Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Safety cables on FX-3?

  1. #1
    Member hawgdrvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    72

    Question Safety cables on FX-3?

    Opinions on whether or not to get safety cables on a FX-3? I'll have Acme Aero's but wonder if it's still a good idea to get safety cables?
    Neal
    FX3 On Order (May 2021)
    Richmond, VA

  2. #2
    Senior Member Dan L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    636

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    D5708B32-A6F0-45F1-903D-7C9EB4A9BF11.jpg

    I do with Acmes. Anything can fail and is more likely to the rougher the landing area is.
    Flying Carbon Cub EX #11 since 2011

  3. #3
    Senior Member turbopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    Or you can go wireless with a stronger gear.

    Bob Anderson, CC11-00316, N382RA (soon CC11-00435, N94RA)

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Glendale, AZ
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    "I'll have Acme Aero's but wonder if it's still a good idea to get safety cables?:

    Safety cables offer no protection from the gear folding under the airplane. Whether safety cables will help depends on how you intend/expect to break the airplane.

    Some of the photos of broken FX-3 in the NTSB database are interesting and disturbing. What puzzles me is why so many FX-3 (CCX-2000) accidents are listed but there are no EX-3 (CCK-2000) accidents listed. Maybe there is a lag because of the build time.

    Andy

  5. #5
    Senior Member turbopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    f

    Some of the photos of broken FX-3 in the NTSB database are interesting and disturbing. What puzzles me is why so many FX-3 (CCX-2000) accidents are listed but there are no EX-3 (CCK-2000) accidents listed. Maybe there is a lag because of the build time.

    By my count only 23 EX-3's in the FAA database. No way to know how many are flying. There are 92 FX-3's in the database.
    Bob Anderson, CC11-00316, N382RA (soon CC11-00435, N94RA)

  6. #6
    Senior Member Dan L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    636

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    Quote Originally Posted by turbopilot View Post
    Or you can go wireless with a stronger gear.

    I like that line. The Beringer gear looks impressive. We assume you’re still pleased with yours?
    Flying Carbon Cub EX #11 since 2011

  7. #7
    Senior Member turbopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan L View Post
    I like that line. The Beringer gear looks impressive. We assume you’re still pleased with yours?
    Very happy. The gear is great and the full braking system including the ALIR ant-skid regulator is so much better than standard braking. Ground handling much, much improved. In my opinion this is a safety device. When you look at the NTSB database almost all Carbon Cub accidents are landing mishaps. I firmly believe the old fashion cub gear design is a good part of the problem.

    Just received a new gear kit from Beringer for my new SS. Full system (including braking) weighs about 5 lbs less than standard gear with AOSS.

    Bob Anderson, CC11-00316, N382RA (soon CC11-00435, N94RA)

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Glendale, AZ
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    "I firmly believe the old fashion cub gear design is a good part of the problem."

    How many of the accident airplanes were on the "old fashioned cub gear"? The bungee gear does not tuck the wheels under the airplane when not loaded. It appears that all the "improved" suspension systems have the unloaded wheels tucked well under the airplane. To me that seems to be a poor initial condition for a touchdown with sideways drift.

    I understand that the "improved" suspension systems have more travel and have "float" in the normally loaded condition. I think those advantages may have a downside that could be contributing to loss of control accidents.

    Andy

  9. #9
    Senior Member turbopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Quinta, CA
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post

    How many of the accident airplanes were on the "old fashioned cub gear"? The bungee gear does not tuck the wheels under the airplane when not loaded. It appears that all the "improved" suspension systems have the unloaded wheels tucked well under the airplane. To me that seems to be a poor initial condition for a touchdown with sideways drift.

    Andy, I have extensive experience with both gear systems. Beringer landing gear are not "tucked well under the airplane". The are actually in a perfect position to absorb initial energy of landing through the hydraulic struts in the Z axis.

    You might want to actually experience both systems before forming opinions.

    Here is video taken from my SS as the Beringer gear translates rough terrain.

    Bob Anderson, CC11-00316, N382RA (soon CC11-00435, N94RA)

  10. #10
    Member hawgdrvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Safety cables on FX-3?

    I wonder if there is a CG issue with E/FX-3's where there is more need for tail weight than what people are flying? Is the nose over situation too great due to insufficient aft CG?
    Neal
    FX3 On Order (May 2021)
    Richmond, VA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •