What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

New "A" Nose Gear - Should I Update?

So I made a call today to Van?s. The upgrade nose gear is $3225.00 plus shipping, since I haven?t yet drilled for my old (WD-739-PC) mount.
They will not offer a trade for my old mount (and front leg), as they are more than 2 years old. There?s no mechanical difference to a current 739 mount or 603 leg, they?re just beyond a date chosen by Van?s. If they were less than 2 years old, they would offer $750 in trade.
The parts gal indicated that they are into mid-September for shipments of the rev A gear.
Current price for a new ?Old? 739 mount is $1200, and new old 603 leg is $267.50.
Seems like there?s going to be a bunch of original design mounts and legs available out there, so selling them to offset the cost of the new A front may not be a significant help.
What to do now...
More thoughts?
 
Value

So I made a call today to Van?s. The upgrade nose gear is $3225.00 plus shipping, since I haven?t yet drilled for my old (WD-739-PC) mount.
They will not offer a trade for my old mount (and front leg), as they are more than 2 years old. There?s no mechanical difference to a current 739 mount or 603 leg, they?re just beyond a date chosen by Van?s. If they were less than 2 years old, they would offer $750 in trade.
The parts gal indicated that they are into mid-September for shipments of the rev A gear.
Current price for a new ?Old? 739 mount is $1200, and new old 603 leg is $267.50.
Seems like there?s going to be a bunch of original design mounts and legs available out there, so selling them to offset the cost of the new A front may not be a significant help.
What to do now...
More thoughts?

I considered the value lost as part of cost. No way I will get $1400. I might get 1/2 of Vans $750 someday but I doubt it. Hurts but I like the added peace of mind and so does the better half.
 
So by that thought, the sunk cost is upwards of $5K, if you already have bought your FF kit...
Are my chances of folding my original equipment nose gear that great?
Are there any published statistics on nose gear damage per flight hour on 7?s and 9?s?
And there?s no actual data yet on the Rev A mod field performance, for me to use for peace of mind. Revised hardware can have different effects.
I can?t get past the cost issue, with no data. I?ll grant you it looks more impressive and complex.
 
I'm with Larry-

The old mount/leg are sunk costs. If I ever get something out of the... great. If not, I'll just just make coffee at home more often vs. getting at a shop.
 
So by that thought, the sunk cost is upwards of $5K, if you already have bought your FF kit...
Are my chances of folding my original equipment nose gear that great?
Are there any published statistics on nose gear damage per flight hour on 7’s and 9’s?
And there’s no actual data yet on the Rev A mod field performance, for me to use for peace of mind. Revised hardware can have different effects.
I can’t get past the cost issue, with no data. I’ll grant you it looks more impressive and complex.

You make great points. If you're not close to installing the engine mount and nose gear you can wait. I don't know what the lead time is on it.

As far as statistics nothing official. If someone's willing to do the research they could probably come up with rough numbers. Considering how long RV A models have been out there, a vast number of them flying, relatively few incidences, the original design seems satisfactory? Up to you. It's not robust but its weaknesses can be mitigated. Soft field landings on uneven surface is not its strength.

As far as the new one it looks heavier and maybe more drag? Can it have unknown issues itself? Won't know for years to come. You can always build it original and fly. Later then you can retrofit it if you choose, but that seems like a lot of extra work.

If you fly off hard surfaces, land properly, have well-balanced tire/wheel, modified bearings, anti-splat devices your chance of a problem seems remote. If cost is issue the choice seems obvious.
 
Last edited:
Scott M (rvbuilder2002) posted that the goal of the new "Cowl Louver Kit" was to improve cooling during climb with the new nose gear assembly.

Weight and CG effects were addressed in the SL announcing the new nose gear mod, Service Letter 19-04-30.

What hasn't been addressed to my knowledge, is whether Van's has, or will, give some relief to their published weight-on-nose-wheel limits, given the heavier new nose gear mod and its forward shift of the CG. See this post: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1354273&postcount=19

It was "addressed" at Airventure in a method that a detective had to deduce. haha :D

This pic is a screenshot of a picture John Bright posted from the QB kit with the new mount at Airventure. Read the second line from the bottom. So it seems to me that the engineers at Vans seem to find this new system to be stronger.

Capture by Jereme Carne, on Flickr
 
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.
 
I guess at the end of the day it's all about choice. A model drivers now have a choice.
What 'price' do you put on safety? That's an individual thing!
Vans obviously know the original design is weak otherwise there wouldn't be choices!
 
Original nosewheel still pretty tuff

I've been following this thread with interest and would like to share my experience with my take on this. I had and still have the original nose wheel design on my 7 and experienced a nose over trying to land on an unfamiliar grass strip 1200 feet long on my last leg of phase 1 testing. My approach speed was way too high.. 80Kts.. floated and landed deep.. i should have gone round but because of the uphill landing i felt that i would make it, needless to say my nose went over the edge of the runway at approx. 5 knots and dropped about 20 feet thereby nosing over. i had the anti splat nose mod brace installed and after the event it became evident that the brace does work pretty well and that the original design is pretty strong. As others have said if one flies the nose wheel version of these amazing planes, keep the weight off the front as much as possible and fly them as it's design intends. After the repair work i went back to the said field and landed with a just under a half length remaining.
h1IBYdI
 
Vans obviously know the original design is weak otherwise there wouldn't be choices!

Rubbish. These forums are filled with emotional, data-lacking entries about the nose gear. A good engineer knows to ignore uninformed, emotional "advice". A marketing person might have to whisper into the engineer's ear abut a PR problem and it may take a while to get the engineer to sign up to the business case...

I've not seen any data that improves on the 2007 NTSB study about the old design.

Oh, and by the way I hesitate to call the new design an improvement until I see the data. While I do like the notion of the new elastomers more effectively converting spring energy into heat, I don't KNOW that it is BETTER. I only have an analogy to guide me: it is unimaginable to drive my car without it's shocks converting spring energy into heat.
 
Vans obviously know the original design is weak otherwise there wouldn't be choices!

No, Vans knows there?s a market for choices. Plenty of products are available in various choices depending on use case:

Light duty vs heavy duty pickup truck
iPad Pro vs iPad Air
Tylenol vs extra strength Tylenol

The availability of a stronger option doesn?t mean the other one is weak. It simply isn?t optimized for the type of flying some people do, and/or their technique. The original gear has proven that it is perfectly capable in the VAST majority of cases. If I were planning on a lot of rough field ops, I?d upgrade. But I?m not, so I won?t. And I also appreciate that Vans isn?t forcing the upgrade on people, thus allowing those who don?t see the need for it to save a not-insignificant amount of money.

Chris
 
"What price do you put on safety"
I am a retired Aerospace Engineer with 40 years in the aircraft industry working for a major industry supplier, in product development Engineering.
I doubt seriously that Van's would state that the original design is unsafe or has any severe shortcomings. And shouldn't, given the number of the current design in service and the overall hardware history.
My point is that there is no data yet to support that the revised design will reduce front gear damage incidents in the -7A and -9A models. Simple fact, it's new on the market.
You can't simply look at a design and determine it's relative effectiveness. While the new design may perform better in a drop test, and has improved FEM results under some selected analytical load conditions, drop is only one type of load. Whether it would reduce failures in actual field use (complex loadings), is not yet known. I'd love to review the stress analysis.
It appears that Van's is taking the opportunity to adapt a later nose gear from heavier aircraft, to other current models. This has some trades (weight/drag/cooling flow/cost/lead time/assy time). If I've seen anything over my years at work, it's that every design change has an effect. I see it as intending to have greater margin for adverse landing loads. I applaud Van's for this evolutionary goal, and of course their marketing dept. is also hard at work with it, as they should be.
However.... If I choose not to incorporate the revised design, I'd hate to think that I am significantly risking my safety!
 
I've not seen any data that improves on the 2007 NTSB study about the old design.

Oh, and by the way I hesitate to call the new design an improvement until I see the data.

Interesting comments from someone who in Post #46 said: ?I intend to go with the newer solution?....and described the decision by someone else to do the same as a ?no brainer?.
 
While the new design may perform better in a drop test, and has improved FEM results under some selected analytical load conditions, drop is only one type of load.

Clarification for those that may not be familiar with this type of testing......

The tests completed with drops are not just a simulation of what would happen if you stalled and dropped to a runway. The pitch angles that the different drops are done at are to simulated the load vector that would be applied to the nose gear in a variety of situations. There are numerous tests done for different possible scenarios.

Example - the steepest nose down attitude is applying a load that simulates the leg / wheel running into something, only done using the force of gravity in place of the force of inertia.

I think there are plans to get the test videos posted and available on line at some point.
 
Here are some of your pics. I hope you weren't injured.

Hi Carl, came out of it without a scratch, surprising little damage which is a testament to the design of these aircraft.Replaced canopy,hor. stab and rudder,forward top skin,forward right side skin,shock load,new prop and hub and new nose gear leg.The other thing learned is that the canopy plexiglass is super strong and needed a few solid kicks to get out.This happened 4 years ago and 300 hours later and multiple landings on improvised strips the gear leg is holding up pretty good. I posted this to assure others with A models that in my opinion the original nose gear design does it's job well as long as one sticks to flying them as they're supposed to.
 
Has anyone looked at the nose of a Piper Tri-pacer. it was one of the first Trikes. The wheel and tire are huge, the oleo strut is beefy and braced. A friend was in the short wing piper club told me how they tested it. back in the day. They hooked up a tractor and towed the plane 90 degrees to furrowed plowed field, quickly with heavy weights tied to the nose... You are not going to fold that up

Cessna's have strong gear but hard landings buckle the fire wall. Pacer is tube frame.

PiperTripacer.jpg
 
Last edited:
Has anyone looked at the nose of a Piper Tri-pacer. it was one of the first Trikes. The wheel and tire are huge, the oleo strut is beefy and braced. A friend was in the short wing piper club told me how they tested it. back in the day. They hooked up a tractor and towed the plane 90 degrees to furrowed plowed field, quickly with heavy weights tied to the nose... You are not going to fold that up

Cessna's have strong gear but hard landings buckle the fire wall. Pacer is tube frame.

Many of the Cessna's, Piper's, and others, are tube engine mounts/frames as well with the nose gear attached to it.
Damaged firewalls are just an additional part of the failure mode when the nose gear leg rips off of the engine mount.
 
Classic Mount & Leg resale value?

Classic sounds so much better then OLD mount. A returned mount & leg gets you a $700 credit,this kind of sets the price for the rest of us unfortunately.Vans list is $1200 for the mount and $267.50 for the leg. If I upgrade to the new mount $3000.00 with the reuse of some of my parts. My kits are past the return time frame. I inspected the new mount and spoke to Mitch Lock at Oshkosh and have to agree. Its a better solution. So is converting back to conventional gear. I'd need to spend $500 for an upgraded tail wheel but get rid of the problematic steps,the heavy nose gear and the new heavy cost of the upgraded nose gear parts. I'll need a lot more tail wheel time in the book and more than likely pay a higher premium till I build hours.In the end it may balance out.Anybody want to swap out?
RHill
 
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
I've been following this thread with interest and would like to share my experience with my take on this. I had and still have the original nose wheel design on my 7 and experienced a nose over trying to land on an unfamiliar grass strip 1200 feet long on my last leg of phase 1 testing. My approach speed was way too high.. 80Kts.. floated and landed deep.. i should have gone round but because of the uphill landing i felt that i would make it, needless to say my nose went over the edge of the runway at approx. 5 knots and dropped about 20 feet thereby nosing over. i had the anti splat nose mod brace installed and after the event it became evident that the brace does work pretty well and that the original design is pretty strong. As others have said if one flies the nose wheel version of these amazing planes, keep the weight off the front as much as possible and fly them as it's design intends. After the repair work i went back to the said field and landed with a just under a half length remaining.

I see that you had the Antisplat on your nose wheel. I also turned mine over by landing too flat and buckled the nose gear. I believe in my case, I would have been better off not having the antisplat brace. It would have "rolled" the nose gear back against the lower cowling and thus not dug into the soil and result in flipping the plane. In my case I broke the antisplat brace. I do not have pictures on this computer to show. It is a maybe this idea would not prevented the nose over, but I could only hope. The plane was rebuilt and is flying today. Moral of the story, keep the nose wheel off the ground for as long as possible.
 
