Speaking of legs...

Another reason I would be more likely to build a Hi-Max is landing gear options. I would like something able to handle "unimproved" landing strips, in case I have to land off-runway, or decide to get adventurous and land someplace off grid.

A few years ago my steering rod broke on touchdown. I had no directional control and went for a 25 mph excursion into very rough terrain off the runway. My axle had to be replaced, the top fuselage decking split, and I took some fabric damage underneath when I rolled over a runway light that was anchored inside a rubber tire.

This really demonstrated how tough my Max was, but I was not left with the impression it would do well as a bush plane. I believe that points where wood meets metal - i.e. The tail wheel - would always be weak spots. And though this airframe is very strong in the air, I think it would be relatively fragile if subjected to regular visits to rough terrain. I'm not talking about operations from a relatively smooth grass field.

Your mileage may vary

Pretty much same happened to me a while back. Steering rod broke and I ground looped. later the Spring Broke and shoved the end of it into the bottom of the elevator....  Just now making that repair. It had a baseball stitch and some 100mph tape for a while.

I don't think I would do much in the way of Bush Flying - perhaps Shrub Flying on a few occasions. Mostly I would like to land at grass strips and I don't love the idea of that axle catching on stuff - especially in a forced landing situation.

I have seen a few pics in here of one-piece aluminum gear, and would like to go that route. I may use the fiberglass tube main gear from my Hawk if it can be adapted - that's still in the "pre-napkin" stage.

so what colour are her eyes....?

After my accident and the problem I had getting out of the cockpit, I am sold on hi-wing aircraft. I fly over rugged land and have had 4 forced landings.

Monte

I agree, Monte. I'm no bush pilot, but I like the aluminum gear simply because it does not have that "trip hazard" running between the wheels. i also like the added shock adsorption from the Wittman gear in case I (like Monte) need to land in "iffy" terrain - the more bumps the gear soaks up, the less that gets transferred to the fuselage.
I don't know of a way to mount the mid-wing to Wittman-style gear, so that means Hi-Max. Having flown Cessnas and Flight Designs as well as PA-28's and AA-1A's, I can say I really like flying no matter where the wing is, but I prefer the view from a high-wing. Especially the Flight Design with the greenhouse windows (a feature that is certain to be included on my Max).

By the way, if anyone offers you a ride in a Flight Design plane, take it!

I am in the process of fitting aluminium gear to my Himax build. The gear itself is easy enough to make provided you have access to the right tools (aluminium cutting skilsaw, hydraulic bender, metal router etc) - the problem I have wrestled with for a couple of weeks is how to distribute the loads evenly to the fuselage, given the very light nature of the woodwork. I have added wooden ply blocks to the interior floor, and the same on the outside, also  3mm thick aluminium plate both top and bottom, with the mounting bolts (4 each side) clamping both top and bottom together. I will post pics when finished. In hindsight I think I will have overdone it in terms of the weight and size of the landing gear, and it may have been better to either make a fibreglass gear or one of sprung steel plate - both would have been lighter than what I am doing.

One point to be wary of when fitting modified landing gear is not to make it too strong.

This may seem counterintuitive, but one function of the undercarriage is to act as sacrificial structure. The energy absorbed in bending, buckling, or tearing off the u/c is energy that doesn't transmit to the primary a/c structure.

Thus it pays to try to replicate the original design strength parameters, as in number & dia of fixings, size & position of reinforcements, etc. It is generally easier to repair landing gear than primary structure - & to figure out how far the damage has extended under the skin. It would be a shame to make a heavy landing off field, and find an undamaged undercart firmly attached to the remains of the fuselage!

I'm sure you are aware of this, but it is worth repeating.

Bruce

This post brings my memory to the pic I picked up some time ago, if there is one part this guy can reuse in his new airplane its the landing gear

Quoted from beragoobruce

One point to be wary of when fitting modified landing gear is not to make it too strong.

This may seem counterintuitive, but one function of the undercarriage is to act as sacrificial structure. The energy absorbed in bending, buckling, or tearing off the u/c is energy that doesn't transmit to the primary a/c structure.

Thus it pays to try to replicate the original design strength parameters, as in number & dia of fixings, size & position of reinforcements, etc. It is generally easier to repair landing gear than primary structure - & to figure out how far the damage has extended under the skin. It would be a shame to make a heavy landing off field, and find an undamaged undercart firmly attached to the remains of the fuselage!

I'm sure you are aware of this, but it is worth repeating.

Bruce

That is a very good point. One I had forgotten.
What about J3 Cub-style main gear? That would allow for the use of the original gear mounts (at the same strength), just with rubber bungees. Gives a bit more bumpy field forgiveness, and would still shear off if things went really bad.

Yes, that should work well. Great thing about J3 stuff is that they're simple, light, & they work fine for years. Ok, that's 3 things.

Hell, was the pilot reusable?

Quoted from 71

This post brings my memory to the pic I picked up some time ago, if there is one part this guy can reuse in his new airplane its the landing gear

Quoted from PUFF

Hell, was the pilot reusable?

That's what I'd like to know!  That one looks unsurvivable....stranger things have happened though

Nevermind the feet, I can't figure out what this picture has to do with airplanes!

Will add a point about some saying the Hi-Max is harder to get in and out of .. A simple fix which I have done and made a world of difference was widen the fuselage to 26 " . Surprised as how much easier it was to get in and out off.

