Wing mounted gear on sport profile models?

[Avaiojet]

Do you often see wing mounted gear on sport profile models?

Does add a tad of weight, but looks nicer and could help keep wingtips off the ground.

Charles

[Steve Helmick]

No. Gopher holes remove wing mounted gears, and don't do a very neat job of it.  Steve

[keith varley]

On the other hand it is pretty prevalent for profile planes intended for competition to use wing mounted gear. I don't really think there is a big difference in weight , especially since fuse gears most often use wheel pants and wing gear planes often use spats.  I.M.H.O. Keith

[Chris Wilson]

Do you often see wing mounted gear on sport profile models?

Does add a tad of weight, but looks nicer and could help keep wingtips off the ground.

Charles

You may find that 'Sport' profile models are a measure in simplicity and it makes little sense to complicate them with wing gear.

[Michael Massey]

And a lot of them are used by people who are still "honing" their skills, which sometimes results in very hard landings.  Hard on wing mounted gear.

[Dick Pacini]

My SSIII not only had wing mounted gear, it was trike gear!  Never had a problem.

[Avaiojet]

My SSIII not only had wing mounted gear, it was trike gear!  Never had a problem.

Dick,

Thanks for that photo it's basically not viewable.     

Does look like a great design, got any larger photos? You said "had." Does that mean what I think it means?

I was thinking wire gear like in R/C, with one coil in the wire up near the wing.

Thanks for the reply.

Grasshopper

[Paul Smith]

I use wing gears on profiles all the time.  I don't believe there is any weight penalty and they're just as strong as fuse gears. 

Getting the gear off the fuselage makes the engine/tank area a lot cleaner and resolves some design problems.  The wishbone shape of a fuse gear makes it bend and break like a turkey wishbone, unless built heavy & strong.  A wing gear is shorter and it moves in the proper fore-aft direction.

[Dick Pacini]

Dick,

Thanks for that photo it's basically not viewable.    

Does look like a great design, got any larger photos? You said "had." Does that mean what I think it means?

I was thinking wire gear like in R/C, with one coil in the wire up near the wing.

Thanks for the reply.

Grasshopper

Click it once (the little picture, not the jpeg title below) and then when it appears, click it again.  It will be almost full size.

[Avaiojet]

I use wing gears on profiles all the time.  I don't believe there is any weight penalty and they're just as strong as fuse gears.  Getting the gear off the fuselage makes the engine/tank area a lot cleaner and resolves some design problems.  The wishbone shape of a fuse gear makes it bend and break like a turkey wishbone, unless built heavy & strong.  A wing gear is shorter and it moves in the proper fore-aft direction.

Paul,

WOW!

What a really nice looking model! Got specs on this!

What method do you use to mount your wing gear? Or, I should say, what has been successful? There are a few ways to do this?

Great looking model!!

Charles

[Ward Van Duzer]

Dick,

Pretty design... I really like the tripler at the wing root! Sheer genius   

Could be used on many profile designs i.e. P' Force, Force, Sarpolus' Challenger, Hey, how about a profile CrossFire?


Ward-O

[Dick Pacini]

Dick,

Pretty design... I really like the tripler at the wing root! Sheer genius   

Could be used on many profile designs i.e. P' Force, Force, Sarpolus' Challenger, Hey, how about a profile CrossFire?


Ward-O

Thanks, Ward.  That was my best flying airplane ever.

[Mike Griffin]

Dick I think your Spirit of Saginaw is a beautiful design.  I like the sleek look on profiles..

Mike

[Dick Pacini]

Thank you, sir.

[Avaiojet]

No one mentioned methods of mounting?

There are a few different ways.

The gear wire can be copper wired tied to vertical pieces of plywood and these pieces can be epoxied to the upper and lower spars.

This arangement isn't removable.

The more common is the hard wood mount notched to except the gear wire.

With this arrangement, the gear can be removed?

Has anyone used both?

Charles

 

[Dick Pacini]

Wing mounted gear using notched hardwood blocks is removable.  The gear wire is held in with small straps and screws.

[Chris Wilson]

Even tho I promised myself to not  respond to another of your post. 

I hear you Doc, but this being a fairly open public forum you are also responding to a wider audience.

And for that we thank you.

[Chris McMillin]

Charles,
I can think of three '60's profile kits that had gear in the wing, the Midwest P-63 King Cobra, the Midwest P-51 Mustang and the Midwest Skyraider, maybe more from them. Also, now that I think of it, the Trophy Trainer.
All had R/C gear blocks and vertical uprights to stop rotation of the wire, just like in R/C. They were removable so you can bend them back without destroying the structure. I had the King Cobra and the Trophy Trainer and flew them from grass and asphalt to the tune of hundreds of flights. It might make a few oz difference in weight but they were both models I competed with in my early Stunt years so they are robust enough.
Chris...

[Balsa Butcher]

Add Midwest P-40 and Goldberg P-40 to the list. Also, the J-Roberts profiles, Sabre etc. 

[Trostle]

I will explain something based on some experience about the difference between wing mounted and fuselage mounted gear, particularly about profiles.

If one is concerned about simplicity, then a fuselage mounted gear is easier, particularly in the way most profile designs show how they are installed.  Also, weight of a fuselage mounted gear on a profile fuselage might be somewhat lighter, though the difference would be negligible as far as "performance" of the profile design is concerned.

To me, the major factor in selecting a wing mounted gear over a fuselage gear, either profile or built up fuselage is the ability to make smooth landings.  Yes, a properly designed/installed fuselage mounted gear can be assembled to give good landings.  However, a properly designed/installed wing mounted will more likely give better results for not experiencing bounced landings.  Also, takeoffs can normally be performed more smoothly.  Now, if bounced landings are of no concern and if "jump-off" takeoffs are acceptable, then by all means go to a fuselage mounted gear.  The main criterion for a "properly designed landing gear position" is to have the axles approximately in line with a 15^o angle forward of the CG (vertical/longitudinal) of the model.  Then, some common sense needs to be employed on how to mount the gear (either permanent or removable), the location of the mounts, and the type of material used for the gear legs.

[Avaiojet]

Keith,

Thanks for the reply.

Well, you made my mind up for me with your generous information.

I will take the less bonce explanation.

I will place the gear in the wings. So thanks!!

Another question.

The track? Is there a set rule of some nature? Math? Or just what looks good?

Thanks again,

Charles

[Avaiojet]

Charles,
I can think of three '60's profile kits that had gear in the wing, the Midwest P-63 King Cobra, the Midwest P-51 Mustang and the Midwest Skyraider, maybe more from them. Also, now that I think of it, the Trophy Trainer.
All had R/C gear blocks and vertical uprights to stop rotation of the wire, just like in R/C. They were removable so you can bend them back without destroying the structure. I had the King Cobra and the Trophy Trainer and flew them from grass and asphalt to the tune of hundreds of flights. It might make a few oz difference in weight but they were both models I competed with in my early Stunt years so they are robust enough.
Chris...

Chris,

Thanks for the reply.

Interesting about those kits from the 60's. I think back and I do believe the Ruffy had gear in the wings but had a built up fuselage. Palmer's Thunderbird had gear in the fuse and was built up!

I will take Keith's advice on the gear being in the wing.

It'll look nicer also.

Thanks for the reply.

Charles

[Chris Wilson]

Something not mentioned here is the use of mono wheel (spelled 'Peacemaker') or tandem one behind the other (some Russian stunters tried this complete with tip skids) style of undercarriage that simply must be centralised in order to support the model.

And since the fuselage almost always is in the centre of the model it makes little sense to wing mount a mono or tandem wheel setup.

The above two configurations should give a low bounce take off and landing (Kieth?)

The tricycle setup (being both wing and fuselage mounted) I will leave up to others.

Thanks.

[Trostle]

I do not have much experience with a mono wheel arrangements.  The good Team Racers (F2C) do not bounce on the landings.  I have an idea the wheel is very close to being just slightly ahead of the CG.  But I do not know a good rule of thumb factor to use for this.  I can be very functional, but it is different as far as providing a "realistic" stance on the ground.

In competition, our AMA rules (and I think FAI F2B rules require the main gear to have two wheels or something to that effect.

I will leave the advantages/disadvantages of a tricycle gear discussion to others.  Placement of the main gear would be around 10 to 15 degrees behind the CG.

Keith

[PerttiMe]

Something not mentioned here is the use of mono wheel (spelled 'Peacemaker') or tandem one behind the other (some Russian stunters tried this complete with tip skids) style of undercarriage that simply must be centralised in order to support the model....

I recall some mention that the mono or tandem wheel stunters could be tricky to take off, depending on the wind.

