Gear Choice Thoughts

[flipfloplife]

My place in line is coming closer. I am now trying to nail down all the details of the order sheet. Can I get some reflections on gear choices? It seems that there are three options -- traditional cabane, grove spring gear and the monster shock gear. I'm not sure I fully understand the difference between the cabane and the monster -- i'm sure the monster has more damping, looks cooler and costs more(?). Anyway, there are a couple threads about this sort of thing -- i'm trying to see if time and use has changed anyones thoughts.

I know it's all about mission -- my mission is trips out west on wheels to check out backcountry flying, wheels and floats to Bahamas and (potentially) teach a kid to fly. South Florida based. Hangar will be a trailer. It may take a little time to get it on floats. Only because it matters for this discussion I will say that I believe in hitting your spot as a significant priority over "smooth and soft landings" -- some of the scariest landings I've ever seen have been plenty smooth and soft.

So. i'm wondering if the grove gear is significantly more "sproingy" than the other options? Yep, made that one up right here and now. Sometimes the 172 I fly feels like it just might re-launch me --- the cub i sometimes fly (when I FINALLY get all the energy off) does not really ever feel like that. I am poor at flying both planes. and low time. but the premise remains.

I'm not a great flarer. Which set of gear when you're not a great flarer?

Do tires play into this discussion? Could I take the advantages of grove gear and then throw moderate size bush wheels on there to function as some level of shock absorber?

I THINK that i'm comparing a bit more weight and "sproinginess" (on the grove side) versus a significant speed penalty on the cabane/monster side. I'm inclined to take the speed and simplicity of the grove. but if the cabane or monster is going to make me feel really good about myself (completely undeservedly of course) then i'm 100% sure I could talk myself in that.

[Hawkertech]

My understanding is the normal cabane gear is bungie cord damped. More springy if dropped in and more maintenance. The monster shock is cabane, but with the shock absobers, that provide mor damping and less bounce. And grove gear in spring Aluminum that can be repositioned the either tricycle or tail dragger, tri gear comes with the grove gear. Also check your insurance from reading on here, that a low time pilot with a taildragger the insurance can be rather high

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[GuppyWN]

Buy the spring gear and move on. Maintenance free. Clean. Faster.

[flipfloplife]

Hawker -- that's kind of my analysis as well -- the monster is like an upgraded cabane. and i think the regular cabane can get eliminated. I got quoted $1500 on conventional gear at Falcon -- my underwhelming amount of tailwheel time probably hurt me? But I don't think that's too outrageous. In the ballpark enough to go ahead and do the build anyhow.

Guppy -- that's kinda where i'm headed here... just don't want to set myself up to be a kangaroo if there's a choice. but you're right -- when 10mph is 8% of your overall airspeed it makes a big difference.

anyone flown both?

[jiott]

I agree, the regular cabane gear can be eliminated, mainly due to susceptibility to damage in my opinion. The Grove is super tough, simple and not that bouncy. Due to the super high cost and speed reduction, my opinion is that the monster gear only makes sense for those whose mission includes lots of rough Off Airport landings (the Trent Palmer kind of stuff).

[DesertFox4]

Stick & Rudder flight school in Idaho uses Grove gear on their Kitfox training aircraft. Hundreds of students have mastered the Kitfox taildraggers in some real challenging backcountry strips.

[FoxbuilderWill]

I've never flown a monster shock gear equipped aircraft just cessnas(spring gear) and a few cabane/ bungee equipped Cubs (less than 10 hrs) so not much experience to speak of.
From what I've seen it's like someone who's driven an old beater car all their life, and then gets to finally drive something really nice. It's hard to go back to the beater after the new car. I don't think ive seen anyone say they don't like the way the monster gear handles.

Here's Mark Pateys review of the monster shocks:
https://youtu.be/mi5k6WOwmX4

[Av8r3400]

Here's my take.

I've flown the classic style bungee gear and grove gear. I do not have or have I flown the fancy "shock" gear.

The standard bungee gear works. You need to be skilled to land it well. It's a good teacher. It's stiff and requires maintenance of changing the bungees every so often. But, it does work just fine, even in the back country.

The fancy shock gear is awesome. There is no denying this. Does it's function justify the huge cost? That is the main question. Is your primary mission competition or intense back country action the majority of the time? If the HONEST answer to this is "yes", then the shock gear is for you.

The Grove spring gear. In my opinion it is a great compromise between the two. It has great travel and absorption of bumps when off field. It is far less draggy than the shock or bungee gear. The weight penalty over the bungee gear is overblown in my opinion. My old model IV gained 12 pounds to convert to Grove from Bungee. The shock gear is similar in weight to the Grove. As Steve noted above, the guys at Stick and Rudder use Grove gear. They have flown and instructed in every type of terrain. It works great.

Everyone sees Trent or whoever running the Monster/Shock gear and think they NEED to have this to fly the plane. If the plane is flown properly the spring gear does not bounce or "throw" you back into the air. These are symptoms of a bad landing. The shock gear often just mask poor or sloppy technique.

[airlina]

Great analysis Larry, you saved me from a bunch of one finger typing , I'm gonna give you an Amen to that. Bruce N199CL

[Jcard]

My extremely limited experience is with the TK1 shock monster gear.
Bought the kitfox V last October and the rotax hoses were almost 20 years old so had them changed out and the Grove gear for the TK1 gear before I ever fired it up.
Lost 7 pounds swapping out the gear.
Got a bunch of landings in and my CFI kept raving about how sweet the gear is.
When I stall it a couple feet off the ground it drops with a very light tap and a whoosh.
When I wander off the runway and through a ditch or a snowbank it soaks it up like a champ and the CFI says that would probably have torn grove Gear off the plane.
Was told that if I kept the aluminum spring gear on the plane that it would make me a better pilot, but knew I need all the help I can get.
CFI made the mistake saying that if the plane had tires we could land in a dry lake bed, so the 29" bushwheels were in mail next day.
Now It's mashing ruts, snow and huge frozen cowpies. Between the gear and the tires its pretty amazing.
Pretty sure the CFI wouldn't have put up with me this long except that the plane is so fun to fly

[N213RV]

I offer a correction, and a different perspective.....

Cabane gear no longer uses bungles... it uses die springs. It is virtually maintenance free.

in my opinion, cabane gear looks way better than grove gear. For me, that is important.

I also believe you can upgrade the cabane gear to monster shock as well. I believe the gear legs and upper cross members are identical. So if you want good looks and upgrade capability, you may consider the cabane gear.....

Attached is a picture of my plane when I was building it, showing the gear and the yellow die springs....

[flipfloplife]

Great thoughts and I appreciate all of them. The point that Stick and Rudder uses Grove is well taken, that kind of does speak volumes. I know those guys are getting after it a bit in the backcountry -- but I'm sure they see their fair share of "not awesome" landings. I'm sure they will see some more when I get out there.

The point about ACTUAL mission is very well taken as well. I live in Florida. While I do plan on flying out west -- I still have to work a bit so the idea that backcountry would be a primary mission just wouldn't be correct.

I've decided I'll look at this as more of "three excellent choices" instead of any being "poor choices". I think I'm going to go with the Grove, and then if the S&R guys can't straighten out my landings I'll throw the Monster gear on there and instantly be a better pilot!

What is the role of different tires in all of this? Purely based on looks I'd kind of like to have something bigger than 6-9" tires on there. But 29's (as cool as they are) seem like they might be a BIT much (not to mention incredibly draggy). Is there a "crowd approved" in-between here? And how does that part of the choice affect takeoffs, landings and ground handling?

[littlecricket]

Aero Classic tundra 22s

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/desser06-02501.php

[efwd]

I agree with littlecricket. I put the tires on that came with the kit and they detract from the appearance IMHO (unless your putting wheel pants on). I think the 22" tire is the point where the plane appears correct. If your doing real back country stuff I bet the 27" would be great. I like the way they look too. I would buy those myself but I am not able to justify the increase in cost just to make the plane look a bit better and more capable in the back country that I don't do. S&R uses 27" tires. They certainly felt good on the unimproved strips that I got to land on while training there.

[jiott]

I think the S&R tires are AK Bushwheels 26".

[Av8r3400]

I can positively confirm that Stick and Rudder uses 26” Alaskan Bushwheels Airstreaks on their planes.

[efwd]

Thanks for correcting that. You two are right.

[redbowen]

I just want to add a few things to the already great opinions expressed here. The shock Monster gear is great for off airport landings, nothing compares, however I found that my model 5 was a way better all around airplane with the Grove gear on it. The Grove gear with Bushwheels 26” or 29” can go anywhere that you should go. It will bounce on uneven terrain which reduces your braking effect, but I have taken the Grove gear into some pretty rough off airport spots and always felt that it did fine. The monster shock gear is amazing in rough terrain, never bounces and can make a bad landing look great, but at a huge cost, and that cost is speed. Expect a bigger lose in speed from the monster gear than you would see from switching to the STI wing. You will see a speed reduction of 9-11 mph. 100mph cruise will be about standard with 29” Bushwheels. You can run any size tire on the grove, but the smaller tires, anything smaller than a 26”, looks ridiculous on the monster shock gear.
Your mission sounds like it is perfect for the Grove gear, ie x-country and backcountry airstrips. Backcountry strips, like the ones stick and rudder go to, do not require off airport landing gear or tires. A set of 8.50’s on grove will take you to every strip in the Idaho back country. The monster shock gear and 29” tires are really for ATV airplane flying. Off airport spot hunting. Don’t get me wrong, TK1 Shock Monster gear is going on my new build, but my mission is specific to the off airport flying. I have even considered having both so that I could switch when I need to go on a long x-country.
Bowen Aero LLC is also testing a 4th option soon. The Beringer Shock Wheel suspension on the grove landing gear. Should be the best of both worlds at the cost of some additional weight. It will be something that can be added to the Grove gear later.

[Av8r3400]

So is that like Alex DiSessa’s gear?

[ratc]

Directly related to the gear choice question. What about damage resistance between the Grove and Cabane gear?

If, heaven forbid you were to have any runway excursion/off airport incident. It always seemed to me that the more frangible Cabane frame would absorb most, if not all of the load. Rather than have it transferred to the fuselage, making any repairs more difficult and or expensive?

These were some of my thoughts when deciding on gear configuration.

Ratc
S7 sti (on order)

[Hawkertech]

I have senn one post somewhere on this forum about a bent grove gear. Id have to search for it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[redbowen]

Similar concept, but completely different geometry.


So is that like Alex DiSessa’s gear?

[Av8r3400]

Directly related to the gear choice question. What about damage resistance between the Grove and Cabane gear?

If, heaven forbid you were to have any runway excursion/off airport incident. It always seemed to me that the more frangible Cabane frame would absorb most, if not all of the load. Rather than have it transferred to the fuselage, making any repairs more difficult and or expensive?



My solution to this issue.

24193

If I hit something hard enough to damage the fuselage at this point, the plane belongs to the insurance company.

[ratc]

Blimey, that's some solution!