Best First Three Point Undercarriage

[Neil67]

Simple advice required. Want to move away from tail dragger e.g. acrowot to tricycle undercarriage model. Recommendations please.

[alex nicol]

All I'd say is keep it as low as you can but maintain prop ground clearence and ensure model sits level with the ground........that said, why do you want to change it

[alex nicol]

Apologies I just re-read your post, and took it as converting tail dragger to trike .......senior moment.

Only trike model I've had to date is a Gangster 63........ excellent plane but not sure if Mick Reeves is still making them

[Chris Walby]

Black Horse Speed Air. Electric or IC (did both with it)

Really liked mine before I broke it.

I went from A cert with a Riot all the way through to a B and beyond with it. Great in windy conditions, tough as old nails and flies very well with no bad manners.

The red trim had faded to barely nothing + lots of the edges were starting to peal with the oil getting under it and had to make/fix the main wire U/C as a few heavy landing broke them (piano wire never failed after that).

Any black solartrim is a repair due to a mishap caused by me.

Electric was on 4S5000 and IC Laser 70, if you want any info please message me.

I have see some second hand ones at very seasonable prices as the new price jumped when a new batch came in a few years ago (might be able to get a deal with your LMS)

[ASH.]

Seagull PC-9.
Good quality, Excellent flyer.

[Piers Bowlan]

The Ganstar 63 lite is still available from Mike Reeves Models. This is the electric powered version, found half way down the page here. Not sure if you were looking for an IC model specifically or only considering an ARF Neil? The advantage of a kit or plan built model is that you can engineer it properly so that the landing gear doesn't get ripped out after the first, less than perfect, grass landing .

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/11/2018 08:15:07

[Peter Miller]

The boomerang trainer gives the option for either type.

I don't know about anyone else but even our carefully mown field is better with tail draggers.

MAKE sure that the leg is really rigid, the the nose steering is dead straight and absolutely no flex or give.

[Peter Christy]

Personally, my preference is for tail-draggers. They may need a slightly twitchier left thumb during the initial part of take off, but are much easier to take-off and land on short or rough strips.

Nose-wheels are OK, but need to be *very* solidly mounted - unless your strip is like a bowling green, and you never make a heavy landing! They also need to be quite accurately aligned.

The Gangster (as mentioned above) is a delightful model to fly. I haven't had a SpeedAir (also mentioned above), but did have the tail dragger version, which I bought in preference. Nice model, but the undercarriage legs were made of "cheesium" on mine, and it was much better once I'd replaced them with proper piano-wire!

--

Pete

[Kim Taylor]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 24/11/2018 08:08:14:

The Ganstar 63 lite is still available from Mike Reeves Models. This is the electric powered version, found half way down the page here. Not sure if you were looking for an IC model specifically or only considering an ARF Neil? The advantage of a kit or plan built model is that you can engineer it properly so that the landing gear doesn't get ripped out after the first, less than perfect, grass landing .

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/11/2018 08:15:07

I've built my Gangster 'Lite' as i/c powered, with an ASP.61 four stroke (same size & weight as the .52).

Apart from the suggested c of g being VERY conservative, it flies nicely.

As Piers said, I beefed up the undercarriage mountings in the wing as they looked like an accident waiting to happen without.

Kim

[Piers Bowlan]

When I used to instruct on C152's back in the mid 1980s I would oft tell my students (when necessary) that the main wheels are for landing on and the little nose wheel just for taxying! If you land a little fast and 'flat' in a tailwheel aeroplane you just tend to wheel it on or alternatively bounce back into the air again! With a nose wheel aircraft, as the mains are behind the c of g, all the weight is transferred onto the poor nose wheel as the aircraft decelerates, - unless plenty of back pressure is maintained on the elevator during the landing roll. Failure to do that really punishes the nose wheel and whatever it is attached to. In the case of the C152, that was the engine mount, which was very expensive to fix when broken and they did occasionally get broken. Hence we would emphasise the importance of maintaining the back pressure during the landing roll and for take-off as well, to offload the nose wheel.

This is why on a model aircraft the nose leg needs to be securely attached onto the engine bulkhead using some heavier gauge wire if that is what you are using. However, I would add that a single coil of the wire leg at it's top, to facilitate a small amount of rearward give, is desirable but definitely not any lateral wobble. Alternatively stick to tail draggers to keep things simple. As they say, if it is not fitted it cannot break!

[Dave Hess]

I'm intrigued as to why anyone would want to change. Are you trying to solve a problem or is it just curiosity?

[Piers Bowlan]

Perhaps he is interested in a scale or semi-scale subject that has a nose wheel. Plenty to choose from.

[Denis Watkins]

Posted by Dave Hess on 24/11/2018 11:59:10:

I'm intrigued as to why anyone would want to change. Are you trying to solve a problem or is it just curiosity?

Ah but you can fly Dave

For a novice, there is no need to control the tail lifting, on a trike

And the wing is at a better angle to fly, just by running along

Both trike and taildragger have their supporters

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hess]

Posted by Denis Watkins on 24/11/2018 13:55:10:

Posted by Dave Hess on 24/11/2018 11:59:10:

I'm intrigued as to why anyone would want to change. Are you trying to solve a problem or is it just curiosity?

Ah but you can fly Dave

For a novice, there is no need to control the tail lifting, on a trike

And the wing is at a better angle to fly, just by running along

Both trike and taildragger have their supporters

I'm pretty sure that I've seen a lot more novices crash on take-off with tricycle undercarriage than tail-dragger. Normally, it's a sort of wing-over and nose plant as they pull up elevator to get clear of the ground. I would have thought that tricycle is better for experienced pilots. Personally, I don't feel so much in control with tricycle, but that's just me - probaly because that's what I learnt on.