I seem to have saved a couple of pictures...

[bob whitney]

in racing ,most of the class's use a mono wheel  using the 15 deg rule they take off and land great .  i have used the mono wheel on a couple of full stunt ships and loved it, you need to add some type of tip skid wires to keep it from wrocking as it slows down  now i need to go see what the AMA rule on stunt mono wheels is m RAD RACER

[john e. holliday]

Taking a chance on this getting deleted without a notice or expanation.  Rule 6 Landing gear in Precision Aerobatics states that any type of gear may be used including tip skids.  No number of wheels.   Drop off gear not allowed.

[Dick Pacini]

Taking a chance on this getting deleted without a notice or expanation.  Rule 6 Landing gear in Precision Aerobatics states that any type of gear may be used including tip skids.  No number of wheels.   Drop off gear not allowed.

I remember somewhere back in the late 60's, early 70's, the Adamisins had a plane with wire tip skids.

[PerttiMe]

in racing ,most of the class's use a mono wheel  using the 15 deg rule they take off and land great .

Racers don't spend much time rolling on the ground, which may make it (even?) easier there. As fast as possible to the pit man, very quick acceleration taking off.

A mono or tandem stunter would certainly score high in coolness 

[Trostle]

Racers don't spend much time rolling on the ground, which may make it (even?) easier there. As fast as possible to the pit man, very quick acceleration taking off.

A mono or tandem stunter would certainly score high in coolness 

Well, I am no expert in racing, but I have often seen F2C racers go half a lap or more on the ground after touch down and with no bounce.  No, that is not good strategy because that means too much time is used up.

Mono or tandem wheels on a competition stunt ship present their own set of problems.  The rules for landing specify that no part of the model other than the landing gear is to touch the ground.  That translates to mean that the gear, according to the rules, "must consist of any combination of permanently affixed wheel(s) and/or skid(s) which allow the model to take off and land under its own power in a normal manner."  Racing planes (including F2C) do not have such rules.  When  a mono wheel or tandem gear is installed on a stunter, there will need to be some sort of outrigger skids and/or wheels on the outboard portions of the wings and/or tails to keep the tips from scaping the ground.  Based on the configuration of such "outriggers", the model can be very awkward in its appearance of executing either a smooth high point takeoff and or landing.

I am not saying it is not possible to be done, but it will require some special attention to get it right.

There have been sketches of a Russian stunter with a tandem or monwheel main gear with small wheels mounted to dummy missiles uner the wing to give lateral stability while on the ground.  This was neat.

Keith

[John Hammonds]

There have been a couple of U2 stunters over the years, I have the plan for Frank Warburton's 54" version. I would have to check but I think the "pogo wheels" (Which were drop off on the real U2) are set up so that they are slightly short when the model is sitting on the ground so it lands on the main wheels and then leans onto one of the tip wheels once speed drops. Having said that I understand the u/c arrangement did not lend itself to smooth take offs and landings despite what the Aeromodeller article says.

TTFN
John.

[Trostle]

There have been a couple of U2 stunters over the years, I have the plan for Frank Warburton's 54" version. I would have to check but I think the "pogo wheels" (Which were drop off on the real U2) are set up so that they are slightly short when the model is sitting on the ground so it lands on the main wheels and then leans onto one of the tip wheels once speed drops. Having said that I understand the u/c arrangement did not lend itself to smooth take offs and landings despite what the Aeromodeller article says.

TTFN
John.

That tandem wheel arrangement might be made to work with outriggers.  I could not find the solution.  The results I experienced is that the model sort of "wallows" around like a drunk pig longitudinally and laterally when taking off and landing.  As I said, however, there may be a solution to make it work and perform well.  That has not been my experience with two different models and configurations.

[Robertc]

I built a Warburton U2 and it did sort of wallow around as Keith said.  But to me, the problem was the tip plates that were suppose to mimic the tip skids
acted like rudders.  They were straight and the plane flew in circles- not a good arrangement.  Cut off the tip plates and it flew much better.  Never landed on
anything but grass, so not sure how good the landings could have been, but didn't seem bad.
As far as pretty profiles with wing mounted gear, I always liked Larry Cunningham's MoBest.  I built four of them and really liked them.

[Avaiojet]

Robert,

Thanks for that!

Got photos?

Charles

[Robertc]

This is the last MoBest I built.  This one has an LA 46