New "A" Nose Gear - Should I Update?

[FireMedic_2009]

Originally Posted by RV10inOz

Land at the correct speed.

Use the MAIN gear like you should.

I am convinced this is a solution to a non problem. Except those who refuse to fly properly.

Give them stronger gear they will shift the resultant forces elsewhere from their bad piloting.

I may be wrong, but lots of RV's operating off a rough strip at my home field would suggest it is not the product design that is the problem.

And yes, two recent wrecks here in Australia just prove my theory. They were not the fault of the design.

Happy to take flack, but you will need a good argument because low experience pilots flying properly do not have a problem on rough strips.

Bravo!!! I didn't want to say it and start an argument, but you are absolutely correct.

[keitht]

The redesigned nose gear has some similarities with the Mooney gear and I wonder if bad piloting technique in an RV-7A with the new gear will produce the prop strike issues that happen with the Mooney 201 series. Getting into ground effect going too fast is always bad news in a low wing, especially for those determined to ?wheelbarrow? it onto the ground. Having been in an RV-6A that had the original (first generation) nose gear collapse due to metal fatigue I do take the issue of a roll over very seriously. Fortunately we were going very slowly when the failure occurred and we didn't roll over but I suspect you wouldn't have to be going very fast to end upside down. Using taildragger three point landing technique in the 7A and staying off the brakes ( planning all landing distances with no braking), paying attention to nose wheel loading to stay under the maximum values in the Vans bulletin and regular checks of the breakout friction loads on the nose gear and my feeling is that the existing gear is adequate and safe if generally operating from paved or good quality unpaved runways. If you want to operate from unimproved strips then the RV?s are not a good choice and the new nose gear, in my opinion will do nothing to improve that. My guess is that landing accidents with the new nose gear will result in more prop strikes and bent firewalls and other forward fuselage damage. Putting $4K into flight training to develop a proper landing technique is more likely to produce a better return on investment.

KT

[BMC_Dave]

Huh, sure seems like something they've "fixed" with this new design. Though the "just land correctly every single time 100% of the time" crowd will never admit it...

[Mel]

Originally Posted by keitht

The redesigned nose gear has some similarities with the Mooney gear and I wonder if bad piloting technique in an RV-7A with the new gear will produce the prop strike issues that happen with the Mooney 201 series.

While I am firmly in the group of "Incorrect piloting technique" is the root of the problem, The Mooney is not a good comparison.
You must be really careful landing a Mooney. #1..The Mooney has very little prop clearance, and #2..The main gear is so far back that it is difficult to hold the nose wheel off the ground. Having said that, the Mooney practically lands itself IF your speed is correct. If you speed is not correct, it's almost impossible to make a decent landing.

[Robert Sailor]

Some good advise being given out here. I have watched so many poor pilot techniques landing RV?s it?s crazy..especially the tricycle gear crowd. It?s just not a hard thing to keep the nose wheel off as long as possible. If you get rid of flaps after landing you can hold it off longer by a fair margin. These are really easy aircraft to fly if you give them just a little respect. I too looked at the newer designed nose gear at Oshkosh and it certainly looks like a decent design and when your flying something the size of the 10 I can understand why they chose to beef it up a bit as it?s a much larger and heavier aircraft. If I had a 7 I?d leave it as is as in my mind it?s adequate for the job.
I have owned 5 Mooney?s over the years and you do have to be careful with the nose gear in rougher fields although I never had an issue. There have been lots of Mooney?s that had prop strikes but again if they are handled properly like the RVA?s you shouldn?t have an issue. Handling any aircraft properly begins with where you decide to land and takeoff and taxi so like the Mooney if you chose an overly rough field then it?s poor pilot technique..

[Captain Avgas]

Endless looping subjective arguments over pilot technique and cost aside, my understanding of the new nose gear issue is as follows:

1. The new gear is now the defacto standard in all new Vans firewall forward kits (but the old gear and old engine mount will remain an option for some period of time). However I can’t imagine that many, if any, purchasers of new FWF kits will want to exercise the option of the old style gear to save a small amount of money.

2. Not many builders who are flying will do a retrofit of the new gear because, cost aside, it will in most cases prove to be a really major project. The extent of the actual task will vary from RV to RV because every firewall set-up is essentially different. Possible conflict problems with baffles, control cables, oil hoses, fuel lines, electrical looms, engine-cowl clearance, cowl-spinner clearance, likely cowl mods, and cowl repainting, to name just a few problematic areas, will deter all but the very few.

3. It is only current builders who have already purchased a FWF kit who have a difficult decision to make, and the further they are into their actual FWF installation, the more difficult the decision becomes.

