From: "Volk, Ray" Subject: Retracts Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 14:27:00 PST > Finally, is there anyone out there that has the main gear >retract info that is available. Is it shown on the plans or a supplement or >somebodies modification that is available. George, The January 1996 issue (volume 41) of the Central States Association newsletter has a good summary article on retractable gear. It talks briefly of the 3 different options that are currently being advertised. The 3 options are: 1. Steve Drybreads adaptation of the Velocity gear, currently in design for the MKIV. 2. Jim Newman from Infinity Aerospace using the end of the Main Spar as the attach point retracting inward into the strake. 3. Shirlan Dickeys stiff straight legs that swing from the bottom of the fuselage and retract into the strake A good starting point would be to get this article which discusses advantage and disadvantage of all the systems. It also has contact information to pursue it further. I have purchased the tapes and info from both Steve Drybread and Jim Newman. I am still undecided on which way I will go. Hope this helps. Ray Volk rvolk@space.honeywell.com Date: 29 Jan 96 21:47:48 EST From: Rick Roberts <102503.1561@compuserve.com> Subject: Retracts The article in the Central States Newsletter is a little slanted. This is not a good article on the different retract systems. The addresses are good, but other than that the guy, has a weird engineering sense, (maybe it's because he's not an engineer?). Anyway, three years (that long?) ago I went to see Steve Drybread's gear (based on the velocity and J. D. Newman's Infinity Gear. I and my partner without reservation choose the Infinity gear. I now have it on my "Cozy" and it is better than the prototype in terms of quality. Last September, I say Steve Drybread's Long EZ RG, take off from Ramona after a local EZ Club meeting. He had about a 4-5 Knot Crosswind and as he accelerated down the runway, he wing tips wiggled about +/- 12 inches, when he broke ground his left wing tip ,issed the ground by about 6 inches when it dipped. At that point, since I had seen several takeoffs with the Infinity gear, I realized that if the quality of the gear was completely equal I would choose the wider stance of the infinity. I've never seen a production set of Drybread's gear, however, after seeing his work, I wouldn't have a hard expecting that it would be high quality. My noise to the problem. Rick Roberts Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:02:03 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@Lockheed.on.ca (Phillip Johnson) Subject: BOUNCE (short canard) Lee Devlin Writes: > The RG may have another issue. An oleo strut supports a force that > is proportional to the ratio of uncompressed-to-compressed volume. > If there is 100 psi of air in an 8" strut at no-load condition, > then compressing it 4" will double the pressure to 200 psi. This would only be true if at the full 8 inch of stroke there was no volume left. In the case of the Oleo strut the travel only represents a fraction of the volume so the system behaves as a long spring which is different to the condition described. Additionally you must consider the adiabatic correction gamma = 1.4 since minimal heat will be lost during the expansion/compression. The first, volume, issue would exacerbate the effect Lee describes but the latter, adiabatic, effects would reduce the impact of the argument. I think I mentioned this in a previous post but I will repeat myself: The manufactured has demonstrated that with 100 psi in the strut and a 2200 lb aeroplane the strut has a static compression of 2 inches not 4 inches. Several builders do not use the full 100 psi thereby resulting in an improved incidence. Phillip Johnson Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 20:23:02 -0500 From: "John M. Willis" Subject: E-Glass or S-Glass I plan on stating my project next December.This gives me time to read the forum, setup shop, study the plans and ask as many questions as i can. The retractable gear from Infinity Aerospace is one item i chose because of the hostile terrian i regularly fly over.(I don't think i would build this aircraft if i could not retract the gear, too risky to belly in on a snow covered lake with fixed gear.) One question i would like to ask is, would i be better off to build my spar and wings out of S-Glass or would this be an over-kill.I'm asking this because the gear mounts on the outer ends of the spar.Maybe post cured E-Glass is all that's needed.Can anyone shed some light on this? jwillis@mts.net Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:32:50 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: E-Glass or S-Glass In a message dated 96-04-07 21:25:15 EDT, John Willis writes: > The retractable gear from Infinity Aerospace is one item i chose >because of the hostile terrian i regularly fly over.(I don't think i >would build this aircraft if i could not retract the gear, too risky to >belly in on a snow covered lake with fixed gear.) > I'm no engineer, but several individuals whose judgement I trust have voice some concern over the Infinity gear. It mounts at the end of the spar, and the spar wasn't designed to take these kinds of stresses. Even if it was strengthened, there's the possibility that a very bad landing could punch the gear through your fuel tanks. You might want to investigate the retractable gear sold by Steve Drybread. It mounts at the fuselage instead of the spar. This gear was designed for the Long-EZ. Don't know if it will work on a Cozy IV, but you can call him and find out. His number is 619-431-5562. Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 02:00:44 -0500 From: "John M. Willis" Organization: MK4 Builder Subject: Re: E-Glass or S-Glass StetsonE@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 96-04-07 21:25:15 EDT, John Willis writes: The retractable gear from Infinity Aerospace is one item i chose because of the hostile terrian i regularly fly over.(I don't think i would build this aircraft if i could not retract the gear, too risky to belly in on a snow covered lake with fixed gear.) I'm no engineer, but several individuals whose judgement I trust have voice some concern over the Infinity gear. It mounts at the end of the spar, and the spar wasn't designed to take these kinds of stresses. Even if it was strengthened, there's the possibility that a very bad landing could punch the gear through your fuel tanks. You might want to investigate the retractable gear sold by Steve Drybread. It mounts at the fuselage instead of the spar. This gear was designed for the Long-EZ. Don't know if it will work on a Cozy IV, but you can call him and find out. His number is 619-431-5562. Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder After seeing the drop test in the video that Ininity provides, and seeing the quality of the gear at Oshkosh 95, i purchaced the the gear, tires and all. Infinity Aerospace employed an independent company to calculate the required lay-ups necessary to achieve the required strength of the spar for this application. In the drop test, the tanks were full of water and the Long-EZ was hoisted up buy a rope and cut.The drop equaled a 600ft. per min. drop and represented a 2200 pound gross weight on the Long-EZ! They also filled the tanks with water and put a sustained 6g load on the fuel strake, it passed wih flying colours. Granted, you can't do this day in day out and not expect to have problems but it does show that the structure and gear can handle a certain amount of abuse.Proper instuction in a cozy is the best defence against hard landings, although, we all know it can happen. I'm not trying to push a sales pitch for this gear. From doing my own research, this gear seemed to be the best tested and engineered kit on the market,that's just my personal opinion. jwillis@mts.net From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: E-Glass or S-Glass (fwd) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 9:50:21 EDT John Willis wrote: > The retractable gear from Infinity Aerospace is one item i chose..... > One question i would like to ask is, would i be better off to build my >spar and wings out of S-Glass or would this be an over-kill.I'm asking >this because the gear mounts on the outer ends of the spar.Maybe post >cured E-Glass is all that's needed.Can anyone shed some light on this? Given the overdesigned nature of the spars and the fact that there has never been a stress failure of a V.E., L.E., or COZY spar, and given the testing that Infinity has done on gear mounted on spars, I'd say go with the stock setup. There's no reason to think you need to do anything differently. My. $0.02 - YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 10:11:22 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re: E-Glass or S-Glass John M. Willis wrote: >Infinity Aerospace employed an independent company to calculate the required >lay-ups necessary to achieve the required strength of the spar for this >application. I am a long way from needing them, but I like the gear too; have some resrevations yet..... Does Infinity provide all the stress analysis data on the spars and strakes? Does the analysis include torque from tire-burning emergency braking at full gross? Does analysis include full gross side loads (ie. emergency landing in cross wind)? >In the drop test, the tanks were full of water and the Long-EZ was hoisted >up buy a rope and cut.The drop equaled a 600ft. per min. drop and represented >a 2200 pound gross weight on the Long-EZ! They also filled the tanks with water >and put a sustained 6g load on the fuel strake, it passed wih flying colours. You say the drop "represented" 2200 lb. That just means the G-force at impact was 2200 lbs. Have they done drop test with a 2200 lb plane? Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:38:57 -0400 From: CCady@aol.com Subject: Re: Infinity Gear comments In a message dated 96-04-08 14:24:32 EDT, lschuler@cellular.uscc.com (Larry Schuler) writes: > >Does Infinity provide all the stress analysis data on the spars and strakes? > >Does the analysis include torque from tire-burning emergency braking at full gross? > >Does analysis include full gross side loads (ie. emergency landing in cross wind)? > I wonder how much if any of this analysis was performed on the original landing gear design? If such analysis was done you probably would have a difficult time getting your hands on it. Designers tend to keep this type of data out of the plans. I tend to think thats why these toys are experimental. You are part of the experiments. Other factors which would concern me more would be how the gear was installed and did the builder follow the plans. Just my 1.5 cents From: Lee Devlin Subject: Reasons for retracts... Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 1:01:48 MDT Every so often a posting comes by way of this forum that really tickles my funny bone. This month, the posting that filled me with a mirthful exuberance was the one that rationalized the necessity of retractable landing gear when flying over hostile terrain so that one may land safely on a frozen lake. I had previously overlooked this highly desirable advantage of retracts. However, I still maintain that there is only one legitimate reason to have retracts on a Cozy: It is BECAUSE THEY LOOK SO COOL!!!!! Anyone harping on any other advantage is just engaging in some juicy rationalization. And there's certainly no shame in looking cool. A large portion of discretionary income in our society is spent in the pursuit of just that. Since I've already made the decision to use the boring fixed gear on my Cozy I'm going to have to come up with my own frozen lake landing scheme. Here it is: Implanting remotely-activated explosive devices in each gear leg to jettison gear prior to touchdown on frozen lake. I can hardly wait to write to Nat and see if he recognizes the obvious brilliance of the idea. Maybe he'll make it a mandatory change!? Sorry for this little diversion from our learned discussion. I felt the group was getting a little too serious lately. Or maybe it's just way too late at night... :-) Lee Devlin Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 23:29:25 From: RSiebert1@gnn.com (Reid Siebert) Subject: Re: COZY: Landing gear > Does anyone have any info about the retractable landing gear that >Infinity Aerospace is putting out??? I am consdering it as an option and >want to find out as much info as possible.. Anyone that has one or even >knows someone wha has one let me know your .02$. > I know Nat doesn't recomend retracts !!! BUT I CAN'T resist looking > into it.. >Any input anyone has would be greatly appreciated.. I'm concerned about >extra weight, loss of storage in the stakes( Although I'm considering wing >pods any have any info on these too ??? ) Loss of fuel, reliability, >Insurance problems ect,ect,ect....... > >Thank you >Thank you >Robert Mancuso Infinity Aerospace frequents this mailing list, maybe they will be online after they finish at Oshkosh (they had a booth there). I saw a Long-EZe on the Oshkosh flight line with very large wing pods that each held 24 gallons of fuel, and the pylons had fuel pumps inside. It was quite a sight to behold... Reid Siebert From: RJMANC@cris.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:07:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: COZY: Landing gear Does anyone have any info about the retractable landing gear that Infinity Aerospace is putting out??? I am consdering it as an option and want to find out as much info as possible.. Anyone that has one or even knows someone wha has one let me know your .02$. I know Nat doesn't recomend retracts !!! BUT I CAN'T resist looking into it.. Any input anyone has would be greatly appreciated.. I'm concerned about extra weight, loss of storage in the stakes( Although I'm considering wing pods any have any info on these too ??? ) Loss of fuel, reliability, Insurance problems ect,ect,ect....... Thank you Thank you Robert Mancuso Los Banos Ca (209)826-6814 MkIV 537 Completed chpt 4 Working on chpt 5 00 \______O00O0______/ | | | O 0 O #537 From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: RE: COZY: Landing gear Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 07:27:17 -0500 ---------- From: RJMANC@cris.com[SMTP:RJMANC@cris.