Lw-5

[MattPearson]

I am about to begin construction on an LW-5. I can't wait. Plans are on the way and the jig table is being built!! Right now I am planning on 29ft DW's and a RAM Ea-81 160 hp. Sure would love to do the radial!

[GyroRon]

Sounds great! You might want to talk to John Stevens as he has one he started on and may not finish now due to a change in jobs. He also has a deposit on a radial engine and may not need that either. I think the airframe is already welded up by Ron H. Give him a shout!

[MattPearson]

I am ready to get started!

[Udi]

I think the first person/company who would offer high quality, easy to build, tractor gyros, would do very well. The demand is clearly there - but no supply. Economics 101 says this imbalance is bound to change.

Udi

[mcbirdman]

Matt, get yourself a cheap handheld electric bandsaw. I think mine from harbour freight was only 80.00. And it wouldn't hurt to get a bench grinder - even a 30.00 one. You can dress the wheel so the stone has a curved edge. Those two things will help immensly when fitting the tubing.... there is a lot of it. jtm

[MattPearson]

I really appreciate the tips. I would appreciate any other advice you can offer. I am sure I will have lots of questions as I get going. So far my table is 16' x 4'. Total cost of building just over $100 from Lowes! I will chronicle the build here and eventually make a website for my project.

[Vance]

Hi Matt, I am sure that it will be a great adventure. When I build a structure from tubing I find great pleasure in hand filing the tubes to get the best fitting joints. The fit is a critical part of the integrity of the weld. Less gap is always better and the pace of filling causes me to scrap less tubing. I have done it on my mill but it is not so satisfing. Cleaning the material before the tack weld is very important and cleaning it again before begining the final weld is a critical part of a quality weld. Keeping you welding rod clean is also very important. If you use an abrasive to fit your tubes be sure to clean everything well before you begain your bead because the abrasive particals can contaminate the weld. Filling gaps with welding rod is not good from a structural integrety standpoint. I have found it usefull to build a relationship with a welding supply house and show them your practice welds and ask how to improve. Their experance can be very helpfull. There are some exelent books on welding and I urge you not to let the apparent simplicity of the process fool you into thinking that it is not complex. I still learn every time I form a bead. Good luck and have fun, Vance

[mcbirdman]

Okay, another thing comes to mind. Auto darkening Welding helmets around 50.00 on sale at Harbour Freight. Invaluable. Use a quartz light to light the area you are working on so you can still see through the filter and when you lite up you'll know exactly where you are and will do a better job of weldiing. I don't meant to tell you something you might already know - I don't know your experience level. jtm

[MattPearson]

I actually am quite lucky in that I have a good friend of many years named Alan who is a pro TIG welder and machinist. He and I are building the LW-5 as a team. I will have lots to do in the fitting and final design, but Alan will do all the welding, though I would like to learn. Alan actually taught me how to fly RC helos and turned me on to gyros (actually the Gyrobee) a few years ago. About two years ago I sold the RC helos and immersed myself into full scale avaition. I now have around 160 hours on my Superfly gyro and a little over 40 in a Cherokee 140. Shortly before sending a deposit on a single place helicopter, I was out with my 19 month old daughter in north Texas and a Stearman flew over low and slow, and my daughter, who already loves anything that flys, pointed at the airplane and yelled "Daddy see" over and over. That was it. I decided that I was going to forget another single place aircraft and build something for two. This kind of fun was meant to be shared. Anyway, that's how I settled on the Little Wing!

[Heron]

Good going Prez . . .have fun and keep us posted!
Heron

[Brent_Brown]

Matt if all right we will get fly tractors about the same time it is taking me longer then I hope for to get me Corvair tractor together.

I will call it Farmer Brown

[Vance]

I would consul against harbor freight auto darkening welding helmets. Buy a top of the line welding helmet. Eye safty around welding is very important and if a helmet is a little slow to darken, or fails to darken, your eyes can suffer permenant damage. Part of what makes Autogiros so aluring is what you can see when you are flying. Don't risk your eyes. I fly with only one eye and it makes my landings less consistant. Thank You, Vance

[mcbirdman]

I feel differently regarding avoiding the new high tech helmets available. The technology available to us now is incredible. Something that used to be out of our price range is now showing up in discount stores like yesterdays sale. The prices keep dropping and these sophisticated items become normally accepted day to day tools.

The helmets are auto darkening at 1/25000 sec. They meet ANSI requirements. The lenses are already tinted a dark shade similiar to torch welders mask at it's lightest which means it is always filtering light levels. You could pay 50.00 for an inexpensive auto darkening helmet or I just compared it to a 180.00 helmet that is adjustable from .5 millisecons to a 1/25000, (normal shutter for cheap one.)

If I were doing Tig, the light is brighter and if I noticed I was getting white spots in my eye similiar to a flash going off... would do something different. There are only so many manufactures making the electronics for welding helmets. What do you wanta bet that they are probably the same? I just disagree with the implication that cheaper is no good.

You will find many times that you can pay a lot more and get a little more or the same. For instance I just saw the same exact tractor for sale at Walmart under the Murphy name - 788.00. Craftsman edition, made by the same manufacture (I think MFD) exact same layout and features... 1250.00.

I am a photographer and if I even thought maybe I was hurting my eyes I wouldn't have used the helmet. If you were concerned but wanted to save money you could close your eyes just for a split second as it came on....And would be saving big bucks. I could blink to save $ 130.00 (lol)

The short... don't diss something because it is cheaper. Don't assume something is better just because it costs more.


