Prop strikes and longer gear

[riobison]

I have been looking for a good used RV4 to buy but a lot of what I have checked up on appears to have had prop replacements. Digging deeper I have found that they have usually suffered from a Prop Strike and in most cases the motors have not been torn down after. It seems that when the prop has been changed so has the gear and to a Longer Gear.

So I?m wondering if the RV?s are more susceptible to Prop Strikes or nosing over on landing?

Why has there been a change or upgrade to a longer gear?

Thanks

Tim

[Shimoda]

I think the tendency to prop-strikes probably has more to do with CofG position, than gear-length (..after all, if the tips hit with the short gear, you're already in a pretty extreme negative-alpha !! )

I once had a share in an RV4 with an IO360 (..& pretty 'nose-heavy') that was easy to get 'tail-light' ( 'specially in a quartering tail-wind) : I now have a '4 with an O320, which is much less-so.....

[Jaknjoan]

Originally Posted by riobison

I have been looking for a good used RV4 to buy but a lot of what I have checked up on appears to have had prop replacements. Digging deeper I have found that they have usually suffered from a Prop Strike and in most cases the motors have not been torn down after. It seems that when the prop has been changed so has the gear and to a Longer Gear.

So I?m wondering if the RV?s are more susceptible to Prop Strikes or nosing over on landing?

Why has there been a change or upgrade to a longer gear?

Thanks

Tim

The reason for the original shorter length of the RV-4 legs was that the round steel bars that Langair Machining makes the gear legs out of is manufactured in a certain length. Van originally compromised the leg length to get, I believe, 4 legs out of one piece of steel, thereby not wasting any of the material. The legs were not really long enough for a full stall landing. In later years, when the economics was not as important to Van, they decided to optimize the leg length to permit a shorter full stall landing. The source of that information is directly from Van's.

I don't believe that the RV-4 model is anymore prone to prop strikes than any of the other RV models.

[riobison]

Would the RV's be more prone to a prop strike or nosing over than maybe a Citabria or Decathlon?

[RBD]

Originally Posted by riobison

It seems that when the prop has been changed so has the gear and to a Longer Gear.

So I?m wondering if the RV?s are more susceptible to Prop Strikes or nosing over on landing?

Why has there been a change or upgrade to a longer gear?

Tim, one could obviously argue that short gear vs. long gear is going to increase the chance of a prop strike due to decreased clearance. As others have said, even with the short gear, you have to be in a pretty serious nose down condition (or slam it on the ground hard and spread the gear) to have a prop strike. Case in point, take a short-gear RV-4 and place the prop in a vertical position, then grab the tail and see how high you need to raise it to get the prop to touch. Better yet, have someone raise the tail while you're seated in the plane, and it will show you how wrong the pitch has to be to hit the prop. As others have said, the bigger issue is that the gear isn't quite tall enough to get a good full-stall landing - you tend to hit tailwheel first, especially with a passenger in the back (at least I do.) Finally, the long-gear makes the plane look better, which is what it's all about anyways. And for the record, my 4 has the short gear.

[the4hens]

Kind of unrealted but keep in mind that if these aircraft your looking at have had a prop strike and are lycoming engines, than most likely they are subject to the crankshaft gear retaining bolt AD 2004-05-24. Even if the aircraft is experimental, the AD still has to be complied with.

[Sid Lambert]

Originally Posted by riobison

Would the RV's be more prone to a prop strike or nosing over than maybe a Citabria or Decathlon?

No not really. Bad piloting is bad piloting no matter what aircraft you are in.

It is shorter and has a little less tail surface so the point of no return may be less for an RV but it is different for all aircraft.

[777Dave]

I have a short geared 4 and I think it looks perfect
No adverse handling characteristics that I have witnessed and I have an O-360.
In my a/c, C of G can be an issue but its not forward its aft! If I have a heavy passenger (200+) and some baggage, as the fuel burns off the C of G moves aft and it can exit the envelope. Having said that, there really isn't enough room back there for a big person... too bad for #2 son, 6'3" and 220 lbs.
Gear length has not been an issue, easier to see over the nose with shorties.

Cheers

[Mel]

A large portion of RV-4 prop strikes that I am aware of involve run-up with no passenger or baggage and flaps down.
In this configuration, it's very easy to "nose over".

[Dmadd]

Sounds like operator error... The airplane is just fine, and does what you make it, or let it do.
If you see one "upgraded to the new long gear", find out why... Usually it's one of the previously mentioned reasons, NOT because it lands better...

D

Originally Posted by Mel

A large portion of RV-4 prop strikes that I am aware of involve run-up with no passenger or baggage and flaps down.
In this configuration, it's very easy to "nose over".