I had to put this up. Today my wife took the car in to the Ford garage and the shop foreman sent a couple books home for me that he got from his uncle who passed away. This photo is of the Whittaker rough field landing gear 1948 on a PA 11. I guess it was next to impossible to turn on pavement. The book is titled "The Piper Cub Story, Modern Aircraft Series 1963" by James M. Triggs. It has a couple strange photos of other Cubs too.
The other book he sent is a periodical called Aero Digest from August 1932. Some very entertaining reading with all the latest in aviation.

OK I must know more about this gear! It doesn't look like it would be very effective on rough terrain, I think it would just get in the way...

Edit:
Google search turned this up...



More googling to follow.

Tyler wrote:OK I must know more about this gear! It doesn't look like it would be very effective on rough terrain, I think it would just get in the way...

Edit:
Google search turned this up...



More googling to follow.

While that was my initial thought the pic you found reminds me of bogie (sp?) wheels that tanks have under the tracks,granted it doesnt have tracks on it,but surely it had to spread the load some?

Any ways it's cool to look at

You can see the school of thought here, depending on the wheelbase, rolling over a 12" rock would only elevate the plane 6". Even less with a longer wheelbase.
Same principle with a road grader with the blade in the middle vs a dozer with the blade in the front.

Henkens Implement in Chadron Nebraska years ago had this type of arrangement on a Cub..allowed them to land about anywhere to service the customer up in NW Nebraska. I remember the setup but do not have any pictures.

I wouldn't be surprised to see our buddy George Thomas show up sporting a pair of those Whittaker gear on his new pacer in the near future??

Found this thread explaining more about the gear and with it installed on a L19 Birddog.
http://www.cessna172club.com/forum/ubbt ... mber=27683

I have an acquintance that has a set of this gear. He also has a "bi-plane" add on wing for a Cub. He told me several months back that he was putting them on a cub to bring to Oshkosh next year. A bi-plane cub with Whitaker gear.....should be quite a crowd gatherer!
I'll have to give him a visit and see how far along he is with the project.
WW

WWhunter wrote:I have an acquintance that has a set of this gear. He also has a "bi-plane" add on wing for a Cub. He told me several months back that he was putting them on a cub to bring to Oshkosh next year. A bi-plane cub with Whitaker gear.....should be quite a crowd gatherer!
I'll have to give him a visit and see how far along he is with the project.
WW

Speaking of Cub biplanes.....

url=http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/13108/Twin_fuselage_Cub.jpg][/url]

I hope your friend got his facing the same direction too!

Same book, different page.

OOOPS Hijacked my own thread.

This is part of a Popular Mechanics article about the Oregon Aviation Outlaws. Art Whitaker was one. Interesting read for me being from Oregon.


Link to the article

http://books.google.com/books?id=e98DAA ... &q&f=false

Good day

John, the pacer is headed to AK, belongs to a friend of mine, will live about 300 miles west of Fairbanks along the Yukon.
I am not going to make it to JC this year as they just told me I've got to go back to work in May??
I think I'll put the Whitakker on the RV6 and a baby bush wheel on the back to make it into a tru utility plane!!
GT

OregonMaule wrote:This is part of a Popular Mechanics article about the Oregon Aviation Outlaws. Art Whitaker was one. Interesting read for me being from Oregon.


Link to the article

http://books.google.com/books?id=e98DAA ... &q&f=false

Good day

I just read the article. Very informative and now I understand that its better to allow the "outlaws of aviation" some leeway in a category called experimental aircraft than have the FAA chasing down everyone who wants to modify or do something new with an airplane.

The article refers to the twin fuselage Cub as a "bomber". That could explain the reason for the experiment. Or the builder had two Cubs each with wing damage to opposite sides

The article also mentions the first tricycle Cub. Here is a shot of one of those forerunners to the Tripacers. Same book of course.

I see the merits but I think that sense the wheels are unpowered I think that it would be easy to snag them on rocks derbies more easily then a set of bigger tires. This is one of those thing that I would like to experiment more with, there must have been some merit if people were/are still using them.

Wow, good find Rob. That whole issue is aviation related it seems:

http://books.google.com/books?id=e98DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA228&ots=5vH3YAACPs&dq=Art%20Whitaker%20of%20Portland%2C%20Ore&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false



Good old Mt Hood.

I like the tail wheel with the nose wheel.

Good day

Yeah that is not a tricycle at all but a quadracycle.

I have to do both X-country and land on wet grass with my 206 so have looked into the bogie system to reduce drag while maintaining floatation. The single large tire has such a large frontal area / drag and felt that I could fair in the trailing tire of a bogie system. Rutan had a Dual (One tire on each side of the gear leg) tall / thin tire system on one of his stol prototypes. For me it has just been easier to pull the throttle back and go 10kts slower with the big tires. Side note. A 600x6 tire, wheel assy, axle will not fit on the inside position of a 206 gear leg. Tried to get a fusalge in a shipping container but the axles stuck out to wide. Next time I will bring my 500x5 wheels and Lamb 11x4.00 from the Long Eze and move the axles to the inside position and roll it in. I could put a set of duals on the 206 by adding an axle to the inside of the gear leg, 500x5 wheels and the lambs (Ill see if I can get a 500x5 tire in there) but the Lambs would be just to small and I do not believe any improvement in floation or drag. Maybe the taller 180 / 185 could get bigger wheels and tires inboard.

A FBO near me has a set of those whitaker gear laying around. He always says he is gonna put them on his supercub, but we havent seen them yet. They look really heavy.

I have a couple sets of these and was hoping to put a set on my BC-65

You may have just found the only possible way to make a 1940 T-craft unattractive... no. no... NO My eyes !