Land O’matic

Still got nothing on the high floatation gear for the Cub that had 3 (maybe 4, I can’t remember) wheels per side. Unfortunately I can’t find a pic of it.
 
When I transitioned from the Tomahawk to a 172 years ago the CFI told me that all Cessna's are equipped with a land-oh-matic system. Get the proper speed and pitch and the plane will do the rest of the work..

For the life of me I could never find the on and off switch for the unit....:D
 
Ventucky Red said:
When I transitioned from the Tomahawk to a 172 years ago the CFI told me that all Cessna's are equipped with a land-oh-matic system. Get the proper speed and pitch and the plane will do the rest of the work..

For the life of me I could never find the on and off switch for the unit....:D
Click to expand...
"Lando's not a system. He's a man."
 
Must be a ***** to make a sharp turn with all 4 mains touching the ground.
 
If high floatation was the goal, the USAF did something in that area in the forties. I saw old pictures of a B-29 with tracks replacing the wheels. Guess it didn't catch on. About that time there also were tests of water-wheel like buckets on the tires of transport aircraft. The purpose was to get the wheels spun up to speed for touchdown and reduce tread wear. I think they also motorized the wheels. Sounds good but haven't seen any yet.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Still got nothing on the high floatation gear for the Cub that had 3 (maybe 4, I can’t remember) wheels per side. Unfortunately I can’t find a pic of it.
Click to expand...

This?
attachment.php

Source: https://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?7292-Landing-Gear-Strength-and-Beef-Ups/page2

It was apparently made by a company named "Whitaker".
 
An attempt to make a Fly Baby into a bush airplane. Also had an extended wing and a bigger engine, but a ~11 gallon fuel tank behind the pilot seat had to be kept full to ensure the CG was in range.
upload_2021-4-17_11-53-58.png
Ron Wanttaja
 
I wonder how much money he spent on this vs just finding a working 180?
 
In the late 50's Champion Aircraft thought it would be a good idea to put a land-o-matic system on the old Champ so they made the 7FC tricycle geared version but they kept flipping over like a kids trike when you tried to turn off onto the taxiway and they weren't very popular so in the early 60's they tried to figure out what to do with all those nose gears they had left over and came up with the 7FJ TriCon which ended up being even less popular than the trike so they went to the 7EC which was right back to the original configuration from the 40's and they have stayed that way ever since being sold now by American Champion Aircraft as Citabrias, Explorers, Scouts and Decathlons.
The 7FJ though might just be the weirdest configuration ever contrived from the old Champ design.

2fdd76222257be451dda16bc57f177fb-800.jpg
 
There's a similar story behind the picture of a three-engine Navion. All twin Navions started as singles. You mount two on the wings and take out the center one. You add rudder trim, a bigger rudder*, and the extra set of throttle/prop/mixture controls. Someone shot a picture of one in the conversion process that had all three.

A note on the early (Riley) twins and the later CamAir. The rudders are different and this is perhaps the easiest way to tell them apart. The early twins just took another horizontal stab and elevator and mounted it vertically. It's shape is reminiscent of the 182 tail shown above. The Camair took the original Navion fin (sort of trapezoidal shape) and just scaled it up larger.
 
I got my multi in a Twin Navion, Here is a pict of the Trimotor.

ttn66-03.jpg
 
Plano Pilot said:
I got my multi in a Twin Navion, Here is a pict of the Trimotor.

View attachment 95657
Click to expand...
What's that twin boom aircraft on the far left? Registration seems to be N6502R, but I don't get any good hits. Tail shape is wrong for a Fairchild C-82 or C-119. Looks a bit like the Hughes XF-11, but there's a stub of horizontal stabilizer sticking out beyond the boom that the XF-11 didn't have.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Plano Pilot said:
I got my multi in a Twin Navion, Here is a pict of the Trimotor.

View attachment 95657
Click to expand...
Excellent, I couldn't find that with a slight amount of google fu. There's another one with Christmas lights hung on it. You'll note the "new" tail made out of the elevator in this picture.
 
wanttaja said:
What's that twin boom aircraft on the far left? Registration seems to be N6502R, but I don't get any good hits. Tail shape is wrong for a Fairchild C-82 or C-119. Looks a bit like the Hughes XF-11, but there's a stub of horizontal stabilizer sticking out beyond the boom that the XF-11 didn't have.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Nope neither one. It's an Armstrong Whitworth Argosy. Former Riddle Airlines / Capitol Airways fleet N6502R.

Still exists under UK registration: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132337785@N03/25359800998
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else think that a triple Navion would have a large “Wow” factor?
 
flyingron said:
Excellent, I couldn't find that with a slight amount of google fu. There's another one with Christmas lights hung on it. You'll note the "new" tail made out of the elevator in this picture.
Click to expand...

I found that one on the internet awhile back. My Dad told me there was a shop on DAL that built a tri out of a damaged single with bad wings and a twin with bad fuselage. I do not know what happened to it.

Below is the Twin my Dad owned and I got my multi in. It along with his Swift were destroyed by straight line winds. The t-hangars came loose from the foundation and rolled the airplanes up in a ball.

Twin Navion.png
 
To my knowledge there was never a flown trimotor Navion. All the shots were like the video of the 182 where it was caught in the transition. All twin Navions were conversions from singles. In fact, the early ones (like your father's) were just done under letters of instruction. It is rumored this was the reason the CAA decided to issue STCs to stave off all these field conversions.
 
Yes - I know. Still think a tri motor Navion would be something else.
 
Silvaire said:
In the late 50's ...

2fdd76222257be451dda16bc57f177fb-800.jpg
Click to expand...

Maybe this was inspired by the automotive world. At about the same time, German and Italian car makers were selling similarly configured three-wheeled cars.

The Messerschmitt looked pretty good


but not the BMW
BDD5FD92-F078-4B19-AEDB-4399FD3EB348.jpeg
 
I thought the BMW Isetta was actually a 4 wheeler with two wheels closely spaced in the rear
 
Good catch!

You’re right, after it was on the market for a while, the Isetta was indeed offered with two closely spaced rear wheels. But originally it had only one.
 
With three wheels, it had to be registered as a motorcycle and the driver had to have a motorcycle license. Replacing the single back wheel with two closely spaced wheels made it a car with no special license required.
 
Dana said:
With three wheels, it had to be registered as a motorcycle and the driver had to have a motorcycle license. Replacing the single back wheel with two closely spaced wheels made it a car with no special license required.
Click to expand...
Depends.
In Michigan you have a choice - if it has windshield wipers you can register as a car, if not, then it has to be a bike and you used to have to wear a helmet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top