VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]
Subject: "Pulsar u/c strength"


Author:
Bob P
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Fri, Nov 02 2012, 22:24:00 GMT
In reply to: Captain Pulsar 's message, "Nose/Tailwheel" on Thu, Nov 01 2012, 14:16:36 GMT
 I not an expert on undercarriages so please consider the observations of other Pulsar owners as well. The following is my experience:

My Pulsar 582 is a tail-dragger. The tailwheel is connected to the rudder control cables via tension springs. This arrangement gives fairly good directional control whilst the tail is on the ground.

The sprung rod that supports the tailwheel won't take too much abuse (develops a permanent bend instead of just flexing), but if it does get bent I think its possible to replace/upgrade it to a "leaf spring" arrangement.

I'm told the main undercarriage U legs are also fragile. Mine failed whilst I was learning to land even though my landings were not tooooo heavy. I'm not sure whether the failure was entirely down to me or the cumulative effect of my and my predecessors landings. I fitted a replacement aluminium Grove undercarriage. This seems far more robust unit and is less prone to failure due to cumulative landing stress. If I was building a new Pulsar, I think I might fit a Grove undercarriage from the outset - especially if I was going to operate regularly from a rough strip. Replacing the undercarriage after the plane is built is a nasty operation - involves cutting out a (roughly) 10cm wide strip for the full width of the fuselage under-belly (the distance between the holes where the 2 legs poke out).

Hope this helps

Bob
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Pulsar u/c strengthDave PiercySat, Nov 03 2012, 20:38:26 GMT

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.