VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   New "A" Nose Gear - Should I Update? (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=173820)

alcladrv 08-02-2019 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sglynn (Post 1363338)
No, when you learn to fly the 9A you'll see that when you take off you'll pull the nose gear off the pavement a little and take off from the mains. And when you land you'll hold the nose off the payment as you slow down until about 40 knots when it settles back down. I did all the Nose Job upgrades to my 7A gear, but now that I'm finally flying it I think the concern is over done hype. I'm surprised how easy the 7A is to fly and land correctly once you've been taught. It is an accurate flyer. The nose gear doesn't see much action when you fly the way you're suppose to.

Flown correctly as described above and in my experience of 14 years flying, 1400+ hours and 900+ uneventful landings in my 7A, I've found the original design to be entirely adequate. As Van has said, the third wheel is for taxiing, not landing. I am also pretty anal about keeping the nose tire pressure at 40 psi before any flying, That usually requires adding air at least monthly. A strategically placed hole in the nose wheel fairing that lines up with the tire valve and a homemade inflation extension tube greatly reduces the effort to add air to the tire.

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..

Capt 08-02-2019 04:27 AM

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!

Captain Avgas 08-02-2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt (Post 1363639)
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!

I totally agree. You can have all the transition training in the world and know exactly how to baby the nose wheel but if the engine quits and you?re not over a big billiard table you?ve got a real problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in most off-runway attempts at a forced landing into an open field the nose gear collapses and the plane tips over.

ChiefPilot 08-02-2019 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas (Post 1363651)
I totally agree. You can have all the transition training in the world and know exactly how to baby the nose wheel but if the engine quits and you’re not over a big billiard table you’ve got a real problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in most off-runway attempts at a forced landing into an open field the nose gear collapses and the plane tips over.

Anecdotal evidence? That same thing would suggest that most pilots don't know how to fly to Oshkosh at 90kts, don't know how to properly choose which type of canopy to opt for, and use the wrong primer on their aircraft while building. It would also suggest that the new nose gear design won't present a flipover as evidenced by the recent -14A accident in Australia (see this thread).

More facts/data and less opinion would be helpful.

gmcjetpilot 08-02-2019 07:27 AM

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?

Captain Avgas 08-02-2019 08:33 AM

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.

Captain Avgas 08-02-2019 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefPilot (Post 1363653)
Anecdotal evidence? That same thing would suggest that most pilots don't know how to fly to Oshkosh at 90kts, don't know how to properly choose which type of canopy to opt for, and use the wrong primer on their aircraft while building. It would also suggest that the new nose gear design won't present a flipover as evidenced by the recent -14A accident in Australia (see this thread).

More facts/data and less opinion would be helpful.

Sorry, I?m not sure what you?re trying to say. The anecdotal evidence that a large percentage of two-place RV(A)s with the original nose gear tip over during off-field forced landings (and often during on-field botched landings...particularly on unsealed runways) is manifestly obvious just from the posts over the years detailing the accidents on VansAirforce. I mean, it?s not exactly a secret is it ?
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.

Robert Sailor 08-02-2019 09:13 AM

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

YellowJacket RV9 08-02-2019 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas (Post 1363685)
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. The anecdotal evidence that a large percentage of two-place RV(A)s with the original nose gear tip over during off-field forced landings (and often during on-field botched landings...particularly on unsealed runways) is manifestly obvious just from the posts over the years detailing the accidents on VansAirforce. I mean, it’s not exactly a secret is it ?
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.

I think the point is that just because A models tend to nose over on rough off-field landings, doesn't mean that the new gear model will change that. It is still a short-coupled gear and can only absorb so much. -A models just have this disadvantage when it comes to off field-landings. Of course my 9A may still have an advantage over other models because of a 10 knot slower stall speed. The point is that LOTS of factors impact what happens in an off-field landing. Big engines and heavy props out front don't help, either. Pilot technique appears to be a factor in a large number of on-airport incidents. Cheaper to change technique than change landing gear.

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

Captain Avgas 08-02-2019 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YellowJacket RV9 (Post 1363699)
I think the point is that just because A models tend to nose over on rough off-field landings, doesn't mean that the new gear model will change that. It is still a short-coupled gear and can only absorb so much. -A models just have this disadvantage when it comes to off field-landings. Of course my 9A may still have an advantage over other models because of a 10 knot slower stall speed. The point is that LOTS of factors impact what happens in an off-field landing. Big engines and heavy props out front don't help, either. Pilot technique appears to be a factor in a large number of on-airport incidents. Cheaper to change technique than change landing gear.

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

Chris, there’s nothing in your post that I disagree with...nothing. Certainly the jury will be out on the new gear model for some time yet. I think it will be a slight improvement but only time in service will determine that. I know that poor pilot technique is the cause of many (perhaps most) nose gear failures on the RVs. I did my transition training with Mike Seager. That was a revelation. However I am also fully aware that in off-field forced landings the subtle nuances of good pilot technique can go out the window under the stress...particularly amongst older pilots (and RV pilots tend to be older pilots) who can really struggle with the multi-tasking involved. I just think the RV fraternity needs to fully understand that these planes are designed for speed at low cost and the downside to that is they do not perform well in off-field emergency landings. If your engine quits in your 2-seat RV mid flight there is a very high probability that your nose gear will collapse, that the plane will tip over, and that it will be extremely difficult to exit the aircraft by yourself in any timely manner. That’s just the way it is. I am a strong advocate for good RV piloting techniques but there is a lot to be said also for good engine maintenance on these planes. As for builders putting auto conversions into RVs to save a few dollars...well don’t get me started. :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM.