What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Need RV-12 Info!!!!!!!

PerfTech

PerfTech

Well Known Member
I would like to offer our nose gear modification to the RV-12 guys but I am not sure it will fit. I need a local plane here in southern California (KREI) to gather some dimensions and test fit a unit to. If someone is interested in "The Nose Job" for their RV-12 and would like to make the trip? "Have I got a deal for you", If interested please PM me. Regards, Allan
Anti Splat Aero LLC :cool:
 
Last edited:
Let me know

if you don't get a flying -12 in California, let me know. I'd be glad to attempt the installation on 143WM

Wayne RV-12 120241/143WM
 
Texas

I can't make it to CA, but if you're in the North Texas area, my plane is available. I sent you an email regarding product interest. Thanks:)
 
Ok, I can't resist commenting;
If you guys think an RV-12, which has a totally different nose gear design from all the other tri-gear RV models, needs this device....

Then you should call up all of your friends that own Glastars, Tri-gear Kit Foxes, Tri-gear Sonex's, the Sky Catcher, or any other kit plane that has a similar looking nose gear with a free swivel nose gear, and make sure they also purchase one of these devices so that they don't go splat either.

Seriously, don't you think this should be looked at from a bit more of an analytical stand point... instead of just assuming that since it is called an RV and has tricycle landing gear, that it must need something extra bolted onto the nose gear to avoid ending up upside down.

If I may be blunt, I can't help question the engineering behind the company selling the device, if they begin the process of marketing one for the RV-12 with out ever even analyzing the design or evaluating the need for it.
 
Not wanting to be critical of a clever idea, but after watching the videos, two things come to mind.

Firstly the RV-12 is a lot lighter than the other RV's, so the `gopher-hole' impact force will be less for any given speed, thereby reducing the likelihood of buckling the already fairly substantial gear leg.

Secondly and more importantly, the test rig does not model the upper bend and attachment point of the RV-12 gear leg. In the rig, the straight upper portion of the shaft is fitted directly to the rig frame. To be a valid test, the rig would need to be modified to accept the RV-12 nosegear to determine exactly how it will behave under load.

I would be interested to see the results of such a test. As I said, it looks like a clever idea, and I'd be interested if it can be shown to be effective for the RV-12's gear, but the test has to take the upper bend and attachment point position into account as this will have a significant effect on how the gear deflects.
 
Good points. I guess we are all spooked, since to the best of my knowledge, the only three RV incidents, involved nose gear failure.
 
The need for something like this on a RV-12 is questionable for at least 3 reasons. There may be more, but these are the 3 that Ken at Vans gave me some time ago when I asked him about the flip-over potential of the RV-12 on grass strips.

1) Larger nose wheel on the 12 than the others
2) Less weight from the engine on the gear than the others
3) The gear leg on the 12 is not the same as the others. It is stiffer in its flex characteristics
 
DonFromTX said:
Good points. I guess we are all spooked, since to the best of my knowledge, the only three RV incidents, involved nose gear failure.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean RV-12 incidents?

In my 34 years of flying, I have never been led to believe that if you crash an airplane into the ground, that the landing gear should not be damaged.

All of the RV-12 accidents that I have personal knowledge of that caused damage to landing gear, were not landings. They were crashes. And none of them resulted in the airplane upside down.

So, my point is, isn't developing an attachment for an RV-12 nose gear equiv. to developing a cure for a problem that doesn't exist? Depending on the circumstance, it is possible that a device like this could actually make a crash situation worse, but I guess we wont know the answer to that question until a bunch of the RV-12 builders who choose to jump on the band wagon crash so that we can see what the result is.
 
Last edited:
The only "issue" I have had with the RV-12 nose gear isn't a problem. The other day I landed in a dead calm and tried to make the turn off I usually make. As I had been instructed I was holding almost full back stick to keep the weight off the nose gear. When I used braking to make the turn, there was so little weight on the nose gear that it did not follow the turn smoothly. Next time I will not attempt as abrupt a turn until I am going slower.
 
