jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
How many Fly Babies have been destroyed by Good Year brakes locking up? I have no clue and suspect the number is pretty small. Probably more have been destroyed by the wings coming off.
safe vs airworthy
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
- Status
How many Fly Babies have been destroyed by Good Year brakes locking up? I have no clue and suspect the number is pretty small. Probably more have been destroyed by the wings coming off.
I'd bet more than one has on been on its nose or back.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
bnt83
Final Approach
"I refuse to signoff on any antique airplane who's engine is not supported by the manufacturer."
Kinda the same argument, no?
Kinda the same argument, no?
wanttaja
En-Route
I have a web page describing how I replaced my Goodyears with Groves, and twice now, I've received an email asking if I was willing to sell the old ones or any pads. I've sold the intact one (one's cracked) and the bargain pads I got from ACS ($20 a set rather than $200; they bought out a company that had made them).
I'm assuming you look at the clips during your normal pre-flight. That's what almost got me, the second time, was a clip that broke.
Ah, yes, bleeding the bloody Goodyears. I would crack the brake line connection at the wheel, sit with my back against the fuselage, snake my arm up through the front bottom removable panel, and work the brake pedal by hand while watching the sputtering from the opened line. When said sputtering stopped, close off the brake line. Good times.
Otherwise, I actually liked the engineering concept of the wheel/brakes with the interlocked brake disk...you can see them in this picture:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/goodyear.jpg
Taking off the wheels was theoretically remarkably easy. Just flip up the clips (like the screwdriver is doing in the above picture) and slide the wheel off of the toothed disk. In my case, though, one of my wheels had gotten whanged or something, and it was always a struggle to get it back on. Carried a set of little wooden wedges in the airplane to be able to hold all the clips up. Other models of Goodyears had different clip systems.
In addition to the clips, there's one other thing that bugged me about the brakes, and, in fact, caused my wheel lock-up.
The brake pads sit inside a recess, and nothing holds them in there (at least on my model Goodyears, with the kidney-shaped pads). This generally works fine, as the gap between the pad-holder and the disk is tight enough that the pad can't get out of the recess. I used RTV to temporarily hold them during assembly.
However, if you let the pad get too thin, it has enough clearance to escape. If you're lucky, it escapes into the wild and you just have no brake. In my case, it actually wedged inside the wheel assembly and locked up the wheel.
Without a manual on the wheels, or any outside help (who's an expert on 40-year-old Goodyears?), I had no way of knowing this was a danger. Maybe, if I'd been landing, the forces would have crumpled the pad instead of locking the wheel. Would have been an exciting ride, though.
Happy with my Groves, but if your Goodyears are in good shape, just keep an eye on the pads and clips.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Yep. Not aware of any Fly Baby accidents due to brake lockups. I think Goodyears are pretty popular for 'Babies built in the 70s (like mine) since so many people were switching to Clevelands and the Goodyears were available cheap. I looked up the number for mine, once...the model was used on early 172s, IIRC.
Ron Wanttaja
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Isn't this a wonderful thought, your head is the highest thing in the aircraft, and you are going on your back.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Pretty much any airplane, conventional or tricycle, can easily end up on it's back in an off airport landing. That's why I caution people who don't use or outright remove baggage compartment cargo straps. Whatever is back there will come down on the back of your head. Nosing over most likely isn't gonna kill you but a pair of aluminum wheel chocks might.
And if you're in a Grumman make sure you open the canopy before landing.
And if you're in a Grumman make sure you open the canopy before landing.
N3368K
Cleared for Takeoff
Most FlyBabys I've seen have Cub type GoodYear/Hayes expander tube type brakes rather than GoodYear disc brakes like Ron's. The old expander tube types work well if maintained. I have enough parts to keep both my brother's and my own Cub working for the next couple of lifetimes. They do require frequent bleeding though. My Swift had Goodyear discs, same as Stinson 108 series and early 172s. They worked well enough when set up properly, but they still would shed clips quite easily and frequently. Also, expander tubes seemed cheap by comparison to Goodyear disc brake parts. It was subsequently converted to Clevelands. An old 108 I had had Clevelands too. They are far superior to the old Goodyear disc brakes. They are also much easier to work on.
