Antique Aircraft Maintenance

James331 said:
I have no idea what that guy did, but if I laid into any brake, not saying jumping up and down on it or anything crazy, but just put a little force on the brakes to check my static RPM for some reason, or some such, and it failed, that would be unacceptable to me.
It would me too, but the old 24 is a very easy aircraft to operate when you operate it properly, but you must know its
idiosyncrasies.
The concept of the brakes failing before a nose over sounds off, especially in a taildragger, it doesn't take too much to brake a taildragger onto it nose (well it does take a huge lack of skill), the idea that the brakes will break before that sounds flawed.
Some aircraft require the pilot must finesse the aircraft you can't man handle the some.
Also a lot can happen in 100hrs of flight time.
Click to expand...

Not the case here, this owner very seldom uses the brakes in ways he shouldn't
 
James331 said:
How on earth would you nose over the plane on a runup? That would almost take a deliberate action.
7AC I learned to fly in also had manual brakes, they would creep on a short field takeoff, but if one broke, that would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...
The F-24 started as the C8C with 140 horse Warner, his has the 200- Ranger empty weight C/G is way forward from the early birds.
Your 7Ac brakes weren't cable, way different than the cable actuated.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The F-24 started as the C8C with 140 horse Warner, his has the 200- Ranger empty weight is way forward from the early birds.
Your 7Ac brakes weren't cable, way different than the cable actuated.
Click to expand...

I have no experience on the F-24, aside from admiring them on the ramp.


If these brakes are so fragile how are you not having a issue with this? I recall a Stinson that you wouldn't sign off until it converted to Clevelands?
 
for those who didn't know ho
James331 said:
I have no experience on the F-24, aside from admiring them on the ramp.


If these brakes are so fragile how are you not having a issue with this? I recall a Stinson that you wouldn't sign off until it converted to Clevelands?
Click to expand...
Totally different than old goodyear brakes that will fail with out notice and these brakes that you can misuse.

These brakes will operate properly and are very dependable when you use them properly. You simply can stand on them like you can hydraulic system. The 24 doesn't really need that much brake, you simply let it roll out, dissipate its energy, then use the brakes to aid steering and parking. we never use the brakes to slow down. we taxi at idle, and keep in mind we do not have a catering tailwheel, we must be careful to not turn sharper than the tail wheel will allow.
 
Tom-D said:
for those who didn't know ho

Totally different than old goodyear brakes that will fail with out notice and these brakes that you can misuse.

These brakes will operate properly and are very dependable when you use them properly. You simply can stand on them like you can hydraulic system. The 24 doesn't really need that much brake, you simply let it roll out, dissipate its energy, then use the brakes to aid steering and parking. we never use the brakes to slow down. we taxi at idle, and keep in mind we do not have a catering tailwheel, we must be careful to not turn sharper than the tail wheel will allow.
Click to expand...

That could be said for most any small GA plane at most GA fields. My skywagon probably touches down slower than the F24, still like having brakes that don't break if I look at them funny.

So I take it a 24 is not a real short field plane? Personally I'd be looking to trash those brakes if they are actually that crappy by design.
 
Tom-D said:
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.
Click to expand...


Obviously he has never tried to ground run one of these at full power. My boss & I had to tie the SOB down. The customer was complaining that the ITT gauge was flakey during climb-out.

 
James331 said:
How on earth would you nose over the plane on a runup? That would almost take a deliberate action.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for the Fairchild, but on the Waco with the Continental 220 and full tanks (all the fuel in the upper wing which is pretty far forward). The tail will start to come up even trying to hold it down.
 
Tom-D said:
The F-24 started as the C8C with 140 horse Warner, his has the 200- Ranger empty weight C/G is way forward from the early birds.
Your 7Ac brakes weren't cable, way different than the cable actuated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all the 7AC Champs and Chiefs are cable actuated, unless it's one of the extreme few that have been converted to hydraulic.
 
champ driver said:
Sorry, all the 7AC Champs and Chiefs are cable actuated, unless it's one of the extreme few that have been converted to hydraulic.
Click to expand...
I thought they were a rod running down the strut. Ya live, Ya learn.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I can't speak for the Fairchild, but on the Waco with the Continental 220 and full tanks (all the fuel in the upper wing which is pretty far forward). The tail will start to come up even trying to hold it down.
Click to expand...
With my F-24-W I could go full power and hold the stick full forward and the tail would not come up. Not the F-24-R
 
James331 said:
That could be said for most any small GA plane at most GA fields. My skywagon probably touches down slower than the F24, still like having brakes that don't break if I look at them funny.

