Aileron Gearing

[Frankenpacer]

Given that the ailerons are failrly "slow" in ratio on the later shortwings (180 degrees lock to lock), has anyone installed larger sprockets/longer chains on the yoke to speed things up? I have heard that the real early yokes were much faster, and the "slow" ratio was introduced to make the airplanes more "women friendly". Anyway, I'm used to flying an airplane with extremely quick controls; I'm thinking speeding things up in the Pacer might be a worthwhile change. Any thoughts?

[Larry Huntley]

Ask Clyde Smith about this. I remember talking with him about it a couple of years ago while looking at a friend's early Pacer. As I remember it was a rather simple project to change it. Clyde is at: cubdr@comcast.net 570 748 3927 Cub Restoration Services. Larry

[stevesaircraft(Bri)]

Know a guy who did just that on his experimental Pacer, works real well. He just used some larger sprockets from a Cessna....Opps swearing, sorry.

Brian.

[Frankenpacer]

Ask Clyde Smith about this... Larry

Well, as luck would have it, a freind of mine recently had the pleasure of talking to Clyde and this was one of the topics. Apparently, Clyde feels like this makes a real airplane out of it... Makes sense to me. I'm asking here because it seems like it would be a popular modification, yet I had never heard about it before a week ago. Hmmm.

Mike

[Bigjets]

Mike, you obviously heard this from me... I talked to Clyde, and he gave me the history on this. The 1951 PA-22 used the same T-bar control yoke behind the panel as was used on the Stinson 108, which is no surprise, since Piper had just bought Stinson a couple years earlier, and, excuse the pun, why reinvent the wheel? That yoke used pulleys and cable to provide about 45 degrees of throw to get full aileron deflection. However, Clyde says that, ostensibly at the request of marketing to attract the female market, they subsequently changed to a bicycle chain and sprocket system giving about 170 degrees of throw for full aileron. Now I find the roll control forces in my 1953 PA-22/20 to be unnecessarily light, and when encountering turbulence in cruise, I have wrists and elbows flying all over the cockpit. I would much rather have a shorter throw and readily accept slightly higher roll control forces. Since the 1951 yoke (see SWPC CD drawings) is included in the 1A6 Type Certificate, according to Clyde it would just be a logbook entry to substitute one (or a Stinson 108 unit, if you don't mention where it came from) for your bicycle chain and sprocket unit. But it seems to me it would be easier just to substitute a larger sprocket and chain to arrive at the same gearing. This is not per any drawing under the Type Certificate, so would require a 337 Field Approval or an STC. Clyde agreed, and said that he once considered putting out a kit of sprockets and chain under an STC, but didn't get enough interest. I plan to modify mine and obtain an STC if I can get enough interest.

[pistoncan]

I have an extra set of the early cable type yokes, if someone needs them.

[Steve Pierce]

If you can't find them, the early pulley/cable system could be easily duplicated. I like the quicker responsiveness but never thought of it being a problem in turbulence. There is a similiar trick on Super Cubs that works nicely. Not sure where the woman thing comes into play here. Y'all lost me on those comments.

[JohnW]

Not sure where the woman thing comes into play here. Y'all lost me on those comments.

Yeah, agreed. Badmouthing of any single group usually is based on "bad facts" or more likely "no fact" at all. I'd tend to think the changeover had more of something to do with the installation of an autopilot...both the "gearing and the chain drive". Or something else of substantial merit. Piper did some goofy stuff based on the Advertising Department, but I can't believe sexist remarks like this had anything to do with it. Also, the "result" from full aileron deflection (and the amount of travel required to attain it) can place SEVERE loads on the aircraft, depending on the airspeed. With a longer "lock to lock" travel, you still have the same displacement available, but you HAVE TO BE intentionally -and consciously- inputting for it. I fail to see an issue with the later "versions". You just "do what you have to do" to get what you want, and Big Whup. What could testicles POSSIBLY have to do with it?

[Hillbilly]

Sometimes John, I let mine fly the plane....LOL

[Frankenpacer]

If you can't find them, the early pulley/cable system could be easily duplicated. I like the quicker responsiveness but never thought of it being a problem in turbulence. There is a similiar trick on Super Cubs that works nicely. Not sure where the woman thing comes into play here. Y'all lost me on those comments.

Since the woman thing was from Clyde Smith to another member, I can't comment directly, but I can assume that it has to do with the lower upper body strength of the 1950's model of female. Apparently the better leverage of the slower gearing was thought to attract more female pilots. I guess if one was really curious about this particular aspect, Clyde could confirm. I'm perfectly willing to take to comment at face value since it's irrelevant to the technical aspect of this change and I'm very comfortable with my political incorrectness.

With all that out of the way, it appears the early gearing is better than the late gearing.