Antique Aircraft Maintenance

[Greg Bockelman]

You guys need to let it go.

 

[GlennAB1]

It's sad, no joke.

 

[James331]

Just your opinion unless you can show documentation.

Let's use toms post, print it and call it "documentation"

If the use of heavy braking caused the system to fail, you don't need a small novel of paperwork to tell you that ain't kosher.

But hey, maybe it is legal, I'm sure Tom would be fine flying it, I wouldn't, what's the worse that could happen

-out

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ah...kosher...official FAA legal term.

I was actually referring to documentation that proved you right rather than proved you wrong.

 

[James331]

The brakes failed, Tom said that's just how they are, do you really need a FAA approved letter for that to seem like a problem?

"Hey honey, when you take the car out careful to not brake hard or the pedal might just fall to the floor"

"I'm not driving that thing"

"Nooooo worries babe! I can't find any document that says that's a problem"

Lol

 

[MauleSkinner]

in my personal experience, accusations of a "design flaw" are usually from people who choose to operate in ignorance of what the manufacturer specifies.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You guys need to let it go.

Yup....I'd give the guy a brake.

 

[Tom-D]

Oh, I understand mechanical advantage. If a system is capable of exceeding the limits of a 1/16 or even a 3/32 cable, shouldn't a 1/8 been require?

I've tried that only to bend the shive brackets.

 

[Tom-D]

Many have forgotten that in 1937 they had landing fields, not runways, you line up with the sock and always landed into the wind. Brakes were seldom use other than to assist in turning and stopping where the line boy wanted you to. No one EVER used the brakes to slow down on the roll out.
That is why I have said these mechanical brakes were adequate for their intended use. They conform to the type design and are airworthy when operated as they were intended.
This owner is a very savvy Fairchild owner and knows how to fly with out using the brakes beyond their design.

 

[GlennAB1]

I've tried that only to bend the shive brackets.

Granted, you couldnt just increase cable size, ever.

 

[Tom-D]

Granted, you couldnt just increase cable size, ever.

You could, it's been done, but the owners know you'll simply break the next weakest link.
I once designed a hydraulic system for the 24 that would use the Cleveland master cylinders plumbed to a small hydraulic cylinder that would actuate the arm on the mechanical brake.
the whole kit using salvaged parts was less than 250 bucks, I put that out to the Fairchild club, and to the man every one said their brakes were good enough.
Then I caught a ration about having too much brake and nosing up.
there is a field approval to use the Cessna 310 double puck brake assembly on the 24, several have been converted, and three of this were nosed up so far.
The whole point is when you use this mechanical system as it was intended, they work just fine.

 

[brcase]

I explained that to the A&P. He didn't agree. He believes the brakes must be strong enough to hold the aircraft at full power.

Never saw a requirement like that.

We're there any 1937 aircraft brakes that would do that?

 

[Tom-D]

We're there any 1937 aircraft brakes that would do that?

Yeah, I think most of the Stinson SR series would, Probably others.

 

[Tom-D]

The brakes failed, Tom said that's just how they are, do you really need a FAA approved letter for that to seem like a problem?

"Hey honey, when you take the car out careful to not brake hard or the pedal might just fall to the floor"

"I'm not driving that thing"

"Nooooo worries babe! I can't find any document that says that's a problem"

Lol

This post is a great example of how you try to twist the subject. your imagination has run away with you again or you need help reading comprehension.

 

[James331]

Ok Tom, enjoy your chitty brakes and remind everyone how you don't need them