I guess none of this matters because you have a friend who does this proffesionally and probably already saw fit to invest in high end tools because this is what he does. Us weekend workers can make do with what we have and have good results.

Anyway, everyone here is happy for you and I think many people wished they could do what you are about to do. Try to look forward day to day and not backward or way forward. This way you can just go task by task knowing that you are a little bit closer every day. Embrace technology and try to make life easier. Take care. jtm

[GyroRon]

Why not save yourself the trouble of doing the hard part and see if John wants to sell his? Ron Herron has already welded up his, and I am not sure if it is past that stage. I could be way off base and maybe John doesn't want to sell it, but it is worth at least asking. I know he would like to find someone who wants to buy the radial he already put a deposit on.

[MattPearson]

Ron,
I appreciate your info. I have already spoken with John by email.

Found this great and incredibly detailed site of a guy building a Pitts

http://2wings.com/

[richard lidke]

I am about to begin construction on an LW-5. I can't wait. Plans are on the way and the jig table is being built!! Right now I am planning on 29ft DW's and a RAM Ea-81 160 hp. Sure would love to do the radial!
:) :) Hello Mat. Littlewing Booster Rich. Please give me a call before you order the tubing and stuff for your airframe. I have a list of significance of materials not on the list that are on the drawings that you will find out about as you move through the drawings. This could save you the frustration and extra shipping expenses that we three builders have had to deal with so far. Everything about building a Littlewing has been fun for us. I have just installed the front seat on my 2+2. Added four little 3/16 hardened stainless steel pins rated at 5,100 lbs shear to make the seat tiltable, and removeable, and adjustable up and down about 3 inches. We are making headway. I started to make the engine mounts tonight, but found out that the material was not on the material list. Now I can't do it until I make "ANOTHER BLASTED" tubing order. This requires about 5 inches of 3/8 tubing .065 thick to do the trick. I will order for all three of us as usual, saving two times the shipping cost this way. Give me a call at 219-778-2708. Best regards and tailwinds, Littlewing Booster Rich.

[mcbirdman]

Hey Rich - Notice The part about the RAM engine? That is the one I have been telling you about. Ron (@RAM) says the 100 hp would be more than adequate though. Not sure I would try to go that high on the power as Matt mentioned. Ron is in Ohio I believe. I think the redrive was 39 lbs and the engine package was like 150lbs. As long as it is under 200lbs.....

[MattPearson]

Hey Guys,
My experience in gyros dictates that I want at least a power to weight of 8:1 at gross weight, especially here in TX...(read HOT) :) Rich, I will give you a call as soon as my plans get here. Thanks for the help! I am very anxious!

[mcbirdman]

Hi Matt, although I can't get you exact numbers - I am guessing you are using a formula for pushers. Pushers lose alot of power being in the back with the blocked airflow and all so you gotta start thinking about the advantages to what you are building. BTW did you know that some of the piper cubs only had like a 40 hp engine on them? I think I heard that from our local A&P. Do you really think you need 160?

Or consider this.... I am with the vw engine for the single place. It has only a 70 hp (continuous) engine. Not sure - and I know Ron can anwer this specifically but to add one more person, additional frame weight and person it calculates to only 40% higher gross weight. Going 40% more power is 98 hp. Going 160hp is 225% more h.p. for 40% weight. I think these numbers are right and that is a huge difference for just a little more weight. See what I mean...

Looking forward to more additions to the LW Flock. jtm

[RHerron]

Rich,

What you are talking about are the hardpoints for the engine attachment.
This is most definitely in the materials list. Actually, more than you will need by a good margin.(4 feet of 3/8 x .065 "bushing stock".) Sometimes you get 4130 and other times you get mild steel. No problem due to heavy wall thickness and very short lengths used. Bushing stock usually has to be reamed for a final fit (ID) and is often specified by finished inner diameter only.(ie,1/4", 3/16". etc.)

My advice to anyone building any steel-tubed aircraft is to order extra tubing, of every length, especially the major sizes of 1/2 and 5/8 and 3/8. Perhaps I should have suggested this in the drawings.

I have built quite a few of these things and I still use the plans to order my tubing to this day. So far, I haven't had any down-time due to running out of tubing. I get prompt and accurate delivery from Dillsburg Aeroplane works and always get more tubing than I actually order (or pay for) due to the 20' lengths, so this helps.

Matt, your plans will indicate the extra tubing you need. Certainly, call Rich for any other items he has noted in his build as he has kept very thorough records and is a very knowledgeable draftsman and a gentleman to boot. I will review his list whenever he is finished and revise the drawings where/if needed.

One point to take note of: Before ordering, go through the drawings, pick out the exact version you are building and add up the materials required to build the items listed on each page. The general materials list is primarily for the basic airframe. There are several different options so the only way to have "one-list-covers-all" would be to order more than you need. (probably not a bad idea anyway)

While I can't always monitor the forum, I do check E-mail every day. So, if anyone has questions or difficulties concerning the plans, E-mail me and I will get back to you

Sincerely,
Ron Herron




[QUOTE=richard lidke]:) :) Hello Mat. Littlewing Booster Rich. Please give me a call before you order the tubing and stuff for your airframe. I started to make the engine mounts tonight, but found out that the material was not on the material list. Now I can't do it until I make "ANOTHER BLASTED" tubing order. This requires about 5 inches of 3/8 tubing .065 thick to do the trick.

