci upgrades they add to the pacer and cub gear: extra gussets straps thick axle sleeves and anything else to drain my bank account

Rocket

[rocket]

Oy, on my phone and too hard to spell check
sorry

Rocket

[Jim]

Hi again,

I broke my Univair gear too, bent prop, flattened droop tip, broke step and exhaust etc. I didn't mean to imply either front mount or rear mount is inferior in practice, just each were placed where they were for a reason. Extending the wheels forward by a different leg design while using the original Tri-Pacer fuselage mounts is not an even trade. I also haven't seen anything written that it doesn't work just fine as changed.

[JPerkins]

I would think the angles would (with the Ferguson conversion) create more stress via leverage. But, I'm not getting out the slide rule to back up my opinion so take it for what its worth.

[Justin Christensen]

I found a piper pacer project that is the v6 stol conversion. It does not have an airworthiness certificate since it will now fall in to the experimental. Does anybody know how hard it would be to get airworthy? Does it need a field approval? I heard about the 51% rule, but I also heard the v6 stol is not legal anymore. Does anybody have any new information. Thanks