RV 12 NOSE JOB

I would like to say thank you to the 28 or so RV-12 owners that requested info and expressed interest in this product. We will keep your e-mail addresses and inform you of any products that could possibly benefit you. My offer still stands and we are looking for a local airplane to evaluate and offer a product if a need in present. Should we determine that no need is there or this product would not enhance safety or survivability of man or machine in a mishap, then obviously we would not offer it to this market. I for one do believe that a product that adds any extra margin in these mishap situations is definitely worth a look see (If the nose fits, well you know). I have no experience with, nor do I intend to crash my Mercedes into another car, tree, wall or k-rail but that doesn't dictate that I should forgo the use of seat belts or remove the air bags. These items are in place to increase my durability and comfort level and we can never have too much of that. Regard, Allan:D
 
I am on Scott's side. Van's engineers are highly qualified with many years of experience building aircraft. If they thought the nose gear was not strong enough, they would beef it up.
I do admire the ingenuity that went into designing this high quality product. I do not question that it makes the nose gear stronger in the area where it is attached. But what is to prevent the gear from bending up higher? That is where the most stress is, not closer to the wheel. Anyone who has broken a shovel handle knows that the most stress in a lever is at a point furthest from the applied force. The man in the movie even admits that the gear will bend further up, but claims it will give more time to react. We are talking milliseconds here. Accidents happen quickly. Did you notice how many times in the movie it was mentioned that the product could save your life? It sounds like scare tactics to me. Why spend lots of money on a useless product to make your plane heavier? I hope I don't get sued for saying that. :D
Joe Gores
 
Nose Gear

For goodness sake guys the Guy is offering this mod for other RV models if You think it will be applicable to YOUR RV12 well go for it don't put the guy down hes only trying to help..! Use the stuff between your Ears!
 
Mich48041 said:
I am on Scott's side. Van's engineers are highly qualified with many years of experience building aircraft. If they thought the nose gear was not strong enough, they would beef it up.
Click to expand...

Well they havent exactly done that before... Every other model with a training wheel is not that strong and there has been no improvement... until now.
Its nice to see a solution to a long standing problem :cool:
 
Mich48041 said:
I am on Scott's side. Van's engineers are highly qualified with many years of experience building aircraft. If they thought the nose gear was not strong enough, they would beef it up.
I do admire the ingenuity that went into designing this high quality product. I do not question that it makes the nose gear stronger in the area where it is attached. But what is to prevent the gear from bending up higher? That is where the most stress is, not closer to the wheel. Anyone who has broken a shovel handle knows that the most stress in a lever is at a point furthest from the applied force. The man in the movie even admits that the gear will bend further up, but claims it will give more time to react. We are talking milliseconds here. Accidents happen quickly. Did you notice how many times in the movie it was mentioned that the product could save your life? It sounds like scare tactics to me. Why spend lots of money on a useless product to make your plane heavier? I hope I don't get sued for saying that. :D
Click to expand...

I do not know anything about the 12's nose leg. What I do know, is that my 6A's leg took a pretty significant bend towards the top, as well as in the middle. My gear leg was a beefed up version that came out somewhere around 1998 or 99. From the looks of it, it can apparently take a good bend without breaking off. The older ones could actually fail and break at the top end.

In my case, there is no doubt that this new product would have saved my Hartzell prop & a subsequent engine teardown. Had the leg folded to where it was vertical, but not bowed in the middle, my prop would still be full length, and my engine wouldn't be shipped off to take apart.

I do wish this product had been out, just a few weeks earlier. I wouldn't be looking at the $10,000+ damage that I am now.

L.Adamson
 
Unless I am mistaken, Van's replaced the 9A nose gear with a heavier one a few years ago when it was determined the old one was not stiff enough.