[MattPearson]

I have entered several of the steel parts into Emachineshop.com
For example the rudder horn costs $96 for one or $114 for ten. They would be laser cut. If anyone is interested in sharing the cost of these parts and saving alot of time while having a professional finish, please let me know.
See the CAD files at: ftp://www.prachapter34.com
username: rotorpilot
password: Rotor34
See Little Wing Parts

[Dean_Dolph]

Interesting! Matt, you are the only one that I have heard of that has investigated using these people. If in fact you end up giving them an order, I for one would be interested in hearing your evaluation of their service.

[MattPearson]

I have spoken with others who have used them and they were very satisfied. The company was actually featured on the news a few weeks ago. They have been around for several years and have grown ferociously. Wish I had bought stock!

[Dean_Dolph]

Yeah, I posted a link to a Houston Chronicle article on them back in Aug. but that was the first time I had heard of them. It sounds like a good setup and I'm glad to hear that people are satisfied with their product.

[mcbirdman]

Matt, you aren't serious about having a rudder horn for 96.00 are you? It is about 1/2 hour work or less, less than 3.00 worth of metal so unless you can find 10 ""buyers" you would be paying someone the equivelent of 136.00 an hour to make the <3.00 part. Must be nice to have a goldmine ! Can you get 4130 out of there also? At that rate you are going to have over 40,000 into that aircraft by my calculations. (okay.... estimate....lol)

[richard lidke]

Matt, Littlewing Booster Rich here. Got your call, but couldn't make out the last part of your phone number, you spoke too fast. This is what I think you said: 940-300-3020. Please verify this on the forum, my e mail at pilotnow2003@yahoo.com or call again. I will certainly answer your call. RON thanks for the referral, always glad to help a fellow Littlewinger (Hopefully another Booster is Born).

[richard lidke]

) Hey Rich - Notice The part about the RAM engine? That is the one I have been telling you about. Ron (@RAM) says the 100 hp would be more than adequate though. Not sure I would try to go that high on the power as Matt mentioned. Ron is in Ohio I believe. I think the redrive was 39 lbs and the engine package was like 150lbs. As long as it is under 200lbs.....
:) :) Hey Birdman, Rich here. Where is RAM, maybe you told me already, and I forgot, this happens when your hypothalmus shrinks as I am sure mine has. See you Sunday for building fun buddy. Don't forget Ron's input, to make sure it will swing the big daddy 72" dia prop we will be using. :D

[MattPearson]

I probably would not get the parts from emachine shop unless I could make a mass purchase and justify the cost per item. I know Ron has mentioned wanting to have parts made for a kit!!! :) Hint, Hint

[mcbirdman]

Matt - we only needed parts for 3, you needed to find only 6 more besides yourself....
except too late we already did the stuff. But... as you can see.... the good news is that you are now "paying" yourself 192.00 hr minus materials to be a builder.... who needs a goldmine anyway ?

Rich - the engines are at: http://www.ramengines.com/_wsn/page2.html

Promise me you will go there this time. I think it looks good.... Remember think MULTI ENGINE MINI PRODUCTION DISCOUNT..... I'm good, Matt is good.... check it out....

Things to notice - they deck plate it before cylinder bore. I think the redrive is 40lbs plus the 150 for the engine? Ron H. said powerplant must be under 200lbs. Look at the power it is turning out. Subs seem to be the engine of choice. Parts availability. Ron is just over in Ohio. OEM for Bauer Aviation. Being Czek aviation certified. Just a few things, not neccesarily the most important thing but it looks right.
jtm

[MattPearson]

Have you guys looked at the Great Plains water cooled 2180? 120hp for less than 8K total price
http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc1.html
Only concern with the sub is by the time you add radiator, water, oil, You will definitely be over 200 lbs. I thought the radial weighed 220 dry??

[mcbirdman]

Hi Matt,

I like what I saw on the Great Plains. I had been monitering that for a while because that is where I got parts like the electronic ignition and magneto for my VW but this is the first I saw of this new water cooled engine. Mine is also a 2180 and puts out 70 hp continuous. They say puts out the power on takeoff... I like to know what it can handle continuous. Lets say the engine is around 7. The Sub 100 with redrive is still around 8 or 9 I believe.

You may be right about the radial, I don't know. Ron just warned me about keeping it around 200 and may have been worried that the Sub with redrive was going to go way over 200. But acording to Ram engines it is less than 200 with the redrive. We would still have to do calculating the redrive speed down and match it with a prop but I wasn't too worried about that.

I do know that Ron said he moved the landing gear forward and I think Moe had done the same thing on his when he installed the subaroo. This is probably due to a heavier engine as Ron warned and was probably compensating for.

You got me on the VW that is cool. I like vw's they are simple. The subaroo is multiport fuel injected which is still way better. Did you send the info to Ron? I am going to be inclined to go with whatever he thinks will work. I am hoping that a lower cost alternative to the beautiful radial is approved.
Good job on keeping the eye out - like I said - that slid by.... COOL !

jtm

[MattPearson]

The sub with the redrive be 11K. The engine is $7995, redrive is $3000. Compared to a 912, it's still a heck of a deal, but still a lot of $$$

Check out this site also. http://usa.vw-engines.com/
They have a fuel injected, dual plug, engine. 115hp. Don't know the price. I emailed them for a quote. It's nice to know there are options out there!! These guys want $14000 for their package! NOT

http://www.altimizer.com/specs.html
This company advertises a pretty sweet set-up, but I would not recommend doing business with them. They are on my poopoo list!

