What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV tip over (flip upside down)

Jamie said:
And oh yeah...there's that safety thing. I'm not saying that taildraggers are that dangerous, but there is an element of safety involved. This would have most likely been a non-event with the nosewheel.

Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings
http://rv.jpainter.org
Click to expand...
I always avoid these nosewheel/tailwheel threads... too complicated and way to subjective. I need to weigh in on this thread however because the above comment references my own "incident". My groundloop was a clear cut low speed weathervane incident rather than a higher speed loss of directional control due solely to the gear configuration. As the one who was sitting there in the cockpit trying to cope with the event I cannot say that a nosewheel configuration wouldn't have done the same thing. When the direct crosswind exceeds the forward velocity isn't a tricycle gear aircraft just as vulnerable? Of course there's no way to say for sure.

At the end of the day there are compelling reasons for each configuration, all of which have been made in one of these posts or another. The answer ultimately must be a personal one and simply depends how each individual prioritizes the various factors. For my own priorities, the simplicity (lower maintenance), lack of speed penalty, aesthetics, and challenge/reward of the flying experience of the Van's tailwheel designs fits my priorities better so that's the way I went. I have no regarets, and what more can I say other than I'm building ANOTHER tw RV, this time an RV-3B. I will concede that the tw config requires more attention during all ground operation phases, but I find that challenge to be rewarding. But them I'm the guy that insists on driving a manual shift car, can't stand the lack of control with an automatic. ;-)
 
This might be old news to some, but I thought it belonged here.

According to the pilot during the approach to land the airplane touched down about 500 feet down runway 23 on the centerline. As the tail lost lift and the tail wheel made contact with the runway, the airplane veered left of the centerline. At 1900 feet, the airplane crossed from the south side of the runway over the centerline to the north side of the runway. The airplane veered again to the left and departed the runway on the south side about 2,000 feet from the approach end. The airplane came to rest perpendicular to the runway 2,144 feet from the approach end. Examination of the accident on-scene found that the airplane departed the runway edge and proceeded down a fifteen-foot embankment and made contact with several large rocks, separating both main landing gear. The airplane continued to rotate counter clockwise about 45-degrees and came to rest near trees. Winds at the time of the accident were 100-degrees gusting to 15 knots. Examination of the auto-locking feature for the tail-wheel found that the mechanism operated properly. No mechanical problem with the airplane was reported by the pilot.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:
The pilot's inadequate compensation for wind conditions that resulted in his failure to maintain directional control during landing roll. A factor was gusting tailwinds.
Click to expand...

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031009X01689&key=1

Anyone want to guess who the pilot was? :D
 
ok so exactly what is the difference in insurance? sounds like a biggie. I am considering building an RV and am still considering all the angles. I just love the look of the tail drager. Also is there not the factor of additional drag with the nose wheel? I am a blackhawk pilot in the army. have fixed wing experience too, but never flown a tail dragger fixed wing though.
thanks
jesse
 
Build what you want

Jesse, I'm sure if you can learn to fly a blackhawk, you can become an excellent fixed wing tailwheel pilot. My personal choice for the tailwheel RV8 was that I've got plenty of nosedraggers available in my flying club. I want a plane that is different, will challenge me, and help me become a better pilot. Of course, having it be the coolest looking bird on the ramp is a bonus.

The last thing you want is to build your plane to minimize insurance costs, and then regret not building the plane you really wanted.

Best of luck to you!
 
flyguy1172 said:
ok so exactly what is the difference in insurance? sounds like a biggie. I am considering building an RV and am still considering all the angles. I just love the look of the tail drager. Also is there not the factor of additional drag with the nose wheel?
jesse
Click to expand...

I looked at those two issues very closely as well.

While personal situations may vary, I found that I would have to pay an additional $1200/yr if I had went with a taildragger (7).

As far as performance, Van's numbers have always been shown to be spot-on, and the specs between the 7 and 7A are shown that it "costs" 2mph to cruise with the nosewheel. That's not a big difference by any means, so for me, going with the 7A was an easy decision.

Besides, I wasn't one of the "cool" guys in high school anyway, so I figure, why start now? :)
 
Highflight said:
While personal situations may vary, I found that I would have to pay an additional $1200/yr if I had went with a taildragger (7).
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got your quote but I was a 25hr tail wheel/ 200hr total pilot in my RV4 and full coverage was under 2K when I started and is now around 1600.

Try the Forest Agency, they are great.

http://www.forestaviationinsurance.com/

Chuck
 
I'm right at about 1,000hrs but its mostly helo time. its all turbine and mostly dual engine but i wonder if that would be considered a different animal all together and not help for insurance. Got a lot of time to think about it anyways.
 
one more, do tail draggers have the ability to lock the tail wheel in the centered position. That would probly help right. Its what we have in the UH-60, when we are texiing for a while and dont want to pick it up we just lock the tail wheel and its easy. thanks for the responses. good point about the drag there highfly
thanks
jesse
 
locking tailwheel

The tailwheel moves with the rudder, unless you are trying to move the aircraft, then you can make it swivel 360 degrees. During taxiing and takeoff/landing the tailwheel gives you plenty of control. Very predictable.
 
I can?t believe that I?m being sucked in to answer this post.

I know that there is no right or wrong answer, just a preference.

I will, however, share the rationalization I used when selecting to build a ?non macho? nose dragger (RV 8A). For me it boiled down to mission. I am building my RV 8A to do extensive cross-country flying both VFR and IFR.

I have, for the past 15 years, been the proud owner of a Citabria. I used it for travel around the local area during good weather with a few longer cross-countries to fly-inns etc. It was a perfect airplane for that mission. And if I were going to use my RV 8 for the same purpose I would have built a tail dragger.

After some 1,000 hrs of tail wheel time, I know for a fact, it is harder to land a tail wheel airplane in a cross wind.

I have used the following explanation with some of my tail wheel friends;
Let?s assume you are approaching an airport and find out, after listening to the ATIS, that they have 20 knots cross winds gusting to 30. If you on final had a switch, on your instrument panel, where you could select between tail wheel or nose wheel. Honestly, where would YOU put the switch?

Food for thought!

Ulf Petersson (RV 8A on gear, with engine and canopy on.
 
Last edited:
Gear Switch to tailwheel

Megaulf said:
Let?s assume you are approaching an airport and find out, after listening to the ATIS, that they have 20 knots cross winds gusting to 30. If you on final had a switch, on your instrument panel, where you could select between tail wheel or nose wheel. Honestly, where would YOU put the switch? Food for thought!
Click to expand...
In theory from physics, flight control and inertia the tail wheel should be easier or able to land in higher crosswind.

The reason is there is more fuselage exposed to the cross wind in a tail dragger simply because the mains are further forward. Therefore there is more area and more weather vain tendency. This is reacted by proper rudder input to maintain the proper alignment with the runway, i.e. vector of travel = runway alignment. To stop the drift you put in a bank with aileron to use horz component of lift to counter x-wind. Thus your in a side-slip with cross control. There is no different in the air between gear configurations. However on the RV I think you are going to run out of wing tip clearance before rudder. The diff in RV and RV-A main gear is not that great.

IN a cross wind you touch down on the up wind main wheel first and hold it there during the ground roll until you have FULL aileron control input and than and only than does the second tire touches the runway, the down wind main. If you start to weather vain and have full rudder in you need to drag the down wind brake. Once the speed bleeds and the appropriate 3rd wheel starts to roll (nose or tail wheel) you steer as always do while using the proper anti-wind flight control inputs. I think you are going to be busy either way. The big dif is if you screw up it is assumed the nose wheel config will be self correcting and you can just plop it on in a crab and might get away with it. However the RV has a short coupled gear and thegear, especially the nose gear is not that stiff or robust. The dynamic responce may be ugly. The point you have to land well with either RV gear design.

My war story. Coming back from Oshkosh going towards Seattle (with 2 RON at Spruce Creek ID, Yea!) Landed near Fargo due to weather. The runway was rain soaked and it was 500-800 ovc 3 miles and at least 20G25, 60 degree from the runway. (Not the 30 kts x-wind you discribe, but if it was 30 kts x-wind I'll land across the width of the runway, taxiway or ramp if it was that bad. What is the ground roll with a touch down at 16 mph gnd speed?)