Casey Stewart said:
Well they havent exactly done that before... Every other model with a training wheel is not that strong and there has been no improvement... until now.
Its nice to see a solution to a long standing problem :cool:
Click to expand...
 
In my case, there is no doubt that this new product would have saved my Hartzell prop
Click to expand...
This device is supposed to prevent the nose gear from bending down and backwards under the airplane. The man says that in the movie. If you look at the way it is installed, the nose wheel is free to move upward all it wants to. The device will NOT prevent the nose wheel from moving upward in a hard landing. The device is not advertised to prevent prop damage. And it will not. The ONLY time the device is supposed to be of benefit is when the nose fork digs into the ground for whatever reason. If the nose fork is dug in, then the prop has probably hit the ground too. The only claim made for this device is that it will prevent the plane from nosing over in a crash landing where the nose fork has dug into the ground. I question that claim too. How many nose-overs has this device actually prevented? Even if it did prevent an airplane from flipping upside down, it would do so by stopping the airplane quicker, which is a bad thing. The quicker the airplane stops, the more the pilot is likely to be injured. Bending metal absorbs energy in a crash. Let it bend. The man has obviously put lots of thought into this nose job. It is too bad that his efforts are misguided. My posts on this subject are not intended to bad mouth the guy. I just want to warn builders that this device will not provide any benefit, other than to make the plane heavier and your wallet lighter.
Joe Gores
 
You don't have a clue

Mich48041 said:
This device is supposed to prevent the nose gear from bending down and backwards under the airplane. The man says that in the movie. If you look at the way it is installed, the nose wheel is free to move upward all it wants to. The device will NOT prevent the nose wheel from moving upward in a hard landing. The device is not advertised to prevent prop damage. And it will not. The ONLY time the device is supposed to be of benefit is when the nose fork digs into the ground for whatever reason. If the nose fork is dug in, then the prop has probably hit the ground too. The only claim made for this device is that it will prevent the plane from nosing over in a crash landing where the nose fork has dug into the ground. I question that claim too. How many nose-overs has this device actually prevented? Even if it did prevent an airplane from flipping upside down, it would do so by stopping the airplane quicker, which is a bad thing. The quicker the airplane stops, the more the pilot is likely to be injured. Bending metal absorbs energy in a crash. Let it bend. The man has obviously put lots of thought into this nose job. It is too bad that his efforts are misguided. My posts on this subject are not intended to bad mouth the guy. I just want to warn builders that this device will not provide any benefit, other than to make the plane heavier and your wallet lighter.
Click to expand...

I'd say, that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Mine did not bend up. It bent back, just like all the rest. It was on a hard surface runway. There was no hole. It was the older style fork, that sit's an inch lower. This device would have saved my prop. No doubt about it.

I just went through this. I find little benefit in arguing with someone who just thinks they know what's going to happen. BTW-- when it did bend, we had decelerated enough, that we weren't even thrown against the seat belts.

L.Adamson
 
I'd say, that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Mine did not bend up. It bent back, just like all the rest.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected and apologize . What causes the gear to bend backwards instead of up?
Joe Gores
 
Mich48041 said:
I stand corrected and apologize . What causes the gear to bend backwards instead of up?
Click to expand...

Thankyou.

Here is a pic. There is more of a bend at the top, which can't be seen.
I don't know why they bend backwards. I don't believe I've ever seen one bend up, and I've been around RV's for 17 years.

6sghug.jpg


L.Adamson
 
I think the nose fork must touch the pavement and the friction pushes it backwards. If the fork was made like the Zenith nose gear, that would be less likely to happen. But there are probably disadvantages to that design too.
Joe Gores
nose%252520wheel.gif
 
Kyle Boatright said:
Larry, did you post about your accident? I must have missed it.

Could you tell what caused/initiated the failure?
Click to expand...

Kind of. Some got the hint.

In a nutshell, I believe I landed fast. The sky was blue, and little wind. It was a small bounce, much less than I see from the average tail dragger. About 2' high. This followed my best landing ever, at the previous airport.

