Very happy to hear the brakes preformed as advertised. They sure look nice and clean. Can't wait to try it out for myself.

Mike

Been meaning to do this for a while, adding slat pins to keep them from banging away when she is tied down in the wind.

New TK1 Gear (6x3) and shocks.

Is the TK1 gear longer? Or why did you change?

The old gear mounting holes were egged out so I'd been wanting to change. The TK1's were showing some corrosion on the shaft, nothing dangerous but I wanted to send those back anyway to get them reconditioned and they talked me into using their new gear. I already had 6" gear so that's what I asked for. They sent 6x3 by accident. I'd long wondered how the SQ2 would perform with 3" forward so I figured I'd give it a try. Fully loaded heavy there'd only be about an inch of elevator trim left so I figured a little more nose heavy in the air might be a good thing. Yesterday was the first time up on the gear (on wheels) and other than the tail being a little heavier to lift on the ground the flight characteristics seemed the same. Of course I won't know for sure until I'm on a fully loaded flight again (and until I've done some maximum braking on wheels). Snowing today plus already have snow on the ground so put the skis on. The gear looks great and has some really clever features as I'd expect from Tony.

Hi Phil....I asked on SC.Org about the end fittings that attach the shock struts to the lower landing gear. If lateral twist of the lower gear is probable on skis (test with the skis elevated by hand) then that lower threaded fitting could transfer that flexing into the threads that attach it to the strut. Might not be healthy but of course not sure.

There are M-spec Heim joints that can take some flex within the I.D. of the lower gear. See pp. 20-21 as a start (http://www.accentbearings.com/pdf/heim_ ... atalog.pdf). Stress analysis criteria starts on p. 28.

Just a thought as tires present different loads than skis to gear. Safety cables might be a worthwhile add.

Gary

Thanks Gary. They are not heim joints, and there is zero play when the skis are off the ground, but I'm sure they probably were never tested with skis. I've got over 700 hours with them on the SQ2 (the earlier version but the same ends) but only 15 on skis and I've never side loaded the skis. I'll talk with Tony about heim joints and see what he thinks, and if they could/should be used as a replacement.

By "play" I mean can the gear be twisted at the bottom with some lateral force? Yes it can, how much will it encounter is the question.

Phil have a conversation about loads on that fitting's threads due to potential lateral torsion on skis. Which is why the various AD's regarding "NO STEP" placards on struts and strut fork thread concerns (small vs larger; rolled vs straight cut) have evolved for Pipers.

I'd try to run any safety cables from the center the gear cluster like Atlee does versus one length of material fuselage to lower gear...synthetic or metallic. The shorter the cable run the more restrictive effect it will have on wing drop when the gear fails. Angles and length come into play there.

Gary

Gary,

Here is what Tony said. I'll report back what his engineers learn.

"I doubt you could twist the gear leg enough to create an issue at the clevis. Interesting idea though. I’ll have my guys do some computer modeling and engineering on the subject and see what the calculator says. Generally rod ends suck. We only use them when there’s no other option. The threaded clevis we use is 4140 chromoly then heat treated to 50 rc and nickel Teflon coated. It’ll bend almost 90 degrees before breaking."

Gary, sent you a PM

Hi Phil got the msg. There's that FAAST seminar (https://www.faasafety.gov/spans/event_d ... tlist.aspx) regarding FAA Order 8900.19 scheduled here then. I'm not an A&P so may not attend. But If I'm around we can surely visit.

The gear folks appear to be willing to have a look at those fittings and potential stress which would be worthwhile. I'd want assurance that despite the current material's design they would resist failure over time while on skis. A safety cable would be easy to configure tho and add a level of confidence. On skis I'd be concerned about periodic bending if the gear can twist. It may not but some side loads on skis are unavoidable due to changing spring tension and during turns.

Recall the AD on Piper lift strut forks and all the periodic ND testing required of the thread zone vs later replacement with a heavy duty design. Avoid that if possible.

Gary

A few more mods. I went back to 6x0 gear legs from 6x3. With 6x3 the tail was heavier (when on the ground), the nose heavier in flight. Both sound like a good idea at first- be more aggressive with braking and load heavier in the tail. But in reality it just makes it harder to get the tail off in the rough stuff before starting to roll.

And, for the second time in 1200 hours the bronze sintered(?) busing in the Matco tail wheel shattered. So I finally decided to install a Baby Bushwheel instead- even though its a bit heavier. Man I wish I done that from the beginning. I don't know why but the tail feels very different on the ground. Much more stable and pivots under weight much easier. Don't have a closeup (I think everyone knows what a Baby Bushwheel looks like) but here is a photo from today in K Bay.

Those Matco tailwheels just don't pass the "looks right" test for me. Every time I see one I think "that thing is going to break if worked hard on riverbed".

Good move on the baby bushwheel.

Sorry to hear about the accident, that's a bum deal. =/ Hoping you and the passenger are okay.