I did a one wheel landing with the wing tip near the ground in side-slip. Everything was normal: held the up wind wheel down, down wind wheel touched after running out of aileron, ran out of rudder at the same time the tail wheel touched. I rolled out straight. I had full aileron into the wind, almost full back with tail wheel effective and rolling at approx 30 mph gnd speed. The wind was so strong that my RV-4 was "hopping" (drifting) side ways, while still pointed straight down the runway. The speeds where very slow by this time. The hop/drift stop as I got the plane stopped on the runway, still pointed straight. The runway was 100 feet wide and drifted (hopped) down wind of the centerline of slick wet runway about 5 feet, but it felt like a mile. I SLOWLY taxied to the ramp.

The slick runway was a factor. However I can't believe a RV-A would have been easier to land and taxi or would have done anything much different in an "A-model" before 40 mph ground speed.

With the tail wheel planted I was able steer and roll straight out (granted with few hops side ways). With a nose wheel it would have taken some deft touch on the brakes to go straight. May be (MAY BE) the lower wing angle of attack of the Tri-gear would have put more weight on the main wheels, thus keeping the plane from the hop side drift. Again this is theory, and admit that the landing I described was near the planes wet runway limit and probably mine. (BTW I had a passenger and full baggage which may have helped.) I was able to keep directional control with the tail wheel while being blown sideways until I got it stopped. I have never landed a RV-A in this kind of x-wind, but have a few thousand hours in SEL factory planes, almost all with nose wheels and steering. I would say many of these factory Tri-gears would be my choice over (ANY) RV in these strong x-wind conditions, with bigger wheels, high wings (more wing tip ground clearance) and positive nose wheel steering.​

Comparing a Citabria to a Cessna is not equiv to comparing a RV to a RV-A. My RV ?GEAR SWITCH? is still set to tail and will stay there. The myth and fear of tail draggers is miss-placed. I understand you think it is easier in normal conditions, which is true to a point, but in extreme conditions you will need to fly any RV all the way till it stops (and is parked).

Cheers George RV-4/RV-7 :D
 
Last edited:
Tailwheel/Nosewheel Safety

I would like to hear an argument from ANYONE that wishes to prove that a tailwheel airplane is SAFER to fly.

All I see in these posts is that a tailwheel airplane 1) Looks cooler(?) , 2) challenges the pilot more, and 3) is more adept at landing at airstrips where the insurance company would rather you didn't land anyway. There have been no arguments about safety so I would like to mention a few points of contention.

1) In a nosewheel airplane, you can SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING while taxiing. I know of at least 2 ground accidents where someone taxied into something because they SIMPLY DID NOT SEE IT!

2) Insurance is MORE EXPENSIVE. Insurance companies have actuaries that calculate loss risks and experience and adjust rates accordingly, thus more expensive insurance = more risk to the insurance company.

3) I'm not landing in a 30 knot crosswind regardless of which end the 3rd wheel is on. I value my life and my airplane much more than trying to "see if I can do it". I will find another airport with a crosswind runway. Just because it may be possible certainly doesn't mean you should do it!

I mention this because I love flying and I just want the odds to be in my favor of keeping this hobby SAFE, thus my decision to go with a nosegear airplane. IMHO, I can't stand getting in a tailwheel airplane at a 25 degree angle (this makes it harder to get in and out of), then craning my neck making zig zags down the runway JUST TO LOOK COOL. Doesn't make any sense to me.

For me, the reverse would be true of what I've read in these posts. I have a tail wheel endorsement and about 25 hrs tailwheel in a Citabria. When I feel the need to be challenged(?) in taking off and landing, I can go rent the Citabria for $60 an hour and challenge myself until I can't stand it anymore. For my day to day flying, cross country flying, and my own personal airplane which I have to insure, I will fly the nosegear.
 
C'mon hecilopter, it sounds like you're taking it personal.
This is one of those truly silly debates that is really nothing more than a running joke where everyone likes to chime in and yank some chains.

No one's minds will be changed, so hang that sucker up front where you've chosen to put it and have at it.

For my part, I'm going with the nose wheel as well for all the known reasons (that you've just repeated), but if some people want to run over armidillo's they can't see because they're too busy watching the clouds while taxiing, and serve as a weather vane for arriving flights, and have the priviledge of making payments on their insurance agent's new Mercedes, so be it.
(Oops, I think I've just yanked some more chains :D )
 
Absolutely, Vern. Nobody will ever win this arguement. Build what you will be comfortable with, then you win.

Roberta
 
Quote: "would like to hear an argument from ANYONE that wishes to prove that a tailwheel airplane is SAFER to fly."