[mcbirdman]

We'll have to talk about the second link... I have seen it for quite a while and seen som similiar references including suggestions to check the BBB in Florida. I have seen the first site and it seems one thing is that it is actually not built here - can't remember.... I sent that link to Ron showing him about the helical redrive and he said I might be on to something....

I don't know.... any of the options we are looking at are within 3k. We don't know how much we could save on the Ram engine except that in talking to him he said he could do better. I like that it is local but a little figuring with engine/prop would be required. The VW's are in known rpm ranges and can easily be fit with a wood prop.

For all the work that goes on - and even though 3k is a bit... It isn't that much if it comes down to having an engine break down all the time or is finicky. I do like knowing that Ram is close and I do like them being an OEM for Bauer. If a little more money is what it takes and yet it isn't like 23,000 for a 912 turbo - I am all for it. 3k is money but the heart of the plane and reliability is important to me.

Fun looking though. We are getting close to figuring engine mounts though and really at sometime in the near future gotta decide and stick with it.... If this keeps up I am just buying the radial... shoot it is only a few thou more than what we are talking about. (just kidding, but...am I? .. lol)

Another plus is that if we go VW then the engine mounts are all figured out. Ron at RAM engines said the mount is simple anyway as it cradles the engine anyway...(very simple)..... ttys jtm

[RHerron]

Engine Wt.

Yes, the radial is too heavy to suit me. However, it does deliver. I had to move the landing gear forward so that is something that you don't want to have to do after-the-fact. The standard LW frames have the gear in the right place for engines up to 200 lb.
Over that, mount your gear hardpoints 9.5" further forward. The triangulation is already there for the gear attach points so it is relatively minor IF you figure it in early.

You will need to add a 1" square crossmember and drop the front mounting points down to align with the rear ones.

The short frames already have the gear in this position.

[mcbirdman]

Ron, Did you go to the Great Plains and Ram Website? We are getting closer to figuring out what engine is the best in regards to h.p./reliability /cost/adaption.

We know we like the radial but it just seems like too much cost for what we are doing without really being proven as a better situation due to it's newness. We Like, We just don't have time to have a fundraiser.... lol

We also talked about sharing one radial engine. Using Rich's superb enginering skills that he sported with our now removable seat.....We can pull 4 pins just like the seat and simply hang the engine on the one we are going to fly.
ok we did not......

[MattPearson]

Here is how I am thinking for specs to get 1100 lbs gross.
Empty weight: 576 w/ Engine: 210 lbs
Passengers: 400
Fuel: 81
Extras: 43

With 29ft DW's this would yeild a 1.6 disc loading which is awesome for a two place. Topped with a 8:1 power to weight, this gyro will be a superb performer at gross weight.

[Brian Jackson]

Here is how I am thinking for specs to get 1100 lbs gross.
Empty weight: 576 w/ Engine: 210 lbs
Passengers: 400
Fuel: 81
Extras: 43

With 29ft DW's this would yeild a 1.6 disc loading which is awesome for a two place. Topped with a 8:1 power to weight, this gyro will be a superb performer at gross weight.
Matt, I think 400 passengers will put you over your gross weight :D

[mcbirdman]

So, you are saying the 43 Extras will need to go standby also? ;)

[MattPearson]

Had a great conversation with Steve at Great Plains. The water cooled motor installed/flying weight with redrive is 192 lbs. The motor has for example a continuous power output at 3400 RPMs of 100hp. The water cooled heads were developed by John Hinke at Ford Motor Company and the engine has over 200 dyno hours with excellent results.
They are offering a discount for multiple units and Steve told me they actually have incentives to get the engines out to the public. They also accept credit cards. They will also build engine mounts to your specs for anyone wanting that option.
Seems like a pretty sweet little engine!

[mcbirdman]

Interesting. I will forward the info to the other guys to verify rpm3400 @100hp and other stuff. I still like the Sub/Ram but with the higher rpms redrive etc it might be hard to find the proper pitch prop and it would mean custom engine mounts... no big deal and a few other things. I hope they/we can come to a concensus because we could get a good deal on ordering at the same time together.... thanks for the update will go back to GP and look at info again. jtm

Oh I see you are assuming with the redrive at less than full power. less than 8000.00. It doesn't show photos of the redrive , just the direct drive. Still , this would be better than getting to know 2 different kind of engines.

[Brent_Brown]

Matt I looked on the Great plains web site and see nothing about this motor. How did you find out about it and where can see it.

[Brent_Brown]

I just went back to it and now I see the link for it. http://www.greatplainsas.com/llc2.html

[MattPearson]

The redrive pics are on their own page. They are there. Better power than a 914 at nearly 1/3 the price.

[mcbirdman]

Oh yea, I found them. Unfortunately they are cog belt redrives. They say there are 3 belts though for safety. I just don't know if one breaks - can it get in the way of the other 2? I have no experience with belt redrives although it seems that most people I have come in contact with say there is a lot of friction in the belt and don't like the setup as they feel the bands can break too easily jtm

[MattPearson]

I have found a local company that does water-jet cutting. I will be offering a parts package for around $100
It will include the parts as required for the LW 2+2 that are in the file I mentioned in an earlier post except for the outboard rudder pedal tabs. The .080 parts will be substitued for .090 since it is available. Email me for details.

