Back up landing gear extender
I found the SB 866A on Piper's website and all it says it allows for the removal of the Back Up Landing Gear Extender. Piper considers compliance MANDATORY.
For my airplane PA32R-300 I have to get the Back Up Landing Gear Extender Removal Kit Piper Part Number 765-303. Does anyone know where I can get the kit and what does it contain.
Thanks
Bob
For my airplane PA32R-300 I have to get the Back Up Landing Gear Extender Removal Kit Piper Part Number 765-303. Does anyone know where I can get the kit and what does it contain.
Thanks
Bob
Comments
There ought to be a law against greedy attorneys and stupid juries. That might help.
Since I really don't want the gear coming down unexpectedly, I override the system for takeoff and landing - personal choice.
I've been flying my Turbo Arrow for over 30 years and not once has the gear come down unexpectedly.
The only time I use the override is for max performance climb after takeoff (and even then it probably wasn't necessary).
PilotKris
> I've been flying my Turbo Arrow for over 30 years
> and not once has the gear come down unexpectedly.
I guess I should add that it includes the time my engine quit. Less than 5sec. after it got quiet, the override was engaged and the gear stayed up, just like it should.
The auto-extend won't lower the gear until the IAS gets below about 107kts. The plane won't slow down until you retrim and the trim wheel is less than 2 inches away from the auto-extend override.
It's just irrational to fear that the gear is going to come down unexpectedly and kill you...
PilotKris
> I took mine out because I fly a lot over water.
Good reason. How many water landings do you have logged now?
> Maybe it's out of calibration, I don't know.
Yes it is. At speeds and power settings "before entering the pattern" it should not automatically come down.
If your hoses and bellows are in good shape with no leaks it needs about two turns of adjustment under your right center rear seat area.
>>
> I bought my Arrow with mine already defeated, and
> it has not bothered me at all that I have to lower
> and raise the gear.
I'm sure it doesn't bother you to lower and raise the gear until maybe you forget? Believe me, then it would bother you.
> You have to ask, if it was such a good system why
> did they stop making it? Why didn't the other
> aircraft manufactures copy it?
Because of the stupid lawsuit which you are well aware since you mentioned it in previous post...
As to why others don't offer it, none have a gear system where all that is needed is to open a single valve for the gear to lower and lock with no power needed.
If you are so close to the ground when your engine quits that you don't have 2sec to engage the override, it isn't likely to matter one way or the other.
> If you are so close to the ground when your engine
> quits that you don't have 2sec to engage the
> override, it isn't likely to matter one way or the
> other.
And if you're that close to the ground that you don't have those two seconds to override, you also don't have the five seconds to bring them back down.
And for those that have to "think" about one additional step in an emergency, lowering the gear is also just one more thing to "think" about. How are you going to handle that?
I can certainly see where others would prefer to have the system backing them up all the time. That's why I complied with Part II of the SB rather than having the system disabled. If my aircraft did not have the lock-out, I'd have the auto-extend removed.
I can certainly see where others would prefer to have the system backing them up all the time. That's why I complied with Part II of the SB rather than having the system disabled. If my aircraft did not have the lock-out, I'd have the auto-extend removed.
> No and yes.
>
> The auto extend happens when the airspeed
> decreases to a limit, nothing to do with power,
Wrong. Why do you think the pitot is located in the propwash? Proper system adjustment requires the engine at idle power.
> Agree that it was an idea that had good intentions
> but didn't pan out. All it did was add an
> additional item to an emergency check list, and
> something else that could fail.
> Would like to add an "of course stupid", whenever
> you jack up and swing the gear, test the emergency
> extend and check that the locks fully engage. A
> normal gear down applies hydrolic preasure which
> forces the gear locks into place. That may not
> happen with a free fall if the locks are binding.
The powerpack will hydraulically raise the landing gear and hydraulic pressure will hold them up but hydraulic pressure is not required to lower the gear and "force" anything into place, and there are no down locks on your aircraft, there is a simple over center link which will over center with gravity extension. And if your gear is that bent up that your overcenter links may bind, that would concern me more than the water landing you are worried about some day.
I think you need to study your system a little more thoroughly.
In a related item, it is my understanding that heat for the mast was an option. I checked my system and the mast does warm up with pitot heat on. If yours doesn't, you might consider over-riding the auto-extend if you have an inadvertent icing encounter.
> The powerpack will hydraulically raise the landing
> gear and hydraulic pressure will hold them up but
> hydraulic pressure is not required to lower the
> gear and "force" anything into place, and there
> are no down locks on your aircraft, there is a
> simple over center link which will over center
> with gravity extension. And if your gear is that
> bent up that your overcenter links may bind, that
> would concern me more than the water landing you
> are worried about some day.
>
> I think you need to study your system a little
> more thoroughly.
Sorry GM, YOU need to do a little more study.
There are down-lock "forks" on the drag links. They are spring loaded and should snap into the locked position even without hydraulic pressure. The down-lock switches (that turn on the green lights) are activated when the down-lock "forks" engage.
The design of the system also includes an over center design that will help keep the gear down but it is the springs on the down-lock "forks" that actually lock the gear down.
Donny's point was that if the gear is in need of service, the down-locks may not engage when the gear free-falls. Powering the gear down with hydraulic pressure would mask the symptoms. This is something that is supposed to be check at the annual.
I think the "power" Donny mentioned was electrical/hydraulic not engine but GM does bring up a good point;
The auto-extend mast is purposely located in the propwash so that at full power (say at take off or a go-around), the gear will come up/stay up at about 85kts, not 107kts (which would be the case with the engine at idle). Those folks at Vero Beach were very clever.
PilotKris
I have seen MLG "locked down" mechanically and those systems are far more complicated than my little Piper so it's a perspective thing for me. In essence though you are correct.
Edit: SP
> When the Back up landing gear extender is removed
> can the auto-extend mast be removed.
Don't know, don't care as I'd never remove one.
Guess you'll have to buy the kit and find out. Let us know how that works for ya.
Again, your problem is most likely a bad bladder. I just replaced mine. Cost; $158 (new)
PilotKris
But Mr. Collins would never do that. He's a highly trained airline pilot.
Then again... The last landing gear incident at my home airport was an airline pilot too. He started his takeoff roll with the gear selector in the "up" position. As soon as the oleos extended and the squat switch opened, the gear collapsed and the plane belly flopped onto the runway. The Piper Auto-Extend system would have prevented the accident.
Now the pilot has real problems because he has "bent metal" and he was moonlighting on his airline job at the time (and most airlines don't like that).
So Robert, you can think of the Auto-Extend as a kind of employment insurance policy too.
PilotKris
> Uh. I know at least a dozen airline pilot who
> moonlight and their employers have no problem with
> it.
My company simply requires any additional flying outside the scope not to infringe on your yearly or monthly FAA maximums. All three major airlines I have worked for had/have the same policy.
Many airline pilots in addition extraneous flying for hire also own aviation orientated businesses and are performing air show pilots. Almost daily at OSH you will hear the announcer mention what airline the performing pilots fly for on their time off. Additionally, bent metal can occur and its possible not be relieved from flight status.
Their employers require that any outside flying employment be disclosed and approved. Unfortunately, many pilots and managers interpret that as "don't ask, don't tell". That is the problem for this aviator. Not only does he have to explain how/why he bent metal to his employer, he has to explain what he was doing flying for compensation or hire with a passenger when no such activity was disclosed previously.
> Don't log it and don't take money for it your
> fine. Don't ask how I know.
Unless you "bend metal". Then, there is no hiding it once the FAA & NTSB get involved. Which is my whole point.
> Don't log it and don't take money for it your
> fine. Don't ask how I know.
If you don't take money for it than its not commercial flying so the logging issue and maximum hours is moot.
100 hours a month and 1000 per year are the maximums. Part 91 operations and you can fly another 1000 hours or more.
PK are you recommending that airline pilots not fly on their days off simply to keep their careers more secure?