The lighter wheel shown at:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/6-X-2-Inch-Air-Wheel-Tube-Pneumatic-For-Electric
-Scooter-Wheel-Tyre-Tires/383724699433?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DH
OMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D229886%26meid%3D60f0083d1c0c4c44bc214523a473
9057%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dco%26sd%3D303733012883%26
itm%3D383724699433%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5Pa
irwiseWebWithBBEV2bDemotionHighArwV3%26brand%3DUnbranded&_trksid=p2047675
.c100005.m1851
saves about 1lb in weight against the original solid-tyred wheel. But the h
ub bearing takes a 8mm bolt rather than the Factory 3/8".
Otherwise, the tyre and tube for that wheel are available separately and wi
ll fit the original (Classic) tailwheel hub, which in turn will then fit th
e XS tailwheel fork; photo attached.
However, the rather 'robust' original rim wipes out half of the weight savi
ng!
Duncan Mcf.
> On 13 October 2020 at 17:34 D McFadyean <ami-mcfadyean@talktalk.net> wrot
e:
>
>
> I'm exploring options for losing some weight from behind the CG, because
my payload is limited by balance rather than all-up weight. A few pounds at
the tail should do it.
> Has anyone fitted a light(er) tailwheel, and what make was it/how did it
perform?
> There's a standard mod for RVs that achieves the same, but I'm hoping for
cheaper options.
> Any leads?
>
> Duncan McF
>
>
> > On 05 October 2020 at 11:40 JohnFrance <77alembert@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Erik, I am following the evolution of the play in my tailplane and t
his is what I have observed.
> > In my case the play is between TP5 and TP4 almost certainly due to play
in the clevis pin on the starboard side.
> > You can check this by marking the junction between TP5/TP4 with a marke
r pen.
> > The edge of TP5 is just visible in your photo exiting the nylon bush TP
10. The movement will be very small but should be visible. Check both sides
and the same thing for the junction TP4/TP9.
> >
> > The good news is there are several modifications available to fix this,
one being to use Loctite between TP4/5/9 and various clamping methods are
available too which are fine.
> > As Pete pointed out however, the bolts in yours (appear to) clamp direc
tly on the Nylon TP10 and that is not good.
> >
> > If Loctite has already been used but failed to hold on one of the compo
nents you will have to find a way to dis-bond the others to remove TP4 from
the aircraft to carry out the mod!
> > I have a theory on that but not yet put it into practice! If anyone has
done that please share your experience?
> >
> > Here is a text written by the late Nigel Graham on the subject.
> >
> > Firstly, please find attached, the details of the tailplane clamp arran
gement I developed (and you requested) ...... it could be relevant to your
problem. I have also attached another mod that I developed to prevent the p
ossibility of a dis-bonded TP5 or TP6 bush (these are built into the tailpa
nes =C3=A2=C2=C2=93 refer to the online manual for details)
> >
> > =C3=A2=C2=C2. and on that note =C3=A2=C2=C2
> >
> > There are two possible reasons for slop in the tailplanes, one is benig
n and relatively easy to fix and the other is a lot more serious and could
kill you if not addressed immediately.
> >
> > First, an overview of the pitch drive train; the pitch pushrod transfer
s pitch linear motion into the TP9 arm, this rotates the TP4 (torque tube)
via the TP14C pins.
> >
> > The rotating shaft transmits the motion back out to the TP12 drive plat
es via the TP14D pins and hence to the tailplanes.
> >
> > The first thing to check is the cumulative play in the TP14 drive pins.
> >
> > This is a well-documented issue and was addressed by the factory by inc
reasing the diameter of the pins. This was not a good engineering solution
as it only delayed the eventual re-occurrence of the problem.
> >
> > Pat Tunney=C3=A2=C2=C2=99s =C3=A2=C2=C2=9Cclamp block=C3=A2=C2
=C2=9D mode (that you commented on), my clamp mod (attached) and squirting
Locktite into the gap were all far better solutions designed to solve the p
roblem of relative movement.
> >
> > You can test if this is your problem by sliding the tailplanes off the
torque tube and placing two long lever bars (gently) against each drive pla
te (TP12) pin and the torque tube and trying to rotate port and starboard i
n opposite directions. There should be NO movement. If there is, this is yo
ur problem. This is non-critical and can be solved by any of the above ment
ioned solutions.
> >
> > If you detect no movement here, then the problem lies in the tailplanes
=C3=A2=C2=C2=93 and this IS serious and the A/C should be grounded imme
diately until repairs are made.
> >
> > The problem lies in the way the tailplanes were built. The build instru
ctions called for the two supporting stainless steel bushes to be bonded in
to the soft blue foam of the TP cores. If you read the attached mod documen
t =C3=A2=C2=C2=9C070625 =C3=A2=C2=C2=93 Tail-plane drive pin mod=C3
=A2=C2=C2=9D there is a fuller description of the problem and solution.
> >
> > Very little supports these bushes laterally, and if they should become
dis-bonded, the tailplane can slide laterally until, in extreme cases, it d
isengages from the two drive pins on the TP12 plate. At this point one tail
plane will rotate/flutter with ferocious force and the back of the fuselage
will most likely break away =C3=A2=C2=C2=93 the aircraft will break up
in flight.
> >
> > This happened to G-HOFC in 2007, I passed my information on to the LAA
and who subsequently issued mandatory Mod 73 (attached).
> >
> > --------
> > Europa mono Nr 192
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498675#498675
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/tail_plane_drive_pin_mod_196.pdf
> >
> >
> >
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
> >
> >
> >
|