Tri-Gear Parts & Know How

[McPeek78]

Has anyone out there converted a 2L to a Tri-Gear and knows how to do it? Are there plans for it? If so does anyone have them. Last of all does anyone have the nose gear and part from a conversion the other way around. A tri-gear back to a Taildragger? If so please let me know on any or all of the above questions. Thanks alot folks.

 

[soneraifred]

The Sonerai II Original plans set has all the information to build both the tailwheel and nosewheel versions. It would be wise to get a set of plans if you don’t have one.

 

[McPeek78]

I have plans for my sonerai 2L from 1980 they do not have any information on the tri-gear at all.

 

[John B]

Way back when you had to buy the tri gear plans separate. That's what I did about 1988 or so

 

[Bil4381]

I have plans for my sonerai 2L from 1980 they do not have any information on the tri-gear at all.

I looked at my 1985 drawings book. There are say 6 pages with drawings etc for the nose gear. Post your email and I'll send the cell phone photos I took of those pages., My scanner isn't that big. Bill E

 

[McPeek78]

My email is [email protected]

 

[philipfrost]

Hey Bil438.
im in the same boat (plane) I’m purchasing a disassembled tri gear from the 80s. And it’s missing the front assembly.
if possible a copy to me would be appreciated.
[email protected]
I’m in Oz.
cheers.

 

[Neale in Wichita]

I am sure interested if you could send to:
[email protected]

Thanks!

 

[Flyguyeddy]

I have plans for my sonerai 2L from 1980 they do not have any information on the tri-gear at all.

Thats because the tri gear s2 came out in 1983

 

[N27EF]

My Dad had a tri gear Soneri in the 80s. He had two forced landings and the upper part of the nose gear punctured the tank both times. He originaly had the half inch main gear and replaced it after the first accident with a 5/8 gear. The second time he made a good landing but caught the mains on frozen boulders that tore the gear off and folded the nose gear. He rebuilt it a second time and managed to fly it about 600 hours behind an A80.

 

[N27EF]

I forgot to mention that after the second accident he converted to a conventional gear.

 

[McPeek78]

I forgot to mention that after the second accident he converted to a conventional gear.

Perhaps thats the best policy for a sonerai. It was orginaly designed that way & John Monnet isn't particularly found of Tri-Gear. I just sold a Teenie Two to a fellow who wrecked his converted taildragger Teenie Two that was NEVER designed to be a TD but a tri-gear & as such has the gear alread short coupled enough. I just really need to Find a good taildragger trainer that is close enough to the handeling of the sonerai while I do have a TD endorsement my regular mount is a Tri-Pacer.

 

[McPeek78]

The Tri-Pacer has a bit more brisk roll rate that the 172 & is slightly more short coupled just barely. It climbs a bit better. Settles quickly & doesn't float as much. Its easier to stop land because of it. It lands a tad faster. I normally fly the pattern at 80mph final & that in windy conditions & 75 in regular conditions. It is a just a bit power held till landing airplane/ stabilized approach airplane. One must fly it all the way down .It stalls around 50-55 mph with 1st notch of flaps. I flair slightly nose high almost like a taildragger few feet off the ground . I rotate at 60-65 mph lower till at 70-75 mph then climbout.
I am hoping a lot but not all about the Tri-Pacer is transferable to some degree to the sonerai though in the Tri-Pacer you CAN see the runway the whole way down. That will be different.

 

[N27EF]

View attachment 15158
The Tri-Pacer has a bit more brisk roll rate that the 172 & is slightly more short coupled just barely. It climbs a bit better. Settles quickly & doesn't float as much. Its easier to stop land because of it. It lands a tad faster. I normally fly the pattern at 80mph final & that in windy conditions & 75 in regular conditions. It is a just a bit power held till landing airplane/ stabilized approach airplane. One must fly it all the way down .It stalls around 50-55 mph with 1st notch of flaps. I flair slightly nose high almost like a taildragger few feet off the ground . I rotate at 60-65 mph lower till at 70-75 mph then climbout.
I am hoping a lot but not all about the Tri-Pacer is transferable to some degree to the sonerai though in the Tri-Pacer you CAN see the runway the whole way down. That will be different.

