VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #231  
Old 01-16-2011, 05:10 AM
Captain Avgas Captain Avgas is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Very nice video Doug
Do you recall what the crosswinds were at the time of shooting?
Check out the video. You can clearly see the windsock. It's almost limp.
__________________
You’re only as good as your last landing
Bob Barrow
RV7A
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-23-2011, 06:39 PM
Ifly1,2 Ifly1,2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: lancaster,tx.
Posts: 74
Default nosewheel failure

Well,

You guys have talked me right out of buying a 6a. So, a 6 it is!

Regards,

John
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:52 PM
cbo111's Avatar
cbo111 cbo111 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bradenton, fl
Posts: 89
Default Much ado about nothing

Ok, this thread has gone on for 230+ responses, and we are no closer to defining a problem with the nosewheel RV than at the start. On behalf of the multiple-thousand nosedragger pilots who have had zero problems, do not fear the nosewheel. Learn to land with the nose off the ground until gravity brings it down and you will do just fine with an A-model. There are a few nervous nellies out there, many of whom don?t even fly A-models. Please don?t let that influence your decision. If there was an increased danger with the A-model, you can bet the insurance companies would be factoring it into their rates.
cbo


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifly1,2 View Post
Well,

You guys have talked me right out of buying a 6a. So, a 6 it is!

Regards,

John
__________________
Chuck O
TSP
RV-7A (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-23-2011, 08:28 PM
Bill Palmer Bill Palmer is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 387
Default A Professional's Point of View

From ?Spitfire: A Test Pilot?s Story? by Jeffrey Quill, end of Chapter 9.

Quill was the principal Spitfire test pilot and one of the most accomplished, professional test pilots of all time.

See http://www.bbm.org.uk/Quill.htm

?Late in 1937 David Hollis-Williams, the Chief Designer of General Aircraft Ltd at Hanworth, was experimenting with a tricycle undercarriage ? a concept that was then entirely new in Britain. He had modified a twin-engined Monospar aircraft and invited me over to Hanworth to fly it. I went on 6 December 1937 and there was the machine standing on a fixed undercarriage with a rather spindly nosewheel leg. I did several takeoffs and landings with Hollis-Williams and was at once converted to the concept. Taxying was easy and foolproof; the tricycle arrangement was inherently stable directionally on the ground and eliminated any risk of ?ground looping? after landing. All one had to do after touchdown was to let the aeroplane pitch onto its nosewheel and it would run straight, even in a stiff crosswind. The configuration also permitted the use of much more powerful wheelbrakes, and rendered the sometimes demanding ?three-point? landing a thing of the past. All in all, the tricycle undercarriage seemed to me a fundamental step forward of immense importance. Hollis-Williams said he was looking for a high-performance aeroplane on which to experiment ? what about the Vickers Venom? I said I had to admit there did not seem to be much future for it as a fighter, but it would not be a huge engineering problem to move the main gear aft and fit a nosewheel. He said it could be done at least for experimental purposes. I reported this to Mutt Summers and to Sir Robert McLean, neither of whom seemed at all interested ? still less were they interested in my enthusiastic advocacy of the principle. Ten years were to elapse before the first Vickers aircraft was to fly with a tricycle undercarriage (the Viscount in 1948) which was curious for a company that had a thriving business designing and manufacturing undercarriage legs!?
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-23-2011, 08:40 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Palmer View Post
From ?Spitfire: A Test Pilot?s Story? by Jeffrey Quill, end of Chapter 9.

Quill was the principal Spitfire test pilot and one of the most accomplished, professional test pilots of all time.
It was my uncle, who spent a piloting career with the USAF shortly after WWII,.... that convinced me to go with the nose wheel. The Air Force knew about all the tail wheel problems & remedies too.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-24-2011, 09:28 AM
bignose bignose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sao Paulo, Brasil
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vgb View Post
It would be great if you always landed on a smooth paved runway but we have a runway in northern Calif that is paved and would be very apprehensive about landing there.
How about off field landings in a emergency.
When I'm flying and always keeping a eye out for landing spot I just figure I'll flip if I land in a alfalfa field' but what better place to put her down If I had to.
The gear should handle that.
I don't comment very often but the nose gear bugs me and sometimes wish I had built a taildragger.
Wait until the insurance companys figure out this nose gear problem and we will be paying more for a nose dragger instead of a tail dragger
Much more taildraggers in the world, like Cubs, Maules, 180 and 185 have flipt over in aviation history than all Vans A models together, that's for sure... All you need is break a little bit harder when the tail is up, or hit a bump or pot hole, and you are on your back. I allways heard that taildraggers were much more prone for flipping over than nose gear... And now people are wishing taildraggers again. For "Real" Pilots maybe...
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-24-2011, 11:17 AM
don.olandese don.olandese is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 193
Default we debated about choice of nosegear or tailwheel too...

...and this is why our plane may ultimately be named "Conventional Wisdom."
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-24-2011, 06:48 PM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Palmer View Post
From ?Spitfire: A Test Pilot?s Story? by Jeffrey Quill, end of Chapter 9.

... All one had to do after touchdown was to let the aeroplane pitch onto its nosewheel and it would run straight, even in a stiff crosswind. The configuration also permitted the use of much more powerful wheelbrakes ...
Ironically, letting the nose pitch onto its nosewheel after landing, and braking heavily, are the two things that exacerbate the problem with -A models going over on their nose.

Flying is a challenge. If I wanted it to be easy, I would have bought a Cessna.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-24-2011, 06:50 PM
jws_39 jws_39 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Salem, Va.
Posts: 50
Default Technique is the key

Here is a couple of video clips I took just a couple of months ago. I put together a short movie of takeoff and landings. I have about 185hrs in the RV7a and have felt pretty good about my technique of keeping the pressure off of the front nose. The only thing I have noticed is in doing so the front wheel does shimmy a lot until I do allow all of the weight to settle on it. You will see the shimmy on takeoffs because I am keeping the pressure on the stick during the roll out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m5nd7qmQXw

I can live with the little bit of shimmy instead of flipping it over.
__________________
Jeff and Linda Stubbs
Roanoke, Va.
EAA chapter 646 President

Van's RV-7A
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-25-2011, 05:06 AM
60Bubba 60Bubba is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 15
Default

So here's my uneducated observation:

All along when I heard people talking about wheel shimmy, I was assuming we were talking about a lateral shimmy, like a grocery cart castering wheel that was messed up. Maybe this is an issue in some cases. Looking at this video, especially the landings, it certainly seems to my untrained eye that what I am seeing is a fore/aft vibration. That's not at all what I was expecting, but to me it seems to show how one of these things could vibrate/flex enough to fold under.

As the previous post mentioned, there was little weight on the nose gear, so if it is still bucking fore and aft, wouldn't that point to a resistance of the front wheel to turning? The old objects at rest tend to remain at rest/ inertia bit? Is this the kind of issue that has prompted the discussions over the front axle design and bearing preload for these nose gear?
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 12:38 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.