Jim R
Collierville, TN
N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
Jim R
Collierville, TN
N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes this is where we're all disconnecting. I have the GoodYear expander tube setup. I don't have pictures of the internals but I can't think of a way it would easily lock up. Mine is not the setup Ron is talking about. I didn't realize there was a Goodyear design like his.
Last edited:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Vertical stab is pretty damn strong and was designed with the intention that it would save you if you flipped it. Crashes support the design does work.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't have that slick access panel you made. So you have to crawl in upside down which quite frankly is an absolute ***** even at my 5'8" 155 lb size. The first time I did this I went in upside down with the seat still installed. I legitmaitely thought that I was stuck and would have to destroy something to get out. Took 20 minutes of messing around to figure out how to crawl out again.
I remove the seat now which helps a lot because I have the "Matt Michael" extended baggage area design which allows me to basically lay completely flat with my legs extended once I'm in.
I can't remember how I managed to bleed them myself..but I did it somehow..
My left brake went out when I landed at Airventure two years ago. Last year my left tire went flat at Airventure. I don't have the best of luck with reliability there. Luckily there are parts galore and plenty of people that want to help.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Yep, does prey on my mind.
There have been several Fly Babies over on their backs, but haven't heard of any injuries due to the flip. Bowers said the vertical stabilizer was tall enough to protect the pilot, but of course if it's mud or whatever it just might go in too far.
About forty years ago, the predecessor design to the Fly Baby flipped when landing into unexpectedly deep snow at what turned out to be a temporarily unoccupied airport. Even with the snow, the tail kept the pilot from injury (though he IS a short dude) but he was actually trapped in the cockpit. Would have taken a pretty tall structure to let him crawl out of the plane. As it was, he tunneled out through the snow.
They added a turnover structure afterwards, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference in that accident. It was just a kind of blade behind the pilot...no breadth to it to speak of.
Some folks have added turnover structures to Fly Babies, the best one I saw was a cool welded structure that fit completely under the existing turtledeck and headrest. Gave up quite a bit of baggage space, though.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Actually, there is a "stock" inspection panel in addition to the long belly panel I put it. It goes across the bottom of the fuselage just behind the firewall, in front of the forward landing gear leg. It's the forward "blue line" in this diagram, in front of the belly panel I added. It may not have been included in your airplane.
It was originally put it to service the brake master cylinders. However, a lot of folks install the cylinders on top of the floorboards rather than below, which negates the advantage.
The larger-fuselage Fly Baby concept I've been toying with will include access panels from the side, if I can in any way swing it.
Ron Wanttaja
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Mine has the forward one. Funny I can't remember what part of the brakes are accessible from there and what isn't right now. The real problem I have is doing work on the panel. Just no "easy" way to get at things.Actually, there is a "stock" inspection panel in addition to the long belly panel I put it. It goes across the bottom of the fuselage just behind the firewall, in front of the forward landing gear leg. It's the forward "blue line" in this diagram, in front of the belly panel I added. It may not have been included in your airplane.
It was originally put it to service the brake master cylinders. However, a lot of folks install the cylinders on top of the floorboards rather than below, which negates the advantage.
The larger-fuselage Fly Baby concept I've been toying with will include access panels from the side, if I can in any way swing it.
Ron Wanttaja
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,728
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
So you sit flat on the floor? (I assume those little red things are rudder pedals. I also assume you don't fly with your legs hanging out of it.)
John
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Have you seen a flybaby in person? Jesse's other name is Fred, Fred Flintstone...
