Don`t agree. The monowheel and the trigear are both structurally
inefficient in that the load path between CG and undercarriage structure
are longer than is the case with the fixed taildragger. The latter
pick-up close to the CG and make some use of the forward lift-pin
attachment which is designed to take loads (whilst in flight). The
monowheel takes the whole weight of the aircraft and its payload
(excepting engine weight) through the eight 3/16" bolts that hold in
LG01.
Stresses tend to migrate outboard in the structure, which makes the
tunnel a relatively redundant member, except as a useful arm rest and to
provide strength and energy absorption in a crash.
Duncan McFadyean
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun Simpkins <shauns@hevanet.com>
Date: Sunday, September 03, 2000 6:15 AM
Subject: Berube Gear - more thoughts
After looking at the Berubeand HB-YIB conventional gear photos
again, and comparing them to other installations, I'm not convinced that
this installation is as robust as the monowheel or trigear.
The gear is apparently placed under the seat pan. The monowheel
ties in to the engine mount, and loads are transmitted through the
firewall and tunnel to the rest of the fuselage. The trigear mains
appear to tie in to the main spar. Either of these locations is great,
as this is where the body structure is strongest. I'm a little worried
about the structural strengthening required.
If we consider the Van's RV gear arrangement, the mains angle back
---From the engine mount, making for a light and efficient structure. This
arrangement would take advantage of the structure already in place for
the monowheel, but the engine mount and footwells probably prevent this.
Just thoughts-
Shaun
|