How many fatal nose overs in tailwheel rv's.....none

How many fatal nose overs in nose gear RV's...three that I can think of.
 
Jconard said:
Quote: "would like to hear an argument from ANYONE that wishes to prove that a tailwheel airplane is SAFER to fly."


How many fatal nose overs in tailwheel rv's.....none

How many fatal nose overs in nose gear RV's...three that I can think of.
Click to expand...

RV4 N6596X nosed over- fatal

Not sure that the question is how many nose overs result in fatalities. All nose overs result in significant damage, prop, fin rudder, canopy as a minimum and are no fun I'm sure. Land a nose wheel or tail wheel on too soft or rough ground, good chance it will end up on its back. For most operating from paved strips, you are far less likely to lose control with a nose gear aircraft than tail wheel. Look at the number of ground loop and loss of control accidents for Rvs, nose vs. tail wheel. Insurance companies don't make up the higher rates for no reason. There is also a reason why most current GA production aircraft have nose wheels.

On the other side of the coin, would most people fly a Cherokee or a 185 into a short, soft field, strewn with rocks, in a crosswind. The 185 would probably be more suitable of course but would this be a smart thing to do? Certainly something I wouldn't do but other pilots would and could do it safely.

I agree, bottom line is people will build what they like best. It is up to the pilot to decide what landings and takeoffs are within his capabilities, what types of fields and surfaces he will land on and to get proper training and stay current in his aircraft. It's usually not the aircraft's fault that it noses over or departs the side of the runway no matter which end the center gear is attached to!
 
RV roll over type accident data

A quick search of the NTSB data base from 1986 forward (that's when Van made his first "A" model I believe) using the qualifiers "amateur built, yes" and "Manufacturer, Vans" yielded 64 accident synopsis for Vans aircraft. My summary of the data for roll over type accidents is as follows. This is raw data, not normalized, no accounting of true root cause, I took NTSB's word on everything, YMMV, and all other engineering type caveats apply:

RV-4:
Total roll over type accidents: 5
Airplane completely inverted: 4
Plane just ending up on nose: 1
Off airport landings: 4
Fatal accidents: 1 (Off airport, plane had chopped not per plans roll bar)

RV-6
Total roll over type accidents: 5
Airplane completely inverted: 3
Plane just ending up on nose: 2
Off airport landings: 3
Fatal accidents: 0

RV-6a
Total roll over type accidents: 4
Airplane completely inverted: 2
Plane just ending up on nose: 2
Off airport landings: 0
Fatal accidents: 1 (Nose gear collapse on turf strip)

RV-9A
Total roll over type accidents: 2
Airplane completely inverted: 0
Plane just ending up on nose: 2
Off airport landings: 1
Fatal accidents: 0
 
rv6ejguy said:
RV4 N6596X nosed over- fatal

...It's usually not the aircraft's fault that it noses over or departs the side of the runway no matter which end the center gear is attached to!
Click to expand...


rv6ejguy, IMO, you just nailed the issue to the wall! Very good...most excellent...and all those other accolades! With this one comment you said what many of us have tried to say. While a nose gear is a safer configuration for an airplane, that is not the sole reason as to whether or not a flight ends safely. The PIC's judgments and actions are part of the picture, too.
I tried to stay out of this debate, and impulsively jumped in the other day with the Yeager comment. I was just trying to point out that a T-6 is a bear of an airplane to try to land in a crosswind especially when compared to an RV.
Let's all go out and have a root beer! :D
Don
 
I wasn't able to pull up that report on Yeager's T6 accident but would be interested in reading the account.
 
Safety wire the switch to taildragger

I won't try to change anyone's mind. Build and fly what you want. It's funny that taildragger pilots never seem to defend their choice, while that is all too common for the nosewheel drivers.

I will safety wire that nosewheel/tailwheel switch to the tailwheel position! I landed my RV-8 in a 20K direct cross wind on a runway that was 90% ice covered and never left the centerline. It would be a hard sell for a nosewheel pilot to convince me that my taildragger is less safe. I also doubt anyone would believe that my Beautiful Doll would look as good with a nosewheel.

Today is the 5th anniversity of my first flight in the Doll.
Fly safe!

Danny King
Beautiful Doll 80434 645 hours
 
Not being defensive

The only time I've had to defend my decision was from other non-RV pilots. Guys around some airports have more opinions than courtesy. It's fine to question my decision to build an A model in order to discuss flying and building.