Knowing what I know know, I'd have added a bit of power & flown out of it. It wasn't even enough of a bounce to upset or alert my wife in the passenger seat. This was followed by a second bounce of approx. 2 1/2 feet in height. I thought that that would be the end of it, as we had decelerated quite a bit. Then, as if the spring gear had loaded up.......we launched into the air, about 5' high, but nose down. At that point, I wasn't about to give it any throttle. I had visions of cartwheeling off the runway.

The plane quickly stopped (apparently within a foot or so), nose down, and not enough forward speed to be thrown against the seat belts at all. It just seemed slow motion, and I made a comment to that effect. The engine was still idling, but I knew what the prop was going to look like, when I shut it down.

Moral of the story, use power on the first bounce. Was it PIO? I'm not sure. I didn't think I was chasing the bounce with forward stick. I'm just not sure at this point.

Note: I did have a wood damper on the nose gear. Just put it on this year. It apparently seperated at the second bounce. I doubt it had anything to do with the rotten outcome.

L.Adamson
 
Mich48041 said:
I think the nose fork must touch the pavement and the friction pushes it backwards. If the fork was made like the Zenith nose gear, that would be less likely to happen. But there are probably disadvantages to that design too.
Joe Gores
nose%252520wheel.gif
Click to expand...

Mainly, it won't castor. There is someone who's been working on a steerable nose gear, and has posted on this forum. But so far, he seems less than successful, weight & available room wise.

L.Adamson
 
Last edited:
Or as Vans suggested (I think) a larger diameter nose wheel would help that tendency also. It still baffles me some as to just exactly what happens. It often presents the illusion that the nose wheel froze up.
Maybe we need a little bitty roller on the front of the nose wheel frame :D

Mich48041 said:
I think the nose fork must touch the pavement and the friction pushes it backwards. If the fork was made like the Zenith nose gear, that would be less likely to happen. But there are probably disadvantages to that design too.
Joe Gores
nose%252520wheel.gif
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
Or as Vans suggested (I think) a larger diameter nose wheel would help that tendency also. It still baffles me some as to just exactly what happens. It often presents the illusion that the nose wheel froze up.Maybe we need a little bitty roller on the front of the nose wheel frame :D
Click to expand...

I'd like that excuse, but it didn't. In the meantime, I'll have to use the excuse, that the new runway's asphalt was generating a lot of heat with the noonday sun. This heat caused extra lift, which was uncontrollable. I didn't have a chance! :rolleyes:
 
L.Adamson said:
I do not know anything about the 12's nose leg.
Click to expand...

And that is the main theme I was trying to convey in my post to this thread Larry.
It is not fair to comment on the RV-12 nose gear based on what someone knows about the nose gear on the other models (this is the RV-12 forum after all).

The RV-12 has an entirely different nose gear leg design. It is a larger diameter hollow tube with entirely different stiffness properties in the context of the loads induced by the light weight RV-12, when compared to the other RV models.
 
Put foot in mouth

I was wrong to make negative comments in my posts above about the Anti Splat device. The device probably will help to keep the nose gear leg straighter and longer in the event that the gear is bent backwards. The gear could still be bent at a point closer to the fuselage. How far it bends depends on the type of runway or terrain, the angle that the airplane contacts the surface, and the speed of the airplane.
After reading Larry's description of the accident, I believe the reason that the nose gear bent backwards is because the nose wheel pant contacted the runway. From a safety standpoint, it might be better for builders to leave the wheel pant off from the nose wheel to help prevent nose gear failure. There are other types of wheel fairings that do not extend in front of the wheel, although they might not look as nice.
OK, I'm ready for the flaming. :D
Joe Gores
 
To clarify a little...

I hesitate to use the word, "weakest link" but the nosegear on the "A" models
may be the most problematic part of a wonderful design. There is a long-running thread on the General Discussion Forum devoted to the nosewheel issue.

