What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Vans New Nose Gear and Fork

R

RV_7A

Well Known Member
I ordered the new nose gear and fork for my -7 since they revised it a bit and am wondering if anyone has gotten to compare them first hand. Mine will be here Saturday and I be able to see the physical difference then. In the meantime I was just curious. BTW I will be selling the old style for cheap if anyone is interested. From what I understand it fits -6 -7 and -9's.

-Jeff
 
date's

I was wondering if mine is already the new one, whats it look like ? ect..


Danny..

I thought mine was new but it didn't look much different to the pictures I have seen..
 
Was it shipped to you after the March 10th notice?

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/letters/nosegear.pdf

This is a pic of what I currently have.
QUICKBUILD%20048.jpg


QUICKBUILD%20057.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jeff,
Is your gear leg not powder coated?
The reason I ask is that I had ordered my finish 'just' before the change. I called Van's and they said that I would be getting the "new stuff". My gear leg is powder coated. Now I'm wondering if I did in fact get the new stuff.

Sam
 
Jeff,

I have the old design and a fellow builder in my EAA chapter has the new design. We compared the two side-by-side, and the new design is definitely lighter and the shape is different to provide more clearance between the nose strut axle and the ground.

What made you decide to order the new stuff? According to the letter from the factory, there is no definitive data indicating that the new design will reduce the likelihood of a nose gear failure, although they plan to do some additional testing. Have they released some new information?

Mark
 
Well my leg may not be powdercoated because it is the undrilled version that is for use with the Subaru engine. Well I came to my senses and decided to go with the Lycoming style engine. So rather than drill that hole myself I figure I'd opt for the new pre drilled, lighter, more clearance, higher cost fancy smancy version. Vans didn't resdesign that thing just to make it lighter ;) Also I'm the greenest pilot out there and will do flight training in my own plane and can almost guarantee I won't grease every landing at first.
 
Last edited:
newest pilot out there (not!)

I have 8 hours in a 172 only, 2 hours in a piper, and have given up on these guys teaching me, still looking for someone that can do that job, one has dangerous airplanes and the other just don't want to show up at the school when he schedules me.. ? hope I am not the problem :) but I am sure I won't grease any landings for a while either..

Danny..
 
LOL!! Danny send me your nose leg and I'll add it to mine. Two of them might not be enough for me! :eek:
 
How much lighter?

rv9builder said:
Jeff,

I have the old design and a fellow builder in my EAA chapter has the new design. We compared the two side-by-side, and the new design is definitely lighter and the shape is different to provide more clearance between the nose strut axle and the ground.

Mark
Click to expand...



Mark,

I would be very interested to know exactly how much lighter the new nose gear leg and fork are compared to the old version. My finishing kit is shipping out next week, so I will be getting the new version for my -8A. I'm trying to keep my CG from going too far forward and this should help a little. Is it possible to throw the old and new on a scale, or is it already on the airplane?

Thanks.
 
ericwolf said:
Mark,

I would be very interested to know exactly how much lighter the new nose gear leg and fork are compared to the old version. My finishing kit is shipping out next week, so I will be getting the new version for my -8A. I'm trying to keep my CG from going too far forward and this should help a little. Is it possible to throw the old and new on a scale, or is it already on the airplane?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Eric,

One of the parts we compared is now on the plane, so I can't put it on a scale. I would guess the new fork was about 25% lighter than the old fork, but that's just a guess.

Mark
 
Well I finally got my parts in. Heres the verdict.

The Nose Gear Leg is exactly the same except for the end where the Fork attaches. It is a little shorter so that it is the right length for the new Fork.
If it is any lighter it's only a few ounces on this part.
STUFF%20031.jpg


STUFF.jpg


Here you can see the differences in the two Forks. Does this Fork look like it fits some other RV? The original Fork weighs in at about 2 lbs. The new one is about 1.25 lbs.
STUFF%20034.jpg
 
Last edited:
Common nosegear legs.

The part number label on the powder coated one falls in line with the RV-6 part numbers. I wonder if there is a difference. Did the earlier -7's use the RV-6 nosegear leg? And what does the RV-9A have for its nosewheel part number too?? The bearing sleeve looks shorter. Does the centerline of the wheel axle end up in a different location (in relation to the bearing)? From the top the dimension looks close. From the bottom it does not.
 
The overall distance between the bottom on the Fuselage and the axle bolt looks like it will be the same. The only thing difference here is the rake of the fork. It looks like all these items are providing is another 1" of ground clearance. Both the leg and fork had -6 PN's on them.
 