We can speculate all day why he wants to try it, but I'd like to know the actual reason.

[Neil67]

Sorry for lack of response, on a weekend break and Internet not been great. My reasons for the question. A mixture really, keen to try something new and fellow club members who prefer the tricycle design urging me to give it a try. I appreciate all of the advice particularly around the strength of the undercarriage and the forces on the nosewheel. I have been offered a flight with a soar 40 which I believe is a clone of a calamato or similar, but the owner is on hols, so will have to wait for his return. I am trying to move back to IC having been a tad lazy with the ease of electric but fed up with relatively short flight times. Have just finished a traditional Wot 4 from kit and beefed up the key areas identified by others. Waiting for a reasonable day to maiden. The Black Horse looks similar to the soar so I'll have a look around. ASH, what's the build quality like on the Seagull PC9? Thanks again to all. Neil

[Peter Christy]

Denis' comments raise a couple of interesting points! I've never found it necessary to "lift the tail" on any of my models. I know in full-size a certain amount of down elevator may be required to lift the tail initially (not least so the pilot can see where he's going!), but all my models seem to achieve this for themselves without any intervention on my part. I would agree that you need to be quick on the rudder during the initial part of the roll.

All the trike undercarriages I've flown have been designed to sit slightly nose down on the runway. This is for two reasons. One is that with the nose leg slightly shorter than the mains, there is less chance of the nose leg alone taking the full brunt of the landing! The second is that, in days of yore, take-offs and landings were scored in competitions, and a bounce would merit a big downgrade! As Piers pointed out, with the main gear behind the CofG, as soon as the main wheels touch, this will tend to push the nose down automatically. When the nose gear is on the ground, the wing has a negative angle of attack, ensuring the model sticks to the runway, without bouncing!

It can also make the take offs a bit abrupt, as the elevator suddenly overcomes the negative angle of attack.

Of course, you can always lengthen the nose leg (or fit a bigger wheel), but then you are more at risk of damaging the nose leg - or even ripping the bulkhead out, as I have seen happen!

Either way, you pays your money and takes your choice!

--

Pete

[ASH.]

Neil, the build quality on the Seagull PC-9 (40-46) is superb. I could find no fault with it even with my highly 'critical eye'.

It is traditionally built using good wood and the covering is Oracover in an attractive/ visible colour scheme. Put a good 46 - 55 2 s/t and it will do all that you want. It has a thick semi-symetrical wing section so you can fly it like a basic trainer or a full on aerobat. A friend flew his with a OS 46LA (light engine) and could do knife-edge figure 8's in the vertical a few feet off the ground.

It comes with no vices, no tip stall. It will take your flying to another level - you won't be disappointed. It looks really neat landing on the mains then slowly bringing the nose down - just like the full-size heavy jets. Change the foam wheels for slightly larger rubbers and strenghten in all right places- ESP landing gear blocks via wing root. I used 30min 2 ton epoxy mixed with a little milled fibreglass (Great Planes). And seal all film edges inc trim with clearcoat and it will stay in 'showroom condition'.

Mine came out at 3kg AUW with Irvine 53, 15gm in starboard wing and 15gm on tail to have most rearward CG. I do overdo it when it comes to beefying up. Mine was built like a Tank. It survived many little mishaps.

Once a main wheel caught some undergrowth on strip threshold spun it on it's side, it then proceeded to cartwheel down the strip finally rising 10ft in the air and landing on it's back. Not a scratch. Gave us all had a good laugh. Lesson learnt- keep eyes on wheels when landing!

Yes, I do miss tricycle gear - they're great fun.

[Nigel R]

I like to have a mix of bikes and trikes in the hangar.

As above make sure it's all mounted securely.

Avoid fitting a tiny nose wheel if on grass.

I find them marginally easier on takeoff. But. You have to be a tad more careful on landing. If you get it wrong all the stress is on that nose leg.

[Neil67]

ASH

Many thanks for your detailed response.

Neil

[Caveman]

Neil, I bought a Soar 40 from Hobby King some while ago, for the princely sum of $66, when the pound was worth a bit more than now, so quite a cheap plane.

Here's mine fitted with an ASP61 four stroke

It's a brilliant flier, or it was until dumb thumbs wrote it off!

So I looked around for a replacement. The obvious plane was the Kyosho Calmato, of which the Soar is a clone, but they're rather expensive (Yorkshire heritage to the fore!) and I also looked at other low wing trikes. However, I then decided that as I like the Soar so much I'd scratch build a copy.

So I measured the wreckage, took templates from formers, wing ribs and the like and produced a set of drawings.

From the drawings I built 'Son of Soar'

This plane uses all the hardware from the original. It has flown very successfully with an ASP61 four stroke, ASP 40 and 46 As in the above photo) two strokes and now sports an OS52 four stroke.

The undercarriage has never caused a moments trouble, unlike my Nova 40 trainer which need the nose-wheel straightening after every flight!

I would say that if you can get a Soar 40 from your club-mate you won't be disappointed.

Incidentally, I did plan to make a clear canopy from a 2 litre lemonade bottle, but the canopy is too large! Hence the solid item. If I'd realised I would have designed the canopy to be smaller.

GDB

[Neil67]

Thanks Caveman,

Offspring looks great, I like strong colours given it's so dull a lot of the time, notwithstanding our great summer. I think there is a good chance I might be able to do a deal for the Soar as my club mate has probably moved on given what he normally flies. It's the only one I have seen in the two clubs I am in, so positive feedback is appreciated.

Cheers Neil