# Braced mid-wing landing gear

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Fighting 14

##### Well-Known Member
Yes! There was also a Kinner Playboy which more closely follows the STA gear construction with flying wire style bracing. The Sporting did away with the cockpit cover.

#### Fighting 14

##### Well-Known Member
Another view of the Kinner Playboy.

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
With landing gear acting as anchor to flying wires, shocks would be a challenge. Breaks though should not be a problem. Flybabies have a similar set up- breaks but no shocks beyond the tires. That said, I am not convinced you need shocks. I am sure Ron W has thoughts to share on this.
The Story Special comes to mind...that's what Pete was flying at the time he designed the Fly Baby.

Flying wires attach to the structure behind the wheels, and a set of horizontal wires brace the wheels. Pete simplified this for the Fly Baby, replacing that rather compelling steel gear (Tom Story was a world-class welder) with simple Vees with the flying wires attaching at the wheel hub.

The plans did include drawings for an alternate, split landing gear. However, in the plans he says, "The designer is strongly against the divided axle and includes it in these drawings only to show that it CAN be done." Some folks complained that the standard straight axle would get caught in high grass, Pete would say that grass THAT high would snag the wheels, anyway.

Ron Wanttaja

#### ragflyer

##### Well-Known Member
Of course, another option would be to design a cantilever wing or a single-strutted wing like Souricette and eliminate the struts and wires to the lower pylon altogether. That would make it easier to have both a retro version and a more modern enclosed version.
View attachment 120282
You could of course also perhaps deepen the fuselage a little and attach the landing wires to the bottom of the fuselage as opposed to the landing gear allowing for a simple wittman style gear. The loads in the landing wires and compression in the spar will be higher but nothing that cannot be handled/engineered. Much simpler than a cantilever and maintains the period wire braced look.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
Thanks, all. The Kinners are lovely but rather more airplane than I had in mind. The original Moustique III/Super Moustique has a gross weight of just 400 kg/880 lb!

ragflyer, that's an interesting idea but such a shallow bracing angle would dramatically increase the tension on the flying wires and the compression on the wing spar in flight. At that point I may as well go with a a semi-cantilever wing with a short strut near the root like the Souricette.

Overall, I am beginning to think that sticking to the original setup of X-wires and spreader bars probably makes the most sense, or going with the Fly Baby/MiniMax approach of a rigid landing gear structure taking the flight loads at the hub from wires or struts.

A side-by-side, two-seat MiniMax-like design with plenty of wing area and VW power would not be far off from the Farman in spirit.

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member

here are some scenes with the TA-3 of the TEAM 2 seater in flight. A suspension built into this aircraft would have made a far better bird of it.

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member

such wheels would have made the Minimax, with the split gear a good potential little flyer

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
Some 20” fat wheels with this kind if suspension, yes this could be interessting.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
I think the in-wheel suspension is needlessly complex, an argument for just using fat soft tires. Here's a quick sketch of the Moustique with V-struts instead of wires and a windscreen frame/roll bar instead of the cabane tripod. The nose would also be shorter with the heavier and more powerful VW engine and I'd probably lower the wings to put the upper surface of the wing flush with the top of the top longeron, so about where the silver and red meet in the Farman. I think that looks better and would improve visibility a little. Doing the fuselage in aluminum tube and gusset with ladder-frame aluminum tube or wood wings, all covered in Oratex, would make a light and simple little plane.

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
For those who like complex wheels, get a load of how it was done on the DH.71s in illustrations 3 and 4:

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
The easiest is to remain with the Minimax or Souricette.

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
I think the in-wheel suspension is needlessly complex, an argument for just using fat soft tires.
Note that the Piper PA-15 Vagabond is a two seater, and uses just fat soft tires. They added bungees for the PA-17 version, but built fewer of those.

Ron Wanttaja

#### sotaro

##### Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, in the illustrations are leading links. Since appearance is important, how about telescoping struts inside the pants of the landing gear. The flying wires for the wings could anchor on the upper part of the pants (that are fixed to the fuselage.) Or if leading or trailing links appeal, and they are an older form os suspension, the flying wires could extend to near the pivot point of the links.
Here is a nice pic and drawing of the Ryan gear, it does seem like a simplified version could be done with a leading (not trailing) link gear on a pair of rigid tripods that also anchor the bracing wires or struts. Rubber disks in compression or even scooter suspension parts might work as a lighter, simpler, and cheaper alternative to oleos. Of course, at this point it almost seems like I should go with a low wing for a more 1930s vibe to the design, but not many side-by-side, open-cockpit monoplanes come to mind.

View attachment 120283 View attachment 120284

#### 103

##### Well-Known Member
I vote for split gear and the king-post! Great structural efficiency on King-post but mindful of hanger heights ! Thanks for starting the dialog. I always wanted a high wing buy my shoulderwing has taught me to appreciate them.

#### Lucky Dog

##### Well-Known Member
If you plan on approximating FAR 103, you'll have no need for mechanical suspension or spring gear. The weight penalty is excessive. Decent sized tires at 10 to 12 psi will be all you need. Don't overdo it on the tires, though, because those fabulously in vogue bush tires eat up a lot of horsepower.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
If you plan on approximating FAR 103, you'll have no need for mechanical suspension or spring gear. The weight penalty is excessive. Decent sized tires at 10 to 12 psi will be all you need. Don't overdo it on the tires, though, because those fabulously in vogue bush tires eat up a lot of horsepower.
I was describing a light two-seater so more like a European two-seat microlight or an American LSA at the lighter end of the spectrum.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
Leading links like the Ryan ST and others make more sense if you figure the bracing at about 25% chord and the main gear forward of that point in a taildragger, but I think that starts getting more complex than I’d really prefer. The Farman sprung straight axle and spreaders or rigid gear like a MiniMax seem like better solutions for a simple build.

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
For a little more inspiration, here is some detail on the last Farman Moustique model actually built in any numbers, the single-seat F451 selected as one of the winners of a 1938 Aviation Populaire contest to encourage private flying in the lead-up to the expected conflict that would become WWII. Almost 50 were built for the government-sponsored program and private sales at a cost of 20,000 FF (about USD $500 then or about$10,000 today). I actually like the triangular fin and rudder of the single-seat Moustiques better and would probably go with that and the scalloped trailing edges for my two-seat concept to give it a properly retro look.

Specifications (F.451)
Data from Les Avions Farman
General characteristics
Capacity: 1
Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 8.07 m (26 ft 6 in)
Height: 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 10.50 m2 (113.0 sq ft)
Empty weight: 151 kg (333 lb)
Gross weight: 285 kg (628 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × AVA 4 2-cylinder horizontally-opposed two-stroke, 19 kW (25 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 130 km/h (81 mph; 70 kn)
Range: 350 km (217 mi; 189 nmi)

Last edited:

#### cluttonfred

##### Well-Known Member
And here is a video of a giant scale model to give an idea of the vibe I'd be shooting for.