[mcbirdman]

Matt do you know the Carter Copter people? Are you close to them? I am trying to get some drawings to them so they can look at a modified landing gear for the LW. They said they would draw something up if I can get them the info. Just hoping you know them or are near to them. Adaption of their system would be a HUGE Plus for safety and reliability. jtm

[MattPearson]

James,
The gear system you are refering to is Larry Neal's G-force landing gear. The smart strut was simply the shock that Carter wanted to demo on Larry's design.
Larry actually has a patent pending on his design, so anything that Carter was to "draw-up" would be an infringment. I would email Larry and see if anything can be done. thebutterfly612@earthlink.net

[jolly467]

James,

I was thinking along the same lines myself as far as the gear goes....I like the initial looks of that new gear setup - I bet a lot of us would be interested if they are made available in the future as either plans or "bolt-up" type of setups.....

Steve

[mcbirdman]

Right - but I can't install the strut unless I can buy it so I don't think the problem would be infringement.

I know they are interested in having an impact on the safety of gyros. This device is one that I thing has a significant impact (no pun) on the record and safety performance of new gyros. I know they are commited to getting it out there for us and that is why I am thinking that this can be worked out in short order. Sucsessful implimentation on the LWs would only add to the already high value of the machine. Further units would be ordered and the plans could be altered to include the optional upgraded landing gear. Now is a good time to get it worked out because one of the guys in our 3 group is an engineer and we can play with it a bit. We want to have the machines coverable when it warms up in the spring so any metal work now has a few months / window of opportunity.

We plan on flying our machines to meetings and events and this would be a perfect way to showcase the system and generate interest for the gyro community. We hope it will be affordable.

Please keep me posted if you hear anything. We already have the gear for all 3 made but didn't attatch the mounting brackets on the airframe. I wouldn't think twice about trashing it and starting over if we can get such a design/parts worked out. Thanks and standing by..... jtm

[MattPearson]

Here is about 8 hours of work.

[MattPearson]

same 8 hours

[MattPearson]

Talked with Steve at Great Plains again about the water cooled VW. He says that dyno report shows 168 ft/lbs torque at 100% , 140 ft/lbs @ 75%,
9 gal/hr @ 100%, 5 gal/hr @ 75%, continuous operation (75% or 23 in Hg)
recommended prop 72X46. Pretty good performance specs by my standards.

[Victor Duarte]

hi matt,
i m curious about your work, as i will have to build a (little) frame, can i ask a question, about welding, do you have skills in it ? what s the kind of method recommended ? how do you proceed in this kind of work, do you train before? does the kit manufacturer give a way to control welding or are you going "as it will be" ?
do you weld all the parts on the same table?

thank you

[MattPearson]

Victor,
I am not a very skilled welder. Fortunately, I have great friends who are professionals and enjoy projects! We will be TIG welding the frame. The table at this point is serving as a horizontal jig for the single dimension sides. Everything will be tack welded and then we will construct a vertical jig on top of the table to make the frame 3-dimensional. Once that is done, then in sequential order, we will completely weld each joint. The table will have a multi purpose function. It is long enough to make room for a work surface, jig, drink holder and place to store crap! :)
This type of construction is one of the oldest in aviation and still proves to be among the lightest, strongest, and long lasting. There are many books and videos available, and they all apply. The EAA website has some really good weld construction tips. Either way you weld, you must have an oxy-actylene torch rig. You can either gas weld the frame or TIG it, but you must stress relieve the joints with heat. The cost for a nice oxy-actylene rig is $300.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Looks good Matt. Looks like your having lots of fun too.

Screw-Out

[darrellwittke]

Matt, there was some discussion of stress relieving before on the forum here. I kind of got the feeling the consensus was proper stress relief can only be done in an oven with heating of frame for 6-8 hours. I forget what the effects are of torch relief of TIG joints, I think it was considered unnecesary. Anyhow, you may want to investigate further and see if you can save some time?

[mcbirdman]

Matt forgot to mention MIG welding which is what most of Rons frames cosisted of. His opinion is that it is hard to do TIG right and there is no reason to Gas weld. Technology offers things that should make frame building much easier and that we should use it. He also said that trying to do a stress relief unless you do it right can cause more damage than it is worth and also pointed to the fact that this was not tempered steel anyway.

This is the short of it only to minimize some of the comments he has posted in other threads and is the gist of the conversation we had with another metal expert while I had my machine there. It was a very interesting conversation that we had. He did not recommend the oven baking as a needed process. Ron is a certified A&P and teaches aeronautic related classes at some collage besides building many airframes.

Matt, any word from Ron about VW water? Ram engines? I would spend a little more for the Ram if Ron thought it was fine. Also, wayyyy up there in a previous post when I said 200 pounds max ws just the amount that Ron said was okay before the landing gear stations should be moved forward to compensate for the higher weight. So I am liking the FI sub but Vw Is tempting.... Hoping he had some feelings on these.

Also - did you try to ask Larry about possibility of Gear mods' ? I don't know him but I guess could email him. He definately is interested in the furtherance of safety in gyros..... take care, jtm

[Victor Duarte]

hi james, john and matt, thanks for your explanations, i learned one thing today : stress relief, yes i m not an aero tube builder, i m just aware of it s basic advantages. looks you re going for a great job, dont weld a beer can by mistake :D :D

i guess james is a little experienced in that work..;)

keep posting your progress, it s eye candy for a lot of us

thanks a lot for posting

[MattPearson]

According to an email from Ron, the max engine installation weight without changing the plans is 220 lbs. The landing gear is already in the "over 200 lbs" installation weight position on the two place short plans. I would assume that the 220 lbs includes everything from the firewall forward.

