Learsforsale
Not my real hands
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Posts
- 127
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Toobdrvr said:Although i never flew a 200, I am familiar with the 90, 99, and 1900...
I think they started offering the hydro system as an option on early 90 Series, as it was more expensive than the mech. Then, as it got more popular, they made the hydro system standard equipment.
The only advantage of the mech gear imho is initial price. The disadvantages of it compared to the hydro system are many (opinion):
Pain to work on
If it fails (bicycle chain), you're screwed.
Noisy
As a matter of fact, my last employer had a 99 with mech gear fail. The pilots chopped through the floorbard with a crash axe and pulled the chain through to get a stuck nose gear down. It worked, but the guy cut his hands up to hell!
To me, hydro is the way to go, as evidenced by how common it is now. It's easy to work on (modular). It's quiet. It's reliable. Gravity-driven backup. etc.
I could be wrong, but I've always equated "High Flotation" with "Big Tires"...
Hope it helps!
Toobdrvr said:Although i never flew a 200, I am familiar with the 90, 99, and 1900...
I think they started offering the hydro system as an option on early 90 Series, as it was more expensive than the mech. Then, as it got more popular, they made the hydro system standard equipment.
The only advantage of the mech gear imho is initial price. The disadvantages of it compared to the hydro system are many (opinion):
Pain to work on
If it fails (bicycle chain), you're screwed.
Noisy
As a matter of fact, my last employer had a 99 with mech gear fail. The pilots chopped through the floorbard with a crash axe and pulled the chain through to get a stuck nose gear down. It worked, but the guy cut his hands up to hell!
To me, hydro is the way to go, as evidenced by how common it is now. It's easy to work on (modular). It's quiet. It's reliable. Gravity-driven backup. etc.
I could be wrong, but I've always equated "High Flotation" with "Big Tires"...
Hope it helps!
sleddriver71 said:Why would someone go through all that to make sure the nose gear came down. Did one of them own the airplane? Were they trying to impress with their knowledge of the gear system. (I cringe every time I preflight and see the bicycle chain on the nose gear) If my nose gear doesn't go down in any of the King Air 90's I fly, I'm not going to try and be a "hero" (used very loosely here) and risk myself for the airplane. I'll gladly skid the nose down the runway and take the old beast out of service (hopefully). I wonder if these guys are related to anyone who has tried to pull the landing gear down from a car to low flying plane. That is so stupid, that's what insurance is for.
NorthShore said:Remind me not to hire this guy![]()
Any idea what these run?($)propsarebest said:if you get one with the hi float gear, get the Raisback gear doors. You will be glad you did.
prpjt said:KA 200's after serial # BB1192 are hydraulic gear (with a few exceptions), those previous were mechanical. There are quite a few moving parts in the mechanical system, think lots of weak links and increased maint. cost.
High float gear uses a lower pressure ( larger ) tire. The high float tires don't retract all the way into the well (Raisebeck solves this. Some say the high float gives a better landing but its just a different technique.
I prefer the standard gear due to the few extra knots speed and lower accel stop/go numbers.
Hope that helps.
... As a matter of fact, my last employer had a 99 with mech gear fail. The pilots chopped through the floorbard with a crash axe and pulled the chain through to get a stuck nose gear down. It worked, but the guy cut his hands up to hell! ...
81Horse said:FWIW, I watched a coworker land a 99 with jammed nose gear at BUR years ago. Damage was minimal. IIRC, he feathered the props; maintenance later decided it might have been better if he hadn't done that.