VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #51  
Old 08-29-2017, 07:40 PM
Fearless's Avatar
Fearless Fearless is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Crestwood, KY
Posts: 848
Default Damage to one here in Louisville.

There was a failure on a 12 based out Bowman Field here in Louisville recently. His failed making a turn off the runway at a different airport. Fortunately the wings come off to make transporting the plane back less painful. He suffered damage to more then just the nose wheel. I don't think he follows this forum.
__________________
Mike
RV-9A Based K6I2
Flying - out of Phase 1
Building RV-12 with brother
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:09 PM
Jim T Jim T is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Independence, OR
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopercod View Post
I'm just a nobody, but to me, the nose wheel assembly shown in that first photo appears really under-designed. I realize the the RV-12s only weigh...what?... 750 lbs. but even so.
What I see in that first photo is a nose gear that has had the living **** beat out of it. Lots of paint missing and what appears to be grass stains on the front.

Jim
__________________
RV-12 kit (sold)

2006 Rans S-6S Coyote (flying)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:26 PM
waterboy2110 waterboy2110 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 247
Default

The stronger nose fork is $240. I'd estimate that this accident is going to come in at a minimum of $4000 providing the engine is OK (it should be). That's cheap insurance if you're using craggy airports like Rensselaer.
__________________
http://jimsrv.blogspot.com
PP - ASEL
Instrument Rating
A&P/IA Rotax iRMT 9 Series Maintenance
EAA Technical Counselor
RV12 Flying.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:58 AM
BigJohn BigJohn is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Gloversville, NY
Posts: 1,587
Question Trying to get this thread back on track.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy2110 View Post
The stronger nose fork is $240. I'd estimate that this accident is going to come in at a minimum of $4000 providing the engine is OK (it should be). That's cheap insurance if you're using craggy airports like Rensselaer.
I agree with above. Jim is a good and smooth pilot, but Rensselaer's runway has been in terrible shape for years. I speculate (there, I said it!) that this failure was the result of metal fatique induced by many many stress cycles. I agree that anyone who operates routinely from rough fields ought to consider the "cheap insurance". Even though I only visit grass or rough fields occasionally, I think I will replace the fork at the next CI. JMHO.
__________________
John Peck, CFII, A&P, EAA Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor.
?Master Pilot? Award, UFO Member.
RV-12 N37JP 120176 Flying since 2012.
One Week Wonder Build Team, OSH 2018.
VAF paid through 10/2019.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:35 AM
JRo JRo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Poestenkill, NY (near Albany)
Posts: 126
Default

530 hours on the aircraft. I'm the only one who's ever flown it, and it's never had a hard landing or nose wheel landing. Seems to me like the fork is a really weak point & poor design. Damage resulting from this failure is extensive. Had the aircraft pole-vaulted as the strut dug into the runway, I'd have been trapped upside down and likely unable to evacuate the aircraft as the canopy rested on the surface with the full weight holding it shut.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:43 AM
snopercod's Avatar
snopercod snopercod is online now
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,105
Default People are funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy2110 View Post
The stronger nose fork is $240. I'd estimate that this accident is going to come in at a minimum of $4000...
I'm old, so I've noticed along the way that some people are funny that way with their money. The guy in the hangar behind me owns a Lightning with similar nose gear. On a test flight he muffed a landing badly - ended up in the weeds - and curled back the lower part of the gear. I advised the guy to buy a new fork from the factory but instead he just had a shop beat it back into shape. That kind of thinking (or non-thinking) is foreign to me.
__________________
(2020 dues paid)
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:12 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Melton View Post
fracture mechanics

FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS
=============================
I am not sure what this means precisely, Steve, but would certainly agree that running some 2-3-4 cycle drop test is not adequate for evaluation of a fatigue failure. Fatigue loading tests, FEA, and Weibull analysis of field failures to indicate percent of population that will fail is the way to properly address this as an issue. Being aluminum they will all fail eventually, but the design life here is not known. Even the design targets are not known, but I doubt the target is ZERO for an infinite life.

It looked like that test began with a crack and ran 180 cycles, did it then fail?
__________________
Bill

RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:18 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
Default My 2 cents . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
I wasn't debating the goal, just pointing out that there is often times a failure in the system (and that it seems you are implying that any component failure on an aircraft deserves an AD and correction on all aircraft of the same Make/Model...that is simply not true), but this is getting way off track from the original point of the thread.
I have nothing more to add.
As for Scotts comments here, in this forum - - in my view:

Scott posts here as a courtesy to we builders and owners. He is not to represent the official engineering analysis and decision making of Vans as a whole. I take his comments in that context and not as an absolute or complete justification for the Vans official position. Some of his arguments are clearly insufficient to make this engineer happy, but that is beyond expectations for his participation on this forum. We politely take what we get and if we don't like it, pick up the phone and call Vans, or send an email. It just seems rude to attack our only source of any enlightenment here and cause his blood pressure to rise.

Something to think about, put yourself in his position.

I have nothing more to add
__________________
Bill

RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-30-2017, 07:19 AM
joedallas's Avatar
joedallas joedallas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Spring Hill Fl
Posts: 734
Default MY view

My View
This forum is a great way for all of us to present our view and concerns.

Scotts participation is impotent to help understand a different view.

His view is of his opinion only and not necessarily those of his employer ( he has made that clear )

This is a great way to communicate with vans and let them know our concerns.

The community on the whole is better than anyone persons view.

I am sure that vans is aware of the problem and only they can decide the extent.


MY view

Joe Dallas




Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL View Post
As for Scotts comments here, in this forum - - in my view:

Scott posts here as a courtesy to we builders and owners. He is not to represent the official engineering analysis and decision making of Vans as a whole. I take his comments in that context and not as an absolute or complete justification for the Vans official position. Some of his arguments are clearly insufficient to make this engineer happy, but that is beyond expectations for his participation on this forum. We politely take what we get and if we don't like it, pick up the phone and call Vans, or send an email. It just seems rude to attack our only source of any enlightenment here and cause his blood pressure to rise.

Something to think about, put yourself in his position.

I have nothing more to add
__________________
Joe Dallas
Kit-#12400
www.joesrv12.com
www.EAA1298.com

Last edited by joedallas : 08-31-2017 at 06:03 AM. Reason: typing
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-30-2017, 08:26 AM
Piper J3's Avatar
Piper J3 Piper J3 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Hinckley, Ohio
Posts: 2,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy2110 View Post
The stronger nose fork is $240. I'd estimate that this accident is going to come in at a minimum of $4000 providing the engine is OK (it should be). That's cheap insurance if you're using craggy airports like Rensselaer.
I looked up New Version WD-01230 12 NOSE FORK CONVERSION and it appears the going price is $325.00

Oh well...
__________________
-
Jim Stricker
EAA #499867
PPL/ASEL 1970 - Sport Pilot since 2007
80 hrs Flying Aeronca Chief 11AC N86203
1130 hrs Flying 46 Piper J-3 Cub N6841H
Bought Flying RV-12 #120058 Oct 2015 with 48TT - Hobbs now 622

LSRM-A Certificate 2016 for RV-12 N633CM
Special Thanks... EJ Trucks - USN Crew Chief A-4 Skyhawk
MJ Stricker (Father & CFI) - USAAF 1st Lt. Captain B-17H
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.