I did speak with Larry and he confirmed that his gear would not work with the Little Wing.
There are many different opinions out there about the best way to weld aircraft. I would say that what ever method you use, just be able to bank your life on the fact that it was done properly!

[mcbirdman]

Matt - I keep forgetting you are doing the short version. You probably already have the gear forward because of the shorter tail.

Also trying to write short when I said about gas - I meant given current methods available like Tig and mig - he said that gas wasn't first choice. An experienced tigg welder is a good guy to have around and you are lucky. Short of that you would be better off doing it MIG because it is harder to screw up the process...

Are you still thinking VWwater or Sub/ram or other? Maybe you've been too busy doing layout as it appears in your photo to look at that right now....

On the gear - I am not sure if I believe that exactly. Anything is possible and since they are saying that it is adaptable to even FW aircraft - it may just mean that a modified gear is in order which is why Carter was going to look at it. Compared to what they have been able to achieve - I don't think it is that hard to get 18" travel on a parrallelogram designed landing strutt. I think his shock would work but the gear would have to obviously be custom designed. We have more places to mount the struts and braces than on many open framed gyros. Glad I asked you about it again because you didn't keep me posted. I thought it would be neat to try to work out a new gear. Ron said the rear one would have to have a small shock also. I know you got your hands full just getting the frame done but I was hoping that with a little "look ahead" effort the gear could be modified for awesome performance. You would only have to make it once where we already have made most of one of the landing gear designs but I would do it over in a heartbeat for something that much better. Larry and CarterCopter got something very good going...

Anyway, you're lucky to have an "Inhouse" TIG welder.... that is great ! jtm

[MattPearson]

James, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but since Larry is a very close friend of mine and he has exclusively allowed me to demo, and "test" his aircraft, I must clairfy that he and Carter Copter are not in league or partnership in any way. His landing gear has never been adaptable to any other aircraft; fixed wing, autogyro or otherwise. His design is patent pending and for use only on his gyros. He has implicitly stated that he does not sell "parts", only complete aircraft kits. Carter created a Smart shock that they asked Larry to test for them on his landing gear configuration as a favor. He did so and that was it. He demoed it for them at Oshkosh on a Monarch that they bought from him.
Obviously, anyone can try and replicate a design that appeals to them, but if money changes hands or if a company like Carter Copter were to try and claim the technology as there own and attempt to profit from it, then there in lies the infringement.
As one who has extensively flown the Monarch, I can tell you that it is not only the landing gear that creates the awesome results. It is a combination of systems and components and the strategic placement of those components. That is why it would not work on the Little Wing. If it would, and I could put one on there, believe me I would be the first one to be "droppin-in" and a Little Wing.
I am pretty multi-taskable guy. I am heavily investigating the ideal engine set-up all the time. I like the RAM sub, though I question the performance specs; the Franklin 125 hp, used o-200, and the water-cooled VW seem promising.
Even right now, I am typing this email while on vacation in Florida! ;)

[mcbirdman]

Hey Matt,

This is going to be long and if you ever decide to come back from FL you can reply if you want. This is nothing urgent and I hope you enjoy yourself there. You must miss the forum if you are on vacation and am still checking in though.... (you miss it)

I don't like beating dead horses either. The first time you said similiar things and I asked you to check it out. Since I haven't had an update I asked a second time to find out what was going on.

On the surface it sounds like you know what you are talking about but I still believe a variable viscosity/adjustable dampening shock is adaptable to other aircraft. You may think that strategic mounting stuff and whatever- but simple - if the shock is self sensing ... all there is left is to build the gear that will match the stroke as you already are seeing in the monarch. Again, I really doubt that an undercarrige could not technically be built for the little wing as you suggest. There is far more attachment points available than a a typical pusher. So I think the problem lays somewhere else.

I will further say that although you know them and you will know if they are going to work something out and know about whatever amount of sharing they agree to does not change whether or not something is possible for other machines with modifications.
If it is not possible to make this work it is for other reasons than undercarrige concerns.

I will tell you that either there is false information on the Carter Copter website or it is greatly exagerrated or misleading if what you are telling me is true. I will post exactly what I got off their website. I am not making trouble, just reading what they are presenting as viable new technology and the direction they are pursuing. Whether or not he shares, that evidently is the question.... If he decides not to sell the shock well - none of this matters but - Here is the information released this year.

Quote[

For initial tests, the “Smart Strut” portion of Carter’s landing gear was designed to work in consort with TBL’s G-Force gear. The patented Carter strut provides 16” of stroke at the wheels. Preliminary stress tests were performed on the strut/gear combination under pressure on the ground. After successful ground testing the Monarch prototype proceeded to flight-testing to gather landing data under actual flight conditions.
.....................................
During two days of testing the Monarch made approaches to the ground at varying speeds. The final tests were at airspeeds of 15 mph which represent a vertical descent of over 800 feet-per-minute. According to Larry Neal, President of TBL and designer of the Monarch, “The strut/gear combination is fantastic. Most autogyro designs would be damaged if they were dropped in from more than a few feet. With this new gear the Monarch can easily be dropped in after flaring from more than 20 feet high with no damage to the aircraft or injury to the pilot. The aircraft simply sets down. It doesn’t bounce and the deceleration isn’t even a hard hit. It is unbelievable. This new technology should revolutionize our industry.”

The Carter LG is fully scalable and can be designed for use on most aircraft including fixed-wing and rotorcraft. The retrofit on aircraft that already use a hinge permitting the wheels to move about as they absorb shocks should be relatively easy. If the aircraft uses a steel spring to absorb shocks, the retrofit would be more difficult.

Testing of the Carter LG on the Monarch marks the first time that the LG system has been tested for use outside of Carter’s own development program. When final tests are complete Carter and TBL will look at a licensing agreement. This agreement would be the first contract that Carter would have for the manufacture of their technology. Jay Carter, Jr., President of Carter, commented, “Our whole research and development program is geared toward increasing safety and efficiency within the aviation industry. We are extremely pleased with the results that we are achieving with the Monarch. I believe this new system represents a quantum leap in safety for autogyros and we are excited about its future impact. In addition, the fact that our system is scalable and can be designed as a retrofit provides a safety advantage to a wide range of aircraft. I believe that other airframe manufacturers will soon realize the tremendous safety advantage that our Landing Gear System offers and will want to improve their own safety features.”

#

Carter Aviation Technologies
Anita C. Infante, GA Marketing & Licensing
9729 E. 3000th Street, Kewanee, IL 61443
Phone or Fax 309 853-5328

04/04/2004 a
Previous Return to Press Release Index 04/04/2004 c
Next



Jeff Lewis

Web Master: jrlewis@wf.net Home

End quote]
If there is a problem it is in this area of licensing and agreements not complexity as you said. It may or may not happen, based on what you say based on marketing decisions. I was under the impression that they were trying to improve safety of gyros in general. Since most of your post was concerned about legalities and licences and stuff... maybe I am wrong. But what you are saying and what the news release is saying is not the same thing and if you are right - maybe they should change their website. I also saw similiar comments under their new products/patent pending section I believe. Also it is written to appear that the strutt is Carters and that the gear is Larry's when read. Also, nothing stops a person from designing their own type of gear for their own use - NOT FOR SALE - . That is why I asked about aquiring a shock and adapting it. Again, just depends on who owns the componant and if he is willing to sell it.

See why I asked ? You said because it physically can't be done and because of legalities/trade decisions. I only believe one of the answers because I am sure almost anything is scalable within the differences of an ultralight and medium landing gear. Either way it is okay with me. It isn't something I feel is "needed" except that it would enhance the performance of an aircraft that already performs quite well. I just wanted to make sure I am not missing an opportunity, if it were even there, to do the most I could to make the machine as functional as possible. I really liked what I saw and read about. If your close friend chooses not to share it with anyone except to include it in his kit I understand and realize that it is his choice and that if it is kept exclusive - it isn't going to work helping other gyronuts in the industry in general as presented in the press release and that the direction, approach and capabilities given above from the website are bogus.


Now off in another direction
I know you are on vacation but I see you can't help but think about gyros or else you wouldn't be here.... That is what happens when you commit yourself to such a fun project....

You don't have to write if you don't want to or would rather after you get back home is more than fine. I am questioning why you are saying you are questioning the RAM specs. He runs a dyno setup on the engines and has the charts to show the power curve he is plotting. Either you think he is doing it wrong, misleading, or something else I can't figure out. Can you elaborate why you said that? You said you like it but question the performance specs. You said initially you were going to put the RAM 140 hp on the aircraft and I told you you I was told something over 100 would be okay.


If the VW can hit 115hp then why is it so hard to think an engine with fuel injection and closer tolerances couldn't be turning out even more? If you do decide that it costs a bit more but like the fuel injection which can make a 5-15% difference in performance and automatically adjusts for air density - I know we can could get a discount ordering two at the same time.

We might be able to on others if you are interested, If not that is okay too, I am just at the point where I need to decide what I am going to do. I just wanted to know where the red flag was coming from because like you, I am just trying to do the best I can.

[MattPearson]

The attached portion of the website text is totally BOGUS! Maybe it was a typo to say "Carter LG," but I doubt it. They are implying that it is their system and that's simply not true. The G-force gear was already flying and working great when Jay Carter saw it demoed and offered to build a strut for Larry to try out. The Smart Strut worked really good. I personally flew it and dropped it in from nearly 30 ft...but preliminary pricing per strut was going to be $400 and Larry and I agreed that it did not work that much better to justify the price.


"The Carter LG is fully scalable and can be designed for use on most aircraft including fixed-wing and rotorcraft. The retrofit on aircraft that already use a hinge permitting the wheels to move about as they absorb shocks should be relatively easy. If the aircraft uses a steel spring to absorb shocks, the retrofit would be more difficult.

Testing of the Carter LG on the Monarch marks the first time that the LG system has been tested for use outside of Carter’s own development program. When final tests are complete Carter and TBL will look at a licensing agreement. This agreement would be the first contract that Carter would have for the manufacture of their technology. Jay Carter, Jr., President of Carter, commented, “Our whole research and development program is geared toward increasing safety and efficiency within the aviation industry. We are extremely pleased with the results that we are achieving with the Monarch. I believe this new system represents a quantum leap in safety for autogyros and we are excited about its future impact. In addition, the fact that our system is scalable and can be designed as a retrofit provides a safety advantage to a wide range of aircraft. I believe that other airframe manufacturers will soon realize the tremendous safety advantage that our Landing Gear System offers and will want to improve their own safety features.”


