![]() |
Quote:
Early on, I replaced the original design mushroom bearing holders with the Matco axle, which is easier to accurately tighten and definitely reduces the rolling resistance of the nose wheel itself. Nowadays, the Beringer nose wheel with its tubeless tire is worth a look. How much margin for pilot error is built into the nose gear leg original versus new design is hard to say. The new design seems beefier thus offering a greater margin for pilot error and, therefore, warrants consideration.. |
Most don't understand the dangers of Vans weak nose design. It's not the normal planned landings that is where the risk is its the off field Ldg's that present the real risk!
There's been a few A models that hve flipped of late in Australia and we have bugger all Vans here compared to the States! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
More facts/data and less opinion would be helpful. |
You could always put the nose wheel on the back... where it belongs... Ha ha :D
I appologize. What is the big difference with the new gear? Is it more draggy? Is it heaver? How much testing has been done? Did it really prevent folding up? |
Here?s a must watch video of a nose wheel KR2 shot during a forced landing on a wide street south of Tacoma, Washington, a couple of days ago. It was shot from a police car dash cam. Have a look at how this guy lands under real pressure. This is a prime example of how in a real emergency situation involving an engine failure all finer skills of pilotage can go out the window under the stress. Amazing that the KR2 nosewheel withstood the abuse. Watch the actual moment of touchdown.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...&v=pkOg9qh3unM Now don?t get me wrong on this one. This guy did a fine job to land this plane in a suburban street and walk away with presumably no injury and no damage to the plane. However my point is that under such a real time stressful emergency it is unlikely that many pilots are going to execute a classic hold-the-nose-off landing....and that?s when you need a bit of reasonable safety factor on the nosegear. |
Quote:
The original nosegear design is quite fragile and does not have a lot of safety factor. And when it collapses the plane invariably tips over because the 2 place RVs have a very short coupled gear design. |
Just my opinion but RV's have some limitations in their design. They are not back woods type aircraft and are not designed for this type of flying. They are sporty, cross country aircraft that have terrific climb and cruise speeds compared to your average certified built piper or Cessna. They have very small tires that are usually filled to higher pressures that are really not suitable for off airport landings. Even the tail wheel models have very small tailwheels that don't lend themselves to rougher strips plus next to no clearance on the wheel pants.:) If your looking for an aircraft that you can operate in the back woods the RV is probably one of your worst choices.
If you've got a decent gravel or turf runway then any RV can handle these conditions if operated properly. If your operating in a field that is not suitable for an A model flown properly your probably pushing the envelope for a straight RV, in my opinion. In my experience it has way more to do with pilot skills than aircraft design. Having said that tail wheel aircraft can usually take a bit more abuse before things start to break but why bother? The odds of a forced landing is pretty small and I wouldn't be making my choice based on that scenario. If that was the target then buy a Super Cub and call it a day but your going to have to give up on aerobatics and be happy with 90 knot cruise speeds |
Quote:
100% of RV14A accidents in Australia resulted in a tipover, and that's with new nosegear, so I think we need more than anecdotal evidence here. Chrus |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM. |