Surprise!

[jgerard]

Re: Surprise!

All I did was replace the linings on my 46' bc12d (shinns) and HOLY CRAP!!! this thing realy stops. The rest of the brake system, shoes, cams, springs are all quite worn out. There was only about .030"-.040" diference in thickness beetween the old and new linnings and that is enough material to doubble the brakeing power.

Jason
N43643

[jdlowrey]

Re: Surprise!

I was wondering what the thickness should be for the brake shoes and where possible replacements could be obtained? Mine seem to be quite worn. Ordered from Skybound, sometime ago, new linings but they did not have any shoes.

Jeff

[Robert Lees]

Re: Surprise!

Several years ago I got new shoes from Univair..Aircraft Spruce did them at the time too...but now, I'd think I'd re-use the riveted ends, and make my own.

But I bet Skybound do them ... Or Donna Losey will have them, she's [email protected]

[VictorBravo]

Re: Surprise!

I LOVE you bums! THAT's why I started this thing in the first place. I can't address everything that's been said at once, but here are a few ideas...

I have only 1500 hours, but I DO have 10,000 bounces. So I feel at least marginally qualified. Normal light breeze conditions in a reasonably flown T-craft do not require excessive braking. However, crosswinds, greasy paved surface, and marauding runway lights change the stakes of the game. Also, trying to get the best out of your T-craft (and yourself) puts you in a situation where you often want all of the control authority you can get. On a Taylorcraft in a crosswind landing, I look at the brakes as an equally important primary control as the rudder. Below X miles an hour, differential brakes are all you have for primary directional control.

Here's a great example... TWO days ago I had some engine problems that resulted in an aborted takeoff attempt at a big airport. I had radio problems, carburetor problems, I was a little featherweight antique in a Gulfstream and 737 world, I did not feel welcome nor should I have been, and things were just getting worse. Time to call it a day. On the aborted takeoff, I had to get on the brakes pretty hard (enough to put the tail back up) to get off the runway. The Shinns WERE working great. A witness saw smoke coming form the brakes. When I taxied back, I had lost 3/4 of the left braking power and over half of the right.

I finally fixed my problem the next day (yesterday), and was able to fly back home. However, I couldn't hold 1300 rpm on runup and I had almost no differential braking ability. If there had been a Xwind at my home airport I might have had my hands full. If I had been equipped with hydraulic disc brakes I don't think that one hard incident like this would have taken me from great braking to crappy braking. Opinions differ as to whether I now just need to re-adjust them, clean wheel grease off the shoes, or replace the shoes.

We have a great airplane with great STOL capabilities, and at some point the braking power and the clumsiness of the heel brakes becomes the limiting factor on where you can fly into and out of. I agree that you can fly a T-craft without brakes, but you can't always land without them. The airplane was (I believe) designed for open fields and grass strips and those triangular military base runways where you never had a Xwind more than 30 degrees. If having more powerful brakes that are easier to use saves me ONE groundloop and saves the world ONE wrecked T-craft, they're worth it.

As for one of the posts, you touched my heart..." Head hits the overhead frame in turbulence"??? Nahhh, you must be kidding My head just tears the fabric off of the stringers.

I am in the process of writing an essay about my experience the other day. If there is any interest, I will submit it to the Honorable Bob O. for posting on the website. The title of the piece is "Bendix Stromberg and the Paranoid Terrorist Hot Dog Attack"

Any and all additional info on STC's, 337's and even which wheels from other types of airplanesw will fit the T-craft axle, are welcome. THANKS to those who posted some already.

Bill Berle

[jgerard]

Re: Surprise!

I also had a rapid decline in brake power. When I took it all apart it was like the lining material was too old, might you say rotton? Just scuffing it with sand paper would remove large chunks of it. No problems with new linings, I still have a set of shoes on back order with Skybound.

Jason
N43643

[mhorowit]

Re: Surprise!

FYI
There is a Dremel tool bit that works great for making the rivet holes(in the lining), to include a flat bottom. looks like a cutter for a milling machine. That and the rivet vice make lining replacement an easy, undauting task. - Mike

[mulwyk]

Re: Surprise!

Mike:
Great timing for this thread. I've been avoiding my brake rebuilding task for about 6 months now. I got the little kit of parts from Skybound...they are gathering dust on the shelf. But soon as I get this wing back together, I'm gonna go straight to work on those brakes.

I guess you don't use Rob Lee's epoxy method. Or do you use epoxy AND rivets?

What's that Dremel tool look like? Do you have a photo?

Also, what is a "rivet vice"?

Bob Gustafson

[mhorowit]

Re: Surprise!

Mike:
I guess you don't use Rob Lee's epoxy method. Or do you use epoxy AND rivets?
What's that Dremel tool look like? Do you have a photo?
Also, what is a "rivet vice"?
Bob Gustafson

Bob - I'm going home early (I think) and I"ll take a pic of both the vice and the Dremel tool.

No I don't use Rob's idea; nothing wrong with it I guess. - Mike

[mhorowit]

Re: Surprise!