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 1996 7:07 PM To: COZY_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Subject: COZY: Landing gear >Does anyone have any info about the retractable landing gear that >Infinity Aerospace is putting out??? I am consdering it as an option and >want to find out as much info as possible.. Anyone that has one or even >knows someone wha has one let me know your .02$. > I know Nat doesn't recomend retracts !!! BUT I CAN'T resist looking into it.. >Any input anyone has would be greatly appreciated.. I'm concerned about >extra weight, loss of storage in the stakes( Although I'm considering wing >pods any have any info on these too ??? ) Loss of fuel, reliability, >Insurance problems ect,ect,ect....... All good concerns. To those I would add: 1- safety: if you do a gear up in a Cozy, no big deal. You scrape some paint off the nose, maybe a little foam. Some guys even put a layer of Kevlar on the nose so when the do (not that they're planning on it but you know the saying "there are those that have and those that will...") have a gear up landing they won't have any extensive repairs. Compare that to a gear up retract landing. You have a prop strike (minimum overhaul the engine), complete bottom rework, and the potential for a cartwheel which could be fatal. Hmmm. Ouch... 2. time: any major modification you do adds time to the project. I would suspect that this would add at least several hundred hours. 3. complexity: more mechanical complexity means more stuff to go wrong and have to maintain/repair/check etc. OTOH what do you get? Maybe a 5% speed increase. How much time does that save on a normal trip? How much more often would you have to stop for fuel due to lower fuel capacity and increased weight? Probably it's a wash. So, bottom line, you get a whole lot more risk, work, cost, insurance cost, etc for slightly inreased speed. HOWEVER, they look way snarky. I almost went for it when I first started building. I LOVED the look of the Velocity RG. Then I made a list of pros and cons and decided that for me it wasn't worth it. My 2 cents. Sid Lloyd Cozy IV #104 (for sale at http://www.insync.net/cozyiv.html) From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: RE: COZY: Landing gear (fwd) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 9:57:35 EDT Robert Mancuso asks about "Infinity Retracts": Jim Newman (Infinity Aerospace) is on the COZY mailing list at: 72124.347@compuserve.com and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace/ You can also peruse the previous discussions regarding retractable landing gear at: http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/mail_list/topics/retracts.txt and in last year's archives at: http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/mail_list/topics95.zip Sid Lloyd wrote (in response to Robert Mancuso): >OTOH what do you get? Maybe a 5% speed increase. How much time >does that save on a normal trip? How much more often would you have to >stop for fuel due to lower fuel capacity and increased weight? According to Phillip Johnson, the increased speed at the same fuel flow about makes up for the marginally decreased fuel capacity (and that only if you don't install a fuel sump where the main gear used to be, in which case you'll actually have MORE gas than before), so the range stays about the same or even increases a bit. >........ Probably it's a wash. Range wise, yes. You get to your destination a bit faster. >So, bottom line, you get a whole lot more risk, work, cost, insurance cost, >etc for slightly inreased speed. HOWEVER, they look way snarky. While I have no clue what "snarky" means, I agree :-). >Then I made a list of pros and cons and decided that for me it wasn't >worth it. Same here, but it's clearly a personal decision. There are at least two (and probably more) members of this mailing list who are installing the Infinity Retract system. I've seen the parts, and they're _very_ well made. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:28:36 -0400 From: Phillip.Johnson@Lockheed.on.ca (phillip johnson) Subject: COZY: Infinity Retracts Robert Mancuso writes > Does anyone have any info about the retractable landing gear that > Infinity Aerospace is putting out??? I am considering it as an > option and want to find out as much info as possible.. Anyone that > has one or even knows someone wha has one let me know your .02$. > I know Nat doesn't recomend retracts !!! BUT I CAN'T resist looking > into it.. I have the infinity retractable gear for my Cozy MKIV. The gear is of high quality construction and, with proper installation, should give years of trouble free use. Nat does not approve it and if you care to look at all of the old news letters you will see that he tries to condemn the equipment. His condemnation is weak since all of his arguments are without substance and in many cases totally incorrect. Maybe he doesn't get a 7% kick back. Did I say that....There is nothing objective in his arguments. The facts are: The gear weighs approximately 33 lbs per side and the pump weighs 8 lbs empty. Add to this some weight for fluid, 1 lb for the sequencing valve and approximately 10 lbs for the extra glass and nuts and bolts. The total installation is a little under 90 lbs. From this you have to deduct the weight of a completed landing gear hoop, approx. 48 lbs, a pair of wheel pants approximately 5 lbs installed. Thus the weight delta is about 35 lbs. This figure can be reduced further if the installation is not a retrofit and the decision is made before the heavy landing gear bulkheads are completely installed. Under these conditions the about a 25 lbs weight penalty should be about correct. Now the performance: Experimental data obtained from Bill Threeringer's 125 hp long-eze indicated a speed increase between 14 and 20 mph depending on all up weight. This was achieved on a 150 mph aircraft so we are seeing a 10% increase in speed (conservative value). Since drag force increases as the square of speed, or power increases as the cube of the speed. This indicates that the RG drag is 75% of the fixed gear drag. Now look at the fuel capacity of the MKIV (50 gals), at the same speed the RG uses 75% of the fuel of the fixed gear, so only 37.5 gals are required to do the same job. You have now saved 12.5 gals which is equivalent to 75 lbs. This indicates that to do the same job at the same speed you use 12.5 gals less fuel which is 75 lbs less weight but your RG weight gain is 25 to 35 lbs more. Overall you have an increase in useful load of 40 to 50 lbs. Or you can do it faster. There is a full analysis I did last year sometime and it should be in the archives. I suggest you read it. It covers most eventualities. In terms of building time it might even be quicker to build with RG. Either way the difference is small. Sid Lloyd Writes: > All good concerns. To those I would add: > 1- safety: if you do a gear up in a Cozy, no big deal. You scrape > some paint off the nose, maybe a little foam. Some guys even put a > layer of Kevlar on the nose so when the do (not that they're > planning on it but you know the saying "there are those that have > and those that will...") have a gear up landing they won't have any > extensive repairs. Compare that to a gear up retract landing. You > have a prop strike (minimum overhaul the engine), complete bottom > rework, and the potential for a cartwheel which could be fatal. > > Hmmm. Ouch... Just remember, the Cozy is a retractable aircraft so it just becomes a differing shade of gray. If you are not comfortable with retracts build a fixed gear plane. Don't build something that you are uncomfortable about handling. > 3. complexity: more mechanical complexity means more stuff to go > wrong and have to maintain/repair/check etc. Life is even less complex if you don't fly. You could also fly a glider and save all that nasty unreliable engine maintenance. Only you can make that judgment call. Go with your feelings, you are building a performance aeroplane. Many people are concerned about the torque that landing imposes on the spar. Do the calculations and discover the worst case torque is with the aircraft standing still waiting to take off. Furthermore this torque is significantly less than the in flight loads imposed by the swept back wing. Again I suggest that you read the archives, the data is there. Also Infinity have a home page at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace Phillip Johnson Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:44:30 -0400 From: us014418@interramp.com (Glen E WHITTAKER) Subject: COZY: Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gear On Monday, August 05, 1996 Sid Lloyd wrote: >All good concerns. To those I would add: >1- safety: if you do a gear up in a Cozy, no big deal. You scrape some paint >off the nose, maybe a little foam. Some guys even put a layer of Kevlar on the >nose so when the do (not that they're planning on it but you know the saying >"there are those that have and those that will...") have a gear up landing they >won't have any extensive repairs. Compare that to a gear up retract landing. >You have a prop strike (minimum overhaul the engine), complete bottom >rework, and the potential for a cartwheel which could be fatal. Hmmm. Ouch... It is my understanding that the fixed gear on the Cozy only works well on a flat, hard and smooth surface. Did you fellas ever consider what happens if those tiny little wheels had to land in a corn field, cow pasture or sandy beach? I don't think that it would make much difference if you had the gear up or down. I suspect that in rough terrain, the fixed main gear would get torn off anyway or get caught on something and flip the aircraft over. I wouldn't care how much damage was done to my plane if I could walk away unharmed. Glen Whittaker us014418@interramp.com Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:28:45 -0400 From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gear >Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 21:23:52 -0400 >To: us014418@interramp.com (Glen E WHITTAKER) >From: Nigel Field >Subject: Re: COZY: Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gear > >At 04:44 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Glen wrote: >> >>It is my understanding that the fixed gear on the Cozy only works well on a >>flat, hard and smooth surface. Did you fellas ever consider what happens >>if those tiny little wheels had to land in a corn field, cow pasture or >>sandy beach? I don't think that it would make much difference if you had >>the gear up or down. I suspect that in rough terrain, the fixed main gear >>would get torn off anyway or get caught on something and flip the aircraft >>over. I wouldn't care how much damage was done to my plane if I could walk >>away unharmed. > >Exactly Glen, thats what happened to my VE last year when I forced landed in a flat, ploughed field (75 yards from a runway), the mains went away instantly followed by the left wing when it dug in, then the F22 bulkhead when the canard touched after the nose retract actuator strut failed in compression, and of course my favorite prop became much shorter. The damage was extensive but none to the cockpit area and the pilot (me) was OK, at least physically. A full retract ship landing gear up in a similar condition would in all likelyhood incur less damage since there would be just a smooth belly to slide on and no parts hanging down to rip off. Having been there I would not hesitate to deliberately choose gear up if I had to do it again in a retract ship, god forbid. It is flying again BTW. > >I think that all the hype about retacts reducing fuel capacity and adding weight is smoke and mirrors. Fixed gear produces DRAG, lots of it, thats why fast airplanes retract it. If you tuck them up you dont need to burn the fuel you lost to the wheel wells, or lift it to altitude. The range and payload are not reduced and your fuel bill is lower. Isn't that a primary objective after all, efficiency?? Phil Johnson did some good analysis on this and posted it earlier. As Phil said the Cozy IS already retractable so there is no difference in cockpit discipline in lowering 1 or 3. If you cant check the gear 3 times in the pattern (downwind, base, final) then you better fix the nose wheel down as well. I agree retracts are more complex, and that is a negative but if I could afford them I would have them on my Cozy in a heart beat, right after installing a controllable pitch prop. > >Nigel Field > > Date: 23 Aug 96 21:52:18 EDT From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Corrections to misinformed Criticasters concerning our Main Retracts Hi to All, There sure has been an awful lot of Bull Sugar floating around, particularly about Main Retracts on canards. I thought I'd take a minute to correct those who have never bothered to find out the facts concerning our Main Retract System, let alone have ever installed a set (don't forget to check out our Home Page for further information): >1- safety: if you do a gear up in a Cozy, no big deal. You scrape some paint off the nose, maybe a little foam. Some guys even put a layer of Kevlar on the nose so when they do (not that they're planning on it, but you know the saying "there are those that have and those that will...") have a gear up landing they won't have any extensive repairs. Compare that to a gear up retract landing. You have a prop strike (minimum overhaul the engine), complete bottom rework, and the potential for a cartwheel which could be fatal. Hmmm. Ouch...< 1) Let's get something perfectly clear - these aircraft are already complex retractable aircraft whether the mains retract or not. The need to remember that you have to lower the gear is already intensely present. To accept forgetting the nose wheel as less damaging' is incomprehensible. The intensity of damage difference between damage from just the nose wheel retracted on landing, or damage from all three retracted on landing to the bottom, is negligible - experts say less. Kevlar bottoms are being put on (and are a good idea) whether the mains retract or not (the Infinity 1 strake leading edge and bottom winglets are also Kevlar). If you are unlucky and the fixed mains do not tear out, historically and statisically, the aircraft will flip over and / or cartwheel. Many people are putting on the main retracts to avoid this statistic, and the statistic of catching the fixed main gear on wires and the associated damage and injuries / death. Forgetting to put the gear down is like forgetting to put your pants on. There is a training problem here - not following checklists, picking a point in the approach to always check the gear, etc. To accept the old adage of those who have and those who will' as the only reason not install main retracts after all the benefits have been presented, is insane. A builder could easily splice in a $30 pressure switch into the pitot static system, similar to what is in the Piper Arrow, to automatically lower the gear when both airspeed and manifold pressure drop below a specified level (your insurance would be cheaper, too), or at least to warn you the gear is not down below 100 mph (standard in the Infinity 1), is a good safety idea, whether you put the main retracts in or not. The obvious, final, mind boggling, Oh My God', question is this - if someone is prone' to forgetting things, one has to ask - what in the Sam Hill is this individual doing driving a car let alone flying an aircraft?!?! A prop strike from an off field landing is the least of your worries. Flipping over from the fixed main gear is statisically and historically the concern. Flipping over from an off field landing with all gear retracted rarely occurs. A prop strike at low / idle RPM from forgetting to put down all three gear during a normal landing, ignoring both the gear warning horn and the gear warning light, statistically and historically, rarely equates to an engine overhaul when using wood or composite props. >2. time: any major modification you do adds time to the project. I would suspect that this would add at least several hundred hours.