Does this Nose Stop Flange look like it was welded a bit crooked? Im not sure I want this thing on my plane. It looks like it will just eat up the top of the bushing in no time. Not to mention the 'breakout force" will change quickly from the wear. Any other thoughts on this?

STUFF%20036.jpg
 
redesign

just wanted to mention that IF you want to change to the NEWER redesign-- you have a couple options.

send your existing leg to Harmon or Van's I guess, and pay to have exactly 1" chopped off and then outside milled.

or buy a new leg and only need to have Harmon match drill it by matching up your old leg and measuring.

and then buy the new fork that has 1" lopped off of it and nicely lightened.

as mentioned, this gives another inch of clearance from nut to ground.

mark

83050124sy.jpg
 
Davepar said:
In Jeff's picture above, which fork is the new one vs. old one?
Click to expand...

My guess is that the lower one is the newer one. I just got my finish kit yesterday (8/17/05) and mine looks like the smaller one.

2005-08-16.967.jpeg
 
less to drag on

Since the piviot is shorter and the fork is angles down further from front to rear,
you will have a little more clearance between the ground and the bottom nut of the piviot,
like a larger wheel/tire would provide more ground clearance, with out the drag.

The leg does not look stronger? Besides the piviot length and fork angle what has changed,
just the piviot length and fork rake?

Also, with that angle the fork is making, what affect will the geometry have in other areas,
like shimmy?

Would the weight savings have been better served by putting it back in the leg,
may be near the thinnest tappered area and/or mid gear leg?
What about a different material. This looks like a nice mod while still using existing gears.

From the picture of the latest gear fold it shows the biggest bend in the gear leg about
a foot down from the mount.

Thoughts

George
 
Last edited:
I agree, given its history of buckling.

I wonder why the front strut was angled forward- it seems to me that it would contribute to digging into soft turf/catch rocks and ditches.

It might be a good idea to consider designing a strut support arm for rough field use, maybe a larger diameter tire.
 
The Van's nose struts are angled forward to give you some shock absorbtion. If it was vertical, there would be no spring and it would be brutal. I think this is something that was designed with the original O-320 engined, wood prop 6A in mind with a quite rearward C of G and under 1000 lbs. in mind. Unfortunately with all the crap we add plus a 55-60lb. C/S prop way out front, nose gear weight is a lot higher than Van anticipated. Do a wheelbarrow landing or one on soft, bumpy ground and beware. Lot's of peolpe have bent the leg.

The material is actually pretty good, just needs a little more section width probably. The small nose wheel is also not an asset on rough grass. I just stick to asphalt with mine.
 
Yes it is elegant

rv6ejguy said:
The Van's nose struts are angled forward to give you some shock absorbtion. If it was vertical, there would be no spring and it would be brutal. I think this is something that was designed with the original O-320 engined, wood prop 6A in mind with a quite rearward C of G and under 1000 lbs. in mind. Unfortunately with all the crap we add plus a 55-60lb. C/S prop way out front, nose gear weight is a lot higher than Van anticipated. Do a wheelbarrow landing or one on soft, bumpy ground and beware. Lot's of people have bent the leg.

The material is actually pretty good, just needs a little more section width probably. The small nose wheel is also not an asset on rough grass. I just stick to asphalt with mine.
Click to expand...
I hear you rv6ejguy, but look at these pictures and keep in mind the speed was about 4 kts.
http://homepage.mac.com/mikec6/PhotoAlbum1.html

I get the elegant aspect of a spring gear, especially one that goes +200mph with three gear down and welded.

There are ways to make a strut with an oleo (oil/gas strut), like a Cessna, but weight and drag would be higher. If you stayed with a spring steel gear, having the leg in trail would not work, but ther is no structure forward below the engine to support it. Look at a Long-EZ, the nose gear leg is in angled in trail, not fwd. Angled forward as is, it's like a pole vault. If the forces that caused this where in effect and the plane was going much faster it may have flipped.

There is no doubt the design is elegant and works for most people most of the time. I have been on a wait and see attitude, and I admit I thought many if not most where pilot error. This one however is odd. At slow speed in soft dirt, even if the aircraft was near gross or had a Subaru engine (heaver than a Lyc), the gear folded back. The builder/pilot wrote into the RV-7/7A group and told what happened, 4 kt taxi. Hmmmm. Would the additional clearance of the new fork and mod gear leg pivot kept this from happening? :(

Regards George
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me if the new nose gear for the 7A uses the original wheel assembly? If the new fork assembly is a 6A part, then the 7A wheel would not work? I have built both a 6A and 7A and my recollection is that the 6 fork is narrower than the 7 fork.

Steve Ciha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top