So I take it a 24 is not a real short field plane? Personally I'd be looking to trash those brakes if they are actually that crappy by design.
Click to expand...
I ran the final at 80MPH and I landed at OKH down hill.
The Good year brakes were the ones that break when you look at them funny. If you consider looking at them funny by placing all your weight at the top of the pedals, then I guess that's beyond the ability of the fairchild brake system.
you must consider your 180/5 wasn't built in 1937. You must finesse the 24, not bully it. the 24 requires a pilot that knows how to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
I ran the final at 80MPH and I landed at OKH down hill.
The Good year brakes were the ones that break when you look at them funny. If you consider looking at them funny by placing all your weight at the top of the pedals, then I guess that's beyond the ability of the fairchild brake system.
you must consider your 180/5 wasn't built in 1937. You must finesse the 24, not bully it. the 24 requires a pilot that knows how to fly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! These planes weren't built to todays modern standards and any pilot shouldn't expect them to.
Click to expand...
 
I once saw a young A&P step out on a Steerman's wing then hear the Crack, step back, get down and walk away..I stood there a second with my mouth open, then went ballistic.
 
and after that event the saying....."they're not all what they're cracked up to be".....became the new slang. :D
 
Bah! I've flown 30s and 40s aircrafts before, I've down short field ops and never had a brake fail. Also 80mph is quite hot for a skywagon.
 
James331 said:
Bah! I've flown 30s and 40s aircrafts before, I've down short field ops and never had a brake fail. Also 80mph is quite hot for a skywagon.
Click to expand...
SO ?
 
Tom-D said:
you must consider your 180/5 wasn't built in 1937. You must finesse the 24, not bully it. the 24 requires a pilot that knows how to fly.
Click to expand...

Go bully, not knowing how to fly, a 185 and let me how it turns out for you and your bank account. They are not fire breathing dragons, but they are also not exactly a super forgiving 7ECA

Like I said, never flew a 24, but I've flown taildraggers of that vintage, I've always found the older taildraggers quite forgiving and well mannered when compared to some of the newer ones.

Tom-D said:
SO ?
Click to expand...

Just wouldn't want a plane where putting some calve muscle into my brakes would result in stuff breaking, and I can't believe that was acceptable when it rolled off the line new, if the things can't hold and creep at full power, fine, but for them to snap like that, that's a whole nother' matter.
 
James331 said:
Go bully, not knowing how to fly, a 185 and let me how it turns out for you and your bank account. They are not fire breathing dragons, but they are also not exactly a super forgiving 7ECA

Like I said, never flew a 24, but I've flown taildraggers of that vintage, I've always found the older taildraggers quite forgiving and well mannered when compared to some of the newer ones.



Just wouldn't want a plane where putting some calve muscle into my brakes would result in stuff breaking, and I can't believe that was acceptable when it rolled off the line new, if the things can't hold and creep at full power, fine, but for them to snap like that, that's a whole nother' matter.
Click to expand...
What is it about adequate that you don't under stand? show me one aircraft that if misused won't break. and where did you get the idea that they just snap?
 
Agreed.

However what exactly did this AP do to misuse the brakes?

I've never flown a plane where I couldn't brake heavily for fear of the brake system failing.
 
James331 said:
However what exactly did this AP do to misuse the brakes?

I've never flown a plane where I couldn't brake heavily for fear of the brake system failing.
Click to expand...
when getting into any aircraft you are not family with do you get training?
This A&P did not, resultantly he exceeded the capability of the brake system, He thought you could stand on them to keep the aircraft from creeping when at full power.
 
Tom-D said:
when getting into any aircraft you are not family with do you get training?
This A&P did not, resultantly he exceeded the capability of the brake system, He thought you could stand on them to keep the aircraft from creeping when at full power.
Click to expand...

Define stand on them? I've never literally "stood" on brakes before, but I have probably put most of my calf muscles into them, never has anyone talk to me about only pushing on the brakes so hard, I probably wouldn't fly a aircraft of the owner told me the brakes can only be pressed lightly.
 