Here's a pic of both the dremel tool and the rivet vice

[NC36454]

Re: Surprise!

[QUOTE=VictorBravo].

If having more powerful brakes that are easier to use saves me ONE groundloop and saves the world ONE wrecked T-craft, they're worth it.

Bill.

I have read your posts (and adventures) and have great respect for you but I am a little confused. I have ground looped (is that one word or two) a Taylorcraft many years ago and it was because I didn't leave those brakes alone! I can't imagine brakes getting me OUT of trouble.......maybe my last 20 years have caused me to miss something???

Your friend,
Ken
1941 BC12-65

[VictorBravo]

Re: Surprise!

I can't imagine brakes getting me OUT of trouble.......maybe my last 20 years have caused me to miss something???

Your friend,
Ken

Ken, I suspect that this becomes an issue of technique. For me, landing in a crosswind is USUALLY done by crabbing into the wind, then straightening out at the last moment and putting one wing down. This makes one wheel touch first. If the crosswind component is stronger than the (limited) straightening force of the steerable tailwheel, then the downwind brake is used to keep the airplane from weathervaning. At my home airport, we sometimes have a 45-60 degree wind off the right side of the airplane on landing. So I land with the right wing down, and then (hopefully) put the tail and left wheel down. Full left rudder and full left tailwheel steering sometimes do the trick. But occasionally, even with full left rudder and tailwheel, the wind pushes the tail to the left and the plane starts heading off towards the right side of the runway. At that moment, the left brake is all that you have to keeop the plane on the runway.

Now I have to make an admission of guilt... I also have practiced crosswind "wheel landings". In this case, you don't even have the tailwheel steering, so your left brake would become the secondary control (after the rudder) instead of the third control after the tailwheel.

I agree with Ken, in that MIS-USE of the brakes can cause more trouble than anything else. I try like hell not to mis-use them, but I did the other day in order to get off a runway in a hurry with a dying engine on takeoff.

Bill

[mhorowit]

Re: Surprise!

[QUOTE=NC36454]

.

I can't imagine brakes getting me OUT of trouble.

In my very limited, but highly animated experience, there is a time in the roll-out where the rudder is no longer effective. If, aat that point, the beast makes greater than a 30^ turn, my tailwheel goes "out of detent" and becomes free swiveling. At that point, hard brake in the opposite direction will/has gotten me out of trouble.

Sometimes it is less dramatic, as in the turn from the taxiway onto the active, which cause a > 30^ turn and thence loss of tailwheel, followed by using the brakes for directional control.

I think much of this brakes/no-brakes discussion is based on whether you fly/land on asphalt or not and have a yellow line you should follow. - Mike

PS: never eat pickled herring just before bedtime, least you find yourself playing with the computer at 0130, wondering if you're going to toss cookies.

[NC36454]

Re: Surprise!

Bill,

I know this is off the subject but I've been meaning to ask where you live. Before moving to Texas, I based my Taylorcraft (and Luscombe) at the Banning airport. (let's talk about turbulence one day!) My friend (a CFI) taught me to fly at Banning in the 70's. His wind speed limit for flying as a student was 35 MPH. (about average for the Banning Pass!) I love flying in this "calm" Texas air!

Ken

[VictorBravo]

Re: Surprise!

I fly out of Whiteman Airport WHP, which is a towered municipal airport about three or four miles north of Burbank Regional Airport. Actually, they re-named Burbank into Bob Hope Airport.

I live in Chatsworth, which is the northwest corner of the greater LA area.

Been there and done that in Banning! Fortunately the topography always gives you wind in the same direction most of the time.

FWIW, I have finished my story about my recent adventure at the Van Nuys Air Fair, complete with an engine failure on takeoff, and mixing a pre-war T-craft up with Gulfstreams and Learjets. Turned out to be fairly entertaining, if I do say so myself. I am waiting for the OK from the people involved in the story to use their names. As soon as I get that OK from them, I will submit it to Bob O. and/or this group.

Bill

[VictorBravo]

Re: Surprise!

One other thing, while we're talking about steering a Taylorcraft. I have used the Matco brand tailwheel with great success on two occasions, my Auster and my '46 T-craft.

I am told that on a pre-war airplane, the old original certification ALLOWS you to change tailwheels at the operator's discretion. This may not apply to the post-war models, or it might. It's a question for an IA.

The Matco is a much better, simpler, heavier duty, and easier to repair unit than the usual Brand S and Brand M types seen on T-crafts. I also believe that the Matco operating mechanism makes it impossible for the tailwheel to "unlock" and swivel when you have put tension on the rudder cable.

Not that it matters in picture postcard conditions, gently alighting on a grass pasture in calm air to attend a country barbecue with plaid tablecloths. A tailskid would work fine then.

But in difficult conditions, crosswinds, hard pavement, rough service, etc., I would want the Matco unit on my airplane over anything else that I have flown. Perhaps other folks with a million hours of bush flying know different, but I will bet that if those high-timers took one look at a Matco operating mechanism and compared it to Brand S, they'd switch too.