tailwheel shimmy

[dcasali]

'Hi All,

This is embarrassing. I broke my 1937 Fairchild 24G; I ground looped on
landing a month ago and collapsed the right gear.
When the plane dropped, it took about 3" off the wood prop.

Happily, I am well insured. The aircraft wasn't too badly damaged and
will be rebuilt this winter. I want to improve the ground handling by
making some changes during the rebuild (cause I'm just not good enough)
and I have some decisions I need to make before the rebuild starts. I
need to tap the collective wisdom of the group here. My three main
concerns are:

1) Prop replacement

My 24G has a Warner 145 engine, and had a wood Sensinich 86CA-63
mounted on it. A table from Sensinich shows the standard prop as an
86CA-67 (this is called out on the Type Certificate) and a cruise
prop, 86CA-69. No climb prop is given.

The 86CA-63 is given as the standard prop for a 24-C8C, also Warner
145 powered.

Now I can't really say my 24G has ever excelled in climb at my home
field elevation (3725 msl), nor has it ever come close to the book
cruise speed, which I now understand -- before I'd thought the
published value was marketing fluff. My question is, if I go to the
-67, just how badly will my already non-spectacular climb
performance deteriorate? Anyone ever had the opportunity to compare
these props on a Warner 145?


2) Tailwheel

My 24G has its original, free pivoting (non-steerable) tailwheel. I
attribute much of the excitement during landing rollouts to this
fact, but had left it unchanged because it was "authentic". Going
thru the logbooks, I found it had its first authentic ground loop
rebuild in 1939. During this repair I want to install some form of
tailwheel steering.

I know many Fairchilds suffer from tailwheel shimmy (mine certainly
did) and I've been told it can be cured-- but it looks like a tough
process. I once saw a 24 with a Cessna 185 tailspring and Scott
tailwheel installed. I know its ug ug ugly, but it sure looked
businesslike and foolproof. Anyone have experience with that setup?
Or a better idea? I am open to any suggestions.



3) Brakes

My 24G has mechanical, cable actuated drum brakes. I find (and the
owner before me found the same) that it is almost impossible to stop
the aircraft in a straight link on rollout using the brakes -- at
least on pavement. I don't even think about short field landings. My
question is, is this a flaw in my setup (out of round drums,
perhaps) or just the way they work. I don't think I want to go to
Hayes brakes, given the amount of verbiage on this board devoted to
keeping them working. Should I just bite the bullet and go to
Clevelands?

Any thoughts on the above greatly appreciated. Thanks





--
Dan Casali
MacWizard
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

[John Duncan]

'Hello Dan,

I am sorry to hear about the damage to you F-24, and hope it is not major.

I have an almost new Sensenich prop, W85CA68, for sale with a Warner hub. It is approximately 100 hours since new. I will sell the prop with or without the hub. The prop, $1,650, and the hub $650.

Let me know if you have an interest.

Regards, John Duncan

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Casali
To: Fairchild List
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] props, brakes, tailwheel -- best setup for an upgrade on a Warner 145 powered Model 24


Hi All,

This is embarrassing. I broke my 1937 Fairchild 24G; I ground looped on
landing a month ago and collapsed the right gear.
When the plane dropped, it took about 3" off the wood prop.

Happily, I am well insured. The aircraft wasn't too badly damaged and
will be rebuilt this winter. I want to improve the ground handling by
making some changes during the rebuild (cause I'm just not good enough)
and I have some decisions I need to make before the rebuild starts. I
need to tap the collective wisdom of the group here. My three main
concerns are:

1) Prop replacement

My 24G has a Warner 145 engine, and had a wood Sensinich 86CA-63
mounted on it. A table from Sensinich shows the standard prop as an
86CA-67 (this is called out on the Type Certificate) and a cruise
prop, 86CA-69. No climb prop is given.

The 86CA-63 is given as the standard prop for a 24-C8C, also Warner
145 powered.