[rhill]

Correct form landing,is a must in these light,high performance planes.I wish conditions were always ideal but they are not. There are real problems with the classic gear. The bound up wheel bearings to start,out of round & balance wheels. Then the solid tempered ground steel gear leg that would fold up like limp spaghetti with the slightest provocation,trapping the pilot upside down.Until Alan came up with the anti splat brace(a stroke of out of the box genus). Flying an a without the brace is akin to ridding with out a helmet. Only time will settle the debate. The redesign is a welcome option. The cost and the cost structure is what I'm having a problem with. $3K for me to upgrade,Vans has set the price at $700 for the old gear&mount.Go to buy the old mount new $1200 + the leg $267.50 = $1467.Please don't forget the cost of shipping these parts back or the cost to get the new gear home. Being able to land upright is just as important as pulling out of a spin.A little more help from the Vans to replace the old gear would be appropriate IMHO.
RHill

[PaulvS]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

Endless looping subjective arguments over pilot technique and cost aside, my understanding of the new nose gear issue is as follows:

1. The new gear is now the defacto standard in all new Vans firewall forward kits (but the old gear and old engine mount will remain an option for some period of time). However I can?t imagine that many, if any, purchasers of new FWF kits will want to exercise the option of the old style gear to save a small amount of money.

2. Not many builders who are flying will do a retrofit of the new gear because, cost aside, it will in most cases prove to be a really major project. The extent of the actual task will vary from RV to RV because every firewall set-up is essentially different. Possible conflict problems with baffles, control cables, oil hoses, fuel lines, electrical looms, engine-cowl clearance, cowl-spinner clearance, likely cowl mods, and cowl repainting, to name just a few problematic areas, will deter all but the very few.

3. It is only current builders who have already purchased a FWF kit who have a difficult decision to make, and the further they are into their actual FWF installation, the more difficult the decision becomes.

I'm in category 3. I received the finishing kit for my slow build RV-6a in 2000, but have not yet installed the engine mount and the fuselage is still in the jig (actually, back in the jig, after a couple of house moves). I am considering the following options:

1. Upgrade the original nose gear per MANDATORY service bulletin SB-07-11-09.
2. Update to the new 2019 nose gear.
3. Convert to RV6 tail wheel.

I plan to base the plane at my farm strip which is 650m/2000' grass, it is not overly rough but it is not smooth either. A couple of RV6's have used the strip without any trouble other than some vibration from the Kikuyu grass being uneven up and down about 1 inch.

Implications for the above options are:

1. Purchase new nose wheel fork, $205 + shipping. Rethread and shorten the gear leg, $500 return shipping + $70 to Langair, or do it myself using a die. Or purchase shortened gear leg $267 + shipping and get machine shop to match drill to engine mount.
2. Purchase retrofit kit $3225 + carb kit $115 + shipping.
3. Purchase TD configuration engine mount, gear legs, tail wheel. Cost guesstimate $2000 + shipping.

If going for option 1 then will also need to consider fitting an "anti-splat" reinforcement and improving the nose wheel axle/bearing setup.

I've seen too many pictures of inverted -A models and really don't want to end up that way, so that's the main motivation. I'd also like to keep costs down, within reason, but building a 'plane is not really about saving money... These are my thoughts so far. It's a bit of a conundrum but great to have choices.

[PilotjohnS]

I am in camp 3. But to me the change is a no brainer. When the plane is done, the difference in cost will not be significant. I know I can fly the plane and keep my nose clean ( pun intended) but I dont know if others who might happen to fly my plane can land properly. The worst scenario is someone has to fly my plane home and they ding it. I sense the original builder, who put their soul into the plane, is not the concern.

[johnbright]

Originally Posted by PaulvS

I'm in category 3. I received the finishing kit for my slow build RV-6a in 2000, but have not yet installed the engine mount and the fuselage is still in the jig (actually, back in the jig, after a couple of house moves). I am considering the following options:

1. Upgrade the original nose gear per MANDATORY service bulletin SB-07-11-09.
2. Update to the new 2019 nose gear.
3. Convert to RV6 tail wheel.

I plan to base the plane at my farm strip which is 650m/2000' grass, it is not overly rough but it is not smooth either. A couple of RV6's have used the strip without any trouble other than some vibration from the Kikuyu grass being uneven up and down about 1 inch.

Implications for the above options are:

1. Purchase new nose wheel fork, $205 + shipping. Rethread and shorten the gear leg, $500 return shipping + $70 to Langair, or do it myself using a die. Or purchase shortened gear leg $267 + shipping and get machine shop to match drill to engine mount.
2. Purchase retrofit kit $3225 + carb kit $115 + shipping.
3. Purchase TD configuration engine mount, gear legs, tail wheel. Cost guesstimate $2000 + shipping.

If going for option 1 then will also need to consider fitting an "anti-splat" reinforcement and improving the nose wheel axle/bearing setup.

I've seen too many pictures of inverted -A models and really don't want to end up that way, so that's the main motivation. I'd also like to keep costs down, within reason, but building a 'plane is not really about saving money... These are my thoughts so far. It's a bit of a conundrum but great to have choices.

Be aware of tapered pin mentioned in this thread: link