< 2) Not true ! Our Main Retracts come ready to put in - you don't have to build them up. If the installation is during original construction, builders state it takes less time and is easier than building up and installing the fixed main gear. It's certainly no harder to do nor more time consuming than the fixed main gear installation. Builders doing retrofits to already completed aircraft report the installation is very straight forward and easier to do and less time consuming than the fixed gear installation. >3. complexity: more mechanical complexity means more stuff to go wrong and have to maintain/repair/check etc. Granted - somewhat. The Main Retracts are professionally designed, engineered, and drawn in Pro-Engineer and AutoCAD. CNC machined. MIL SPEC 'o-rings' used throughout. Once installed, I doubt they will be any more problem than the present landing gear system has been historically. >OTOH what do you get? Maybe a 5% speed increase. How much time does that save on a normal trip?< Not true ! Customers have reported DEMONSTRATED increases in cruise speed of 12+% MPH (19 - 23+ MPH / LE / Lyc. 0-235 / 125 HP /// 24+ MPH / Cosy / Lyc. 0-320 / 160 HP) faster cruise TAS ! Therefore, better economy / MPG - saving you MONEY - these Main Retracts pay for themselves !! >How much more often would you have to stop for fuel due to lower fuel capacity and increased weight? Probably it's a wash.< Not true ! Builders report there is NO fuel loss for the Cozy MK-IV or AeroCanard with a fuel sump under the rear seat. In fact, you will probably gain a gallon or more. Therefore, the range is increased, not decreased (less stops). If you don't put a sump under the rear seat (for some reason), you still have the same range as before because you are going faster and didn't need the fuel you lose in the first place. There is NO weight increase when properly installed. Also, this gear is drop tested per FAR's at 2200 lbs., flight tested per FAA, and both US and Canadian FAA approved ! >So, bottom line, you get a whole lot more risk, work, cost, insurance cost, etc for slightly inreased speed.< Again, not true ! As discussed above and on my Web Page, there is less risk, no more work, the gear pays for itself and insurance costs the same (remember, you are still flying a Complex Retractable EXPERIMENTAL AMATUER BUILT / HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT). >HOWEVER, they look way snarky. I almost went for it when I first started building. I LOVED the look of the Velocity RG. Then I made a list of pros and cons and decided that for me it wasn't worth it.< Yes, canards with all the gear retracted look WAY Snarky ! Everything is a personal choice, just make sure you have all the correct facts. HTH. Let's get back to building. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:26:15 -0400 From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Corrections to misinformed Criticasters concerning At 09:52 PM 8/23/96 JD, wrote: >Hi to All, > >much deleted....... > There is NO weight increase when properly installed. JD, Perhaps a breakdown of the total flying weight analysis would help clear this one up. They are heavier but that is only part of the equation. Some verified numbers would be most helpfull. > > Subaru Power EAA Member RAAC Member Call sign NYE NYE Engine Builder Vari-Eze Builder Cozy Builder Advanced Amateur Radio Operator (VE1NC) COPA Member Shit hot Pilot Nigel G. Field, Federal Government Senior Manager LCdr Canadian Navy (Ret) S2, P3 & H3 Sea King Embrun Ontario Canada nfield@cyberus.ca No home page Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:37:44 -0700 (MST) From: orion13@primenet.com (Jeff Burhans) Subject: RE: COZY: Corrections to misinformed Criticasters concerning our Main Retracts Thank you all for this debate - I've been trying to decide about retractable gear for my Cozy (mind you I haven't even bought the plans yet - it's going to be my Christmas present to myself), and this is helping a lot. I've been talking with a LOT of pilots (including one ex-USAF pilot instructor) about it, and I think I'm going to go with retracts. Yes, there is a risk - but as my one friend put it, in almost any aircraft beyond light training aircraft, you've got retractable gear. And the Cozy already has a retractable nose gear. I've got a gut feeling that the increased speed will off-set the decrease in fuel - I have NO inentions of modifying Nat's fuel system or putting fuel in the cabin. Gives me the willys. And they DO look way snarky. My question is this - If, gods forbid, you are stuck doing a gear-up landing, couldn't you kill the engine just before touch-down? Please excuse my ignorance - I'm a LOW (27 hours) time student pilot and still learning a lot of emergency procedures. Or would this be too much to remember? Bad to lose the control of power at the final moments? Please educate me! Thanks again! * * *RION * Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:26:35 -0700 From: Mark Morris Subject: [Fwd: Re: COZY: Corrections to misinformed Criticasters concerning our Main Retracts] I,ve been reading this Infinity retract debate with great interest ... It seems to me there are really two seperate issues here: 1. The discussion regarding retract vs fixed is age old and can be applied to many GA aircraft regardless of whether they be experimental or factory. People do buy C172RG's. 2. What's of great interest to me here, is the real structural impact of modifying this airplane to take this system. I've seen some vague comments about the main spar being overdesigned, etc. I've also seen Infinity's drop test claims; which seem to prove out the gear itself, but don't tell me anything about this application. Has anyone done calculations or testing in this area? Is there a Cozy / Infinity flying out there ... or is one coming soon? Mark Morris Just a guy tryng to build an airplane Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:41:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "George A. Graham" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: COZY: Corrections to misinformed Criticasters concerning our Main Retracts] On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Mark Morris wrote: > Infinity's drop test claims; which seem to prove out the gear itself, but According to JDs written rebutal to the CSA article, a Long EZ was fitted with the gear, drop tested, then crashed due to a fuel leak in the strake. I think that proves everything. JD says that the workmanship on the strake tank was poor. The gear legs certainly do look good. If the strakes would take it. Modified E-Racer #206 (Fixed Main Gear) Strakes and Mazda Engine next George Graham {ca266@freenet.buffalo.edu} Date: 27 Aug 1996 17:19:49 -0700 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: COZY: Infinity Retract Systems Hello All, Being that we are on the subject of retracts I thought I would pose a couple of questions to the gear designer about the Infinity retract system. I'm tabling these questions to spur discussion and NOT to engage in product bashing or promotion. After seeing a couple of installation it appears the gear length must be reduced in order to store in the wheel well. Questions 1- Assume one of the oleo struts are collapsed, will the aircraft still track straight at high speed, as in landing? Has this been demonstrated? 2- With the gear down and the oleo struts collapsed what is the prop clearance when the plane is taxing? (assume a two bladed prop) 3-Is it possible to strike the prop in a normal approach and landing with the strut or struts collapsed? 4-What safeguards are present to preclude the strut from getting out of sequence (strut lengthening) while in the retracted (up) position? thanks judd stewart Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:14:54 -0500 From: Sam Subject: COZY: Infinity 1 Retractable Mains I just received my latest copy of the Cozy Newsletter (#55). There was reference to "the questionable sources on Internet" referring to another topic. It also seems that Nat's source pertaining to the Infinity 1 Mains is also questionable and I felt the need to correct the mis-information. Nat stated once again that "AVEMCO will not insure an airplane with an Infinity gear." This is simply not true. I just talked to an underwriter at AVEMCO about the landing gear. He told me that AVEMCO does not exclude aircraft with the Infinity 1 gear from their insurance program. Nuff sed! I don't want to resurrect the fixed verses retractable debate. I just want to dispell a rumor before it runs rampant again. Happy Building, Sam Sam Pavel 53230 Oakton Drive Cozy MkIV #544 South Bend, IN 46635 Almost finished with Chapter 4 (219)273-0321 (26 hours?, yeah, right...) email: pavel@nd.edu Date: 22 Sep 96 17:19:49 EDT From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Main Retract questions by Jeff Burhans Hi to All, Hi Jeff, You have some very good observations and questions, which are covered in our Main Retract Information Package and Video, but I will try to answer them here for the benefit of all: >Jeff Burhans wrote:< >Thank you all for this debate - I've been trying to decide about retractable gear for my Cozy (mind you I haven't even bought the plans yet - it's going to be my Christmas present to myself), and this is helping a lot.< I don't feel there is any debate, and I don't mean for my posts to be a debate concerning our Main Retracts - just disseminating the facts. See our Web Page, and call if you have any further questions. >I've been talking with a LOT of pilots (including one ex-USAF pilot instructor) about it, and I think I'm going to go with retracts. Yes, there is a risk - but as my one friend put it, in almost any aircraft beyond light training aircraft, you've got retractable gear. And the Cozy already has a retractable nose gear.< Logical. >I've got a gut feeling that the increased speed will off-set the decrease in fuel - I have NO inentions of modifying Nat's fuel system or putting fuel in the cabin. Gives me the willys. And they DO look way snarky.< That's correct, the increased speed from retracting the mains does off-set the decrease in fuel from putting main retracts in if you opt not to put the sump under the rear seat. I know you don't have the plans yet, but canards already have fuel in the cockpit, and most have the fuel valve and lines between the pilots legs. The fuel tanks are outboard of the baggage area in the strakes which are open into the cockpit, separated from the baggage area and cockpit by a .35" thick bulkhead - most all canards are like this. A few other canards have the strake fuel tanks up against the sides of the fuselage and the cockpit. Putting in a sump under the rear seat is very easy for the average builder. And don't be alarmed that you have fuel in the cockpit for airplanes are flying fuel tanks with wings by nature. A canard with a fuel sump under the rear seat and fixed main gear may rupture in an off-field landing if the fixed main gear tears out (if you are lucky - see previous post), spewing fuel under the hot engine. This will probably not happen, though, because the fixed main gear is under the fuel sump and folds neatly aft when tearing out and should miss the sump. A canard aircraft with the mains retracted and a sump under the rear seat will probably not rupture the sump in a properly executed off-field landing since no main gear is ripping out below the sump, and there is usually minimal damage to the bottom of the aircraft, particularly if the bottom is Kevlar. The strake fuel tanks are the most likely to rupture in an off-field landing from hitting something in the field. Fortunately, composite aircraft rarely catch on fire from crashes. And metal fuel tanks ripping open is what usually ignites the fuel (the tearing of metal quickly is like breaking a coat hangar - the metal gets extremely hot very fast). The beauty of a fuel sump under the rear seat is more capacity, among other things. The present canard fuel blisters hold very little fuel. For example, if you are orbiting left about a point for very long, feeding out of the left tank and the fuel quantity is 10 gallons in this tank, the engine will flame out very quickly. A 5 to 8 gallon sump will take, obvioulsy, a much longer time orbiting before it runs dry. Also, your range is increased. This is why people are putting sumps under the rear seat whether they put main retracts in or not. Other benefits, you could make the sump drop out of the bottom for easy maintenance. And / or, put a removable clear window in the rear seat to see into the sump for inspections and preflight. Call if you want to discuss the different sump installation possibilities (we also use single point refueling). >My question is this - If, gods forbid, you are stuck doing a gear-up landing, couldn't you kill the engine just before touch-down? Please excuse my ignorance - I'm a LOW (27 hours) time student pilot and still learning a lot of emergency procedures. Or would this be too much to remember? Bad to lose the control of power at the final moments? Please educate me!