James331 said:
Define stand on them? I've never literally "stood" on brakes before, but I have probably put most of my calf muscles into them, never has anyone talk to me about only pushing on the brakes so hard, I probably wouldn't fly a aircraft of the owner told me the brakes can only be pressed lightly.
Click to expand...
Toe pressure is more than required to operate these brakes, "stand on them" = placing feet fully at the top of the pedals and pushing as hard as you can.
The little 3/32" cables will not tolerate that. Now you'll have stretched cables, and you can hope you have enough adjustment left to make the brakes work again. If not,, you are looking at probably $3500 for the cables to be replaced and a down time of a couple weeks to get the parts, find some who has a cable swager to come and swage the ends on after the cables have been threaded thru all the sheaves and fareleads.
 
Tom-D said:
Toe pressure is more than required to operate these brakes, "stand on them" = placing feet fully at the top of the pedals and pushing as hard as you can.
The little 3/32" cables will not tolerate that. Now you'll have stretched cables, and you can hope you have enough adjustment left to make the brakes work again. If not,, you are looking at probably $3500 for the cables to be replaced and a down time of a couple weeks to get the parts, find some who has a cable swager to come and swage the ends on after the cables have been threaded thru all the sheaves and fareleads.
Click to expand...
The pre-stretch/proof load on 3/32 cables is 552 +25 -0 pounds. I find it hard to believe that can easily be exceeded with pressure from one leg/foot.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The pre-stretch/proof load on 3/32 cables is 552 +25 -0 pounds. I find it hard to believe that can easily be exceeded with pressure from one leg/foot.
Click to expand...
Its called mechanical advantage.
Fairchild never thought any one would stand on a top of the brake pedals either.
But as it turns out, and unintended consequence is the cables stretch and relieve the brakes before the tail comes up. works pretty good as a safety device :) but some don't get stopped before they hit the ditch :( This happened at Ellensburg WA. (no it wasn't me)
 

Attachments

  • Fairchild 015.jpg
    Fairchild 015.jpg
    238.1 KB · Views: 20
GlennAB1 said:
The pre-stretch/proof load on 3/32 cables is 552 +25 -0 pounds. I find it hard to believe that can easily be exceeded with pressure from one leg/foot.
Click to expand...

I agree, if someone simply was just pushing the brakes as hard as they could, shy of superman, if those brakes broke, something wasn't right to start.
 
James331 said:
I agree, if someone simply was just pushing the brakes as hard as they could, shy of superman, if those brakes broke, something wasn't right to start.
Click to expand...
You simply don't know the fairchild brake system.
Or understand mechanical advantage.
If these mechanical brakes were so great, why did anyone invent the hydraulics.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The pre-stretch/proof load on 3/32 cables is 552 +25 -0 pounds. I find it hard to believe that can easily be exceeded with pressure from one leg/foot.
Click to expand...

I just did a test that suggests that 552 lbs. is definitely doable. I weigh in at 190 lbs. I stood on one foot and used the same muscle I'd use to press the brake to lift my body. I could do it easily. I'm not the strongest person.

If the mechanical advantage from the brake pedal (lever) is more than about 2:1, creating 552 lbs. on the cable sounds like it would actually be pretty easy.
 
GlennAB1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Probably would be today, but the certification rules were not as thorough back then.
 
GlennAB1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Probably? But it wasn't in 1937. And it's flying on that type cert. So, it's legal and airworthy as long as the part specified is performing as the part should. Argue with a dead Fairchild engineer.

Would it even be legal to replace with a 1/8" cable? The argument could be made (is being made?) that the thin cable is actually a safety feature, and a thicker cable is unairworthy.

EDIT: Added the quote to make it obvious which message I was replying to.
 
Tom-D said:
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.
Click to expand...
How in sam hill does he expect that to work on aircraft with no brakes at all? (never had 'em from the factory)
 
arnoha said:
Probably? But it wasn't in 1937. And it's flying on that type cert. So, it's legal and airworthy as long as the part specified is performing as the part should. Argue with a dead Fairchild engineer.

Would it even be legal to replace with a 1/8" cable? The argument could be made (is being made?) that the thin cable is actually a safety feature, and a thicker cable is unairworthy.

EDIT: Added the quote to make it obvious which message I was replying to.
Click to expand...

You don't think someone would stand on the brakes in 37'?

Also you're not really standing on them with your full weight, I'm not that great at math, but go out a scale on the wall, move your seat up and simulate I doubt you're going to get your full body weight.

Also if they cable was that easy to break, it's the wrong cable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top