|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

06-14-2008, 07:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: spokane, wa
Posts: 805
|
|
I think the best set up is what I'm using, the Grove front wheel, they use a spacer in between the bearings to set preload, then they stake the spacers so they don't move. Also uses a light weight wheel. I'm going to take all my wheels to a motorcycle shop and have them balanced as well. Main thing, no front wheel landings. If it doesn't go right, do a go around. And if you want to dispense of embarrasment, than call for an option, than if you do a good one, just say your full stop. At least that's what many of the pilots at my field do.
|

09-21-2010, 10:01 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 479
|
|
Group effort for a new Nose gear design and Nose gear theory
If anyone is familiar with the story of the Zenith 601XL, it had problems where the wings would fold in the middle of flight, killing all on board. Owners expressed concern on message boards for years and Zenith denied there was any kind of problem, they insisted it was pilot error. Even after the FAA basically grounded the entire fleet of 601XLs, the company still maintained that there is no problem, however they did come out with an ?upgrade kit? available as a retrofit to fix the non-problem.
Before the NTSB and FAA got involved, the owner and builder community began to do a grass roots fundraising effort to raise money for an independent engineer to do an analysis of the structure to find where the problem may be.
Would the owners or prospective owners of the ?A? models possibly be willing to put money into an escrow, or as a deposit (maybe a couple hundred dollars?) to an engineering company to design a new nose gear? It may be a risky thing to do and there may not be a solution found, but if as a group a trustworthy company is hired, we may get something. With all the work and analysis already completed, this company should have quite the head start.
I?m not trying to start a war here, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Van?s company and staff. Additionally, I have no idea who to hire, nor would I want to be the one to collect the funds, so I have nothing monetarily to gain by suggesting this. However I would like to see a more robust gear available to help create a safer airplane for pilots of all levels. If it saves just one life, wouldn?t it be worth it?
__________________
Rick from Fresno
RV-7A
The art to flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
|

09-21-2010, 10:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 1,004
|
|
Hmmmm I guess I would agree with what you are saying. I just wish Van's would come forward and at least talk about it. What if anything are they thinking?
Those of us building A models are perceiving a problem. Where there is perception, there is usually some truth! For example, when Cessna came out with the 177 Cardinal, it was perceived to be dangerous. Sales evaporated overnight! Even after they fixed the "problem", sales never recovered. Van's needs to grab the bull by the horns and ........
Just my humble opinion, not even worth .02!
__________________
Paul K
West Michigan
Unfortunately in science, what you believe is irrelevant.
2020 donation made, exempt but worth every dime!
|

09-21-2010, 10:47 AM
|
|
Guest
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 613
|
|
I'm in......
|

09-21-2010, 11:13 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 203
|
|
I'm in too, but....
before proceeding this way, what about sending to Van's a letter signed by all those -A model builders worried for the nose gear issue asking for an improvement on the nose gear? Or maybe, every single builder may send it's own message to Van's... I think if they receive 100...500...1000 or more requests they may consider to modify it (or offer a different nose gear as option) even if they think the nose gear is ok as is.
I can accept to pay a little more on the kit for more safety.
...just an idea...
__________________
Claudio
Was Avellino - Italy...
Now Cypress, TX
www.rv7a.it
RV-7 I-KLAU (Reserved)
Empennage Done!! (except fiberglass)
Wings done!!
Working on aft fuse.
...SOLD! 
|

09-21-2010, 11:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 860
|
|
Has anyone seriously contacted Van's?
I think it would be more productive to have a serious approach to Van's and their engineering department, specifically to their chief engineer Ken Krueger. Why don't you document all of the nose gear accidents to -A models, include the engineering analysis that Raiz is working on, summarize all of the suggestions that have been made in these forums (larger tires, better axle spacers, more wheel pant clearance), and formally ask this information to be reviewed and to give an official response.
As you know, the nose gear rod has already been redesigned once as a result of early problems. A torture test rig was built and an actual aircraft was instrumented to calibrate the torture test rig. Drop tests of the landing gear have also been made. Van himself wrote an article some years ago in the RVator soliciting field experience on the nose gear.
An independent engineer would not have the advantage of all this background data.
|