I built and flew my 6A during the period when Vans recognized and dealt with the nosegear design issues. First all nosegear legs were recalled and, IIRC, the upper portion was beefed up, carrying the engine mount diameter further down the leg before starting the taper. I do not know if a particular incident precipitated this change.

Later on, in this century, the nosefork had to be replaced, putting the forward portion of it about an inch or so higher off the ground and raising the entire nose of the plane, if I am not mistaken. This, we were told, was to prevent the nose fork from stubbing in and bending the gear backwards, as per the current discussion.

Anyone who kept up with Vans communications during this time saw many messages from Van and others, to wit: Land the plane tail low at proper airspeed, keep weight off nosewheel.

Shortly before I first flew my 6A I had occasion to witness another builder's first flight. After several attempted landings (way too fast), he put down on a dirt strip more into the wind and bounced twice with the third impact noticeably nose-down. It looked like PIO to me but I wasn't looking at the elevator. The gear folded under (no wheel pants for this flight) and the plane flipped over and stopped very quickly. Nobody was hurt badly and we had the plane back in the hangar inside of a couple of hours.

It would appear from the video that the no-splat mod clearly addresses the situation where a runway hole or slightly heavy nosedown force occurs. PIOs and wheelbarrow landings will take out--IMHO-- any civilian plane's nosegear, including the stout forks on Mooneys and Bonanzas which I have seen.

The fact is, mod or no mod, if we have a less-than-ideal off-airport landing we are going to end up on our backs. And that is why I would like to ask the splat folks to apply their creative thinking to...the RV-12 fuel tank.

Jim
#264
flying 77 hours or so
 
Black Dirt

I still believe that those of us who fly off of unimproved landing strips could benefit from this device. I've attached a couple of pictures of our runway and taxi surface to show the abuse the nose gear could easily go through if you're not looking where you are going. The bucket is only there for size reference.
DSC04365.jpg
[/IMG]
DSC04364.jpg
 
I thought someone left the bucket there after a vain attempt to get the soil to expand with water. :D
Joe Gores
 
Not entirely true Jim, I landed my Cherokee 140 on the front wheel TWICE when I was newly signed off for solo, drastically changes steering inputs. Apparently it is stiff enough to take the punishment of a slow learning dumb driver.

N223JH said:
-"and wheelbarrow landings will take out--IMHO-- any civilian plane's nosegear, including the stout forks on Mooneys and Bonanzas which I have seen."
Jim
#264
flying 77 hours or so
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
Not entirely true Jim, I landed my Cherokee 140 on the front wheel TWICE when I was newly signed off for solo, drastically changes steering inputs. Apparently it is stiff enough to take the punishment of a slow learning dumb driver.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were just real lucky Don...

One thing that has not changed since man began flying contemporary airplanes.
If you are going too fast, you can not flare to land (because the airplane simply climbs).
If you decide to make the airplane land anyway, you will be landing on the nose wheel first (if the airplane has tricycle gear).

HERE is a video of the ultimate extreme. Never even a hint of round out rotation of a flair. Why; because if he had, the airplane would probably have climbed to 100 ft because of excess speed.

Correction. I went back and viewed the video myself (hadn't watched it in quite a while). There is a hint of flair rotation at the very beginning, but the airplane immediately begins to climb so the pilot pushes the nose over towards the runway. The moment he made that decision, it was all over but the cry-in (actually, if he had initiated a go around after the first bounce he probably could have saved it). This type of landing technique has wrecked a lot of tri gear RV's. One of which I happen to own (purchased and rebuilt after the builder / owner tried a similar landing technique).
 
Last edited:
Yep, that is exactly how it is done, I think he copied my technique! It is called the "I am going to get this thing to land no matter what speed I have" method of landing. As you said, each time I felt extremely lucky I did not bend anything, the thing slowed down and settled on its mains like it was used to that, and directional control immediately and dramatically increased..

rvbuilder2002 said:
Maybe you were just real lucky Don...