ANYWAY... Maybe I am too close to all this. I just know that aviation can be and in fact is a cut throat business and I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

[MattPearson]

The RAM sub's numbers don't match up. The 160 hp is the one that I was interested in using. The problem is when you do the math on the BMEP and then with the fuel burn of 5 gal/hr that he quoted me at full power, it gave me great reason to question the viability of the powerplant. The stock engine only produces around 80 hp and he is talking about a 100 % increase.
The VW motor's numbers make much more since and would indicate a reliable power plant. Of course, there could be other issues, but the numbers do add up.

[mcbirdman]

Okay so the bottom line is that you are telling me that Larry has the patent. Right? The number to look up would be 5,944,283.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,944,283.WKU.&OS=PN/5,944,283&RS=PN/5,944,283

You are so busy telling me what you think you know because you are close to them but what I found in a search says otherwise. On my second time I questioned you I was still not getting facts but rather conflicting information. So in your last post calling all that info Bogus must mean that it has now spread to the patent office too. That is awful that I can't ask someone or research multiple places without getting both ends of the spectrum.

Your idea on pricing is the first I have ever heard. You know, to replace the wheel pants on my Archer when I had it would be $ 600.00 or so. ( I kept the pants and now probably have the worlds most expensive gyro pants)
I am not sure from the excellent things I have seen that spending more than that on a strut that can save a whole machine is really too much.
Especially for something that is used for each and every flight. I guess I am also different in what I think things are worth. I also still see it as an easily adaptable strut, as presented and demonstrated, even if you disagree which is fine.

I won't keep bothering you about this, I am getting conflicted information and I am going to still assume that it is something that is being put out there for the betterment of aviation, not to just be put on one kind of machine.

That isn't really how I see gyro designers. Yes it is difficult sometimes and seems cuthroat but I am going to think good things are coming. I know they are for you and me. Thanks for your time explaining your take on the idea, I appreciate it. :)

[MattPearson]

I guess I don't know how to type well enough to effectively communicate. I have never said that Carter Technologies does not have a shock or strut. They call it the Smart Strut and yes the link that you posted is their patent. Their strut is not what makes the Ge-force landing gear work. I think you have misunderstood the difference between the strut that they make and the landing gear system that Larry Neal has created.

[mcbirdman]

Hi Matt, I must have misunderstood as you say. I thought that major portion of the landing gear was a strutt and that it provided the mechanical linkage between the aircraft and the axle. I thought the shock was the dampening/limiting device that absorbed the energy and controlled the movement of the mechanism. Basically two parts, a swinging mechanism with a dampening limiter.

Other than many transportion vehicles using the same type of movement, it is interesting to note that even in photography we see it. My copyboard camera swings up and down but stays parallel to the base so we don't have distance / focus problems.... All I can say is that it is nice to see it put on a gyro. And the performance should make them proud.

On the engine, I'll see if I can get more info. Ron said he thought he was around 31/2 or 4 gallons with the sp VW if I remember right. Not that I don't care about the fuel burn but if a dyno can measure out the power and tells you what you are getting, 5,6 or even 7 gallons an hour is still not bad. I think cruise on the 152 was 6 gal /hr ? .. Isn't the radial like 8 or 9? If the power output is what it says you can always carry more fuel. I'll see if I still have the charts that were emailed me. I still have a little time before I am going to order something.... Thanks for your info :)

Hey - aren't you suppossed to be in Texas cutting some tubing ?!!!

[mcbirdman]

Just wanted to follow up with an email I recieved from the V.P. of marketing for Carter Copter, Rod Anderson. He said I may post this in case there is any further confusion. He said the latest attempt to clarify ......

The following appears in "Letters" on page 2 of the November 2004 issue of Kitplanes magazine:


G-Force Landing Gear vs. Smart Struts

Thanks for including the article and photo of Larry Neal's Monarch gyroplane in the Sun 'n Fun staff report in the August issue. The G-Force landing gear on the Monarch is Larry's design--not Carter Aviation Technologies' as stated in the article. The confusion stems from the fact that Larry's gear incorporates Carter hydraulic Smart Struts with a 16-inch stroke that Carter designed for the Monarch.

Larry's G-Force gear with Carter Smart Struts has been tested to 3600 pounds and 6 G of impact without failure. The Monarch should be able to absorb 1000-fpm vertical impacts without hurting the pilot or damaging the aircraft. During the first half-inch of stroke, a smart mechanical valve determines the total force that needs to be dissipated and then decelerates the aircraft at a constant G over the remaining stroke so that no energy remains at the bottom--thus no rebound.

The CarterCopter Technology Demonstrator has used Smart Struts with an 18-inch stroke since its first flight in September '98. Its gear is designed to absorb 1200-fpm vertical impacts and has proven itself many times during flight tests.

Both of the above designs are made to work during compression--although the same technology can be made to work equally as well in extension. Smart Struts can probably be made to work on most landing gear systems.

End of quote.

Just thought I would pass it on.
Rod Anderson, VP Marketing
Carter Aviation Technologies

[pappyadkins]

So am I hearing this correctly? For $400 per strut, we could buy them from Carter? And have their "Strut"?.... I may be game for this addition....