George S. makes a fiberglas & carbon fiber landing gear for the Himax on request.  If you want a set, start talking to him now, because he makes them between his other projects, and may take a couple of months or so.

I had a set on my old Himax.  It works very well; flexes nicely to absorb bumps. I use Black Max wheels, axles, and hydralic brakes.  The setup worked quite well; in fact, I had to be careful with the brakes not to use them too hard, as they were extremely effective; FAR better the Asuza band brakes. It was quite possible to put the Himax on its nose from too much braking.

I currently fly a QC Challenger, and it has Black Max hydraulic brakes.  They are extremely effective; I can lock both main geer wheels and slide the plane if I want, even on concrete runways. No worries about a prop strike since the QC Challenger has tricycle gear, and is a pusher design.

Quote from Antoni's post on page 1....

I fancied the Minimax idea and phoned the TEAM main man in the UK in 1999. One thing he said really struck me.

Your chest is at the centre of proceedings!

I believe he was right, the whole plane seems to fly around the middle of your body and that's why the Minimax feels so natural.

And one from Bill Metcalf.....

Of course, on a nice summer morning you can land, step out of the cockpit in your B2 leather jacket and headset/helmet combo, and not even feel like a nerd. This is the stuff REAL pilots have always worn in open cockpits. Yes boys, the guy who just got out of his Cessna 180, wearing one of those thin designer leather jackets he bought at his local department store, to feel and look like a pilot, will be feeling a bit silly as he glance(ss over at the rugged individual who just climbed out of that stupid little ultralight after having a manly stick and rudder battle with the elements.

Those two things make me really look forward to flying my 1100/1030 MiniMAX. A lot of things have gotten in the way and delayed my big day, but those two things really make me want to get it in the air and soon be able to fly to the neighboring airport about 20 miles away for breakfast on a clear Saturday morning! My MiniMAX will probably make the Cub(s) and Aeronca(s) look big!

Lynn

That is in the spirit of ultralight clothing, for sure.
Merging the two airframes would see a TigerMax, a piece of silliness I have often dreamed of. My preference is for the MiniMax. The Himax would be more stable, easier to fly and give me more flying days a year as a result but a MiniMax is a real planiac's aeroplane. It looks nicely vintage, and flown well, makes a pilot of you.

Quoted from aeronut

I built the mid-wing and wish I had the Himax. Especially now that I would like to put floats on the airplane.

Why not convert it to the Hi-MAX?  Either TEAM or JDT posted supplemental conversion plans online at one time, showing how to convert from a miniMAX to HiMAX.  Years ago whilst visiting JDT in Napanee, Indiana, Lowell Farrand confirmed it could be done and then explained in detail how to do it.  Nice fella!  

That is exactly what I did. But I thought that this is going to be a cake walk cause I have done this thing before and tried to work too fast and I am not satisfied with the quality of my workmanship. It will make good kindling wood for the wood stove but I do not have the urge to cut it up just yet. It has set on my work bench for quit some time.  

There are several people who have converted mid wing to Hi max, but I don't know who they are. It's not a cake-walk, but can be done as there are conversion plans on the Team Website.

Yes you are correct but I built an 1100R and I built it as light as I could to try and meet part 103. That included the 22" inch wide fuselage so working from my original fuselage is not a good idea because it is very difficult to get in and out of the Hi-max at that width, so I ordered a new fuselage kit and was proceeding to build a 24" wide Hi-max fuselage and use my wings and tail feathers on the new bird. I just got in too big of a hurry in the construction of the new fuselage and in my haste I made some poor fitting diagonal joints in the aft portion of the new body. And while they would probably hold up fine they are not acceptable to me. I got as far as skinning the bottom of the fuselage when I decided to not accept the workmanship cause "probably" is not good enough in my book. Lesson learned is do not try to rush your work. I have flown 22" Hi-max and it is too narrow for me.   

Critical Question:  are you going to use a VW engine?

If so, the wings are different from the 2 Stroke models and the VW engined Models.
If you originally built yours for a 2 stroke, or ultralight, STOP and read the difference in the plans around the Wing Construction.

No I did not have  plans to use a half VW. At this point I have shelved the idea of adding floats, there are home built aircraft out there that are better for adapting to floats than a mid wing Mini-max.  

Ok cool, if you're not going to go half-VW with it, you should be ok with a Hi-Wing conversion.

Quoted from PUFF

Critical Question:  are you going to use a VW engine?

If so, the wings are different from the 2 Stroke models and the VW engined Models.
If you originally built yours for a 2 stroke, or ultralight, STOP and read the difference in the plans around the Wing Construction.

Even the 1/2 vw? Was considering converting to highmax with 1/2 vw on my 1100 kit... i was not aware of any difference in wing design between 2 stroke and 4... 1/2 vw weighs a bit more with a bit more power... but did not think there was design change besides untill you went full vw. I do remember a note somewhere about "heavy tail" tho

Am i crazy for thinking i could design the best of both worlds into one airframe... removable high wing cab. A minimax that could convert to both?

I think I read somewhere that Ison had a job in aviation specifically working on landing gear. Government contacting or something like that. The guy really knew what he was doing when he designed the minimax gear.

I have a question - Is there any real difference in speed between the two from an airframe standpoint? I imagine there is considerable less drag with the spring himax landing gear if that's used.