< You are not ignorant - that is a very good observation and headwork for a student pilot. Yes, if you are flying an aircraft where the gear is stuck up from up-lock misalignment / out-of-rig (most common cause), planning the approach, burning down, shutting down the engine and making the prop horizontal before touchdown is a very good idea. But the criticasters, and their followers, are referring to people who are prone to forget their pants. I don't like mechanical up locks for retractable landing gear because if the mechanical uplocks get out of adjustment, the landing gear will not come down and the mechanical release or crank will not be able to bring the gear down. So my gear is held up hydraulically (if you pull over 8+ g's - if you could - there is a thermal relief built into the pump to protect the pump and the system). Therefore, it is virtually impossible not to be able to ever get this gear down because of a hydraulic pump and/or electric motor failure (typical failure). The Emergency Release Valve and 850 PSI Blow Down Bottle has no problem bringing the gear down and locked over center, even if there is no hydraulic fluid remaining in the system ! So, the only way you will land under power with this landing gear up is if you don't follow checklists (forget your pants), ignore aircraft build up of speed on final, and ignore the Gear Warning Light and Aural Warning System for the landing gear, which is already standard on canards whether you put main retracts in or not. Some people believe you are getting what you deserve when you forget the gear - a hard lesson to learn. If the engine quits, can't be started and you are executing an off-field landing, the gear will be left up and the engine can be stopped from windmilling by pulling the nose up (convert airspeed to altitude), & / or feathering the prop, both will extend a dead-stick glide. Hopefully, you have clocked the engine and prop during prop installation so that when the 2 blade prop stops, it stops relatively horizontally, meaning no damage form a prop strike. Those of you who have 3 or 4 bladed props and land off-field, you'll be needing your prop repaired or replaced, but you accepted that 'higher risk' for the increased performance, didn't you . . . I hope the above, my other posts and our Home Page helps you and those who are interested with their questions. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace Date: 22 Sep 96 17:20:03 EDT From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Confused a little about our Main Retracts Hi to All, >Mark Morris writes:< >I've been reading this Infinity retract debate with great interest ... >It seems to me there are really two seperate issues here:< 1. The discussion regarding retract vs fixed is age old and can be applied to many GA aircraft regardless of whether they be experimental or factory. People do buy C172RG's. 2. What's of great interest to me here, is the real structural impact of modifying this airplane to take this system. I've seen some vague comments about the main spar being overdesigned, etc. I've also seen Infinity's drop test claims; which seem to prove out the gear itself, but don't tell me anything about this application. Has anyone done calculations or testing in this area? Is there a Cozy / Infinity flying out there ... or is one coming soon?< Mark, you have some very good observations and questions, which are covered in our Main Retract Information Package and Video, but I will try to answer them here for the benefit of all. Also, please check out my Web Page. Besides myself, I have had 3 independant companies do an analysis of my retracts and installation. I have 4 canards flying with the main retracts already. Many more forthcoming. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- >George A. Graham wrote:< >>On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Mark Morris wrote:<< >> Infinity's drop test claims; which seem to prove out the gear itself, but<< >According to JD's written rebutal to the CSA article, a Long EZ was fitted with the gear, drop tested, then crashed due to a fuel leak in the strake. I think that proves everything.< Not true George ! Did you not get a copy of my letter in it's entirety? I'll send you one if you like. The aircraft we drop tested is the stock yellow Long-EZ [at 2200 lbs. with the tanks full of water beyond 15 degrees AOA and over 600 FPM (see video)] featured in magazines in '94 and '95. This aircraft had been flying 3 years before our Main Retract installation, and has been flying almost 3 years now since the Main Retract installation with no problems. The accident I refer to in the CSA letter occured in July '90 involving a totally different aircraft. Also, please note the following (in no particular order): * Besides the independent companies and professional engineers I hired to back up my engineering and design of the Main Retracts and spar improvements, the Main Retracts were designed, engineered and drawn in Pro-Engineer and AutoCAD, all parts are CNC machined and MIL SPEC 'o-rings' are used throughout; * Customer engineers, such as Phil Johnson, Rick Roberts and others, have done their own analysis - they are very satisfied with everything; * The Main Retracts and installation have been Taxi- and Flight-tested per FAA requirements, and approved by both US & Canadian FAA; * The strakes have been asymmetrically load-tested to a sustained 6 g's for over 10 minutes with the tanks full of water; * The strakes and center section spar are now even stronger (see info pack); * The retracts have been throughly tested on Long-EZ and other canard aircraft such as the Cosy and AeroCanard (an improved Cozy MK-IV) to the satisfaction of the FAA. If someone has a problem with our retracts, or any other product, they should buy a set of retracts and install them on an aircraft to prove their opinions before saying or publishing slanderous, malicious false statements; * Putting our retracts on the Cozy MK-IV, and other canard, aircraft would greatly enhance the utility, desirability, and marketability of this aircraft, without going into all the enhancements detailed in our info pack and video; * The Main Retracts and installation is very similar to the Prototype Beech Starship's installation; * 30 sets have already been shipped and are being installed - 4 are already flying (2 Long-EZ's, 1 Cosy, and 1 AeroCanard), many more in '96. Hundreds forthcoming; * The landing gear is standard issue on the SQ 2000 Speed Queen, along with our Stick Grips, Aileron Spherical Bearing and Housing and Click Bond Aircraft Fasteners. They will also be using our Steerable Oleo Nose Strut and Throttle Handle and Quadrant when we are ready with the designs; * In March of 94, at Mr. Burt Rutan's invitation, one of my retract customers flew his yellow Long-EZ-RG to Mojave to meet with Burt and myself so Burt could look over the retract installation before Oshkosh '94. Burt, Mike Melvill, myself and several others crawled around the aircraft for about 45 minutes, asking and my answering several questions. Burt and Mike said they really liked the retracts and the installation. Burt pointed out that this installation was very similar to his prototype Starship, which I did not know. Then Burt gave us a wonderful private hour and a half tour of his skunk works' including his beautiful Boomerang - what a treat ! Now I must make this perfectly clear: JUST BECAUSE BURT AND MIKE EXAMINED OUR MAIN RETRACTS AND THE INSTALLATION, DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN, OR WILL EVER, OFFICIALLY APPROVE OUR MAIN RETRACT INSTALLATION, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF MODIFICATION ! We all know Burt's policy about ANY changes from the his plans whatsoever (we can thank the legal system for this), so no use asking. Nat follows the same policy. Each builder is the manufacturer of HIS