Now I can't really say my 24G has ever excelled in climb at my home
field elevation (3725 msl), nor has it ever come close to the book
cruise speed, which I now understand -- before I'd thought the
published value was marketing fluff. My question is, if I go to the
-67, just how badly will my already non-spectacular climb
performance deteriorate? Anyone ever had the opportunity to compare
these props on a Warner 145?

2) Tailwheel

My 24G has its original, free pivoting (non-steerable) tailwheel. I
attribute much of the excitement during landing rollouts to this
fact, but had left it unchanged because it was "authentic". Going
thru the logbooks, I found it had its first authentic ground loop
rebuild in 1939. During this repair I want to install some form of
tailwheel steering.

I know many Fairchilds suffer from tailwheel shimmy (mine certainly
did) and I've been told it can be cured-- but it looks like a tough
process. I once saw a 24 with a Cessna 185 tailspring and Scott
tailwheel installed. I know its ug ug ugly, but it sure looked
businesslike and foolproof. Anyone have experience with that setup?
Or a better idea? I am open to any suggestions.

3) Brakes

My 24G has mechanical, cable actuated drum brakes. I find (and the
owner before me found the same) that it is almost impossible to stop
the aircraft in a straight link on rollout using the brakes -- at
least on pavement. I don't even think about short field landings. My
question is, is this a flaw in my setup (out of round drums,
perhaps) or just the way they work. I don't think I want to go to
Hayes brakes, given the amount of verbiage on this board devoted to
keeping them working. Should I just bite the bullet and go to
Clevelands?

Any thoughts on the above greatly appreciated. Thanks

--
Dan Casali
MacWizard
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Mark Lancaster]

'Dan:
I read your email with a bit of personal interest as I too have a 145 powered 24.

I am sorry to here about the accident. I am also glad to hear that your insurance is doing what you purchased it for.

As far as the prop goes: I have a Curtiss Reed on mine. It has been shortened, probably due to damage, but it works great. I had it re-pitched by an outfit in MN and have been very pleased. Don't get me wrong. It's no racer. I had a fellow with a 165 Warner and an aeromatic prop fly up beside me at the last flyin I attended. He waved, and left me sitting there like a was standing still. I get 95-100 all day at 1800 and climb with enough gusto to put a sloth to sleep. Take off roll is short and initial climb is good but higher elevation climbs require patience or a high power setting (and patience!).

I have a steerable tailwheel that really aids in ground handling and the original mechanical brakes....which I really like! The gentleman that I purchased the aircraft from told me not to let some yahoo talk me into getting rid of the mechanicals. After flying it for a while I would have to agree. No....I can't throw it over on it's nose just by grabbing too much brake. Yes...at run up and occasionally during some ground handling I have to apply a fair amount of pressure to get the job done but I really like them because I can FEEL them. No expander tubes(!!!!!). No leaking master cylinders. etc. I always (OK... usually) make the first turn off on our small pavement runway and it stops straight as a string. The previous owner told me the key to good operation was to keep them properly adjusted. You want maximum mechanical advantage at engagement meaning a 90 degree arm at brake contact. Adjust them up and try them again before installing brakes from some flying beer can.

Good luck on the winter repair work and if you decide to part with those old mechanicals please give me a call. I am sure I will need spare parts at some point.

Sincerely,
Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: John Duncan
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] props, brakes, tailwheel -- best setup for an upgrade on a Warner 145 powered Model 24


Hello Dan,

I am sorry to hear about the damage to you F-24, and hope it is not major.

I have an almost new Sensenich prop, W85CA68, for sale with a Warner hub. It is approximately 100 hours since new. I will sell the prop with or without the hub. The prop, $1,650, and the hub $650.

Let me know if you have an interest.

Regards, John Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Casali
To: Fairchild List
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] props, brakes, tailwheel -- best setup for an upgrade on a Warner 145 powered Model 24

Hi All,

This is embarrassing. I broke my 1937 Fairchild 24G; I ground looped on
landing a month ago and collapsed the right gear.
When the plane dropped, it took about 3" off the wood prop.

Happily, I am well insured. The aircraft wasn't too badly damaged and
will be rebuilt this winter. I want to improve the ground handling by
making some changes during the rebuild (cause I'm just not good enough)
and I have some decisions I need to make before the rebuild starts. I
need to tap the collective wisdom of the group here. My three main
concerns are:

1) Prop replacement

My 24G has a Warner 145 engine, and had a wood Sensinich 86CA-63
mounted on it. A table from Sensinich shows the standard prop as an
86CA-67 (this is called out on the Type Certificate) and a cruise
prop, 86CA-69. No climb prop is given.

The 86CA-63 is given as the standard prop for a 24-C8C, also Warner
145 powered.

Now I can't really say my 24G has ever excelled in climb at my home
field elevation (3725 msl), nor has it ever come close to the book
cruise speed, which I now understand -- before I'd thought the
published value was marketing fluff. My question is, if I go to the
-67, just how badly will my already non-spectacular climb
performance deteriorate? Anyone ever had the opportunity to compare
these props on a Warner 145?

2) Tailwheel

My 24G has its original, free pivoting (non-steerable) tailwheel. I
attribute much of the excitement during landing rollouts to this
fact, but had left it unchanged because it was "authentic". Going
thru the logbooks, I found it had its first authentic ground loop
rebuild in 1939. During this repair I want to install some form of
tailwheel steering.

I know many Fairchilds suffer from tailwheel shimmy (mine certainly
did) and I've been told it can be cured-- but it looks like a tough
process. I once saw a 24 with a Cessna 185 tailspring and Scott
tailwheel installed. I know its ug ug ugly, but it sure looked
businesslike and foolproof. Anyone have experience with that setup?
Or a better idea? I am open to any suggestions.

3) Brakes

My 24G has mechanical, cable actuated drum brakes. I find (and the
owner before me found the same) that it is almost impossible to stop
the aircraft in a straight link on rollout using the brakes -- at
least on pavement. I don't even think about short field landings. My
question is, is this a flaw in my setup (out of round drums,
perhaps) or just the way they work. I don't think I want to go to
Hayes brakes, given the amount of verbiage on this board devoted to
keeping them working. Should I just bite the bullet and go to
Clevelands?

Any thoughts on the above greatly appreciated. Thanks

--
Dan Casali
MacWizard
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[dcasali]

'Mark, John,

Thanks for your comments.

John, I don't think I'll be needing your prop.

Mark, my 24G was seeing about 90 mph cruise at 1825 rpm using the 63"
pitch wood prop. Climbs great at sea level, but it's a dog at altitude.
Do you know what your Curtis Reed was pitched at?

I'm starting to think harder about aeromatic props. Consensus seems to
be that it is the optimal performance solution. Is Ken Traver actually
shipping anything? Does anyone out there run an aeromatic on their 145
Warner powered Fairchild?

Also, I appreciate your comments regarding the mechanical brakes. I do
enjoy the simplicity of them, but gotta get that grabbing out. I gather
you are able to stop in a straight line?

Dan Casali



Mark Lancaster wrote:

>
> Dan:
> I read your email with a bit of personal interest as I too have a 145
> powered 24.
>
> I am sorry to here about the accident. I am also glad to hear that
> your insurance is doing what you purchased it for.
>
> As far as the prop goes: I have a Curtiss Reed on mine. It has been
> shortened, probably due to damage, but it works great. I had it
> re-pitched by an outfit in MN and have been very pleased. Don't get me
> wrong. It's no racer. I had a fellow with a 165 Warner and an
> aeromatic prop fly up beside me at the last flyin I attended. He
> waved, and left me sitting there like a was standing still. I get
> 95-100 all day at 1800 and climb with enough gusto to put a sloth to
> sleep. Take off roll is short and initial climb is good but higher
> elevation climbs require patience or a high power setting (and patience!).
>
> I have a steerable tailwheel that really aids in ground handling and
> the original mechanical brakes....which I really like! The gentleman
> that I purchased the aircraft from told me not to let some yahoo talk
> me into getting rid of the mechanicals. After flying it for a while I
> would have to agree. No....I can't throw it over on it's nose just by
> grabbing too much brake. Yes...at run up and occasionally during some
> ground handling I have to apply a fair amount of pressure to get the
> job done but I really like them because I can FEEL them. No expander
> tubes(!!!!!). No leaking master cylinders. etc. I always (OK...
> usually) make the first turn off on our small pavement runway and it
> stops straight as a string. The previous owner told me the key to good
> operation was to keep them properly adjusted. You want maximum
> mechanical advantage at engagement meaning a 90 degree arm at brake
> contact. Adjust them up and try them again before installing brakes
> from some flying beer can.
>
> Good luck on the winter repair work and if you decide to part with
> those old mechanicals please give me a call. I am sure I will need
> spare parts at some point.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark
>

--
Dan Casali
MacWizard
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

[windshieldguy2000]

'Dan: I'm sorry to hear about your airplane and hope you get back in
the air soon. I'm rebuilding a post War Ranger powered F-24, so I
don't know how relevent my comments are to your airplane, but I'll
offer them just the same.

Tailwheel: Charlie Bell wrote a very informative paper about the
root causes of tailwheel shimmy on the F-24's and PT's. These are
all steerable tailwheels, but some of his discussion and repair
methods may be relevant to your airplane. I'll be happy to send you
a copy of Charlie's paper once I get back in town (late next week) or
you can get a copy from John Berendt. There are also some
improvements for the fuselage structure where the tailwheel yoke
bolts to the lower part of the fuselage. Excess play at this
attaching point is said to be one of the causes of tailwheel shimmy.
You may want to contact Jamie Treat to see if this fix is relevant to
your airplane.

Brakes: I talked to Mark Lancaster on the phone several days ago
and, as he says in his post, he is very happy with his mechanical
brakes. The F-24's I've flown all had hydraulic brakes and there was
a world of difference in ground handling between the airplanes with
Hayes brakes versus the airplanes with Clevelands. I really like the
reliability, parts support, and predictable performance of Clevelands
and will be installing them on my airplane and putting the old
Hayes binders on a nice shelf in my garage.

Prop: Kent Tarver is indeed building new blades for the Aeromatic
props and rebuilding existing hubs. His work is very good and
although they are expensive, the Aeromatics appear to offer a big
performance increase. Mike Redpath in Goldsby, OK offers a less
expensive alternative to the Aeromatic. His company (Falcon
Propellers) builds a beautiful wood prop and everyone I know who has
bought one says they outperform the Sensenich by a respectable
margin. Mike's telephone number is: 405-414-1072.

Good luck with your rebuild this winter.

Brad Donner
NC77605'

[pilot7nk6]

'Brad,

The paper by Charlie Bell would be of intrest to as my PT23 has a
shimmy in the tailwheel that I have tried to resolve in a number of
ways. If you could send a copy of the paper to me or point me in a
direction where I might find it that would be greatly appreciated.
Also if anyone knows where I could find a set of master cylinders for
a PT19 I am restoring, that would be a great help.

Thanks,
Scott'

[Bob Haas]

'They are the same as a Beech 18, and several other light twins of that era,
But the parts guys know what a Beech 18 is.

The casting no. is 218073 Goodyear. Fairchild Part No. 95-0585 . Bob
Haas



_____

From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of pilot7nk6
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:54 PM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: props, brakes, tailwheel -- best setup for an
upgrade on a Warner 145 powered Model 24



Brad,

The paper by Charlie Bell would be of intrest to as my PT23 has a
shimmy in the tailwheel that I have tried to resolve in a number of
ways. If you could send a copy of the paper to me or point me in a
direction where I might find it that would be greatly appreciated.
Also if anyone knows where I could find a set of master cylinders for
a PT19 I am restoring, that would be a great help.

Thanks,
Scott





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

[slinky52ya]

'Did anyone ever come up with Charlie Bell's paper on the tailwheel shimmy?'