One thing that has not changed since man began flying contemporary airplanes.
If you are going too fast, you can not flare to land (because the airplane simply climbs).
If you decide to make the airplane land anyway, you will be landing on the nose wheel first (if the airplane has tricycle gear).

HERE is a video of the ultimate extreme. Never even a hint of round out rotation of a flair. Why; because if he had, the airplane would probably have climbed to 100 ft because of excess speed.

Correction. I went back and viewed the video myself (hadn't watched it in quite a while). There is a hint of flair rotation at the very beginning, but the airplane immediately begins to climb so the pilot pushes the nose over towards the runway. The moment he made that decision, it was all over but the cry-in (actually, if he had initiated a go around after the first bounce he probably could have saved it). This type of landing technique has wrecked a lot of tri gear RV's. One of which I happen to own (purchased and rebuilt after the builder / owner tried a similar landing technique).
Click to expand...
 
Maybe we need a little bitty roller on the front of the nose wheel frame
Click to expand...
Don,
You are a genius. It took me a few days of hard work. But I installed the roller like you suggested.
I think it is great idea in spite of all of the jokes and laughter from other pilots at the airport. :D
Joe Gores
IMG_0769a.JPG
 
Sign me up for two . . . in the event . . . I wear the first one out. :eek:

You guys are so smart!
 
Last edited:
And Joe, as with all our innovative solutions - don't forget to patent it before every Tom Dick, and Harrty puts one from the local hardware store on their RV12 nose. :D.
 
Don,
I just got back from the patent attorney's office. After the lawyer looked over my pictures and CAD drawings, he said that I would not have any trouble at all getting a patent. I was beaming with pride until he added, "Yeah, nobody has ever thought of adding training wheels to an airplane before." Training Wheels? Man that hurt. I explained that it was for operating off from grass strips. He said that I did not have to explain, that he understood. But I could tell from the smirk on his face that he was about to make a joke like those guys at the airport did. So I grabbed my papers and stormed out. Those attorneys deserve all of those lawyer jokes. :D
Joe Gores
 
Mich48041 said:
Don,
I just got back from the patent attorney's office. After the lawyer looked over my pictures and CAD drawings, he said that I would not have any trouble at all getting a patent. I was beaming with pride until he added, "Yeah, nobody has ever thought of adding training wheels to an airplane before." Training Wheels? Man that hurt. I explained that it was for operating off from grass strips. He said that I did not have to explain, that he understood. But I could tell from the smirk on his face that he was about to make a joke like those guys at the airport did. So I grabbed my papers and stormed out. Those attorneys deserve all of those lawyer jokes. :D
Joe Gores
Click to expand...

Joe, you're far too sensitive. I'm sure he didn't mean it like that! I think it's a wonderful idea, and will only enhance your reputation as an innovator, electrical wizard, and all round nice guy! You have my full support.:)
 
Hey Joe - -

I'm thinking you could also use that as a launcher if you build a steam cyl to propel it. Maybe take off from your back yard then ! ! ! :D:D

John Bender
 
Very entertaining thread. It may have some merit for the sixes and eights. I don't see it as applying to the 12's, but I have been wrong before.
Dick Seiders
 
One concern I have with the device is that if there's a significant side load component to the gear leg, the reinforcement appears as if it'll miss the bent gear leg.

Dave
 
Another major setback to our plans to get rich Joe. The patent office showed me that our idea had already been patented by Wip Aire! Apparently the big boys also land on their noses.
2ic1lbd.jpg
[/IMG]
Mich48041 said:
Don,
You are a genius. It took me a few days of hard work. But I installed the roller like you suggested.
I think it is great idea in spite of all of the jokes and laughter from other pilots at the airport. :D
Joe Gores
IMG_0769a.JPG
Click to expand...
 
Curses, foiled again!!
Float planes need nose wheels for the occasional sand bar. :D
(and for landing on pavement)
Joe Gores
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top