I?m still working on the firewall forward. If there was a way to mount the new engine mount and have my cowling line up perfectly I would probably bite the bullet and spend the money for the new mount. My mount is drilled and the cowling nearly done. I?m not sure how you would line everything up and back drill the new mount in the perfect position. If someone does it please take some video and share. Vans didn?t take any video of their install.
 
I spoke to Van?s about this at OSH since I wasn?t sure how this would work either. In my case it was just curiosity since I haven?t drilled my firewall yet.

I think the way it works is there is a flat circular pad where the hole normally goes through. Normally it looks kinda like a washer has been welded on. For the predrilled firewalls the mount is supplied with a solid disk, no hole. The tube that the bolt goes through is over size so this allows some positional tolerance for the predrilled hole locations.
 
Yeah the problem is lining up the mount and engine to the firewall so it is in perfect alignment with the already done cowling. Then back drilling through the firewall into the mount. Just from envisioning it I see how I could royally screw that up.
 
For those that choose to do a retrofit, there is a complete set of instructions that will come with a retrofit mount/leg kit. They were developed while retrofitting the RV9A demonstrator.
Keep in mind that there is still the potential for engine alignment and spinner clearance issues.
 
If it were me...

Take that $3900, purchase some extra 100LL and practice a bunch of nose-high landings at near stall speed. With proper technique, the standard nose gear will serve you just fine, and you'll have a lighter & simpler aircraft.

As for shimmy, make sure your wheels/tires are balanced, you have proper break-out force on the nose gear, and consider adding the wooden vibration dampers during the build.

I'm with you. Take the money and fly and/or use it for avionics. Unless you will be going to land at various grass fields that may not be in very good shape pocket the money. Will you get $4000 more for the plane because of the nose gear, probably not. And even if you did, didn't you pay $4000 more for the upgrade? So what did you gain? Now if you tell me I'm in the middle of the build and I can send in my unused old gear and get a credit back on it and it will only cost me $1000 or less, then ok it may be worth it. But $4000 more? Nope, not me. The old gear, oooops, "the classic gear" has served well. I'll use it for panel upgrades. If you only land on hard surface I don't see the need to upgrade the gear, even the need to use anti-splat
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Mooney Nose Gear

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
 
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...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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..
 
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.
 
Last edited:
There were a mutatude of issues not just one.

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
 
Upgrade thoughts

:eek:
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.
 
Camp 3

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.
 
tapered pin to replace bolt legacy nose leg to motor mount

:eek:
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
 
:eek:
..snip..

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.

There's a lot of instances of flipped TD models too. Perhaps for different reasons, but they nose over as well. I put hundreds of hours on my -7a and never had a worry - but I was always very careful to not abuse the nosewheel. Mike Seager drummed that into me when I did transition training with him and I never forgot it.

Now I fly a Rocket (TD), have hundreds of hours on it, and worry about loss of directional control/groundloop on landing and worry about x-winds more than I did with the -7a. It's a blast to fly, but I am not less anxious about landings than I was with the -7a.

To be honest I miss the nosewheel.

Put a tailwheel on your RV because you would like the experience of having and flying a plane that's a TD. Nothing wrong with that. But don't kid yourself - if you screw up you can become upside down just as fast as in a -A.

As the saying goes: you pays your dollar, you takes your chances.
 
Thanks for the reply Mark! good to hear perspective from someone who has flown a lot of hours in both. I learned to fly in TD's and love them, but chose to build a 7A. I still thinking babying the nose wheel is the way to go (in any aircraft) but I opted to update for the extra margin of safety if I should even need it.
 
New nose gear.

I think there is a misunderstanding concerning the new nose gear. One must understand that the RV ?A? models are like the Cessna 150/152, that is a very short wheelbase nose gear airplane that also happens to have fairly high touchdown speed. The new gear is designed simply for a smoother ride on the ground. If one has ever been in a -10 (or -14), he or she would be impressed with how smoothly it rides on the ground. It has nothing to do with a possible flip over. The new gear works on compression not extension. And the fact that people are building ever heavier RV?s. It is under the category of product improvement. You have to that know Van thoroughly examined the whole issue of nose overs. Just land it correctly. I have personally seen two RV-8 tail draggers end up nose down and tail up.
 
Back
Top