Nice looking Tripacer. I think on a Soneri the nose gear adds some weight and probably some sail area ahead of the cg. I only flew the soneri once (from the front seat) and it was marginally stable in yaw. I could only fly it looking at the skid ball. I have it now and I'm planning on enlarging the vertical fin. I pulled the A80 off and am going to convert it back to a VW . Dad enjoyed building and flying the soneri but really wished he'd built an RV4.

 

[Todd Loes]

The Tri-Pacer has a bit more brisk roll rate that the 172 & is slightly more short coupled just barely. It climbs a bit better. Settles quickly & doesn't float as much. Its easier to stop land because of it. It lands a tad faster. I normally fly the pattern at 80mph final & that in windy conditions & 75 in regular conditions. It is a just a bit power held till landing airplane/ stabilized approach airplane. One must fly it all the way down .It stalls around 50-55 mph with 1st notch of flaps. I flair slightly nose high almost like a taildragger few feet off the ground . I rotate at 60-65 mph lower till at 70-75 mph then climbout.
I am hoping a lot but not all about the Tri-Pacer is transferable to some degree to the sonerai though in the Tri-Pacer you CAN see the runway the whole way down. That will be different.

The Tri-Pacer rolls faster than the C172 because of shorter wing span and fabric (lighter) wings. It has nothing to do with conventional vs tricycle landing gear. I flew a Tri-Pacer for about 400 hours and found it to be delightful. I switched to a 172 just for the extra cabin room.

My point here is that if you want to compare tricycle vs conventional (and have meaningful experience in a Tri-Pacer) you'd have to compare Pacer and Tri-Pacer before trying to transfer the pros and cons to tricycle vs conventional Sonerai.

 

[McPeek78]

The Tri-Pacer rolls faster than the C172 because of shorter wing span and fabric (lighter) wings. It has nothing to do with conventional vs tricycle landing gear. I flew a Tri-Pacer for about 400 hours and found it to be delightful. I switched to a 172 just for the extra cabin room.

My point here is that if you want to compare tricycle vs conventional (and have meaningful experience in a Tri-Pacer) you'd have to compare Pacer and Tri-Pacer before trying to transfer the pros and cons to tricycle vs conventional Sonerai.

I think you just completely took that one out of context. Everyone knows landing gear has little to no impact on overall flight handeling. Other than maybe slight weight & ballence & speed. I wasn't comparing ANYTHING but slight flight handeling similarities I had Hoped were getting closer to the sonerai from the all metal trainers we are use to. I have flown Citabrias, Champs, Cubs, 172, 150, 152, Cherokee, Owned a Zenith CH200. The only think meaningful here would be to have a converation with someone else because the only thing you added was empty criticism. YOU SAID NOTHING ABOUT FLYING A SONERAI OR BUILDING THE TRI-GEAR OPTION. Please if you have something in those areas.....contribute!
I would love to hear it even IF its a bit sharp but this wasn't it. So lets hear it or........
Oh & while I will likely never use the extra room of a 172 its probably a bit more practical & nicer of a plane. Much easier to get into thats for sure. I don't know what plane manufacturer we thinking at putting the door on the passengers side, now they have to get in last. Of course piper wasn't the only one to do that. My hangers are restored all metal hangers from the 1940's CPTP and a 172 will fit but its a very tight squeeze. So I am sort of stuck with the Tri-Pacer. I don't mind I like it.( picture shown was in a different hanger not mine) My neighbor has a 59 172 so I get to fly it every once & while.

 

[Neale in Wichita]

A very good discussion. I too am curious on flight handling. I had a Mini-coupe (like a teenie too, but twin tail) with full length ailerons and it required constant stick attention and had excellent fighter-plane response. A blast to fly but not fun to take cross country.

 

[McPeek78]

A very good discussion. I too am curious on flight handling. I had a Mini-coupe (like a teenie too, but twin tail) with full length ailerons and it required constant stick attention and had excellent fighter-plane response. A blast to fly but not fun to take cross country.

I have a mini-coupe project. One wing needs refitted as that side got tore off by a passing tractor trailer in transit. I went clear out to Montana to get another set. It also came with an extra engine. It has flown before. Has airworth certification paperwork, the operation limitations paper work, registration, log books and the builder created a nice pilots operating handbook. It runs & I have video of it running. VW 1600 Harley carb. I have a special made trailer for it. I'd like to sell it as my A&P & will likely not have anytime for it as his wife died of cancer this year and we are so backed up we may never get to it. I have the part to complete it plus some. Canopy cowl are all there. Instruments too.