09-21-2010, 11:23 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hangar/home at Hicks Airfield (T67), Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 629
|
|
New Nose Gear Design
Count me OUT! A study was already made of the early accidents and it lead to a liability SB to satisfy a "no-size known" group of complaintants. The study listed all the early accidents and the overwhelming majority pointed at excess speed, porpoising on landing, loss of control after touchdown, and even excess speed while trying to taxi to parking.
Let's face it guys. An A model RV is NOT your daddy's Cessna. It WILL NOT take the abuse that a 150, 152, or 172 will take and you better fly it with respect or it WILL bite you.
__________________
Mike Reddick
VAF#153
Pilots N Paws Pilot
RV6A N167CW 1,900 HRS
Ft Worth, TX (T67)
Last edited by mrreddick : 09-21-2010 at 11:28 AM.
|

09-21-2010, 11:24 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marion IA
Posts: 1,095
|
|
I'm in too, but...
Let's approach this as a design improvement... in other words let's not say the original design is "defective"... let's just say that we want to make it better. And of course any design improvment we come up with may result in additional size, weight, cost, complexity, etc.
As service history builds on the nosegear RVs, it appears that there is evidence that the ability of the nose gear to handle rough terrain, etc. could be improved. This will make a great series of aircraft even beter.
It is a subtle difference in wording, but I suggest that if we approach the task this way, we may get more support from Vans.
__________________
Dave Gribble VAF #232
Building RV-9A N149DG (slider, IO-320, IFR)
Restored and Flying Beech Super III N3698Q
Marion IA
Struggling with fiberglass
There is no sport equal to that which aviators enjoy while being carried through the air on great white wings." Wilbur Wright, 1905
|

09-21-2010, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 390
|
|
Not a "problem"
Contacting Van's isn't likely to do any good. Questioning or critizing their designs in these forums isn't going to do much good either, and generates a lot of ill will, some of it fervent.
This does not have to be perceived as a "problem" or "defect". Every engineered component is a compromise to satisfy competing requirements as best as possible.
It appears the current nosegear design places the emphasis on light weight and simplicity, at the expense of margin for rough treatment.
Other designs, in particular certified designs using an oleo strut, provide more margin for rough treatment, at the expense of weight and complexity. I personally don't agree with the existing compromise and am building a taildragger to avoid the issue.
If there are those that would prefer a more robust nosegear, that can happen, perhaps as a collaborative effort, without having to have a "judgment" about the original design.
I would possibly be in, but I wouldn't contribute to any effort unless it were to include a steerable nosewheel. If you're going to have the weight and drag penalty of a nosewheel, you should have the full benefit it is supposed to provide.
__________________
Jonathan Hines
Charlotte, NC
Last edited by JHines : 09-21-2010 at 11:40 AM.
|

09-21-2010, 11:47 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canby, Oregon
Posts: 1,786
|
|
Like Mike said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrreddick
Count me OUT! A study was already made of the early accidents and it lead to a liability SB to satisfy a "no-size known" group of complaintants. The study listed all the early accidents and the overwhelming majority pointed at excess speed, porpoising on landing, loss of control after touchdown, and even excess speed while trying to taxi to parking.
Let's face it guys. An A model RV is NOT your daddy's Cessna. It WILL NOT take the abuse that a 150, 152, or 172 will take and you better fly it with respect or it WILL bite you.
|
Accidents do happen, but I think that most of the problem that have been experienced are do to not understanding how to land the plane.
I would suggest that the money could be better spent with a good flight instructor.
Not trying to be negative about this effort, but if you redesign the aircraft to be tolerant of poor landing skills, it won't fly the same.
I do enjoy the way my 9A flies.
Kent
__________________
Kent Byerley
RV9A N94KJ - IO320, CS, tipup
AFS 3500, TT AP, FLYING....
Canby, Or
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 AM.
|