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,728
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
That picture is showing the access panel Ron added to his Flybaby to make it easier to work on. With the panel removed you could indeed hang your feet out the bottom on his if you so chose.
You sit pretty close to flat on the floor in a Flybaby with your feet in front of you on the rudder pedals. There is a "seat" that varies from FlyBaby to FlyBaby but it provides very little vertical lift. Keep in mind that your legs are bent (knees up) as your leg reach would go beyond the rudder pedals. The Flybaby cockpit is really "bigger" than it looks in the sense that you sit deep within it. I can't see a single thing in front of me on the ground.
The problem is that keeping your legs bent like that isn't very comfortable after about a hour IMO. I have foam pieces that are shaped "just right" that go in front of my seat and provide support for my legs so my legs can rest on the foam at the right angle for my feet to be on the rudder pedals. This is actually pretty damn comfortable. I've done 12 hour tach flying days.
I really only need my Flybaby to be comfortable for 3.15 hours. By the time I get to that point I'm wanting to land as I only have about 4 gallons of fuel (1 hour remaining).
My fuel tank really isn't the stock design and one day I started to wonder how well it would actually continue to gravity feed the fuel to the carb if there were only a few gallons in it.
I did one test flight where I took off with about 8 gallons of fuel then remained over the airport at about 6,000 ft testing various flight attitudes as the fuel burned. Somewhere around 3 gallons I was able to create some fuel delivery issues at really nose high attitudes (if held there for extended amounts of time). So I really don't like to get down to 3 gallons of fuel in the tank. If something happens where the fuel gets that low I'm cautious about putting the airplane in that attitude, but really do treat it like a limitation. Kind of a reserve emergency fuel with strings attached is how I approach it from a decision making standpoint.
I do have a very accurate fuel gauge that I trust to the gallon.
Last edited:
schmookeeg
En-Route
It doesn't matter what the FAA's definition of Annual Inspection is, it depends on what the jury hired by the widow's attorney thinks of your "I certify this aircraft is airworthy..." signature.
I generally disagree with OP on everything, but on this one, I think his refusal to sign off any goodyear brakes is correct (for him, not "by the letter"), and he can't afford to handle it any other way.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Then why even take the job on to begin with?
This is screwing over the owner, and any decent mechanic can look at the brakes before any disassembly is required. There are plenty of good mechanics out there that will do a good annual if one decides he doesn't want to do it.
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,728
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
If I read his posts correctly, he inspected the airplane (just a cursory once over) and gave the owner a list of things to fix before he would sign it off. He didn't say he charged them anything. If my reading is correct, I'd certainly have no problem with it as a customer. He was upfront.
Now, get it all torn apart and then tell me that, we have a different problem. But nothing in his writeup made me think that.
John
Now, get it all torn apart and then tell me that, we have a different problem. But nothing in his writeup made me think that.
John
wanttaja
En-Route
Depends on how the plane was built. The builder of your airplane didn't include the removable center second on the panel. Probably seemed like a good idea at the time. The stock panel section holds the pitot/static instruments, and comes out with the removal of four screws and the disconnection of two tubes. Once it's out, accessing what's left is easy.
That was one of the reasons for my belly-pan modification. I can sit upright on the pilot seat, with my legs dangling below, and very comfortably access the panel.
Again, *depending on how stock your airplane was built*, there's another option. The whole top of the fuselage forward of the cockpit is held in place by ~16 machine screws (eight per side). A zip-zip-zip with a power screwdriver, and I can get most of my forward cockpit open.
Ron Wanttaja
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Again, *depending on how stock your airplane was built*, there's another option. The whole top of the fuselage forward of the cockpit is held in place by ~16 machine screws (eight per side). A zip-zip-zip with a power screwdriver, and I can get most of my forward cockpit open.
Ron Wanttaja
Well the forward cockpit part of mine has the landing wires running through it on each side. So you have to support the wings, loosen the turnbuckle, and disconnect the landing wires. Not really that big of a hassle but I don't like messing with that whole system if I can avoid it. Pretty sure I have to remove the top of the cowl as well but I can't remember now. It's a lot of messing around to get at for sure.
I've considered just cutting slots out of the forward cockpit so it would just slide down on top of the landing wires. Not sure why the builder chose to run them through it. How is yours done?
You can see the forward cockpit area on my avatar on this website..along with how the landing wires run through it.
Last edited:
No, there are legal protections. Can someone sue? Sure, for anything and everything, can they win, or even get to court, is the question. If that is your concern, you have no business being an A&P IA, because every signature carries with it the exact same level of risk.
Skip Miller
Final Approach
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is a cheery thought! At least the brake problems occur on the ground...
-Skip
Pretty well prevented by common sense. It's amazing the stupid things people do with cheap experimental aircraft to save a buck.
When I first bought it I was pretty damn concerned about the wings coming off considering how many times it has happened. A lot of research about why they had came off and some maintenance to mine really calmed those concerns.
The incidents have pretty well stopped now. It's been a number of years since the wings have folded on a Flybaby. I'm quite convinced that's because of Ron Wanttaja's efforts to really explain the issue on the Flybaby website and his efforts to keep the community going. He might not realize it, but I'm sure he has saved airframes and the guys flying them.
Much of it is explained here:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/bracing.htm
Basically if you don't want your wings to fall off:
1.) Don't do aerobatics. Yeah it can be done, but there are better planes for it with less risk.
2.) Stick to what the plans say. Don't try to come up with your own "better" way to keep your wings attached. Don't chrome plate your wing fittings because it's prettier.
3.) Actually maintain and inspect your airplane. Don't let it sit outside for years in the rain then fly it without an inspection.
4.) Use the proper tool to press the fittings that keep your wings on. Don't try to use a Vice Grips to save a few bucks.
5.) Make sure each wire in each "pair" of flying wires is of similar tension else the other one isn't doing jack **** and will fail the moment the first fails from overstress.
Last edited:
schmookeeg
En-Route
Then why even take the job on to begin with?
There are plenty of good mechanics out there that will do a good annual if one decides he doesn't want to do it.
He believes the brakes are a time-bomb. His choices are:
1. Convince the owner.
2. Refuse the work.
I think both outcomes are acceptable, although the owner might have some fruity comments about him as a mechanic, depending on how he operates his machine. I don't think his stubbornness on this topic makes him "ungood", just "self preservationist"
It's not just cheap airplanes brother, let me tell you.... The things I see billionaires do to save dimes on multi million dollar yachts, when actually they are throwing away both time and money. I just had a blow out with my boss last night over this. He wants me to get enjoyment out of his boat and make sure everything is safe and right, then he cuts me off at the knees on being able to get him enjoyment by deciding to cancel a family spring break trip to save a $2000 in shipyard bills by only hauling once instead of twice. Drives me nuts because I had everything worked out. So I yelled at him for a while and asked him, "You told me that in 6 years you had never ejoyed the boat. So tell me as a billionaire, will enjoy having that thousand dollars more than the trip on the boat with the family?" This morning he's "You're right captain, I'm leaving it up to you we will do the trip."
schmookeeg
En-Route
Disagree. Clearly Tom believes there is a higher risk carried with signing a plane with Goodyear brakes than one with Clevelands.
Under what statute is the Goodyear brake different from the Cleveland brake?
We are talking about law here. The Goodyear brakes are fully certified for use in the planes they are on as safe, same safe as they certify for Clevelands. The risk one is at does not change regardless the signature. Anything that fails and produces a loss or casualty has the exact same potential under the exact same set of rules as any other, including Goodyear brakes.
wanttaja
En-Route
So did mine...the first time. I cut slots out under the landing wire terminals so that I didn't have to go through the whole process again. Note the "notch" under the terminal in this picture:
It might be doable without actually removing the terminals, but I think the cut would look a lot more ragged. I could come up with a bit of trim to dress this up, but considering my plane is ~35 years old, it probably isn't worth it.
Fully understand your unwillingness to mess with the rigging system, though. But you do 90% of the process whenever you remove the wheels. You do have to have exterior support of the wings during this process.
I'd make sure that the screws holding your top in place have anchor nuts before doing all this, though. It's possible the original builder said, "Aw, heck, I'm never going to have to get at this again...." One on each side of mine *didn't* have anchor nuts, but they were the easiest ones to get to.
Ron Wanttaja
You could make the initial cut a bit shy, then clean it up when you get it off.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
So did mine...the first time. I cut slots out under the landing wire terminals so that I didn't have to go through the whole process again. Note the "notch" under the terminal in this picture:
It might be doable without actually removing the terminals, but I think the cut would look a lot more ragged. I could come up with a bit of trim to dress this up, but considering my plane is ~35 years old, it probably isn't worth it.
Fully understand your unwillingness to mess with the rigging system, though. But you do 90% of the process whenever you remove the wheels. You do have to have exterior support of the wings during this process.
I'd make sure that the screws holding your top in place have anchor nuts before doing all this, though. It's possible the original builder said, "Aw, heck, I'm never going to have to get at this again...." One on each side of mine *didn't* have anchor nuts, but they were the easiest ones to get to.
Ron Wanttaja
None of mine are anchor nuts. They're wood screws. I'd sure like to fix that though because they're basically all different sizes as people have increased them over the years.
Are you saying that the hanging wire anchors are wood screws?
wanttaja
En-Route
Yes, but: Cheap airplanes attract people who don't know what it TAKES to support an airplane. You see horrible combinations of ignorance and unwillingness/inability to do what's needed, in the small/cheap/old homebuilt world. They want to fly, they can't afford to fly conventional aircraft, and they sometimes get blinded by the apparent fulfillment of a dream.
Ron Wanttaja
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, lol, the screws that hold the top cover. Which style of anchor nut are you using there Ron?
I spent about a month the summer before last working on everything that holds the wings on. I spent a couple thousand dollars on new turnbuckles. I removed the wing anchor plates and cleaned them up and inspected closely. Put new flying wires on and crimped new necropress fittings. Replaced all the wing anchor bolts (which probably neared a thousand dollars worth of AN3 bolts). The super long AN3 bolts are ridiculously expensive. It was quite a bit of work but sure gives me peace and mind. Thanks to bnt83 for making me do it
No, lol, the screws that hold the top cover. Which style of anchor nut are you using there Ron?
I spent about a month the summer before last working on everything that holds the wings on. I spent a couple thousand dollars on new turnbuckles. I removed the wing anchor plates and cleaned them up and inspected closely. Put new flying wires on and crimped new necropress fittings. Replaced all the wing anchor bolts (which probably neared a thousand dollars worth of AN3 bolts). The super long AN3 bolts are ridiculously expensive. It was quite a bit of work but sure gives me peace and mind. Thanks to bnt83 for making me do it
Well, that's good.
Actually a good lag screw in good wood holds an incredible amount of tension. We bend 3" thick planks into shape with wood screws and they hold it there for many years. But for those wires I'd prefer a washer and nut.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I've seen some pretty nasty Clevelands too, and required the owner to fix them prior to signing off the annual.
I normally will not take money or make log book entries until the aircraft is airworthy. and safe to fly.
When it is apparent that the owner is unwilling to maintain their aircraft, I simply pack my tool box and go home.
As for the Stinson owner, he is free to do as he wants. he knows my requirements, When he gets the Stinson repaired, I'd be happy to complete the annual.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, that's good.
The larger problem I think is from the constant removal/installation when doing panel stuff over the years really starts to mess up the wood. Hence why the screw sizes are all different now..which looks like ****.
It'd be nice to have a consistent set of screws.
- Status