The downside of good ANR headsets

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard @Ibra

 No recorded failure of brake discs that I am aware of...

not even in the years of training that I did...

There is a spec for everything... look up the spec and see what it says to measure...

Is that light coming through as if the disc is about to let go?
 

Selecting different materials may be a possibility, but will also come with a change of braking force...

See if that part number is a Mooney part number.

Does the other wheel have the same challenge?

Any idea what has caused that?

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ibra]

Yes the part is Mooney one and was about to let go on the right side, I used to fly to grass (sometimes wet) and leave it for one or two weeks outside so probably the cause? it is also the same place where I really need breaks (unless I am in the mood to slow it down to 60kts over the hedge)

[EricJ]

I've actually wondered why some of the rotors are stainless instead of iron, and that's probably a good reason. 

[Hank]

14 hours ago, Ibra said:

Yes the part is Mooney one and was about to let go on the right side, I used to fly to grass (sometimes wet) and leave it for one or two weeks outside so probably the cause? it is also the same place where I really need breaks (unless I am in the mood to slow it down to 60kts over the hedge)

That's my normal speed at that point solo with full tanks or 2 people and half tanks . . . I used to visit a 2000' grass strip and rarely needed brakes, the grass is quite effective; but then again, I was usually a few mph slower there, too.

[Ibra]

The grass I visit regularly to is 1700ft as well (+300ft displaced thresholds on both sides), it tends to be hard choice beween 60kts overhedge and no breaks or 70kts and lot of breaking, I fly both profiles depending on crossinds/gusts but it seems no go around once I touchdown and rolled for second or two, so having working breaks is a good backup, on tarmac where I am based, I rarely touch them appart from the usual checks and turns 

[exM20K]

At the excellent Mooney Summit, I asked Kromer and Hawley individually why no light piston aircraft have an ABS option?  It’s pretty much standard on any new car, both my bikes and my RV have it. Components are light, cheap and reliable. And the benefits, especially on contaminated and or short runways would be huge.  

 

Nobody had a good answer. 

-dan

[RogueOne]

Talk about thread drift.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, exM20K said:

At the excellent Mooney Summit, I asked Kromer and Hawley individually why no light piston aircraft have an ABS option?  It’s pretty much standard on any new car, both my bikes and my RV have it. Components are light, cheap and reliable. And the benefits, especially on contaminated and or short runways would be huge.  

 

Nobody had a good answer. 

-dan

In my opinion, much more runway is wasted by a fast-approach-caused float than by poor braking. Ten knots too fast for your landing weight will cause 1000' of float . . . How long is your rollout from touchdown to turnoff?

[Don Heene]

Looks like the tire needed re-balancing.   That might be the heavy side.  

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, exM20K said:

At the excellent Mooney Summit, I asked Kromer and Hawley individually why no light piston aircraft have an ABS option?  It’s pretty much standard on any new car, both my bikes and my RV have it. Components are light, cheap and reliable. And the benefits, especially on contaminated and or short runways would be huge.  

 

Nobody had a good answer. 

-dan

It'll add complexity and expense and weight and maintenance, and how to make a reliable ABS system with just two wheels is not trivial.   A lot of expensive development would be needed to do a two-wheel system for an airplane, and the cost wouldn't be spread over a lot of units.   I'm not surprised we don't have them.

A car has four wheels to compare rates, so detecting slip is easier.  A car also has more consistent downforce on each of those wheels.    ABS has been around on aircraft since the fifties, and electronically since the early sixties, but they were typically installed on systems with multiple tires per gear leg so rate comparisons were back to the automotive example with at least four rates to compare against each other.

It's definitely doable, but it's not a matter of just adapting automotive or motorcycle or even old aircraft systems, since the parameters are significantly different.

 

[exM20K]

37 minutes ago, EricJ said:

A lot of expensive development would be needed to do a two-wheel system for an airplane, and the cost wouldn't be spread over a lot of units.   I'm not surprised we don't have them.

I hadn't considered this: bike ABS compares front and rear wheel speed for traction loss - not so on turning aircraft - but don't Eclipse and some of the smaller cj's have it?  Obviously a different price point (though not by all that much vs new Mooney :-)  )

 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

I hadn't considered this: bike ABS compares front and rear wheel speed for traction loss - not so on turning aircraft - but don't Eclipse and some of the smaller cj's have it?  Obviously a different price point (though not by all that much vs new Mooney :-)  )

 

Good question, and I don't know what newer small jet ABS systems are like, although I've poked at an old Goodyear system on a Lear 23 that was pretty interesting.   I *think* some of the newer systems even use GPS speed estimates as an input, so I'm curious myself about details of how they work these days.    Since each aircraft has it's own W&B and brake dynamics and tire effectiveness they'd be expect to be tailored to an individual aircraft type.