aircraft and must decide for himself what changes or improvements HE will make to HIS aircraft. Just simply follow the designer's wishes and call the aircraft something else; * Let's briefly talk about positioning our main oleo strut retracts on the front face of the center section spar. They are cantilevered through to pick up the two wing bolts, similar to the prototype Beech Starship. As most know, the center section box spar is one of the major structures of our canard, or any, aircraft. It handles all bending and most of the torquing loads of the wings in flight. The strakes pick up the rest. Even though the wings have been load tested to 50.03% more torque to the center section spar than the landing gear ever could impose, the center section spar is easily strengthened more, whether it is a new construction or in a flying aircraft. This is done to accommodate the gear installation by simply putting another C' spar and a crush plate in from the end of the center section spar 19". This takes about 6 hours per each end of the spar for retrofits, or adds about 2 hours each end for new construction. The pre-molded drop-in wheel wells provided act as a C' spar through the strake. To finish off the installation, a bulkhead is put into the end of the strakes which makes the strakes a D' spar (this is a question Burt asked to make sure was done when he looked at the installation). So the strakes and center section spar are stronger than original design and construction. A 2000 lb. landing aircraft executing a three point level landing has a landing vector of 12 degrees. Our retracts are raked forward slightly (about 12.5 degrees) for several reasons (the gear fits perfectly as if the spar and strake were originally designed for this type of gear installation in the first place !). The gear basically sees a vertical landing - no torquing. If the aircraft flares a little, the raked forward struts may torque forward somewhat on touchdown, but the spin-up loads of the tire, the 7.25" oleo strut compression and the torque of the swept wing from lift, negate the slight forward torque of the struts during a level landing nose wheel clear, or even a worst case scenario of a nose high / tail down landing. Bottom line - no torque. The design and analysis has been verified by three independent companies (over $47,000 has gone into the design, engineering, prototyping and testing of this Main Retract system alone). To prove the analysis and the strength of the installation, the gear, the center section spar and the strakes, among other tests, we conducted a worst case scenario drop test of a 2200 lb. canard aircraft per FAR Part 23. The tested aircraft was drop tested multiple times (increasing height an inch at a time) until reaching the maximum height per FAR Part 23, with the tanks full of water (which is approx. 2.4 lbs. per gallon more downward torque / vertical load component than fuel !) and the struts had only 60 PSI of air (normally it would be about 100 PSI). This maximum height represents approximately a 600 foot per minute (FPM), extremely hard carrier-type landing, and exceeded 15 degrees angle of attack ! No damage occurred. For those concerned with the effect of hard landings on the center section spar and strakes, one would have to land a lot harder than this test to damage the center section spar & / or the strakes (beyond 600 FPM and 2200 lbs.). If you are landing this hard, you are out of control / crashing and have much bigger problems to worry about than worrying if the center section spar and strakes will be damaged. Beechcraft puts their main landing gear on the spar, as do most other aircraft manufacturers. NOTE: A NASA study reports that the average landing of any aircraft, including airliners, is 180 FPM. This is what non-aviator airline passengers consider as a hard landing. So, I'm sure all will now agree that we have done and proven our homework over and over, and that there is nothing to fear concerning the main retract installation, spar and / or strakes; >JD says that the workmanship on the strake tank was poor.< Unfortunately, Very True George ! The strakes and overall aircraft was very poorly constructed, but one doesn't know this until the aircraft is cut up. For example, the BID tapes the builder used throughout came off a 2" wide production roll which is not produced at a 45 degree bias - very little strength. The surfaces were not sanded and prepped before these BID tapes were put down (the owner admitted). One could peel the BID tapes out with your fingers ! I still have the strakes, you can come see the fuel leak and I'll show you what I'm talking about - I have 200+ photos, too. We also uncovered later, the aircraft had not had an annual or had been flown in over 3 years, the aircraft had been crashed 3 times (which was never logged), the annual that was in the book was entered after the accident and falsified as being done by a company that didn't exist, no AD's had been complied with, etc., etc., and much, much more that will blow your mind ! You can see the fuel leak down the entire inside leading edge of the strake. This aircraft was the first Long-EZ to fly in Southern Calif. (1981). Original Long-EZ planes had styrofoam leading edges. The leading edge foam getting ate away from fuel leaks was a problem for many early Long's. This is why the leading edge foam was changed in the plans, along with fuel tank builder warnings. This leading edge had probably been deteriorating for years (the aircraft only had 300+ hours in 9+ years), it just happend to finish letting go while we were flying it that night on our way to Oshkosh '90 - it was just a matter of time (wrong place, wrong time for us). We will never know what started the fuel leak 9 years earlier for the owner immediatly destroyed the fuselage and partial strake evidence after it served his purpose. I landed just fine on a hiway at night after going over and under some power lines, but a woman driver pulled out in front of us from a side road when she couldn't identify what we were and our lights as I was landing. So I couldn't avoid hitting her from behind after landing with the right canard and main mount - I told her she was lucky we were not a semi truck. We then slid into a shallow ditch hitting a pole shearing out the left canard and cutting off the left side of the aircraft. If it wasn't for her, the aircraft would not have been damaged whatsoever. >The gear legs certainly do look good.< Thanks ! As you can tell, the design, construction and entire project was a lot of work ! >If the strakes would take it.< Besides all the above and our Web Page, don't forget that this is how the prototype Beech Starship installation was done, except their actuator was placed inside the spar and they rotate the entire trunion pin. We don't have that kind of room inside the spar in our little airplanes to do this, nor can we afford the extra complexity and weight. So, if the strakes won't take it, someone better tell Beech . . . I hope this answers everyone's questions and squelches the misconceptions. Please feel free to contact us if there are any further questions. George, how's your fixed gear E-Racer coming with the Mazda engine? We also have a Mazda engine we will be using. Looking forward to hear how your installation goes. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace