My FX-3 Build

[turbopilot]

Oh my goodness. Just not true about Beringer gear. He can't be current in his knowledge as there is no "wing droop" issue with current version 3 struts. That opinion calls into question his credibility in my book. He is winging it for reasons I don't understand (except to sell something else) and clearly not current. Remember I make no money with my opinions, they are the best I can do with 10 years of experience with the airplane.

As I told you version 1 of the Beringer strut had a problem with "wind droop" but it was a taxi issue, not a landing issue. It was never apparent on landing. With a cross wind taxiing the up wind wing would allow the upwind strut to extent while the down wind strut compressed. The strut valving in version 1 was not sensitive enough to equalize when you applied up wind aileron correction for the wing lift. The downwind strut valving would not recompress with the low forces of opposite aileron during taxi. The Beringer strut is now on version 3. The valving was all fixed in version 2 during the STC in the SuperCub. It is STC'd for the Part 23 SuperCub and that was the test platform. As to FX's I have been watching as many sources as I can. I have never seen nor heard of an FX with Beringer gear. There may be one somewhere but I have not seen one. But it does not make any difference. The FX is an SS that weighs more. That is it. The FX is not some kind of mythical machine onto itself with special qualities. The FX is an SS with more stuff (constant speed prop, fuel injection and different ailerons). Same wing, same fuselage just a little heavier.

I cannot follow the recommendation on "IFR Lite". Anyone who would take a fabric, fat wing airplane into a cloud near the freezing level is not flying light IFR. They are just dumb.

As to the 80" prop issue give me the data. So much folk lore and no hard data. "Severely degraded" give me a break. If that was the case you would see all sorts of documents. graphs and charts demonstrating the difference. And the 83" prop would be a $3,000 option not a $500 option. Instead we hear crickets when we ask for documentation. The only statements I have seen that seem credible is that an 83" prop turning at max RPM will provide more static thrust to get you off the ground around 100' shorter. This makes some sense. Of course that has to measured against the reality the a fixed pitch cruise prop will get you off the ground in around 60' at 1400 lbs gross weight. So I guess the 83" prop will levitate the airplane, right?

The other issue no one talks about is tip speed of an 83" prop at 2,700 RPM. It will be very close to the speed of sound with those parameters and all ready suffering from compressibility issues near the tip with degrading efficiency. See this web site and run the numbers for yourself. This was a big deal for the Cessna 180.

The good news he is right about the Beringer wheels and brakes. As to the Acme stuff I have no idea but it sounds like he has a dog in the fight. Never flown any of the products. But the standard cub gear sucks: Acme or AOSS, the mechanics are the same.

 

[Neal]

I’ll take claim to the severely degraded wording as I’m not sure he said that. I can’t expect he has flown every version of the Beringer landing gear. Maybe it was v1 and he never had interest again after that experience. Sounds like he’s pleased with Acme and that evolution as that does seem to be what everyone is using. No reason in the field to pay for Beringer when Acme is doing the job at far less cost.

 

[turbopilot]

Here is the version history for the Beringer gear system, so that the next time you are talking to one of these "experts" you will have enough information to ask a direct question about experience.

Version 1 Beringer ALG - The system was introduced/announced around 2016. I got a set of version 1 struts in 2017. I quickly discovered the taxi low wing issue in crosswind and discussed with Lukus Stutzer the chief engineer. He acknowledged the problem and said they were working on it. The version 1 gear also demonstrated a wheel camber issue. Fully loaded there was a 2 degree top wheel in chamber problem.

Version 2 Beringer ALG - Also call the anti-roll option. This fixed the taxi low wing issue but the camber issue remained. Lukus acknowledge the problem and said they were working on it.

Version 3 Beringer ALG - My current version. Wing low issue and camber issue fixed. No other outstanding problems.

Through it all Beringer provide free upgrades to the next version and fully acknowledge the issues. All of the issues were either cosmetic or taxi issues. At no time was there ever any adverse take off or landing issues. To the contrary all three versions were far better the basic cub gear system with AOSS.

The only time I have experienced a tendency to start a ground loop it was because I was landing with a quartering tail wind. The Beringer system prevents ground loops with normal normal winds because there is little to no rebound on hard landings.

 

[turbopilot]

No reason in the field to pay for Beringer when Acme is doing the job at far less cost.

How do you know this to be true? I certainly don't since I have never flown any Acme product. I certainly would not reach this decision if the source of the information was from someone making money on the opinion and/or they have not flown both products as currently delivered.

I have only flown only one product. Actually, two products as AOSS competes with Acme.

As to the "far less cost" issue. I don't have all the details. The full Beringer ALG system (a total replacement of the landing gear system, not just two shock absorbers) and costs $10,600. That includes ALIR that is not available from any other source except Beringer. ALIR and the Beringer ALG struts have nothing in common, so there is no reason you could not get Beringer wheels/brakes and ALIR with the old fashion cub gear system and two ACME shock absorbers.

Finally, we have some closure from everyone about the quality of the Beringer wheels and brakes. That is progress. So you have to net that cost from the Beringer ALG system price. I don't have that number. But what ever it is, the remaining cost is attributable to the landing gear system and then is compared to what Acme sells as a couple of shock absorbers. You run the numbers, but I don't think in comes down to "far less cost" when you look at the value equation of both systems.

Hopefully you will get the chance to fly the current version Beringer system at TRM, then you can become an expert, instead of Jeremy. I sure wish I made a commission off my experience with Beringer. This is hard keeping the facts straight with so much misinformation spread around.

 

[Neal]

I doubt I could tell a difference at my experience level. I’ll let you know when I get the numbers from TacAero. As they are crazy expensive on everything I’m not optimistic. For now I’ll enter holding. My research is done. My options have shaped and now it’s wait time.

Trent told me the 5 point harness was $1945. Ouch but like BRS it’s a safety feature. Needed? Don’t know.

 

[Neal]

5 point harness lower anchor

 

[turbopilot]

I doubt I could tell a difference at my experience level. I’ll let you know when I get the numbers from TacAero. As they are crazy expensive on everything I’m not optimistic. For now I’ll enter holding. My research is done. My options have shaped and now it’s wait time.

Trent told me the 5 point harness was $1945. Ouch but like BRS it’s a safety feature. Needed? Don’t know.

If you run the numbers I would be interested in how it comes out.

 

[turbopilot]

5 point harness lower anchor

My comments will be made on the assumption the anchor for the roll control torque tube assembly in that image is the same as on the SS. It looks identical from this view, but I can't see underneath. If it is the same as the SS this is not a "hard point" for a restraint system. This is a relatively thin carbon fiber structure that supports the battery box and the seat above. I would guess maybe 5 ply carbon fiber composite structure.

Here is what it looks like from the belly looking up through the access hatch into the box just in back of the strap anchor. In this image you see the left side of carbon fiber box. Along the top you can see the aluminum roll torque tube coming from the stick to the left. The arrow is pointing to what I think is one of the two bolts holding down the torque tube clamp. On the right of the image (which toward the rear of the airplane) is the autopilot roll servo. That is why I know this area very well. You can see a 4130 fuselage tube running across the upper right part of the image. That would be the right place to attach that 5th strap as a hard point. In an accident those two bolts holding down the current attach point would just pull through the carbon fiber composite.

Side note I see this airplane has stainless steel brake lines that you can see coming out of the box on either side of the stick.

 

[turbopilot]

I doubt I could tell a difference at my experience level. I’ll let you know when I get the numbers from TacAero. As they are crazy expensive on everything I’m not optimistic. For now I’ll enter holding. My research is done. My options have shaped and now it’s wait time.

Trent told me the 5 point harness was $1945. Ouch but like BRS it’s a safety feature. Needed? Don’t know.

You will be flying the bottom of the line Sport Cub which should be standard cub gear with bungees in place of AOSS or Acme. I have never flown bungees but I understand they are miserable for bouncing. If you get to TRM you will fly Beringer. If you bring my airplane down from YKM you will fly AOSS. So with luck you may be able to fly all options except Acme. Maybe when in YKM you can snag a ride in an Acme airplane. Then you will be the expert.

Check out Aircraft Spruce seems to be many 5 point harnesses for much less money. I would like to get a 5 point so I will begin head scratching to find a way to secure the center strap. I am thinking a cable from each 4130 tube either side of the belly hatch access up to the same place it is attache now in that image you sent may be the answer.

 

[Neal]

I will not be flying my plane with basic gear. It will be delivered to Hood River by CC that way and then TacAero will change out the gear and all then I'll fly it and do the remaining of the 40 hrs. Jeremy will probably fly it once as received from CC for the acceptance inspection he'll do on my behalf as he has all the experience of what to look for inside and out. He could probably wait and fly it after the gear is complete in fact, shouldn't matter to CC if the gear has been improved, he'll inspect paint, engine, electronics, sensors, etc.

 

[Schwbo]

I'm highly interested in your arrangement with TacAero. Can you please share Jeremy's contact details. I call him as well.
I'll start a new discussion on my own build. Just got the dates from CC.

 

[Neal]

@Tsquared - for the 5 point harness, do you feel there is a sufficient mechanism below the seat where they attached the harness for a seatbelt restraint? @turbopilot had some concern as to what they were anchoring to.

 

[Tsquared]

Gentleman,

the 5 pt harness is installed post certification so I never saw how it’s mounted. My original request was for a 5pt for both seats, but I was informed there was no mount point suitable for the aft seat. Take that for what you will. Keep in mind that one of the main functions of the 5 strap is to keep the lap belt down on the hips and prevent the hip belts from riding up on the abdome. On that point it works well.

 

[turbopilot]

Gentleman,

the 5 pt harness is installed post certification so I never saw how it’s mounted. My original request was for a 5pt for both seats, but I was informed there was no mount point suitable for the aft seat. Take that for what you will. Keep in mind that one of the main functions of the 5 strap is to keep the lap belt down on the hips and prevent the hip belts from riding up on the abdome. On that point it works well.

@Tsquared welcome. Yes, that is one reason for the 5 point. Another reason is to prevent "submarining" under the belt with sudden deceleration. I want to install one of these belts so I will be looking for a way to make it work to a hard point. There are hard points under the rear floor for the rear seat but it would require a hole in the floor.

 

[Tsquared]

The battery I was referring to is an antigravity XP3 (link below). The intent is to use this to jump start things on the ground in the event the main starter battery dies on you. My experience with flying a flight schools CC LSA in the winter is that the battery isn’t that strong. the first start in the morning was ok, the second start that morning had problems. After lunch we had to hand prop it. if you go with this get the clamp less harness that allows you to plug in the battery vs having to rotate the pilot seat up to use the alligator clips. You can see the connection in the 5 pt harness picture Neal posted.

the starter problem I was referring to was I’m told that CC got a bad patch of starters that would fail. I’m told the problem was resolved and the starters being installed now are good to go.

Amazon.com: Antigravity AG-XP-3 Micro-Start: Automotive

Buy Antigravity AG-XP-3 Micro-Start: Electronics - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com