Landing Gear leg covering

[TimHicks]

My '46 BC-12D landing gear legs are covered with aluminum. The ends of the aluminum covers are bolted together with about a dozen #6 or #8 short bolts (per side) along the training edge. Is this standard?

I've seen others covered in fabric and it seems like you'd gain nothing but weight by using aluminum sheet and steel bolts.

Tim

[Robert Lees]

Tim, you are correct.

Ali fairing are a waste of space, time, weight and effort, and anyway they usually look awful too. If your Taylorcraft is so clean that you notice the increase in airspeed caused by ali fairings, then you are exceptional!

Cover them in plain fabric, photos (as an example) are on my recover page at www.taylorcraft.org.uk/brey_rebuild.htm
(about 2/3 way down)

[Forrest Barber]

My ship has aluminum too, fabric is the correct way, we bought her this way back in 1972 and never changed it.

[Pete West]

I think I am going to leave my legs bare, for a couple of reasons. First, I am not trying for original, and second, I want to see cracks or damage before the wing tip hits the ground. I also plan on landing on some pretty rough surfaces. Wheels and skis. Regards, Pete

[Aeroking]

Pete,

On of the last places I would worry about damage or cracks is on the main gear legs....(just my opinion, others may prove me wrong) For me personaly if I was landing in places that rough and needed to worry about it I would be more worried about the spar breaking and the wings falling off! Now the gear support struts (or whatever there called) are another story. Watch them real close for rust down at the bottom!

[lktiller]

Ditto. I land pretty rough occasionally, Ha!
Last annual I replaced the 50 year old bolts in the gear to fuselage attach points. They were bent! Rebushed them also.
Testimony to the landing gear construction - no problems with anything else.

Can't blame me for the bent bolts tho. This T'craft is 57 yrs old. I'm only 56.

LKT

[matsuthunder200]

I was just wondering how much of a gain in airspeed you get by covering your gearlegs. i also keep mine uncoverd for inspection reasons. never had a problem yet they are reinforced with angle plates and have the ske brace welded in. i have had a problem with a crack in the fuse. where the gear bolts on. we are real hardcore here i had 30' tires and land places where you would not even think poss..

[Robert Lees]

Lance, I would suggest that if you covered your gear legs, you wouldn't notice the difference. The reason why you Alaska (and other rough-field territory) folk keep your gear legs uncovered is more important than the occasional mile-per-hour that you might get.

[Forrest Barber]

the "tie strut" is to be watched closely, drill a small hole at bottom rear. TOC put out the bulletin many times , I will post to the web site soon. The modification that puts a tube half way up on the tie strut to the front gear leg is real good when on skis
( side loads you know).
YES the most negative loads you can usually get on the wings are hard landings and quick sharp bumps.
The famous AD on the rear main gear strut attach fittings were the results from float planes and rough water. Really watch that point, losing a wing is far worse than a landing gear fold up....

(WE always felt that those failures way back in the 40's may have been improper welding of that fitting that was a sub-sassembly)

[Aeroking]

Forrest,

I'm not clear on this statement in your last post.

(The famous AD on the rear main gear strut attach fittings were the results from float planes and rough water. Really watch that point, losing a wing is far worse than a landing gear fold up....)

Are we talking about the wing or the gear?

Thanks,

Greg

[Aeroking]

So anyone... was Forrest talking about the wing or gear??

[Robert Lees]

It's the aft gear fitting to the fuselage lower longeron. There was an AD on this back in the blue mists of time, your log book should show compliance.

[Aeroking]

Thanks....