What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Vans Flight Training Prep and Front Gear Strengthening

iaw4

Well Known Member
I own an RV6A. I previously flew, in order, a Piper Cherokee, and a Vans RV-9A. I have found all three birds to be quite docile. In particular, none of them get you unexpectedly into a stall. The 6A is a little more finicky in a stall with respect to wing drop, but because it gets so quickly out of a stall, it's not a big issue. with the RV6A going into slow flight around 90knots, compared to the Piper around 70 knots, it is more pleasant to fly the RV6A faster in the pattern, but it's not terrible. after the call to tower downwind, it's not like one is terribly busy. flying a little wider pattern gives one more time if one needs more.

so, none of the above seems to point to making the Vans RV6A a terrible airplane to get started learning flying compared to the Piper IMHO. a little big harder, due to speed but really not much. Very suitable.

the one aspect that I can see makes the Piper a better learning aircraft is that it has a more robust landing gear, especially the front wheel. I have the antisplat modification, which I hope makes it a little safer.

now, I want to teach my teenager how to fly in my own airplane, rather than a rental and then transition. Are there (potentially temporary) modifications to the front leg that make it more robust, even slowing down the airplane? what is the specific weak point on the front gear and can it be made more robust? would it make sense / be possible to weld on a support that is not too heavy to have too material an impact on the balance and strengthens the leg? (pilots landing a lot on soft fields may have thought more about it.)

or is it simply a terrible idea to use the vans as a personal trainer?
 
If I remember correctly, EAA National has (had?) an RV-6A that was used for primary flight training.
 
the one aspect that I can see makes the Piper a better learning aircraft is that it has a more robust landing gear, especially the front wheel.

or is it simply a terrible idea to use the vans as a personal trainer?

You’ve partially answered your own question. An aircraft designed with primary training in mind - whether a Basic Piper or Cessna - has landing gear built to take more abuse than any RV. So is primary training in an RV a bad idea? Not necessarily. Students learn by doing. It’s the cfi’s job to keep the student from breaking the airplane. So students in, say, a 152, learn landings more quickly than in an RV, because they experience first hand bad landings and resolve not to repeat that mistake again! In the RV, the CFI must intervene to protect the airplane from that kind of landing, so the student’s learning takes longer. So I think the quickest path forward to safely flying the RV would be renting a 152 for 5 - 10 hours, then transitioning to the RV. But the least expensive, and maybe more enjoyable, path might be to just use the -6, and understand that the initial 5 hours might take longer than that, since the CFI will have to intervene more frequently. You might also run this by your insurance company, factor their answer into any decision.

Edit added: I see that you do not hold a cfi certificate. You understand, your son cannot log any of this time toward the minimum required dual, for a PP certificate? Also, I suspect your insurance company may deny coverage, if anything goes wrong, unless you have made specific arrangements with them.
 
Last edited:
I’m doing much of my training in my 9A. I think it is easier to land than a 172 but I’m glad I did quite a few hours bouncing in on the 182 gear! I would get some training in a trainer first, past solo and then you can get insurance to train in your plane. Insurance isn’t cheap but available.
 
thanks, everyone.

the first SB 07-11-09 was mandatory, so we already complied with it. the second is interesting --- very involved, indeed. are there any Vans-specialized shops in SoCal who do this and how much should it cost? interestingly, the SB 19-04-30 was much better lauding the disadvantages rather than the advantages. does someone have experiences with the comparison? (and are there any estimates how much "stronger" the front gear becomes? does the front gear lose its distinction as "weakest link" afterwards?)

I like the idea of taking it very slow and safe with the training. I don't have to give the training --- we have an excellent CFI around here. I am thinking there is no harm to be done with a student having 150 rather than 75 hours. but an extra safety margin on the weakest point of the Vans would give some comfort, would it not? heck, flight training is as much fun as flying.

I am also planning to install a https://www.enginebridge.com/product/landing-height-controller-copy/ to help with early landing practice. (of course, eventually, one must learn to land without it.)

now I need to find a good Vans shop in the Southwest or SoCal USA...
 
My son got his PPL in the 6A last summer. The key is finding an instructor that can grasp the concept of forcing the student to make landings with the nose up and not letting it slam down after the mains hit (a significant issue for the new pilot in an RV). They need to be quicker and more active in their intervention. This takes much longer to build into muscle memory for the student then just slamming a 172 into the ground a few times and you need an instructor that gets this and is willing to take the extra time to build that skill. This is really the only unique training variant from training in other aircraft.

Many instructors believe in letting the student make mistakes and I agree with that approach. However, it simply cannot be tolerated in the one area of nose gear protection when training in an A model, IMHO. That nose gear can handle moderate abuse, but not significant.

Larry
 
Last edited:
As has already been stated, the biggest, BY FAR, thing to be done relating to the nose gear is pilot training. The nose wheel is for taxiing only. Any time there is enough speed to get the nose wheel off the ground, it should be off the ground.

On take-off, raise the nose wheel as soon as possible and "balance" the airplane on the mains until lift-off. On landing, touch down on the mains and hold the nose wheel off until it comes down on it's own, with the stick full back.

If you learn this procedure early on, you will never have a problem with the RV nose gear.
 
most of this advice is to tail-wheelers.

the front-wheelers is really just "keep back pressure" after landing and hold off the high front wheel.

incidentally on takeoff, what's the safer technique: [1] applying back pressure from a little early on and risking a few mild up-down whips on the front wheel (with small load factors), or [2] keeping the nose wheel on the ground without much back pressure, and then take decisive back pressure action to lift it off once and for all when one is sure it will have the speed to maintain the front wheel above ground?
 
most of this advice is to tail-wheelers.

the front-wheelers is really just "keep back pressure" after landing and hold off the high front wheel.

incidentally on takeoff, what's the safer technique: [1] applying back pressure from a little early on and risking a few mild up-down whips on the front wheel (with small load factors), or [2] keeping the nose wheel on the ground without much back pressure, and then take decisive back pressure action to lift it off once and for all when one is sure it will have the speed to maintain the front wheel above ground?

I don’t know, seems that all of these posts are specifically for the nose gear versions.. I feel the best and safest technique you listed is option 1. I lift the nosewheel as soon as the throttle comes in, and it doesn’t touch again until taxi speed where I no longer can hold it up. I even perform touch and goes without the nosewheel ever touching the ground.
 
Back
Top