I'm just not interested in defending a personal choice. Especially where there are clearly no wrong answers. Last time I checked RVs flew better than most other aircraft, no matter where the third wheel was.

Regards, Paul
 
How about everybody just builds SOMETHING...anything....as long as the model number begins with RV ? :D
 
Mythbusters

TW/NW is moot......by FAR the most unreliable component in any airplane is the PIC.

just like everything else in aviation, the "difficulty" is 99% pilot, 1% airplane.

"crap happens" in both configurations.....

fun fact: the highest landing-accident rate in military history belongs to a nosedragger (the B26 Marauder aka "Widowmaker"...130mph!! at touchdown)

not-so-fun fact: Lancairs and other "fast glass" (100% nosedraggers) have mmmmuch higher landing accident rates than RV's of either flavor

reality: a Citabria landing slow in a strong x-wind can be more of a handful than a tw RV-X in same conditions.....Citabria roll response is measured with a calendar and is ALLL rudder

bottom line: knoweth thine airplane.
build what you like...the rest will follow
 
Another "A" model flips over

For those keeping count, another "a" model flipped over yesterday while landing at the fly-in at Reklaw. I believe it was a 7a. I didn't see it happen but saw the plane after it happend. Hundreds of planes showed up, everything from cessnas, pipers, beech, Rv's, etc. The strip is kinda rough towards the north end. Other "a" models landed there without trouble. Not sure who it was, but I think they're ok.

Tobin
 
Hope all OK, Tobin.

You staying out of Florida with your RV for the next few days? (Wilma).

Best,
Doug
 
Damage?

I don't mean to be morbid, but could you provide some details about the status of the cockpit area after the flip please. Was it a slider or tip up and what was the extent of damage to the passenger compartment.

Thanks. Just trying to make a decision about slider v. tip up.

Antony
 
I almost took a picture of it, but then didn't. As for damage that I saw, nose cone was crushed, nose gear bent/mangled, top of vertical stab/rudder damaged. I could not tell you about the cockpit because they had put a canopy cover on it, so not sure there.

Tobin
 
This is not normal. Cant one of our resident "engineers" give some insight as to the design flaw of the A. Surely some safety factor should be built into the A to compensate for pilot error. Lets face it none of us are perfect , but ending belly up this regularly is not assuring/normal.
 
tobinbasford said:
<snip> ... Other "a" models landed there without trouble.
Tobin
Click to expand...

rv7 2003,
I wouldn't get too concerned about this. Since other A models landed at the same place at the same time with no trouble, I'll bet it was just another pilot who didn't take his soft-field landing training seriously enough.

If you keep the weight off the nose wheel until it just HAS to drop to the ground, you'll be going slow enough to stay out of trouble unless you drop it into a hole.. and no design is going to save your butt if that happens whether it be a nose wheel or a tail dragger.
That's the fun and mystery of soft or off-field landings... not knowing what's coming up next ;)
 
I have pictures of the damaged AC, but will only post them if requested to do so by Doug. PLEASE don't hammer me with PM's asking for them as I won't do it.

While I didn't witness the accident actually happening, I will say there was about a 60/40 spit between tailwheel and nosewheel aircraft at the event. Several aircraft of the lighter free-castoring nosewheel design were in attendance including several RV's, several Grummans, a Europa trike and even a Diamand Katana. In four years of attending the event I've only seen one other prop strike back in 2001, and it was a trike RV.
 
RV 7A Flipped at Reklaw

I am building a 7A and about to start painting. My nieghbor -Ron Walker- has a 7A flying for 1 year. He attended Reklaw in his 7A and sent me picutres of the flipped A/C. 7A Slider, pilot had a cut above one eye that required stiches, passanger OK. A/C totaled - all except right wing and horiz. tail, canopy shattered. Ron said the pilot's approach and touchdown looked great - slow and nose up. He did not see the flip happen but said the runway was "very-very rough" He will not go back because of the rough runway. After looking at the A/C he theorized that as the pilot slowed down the nose wheel probably was bouncing on and off the ground and got cocked somewhat during the bouncing. When it to made contact at an angle it caused the nose geear to bend sideways and the A/C to flip. The left wing tip probably hit the ground on the way over.

If he is correct - we may be able to fix the problem by limiting the nose wheel steering - similar to a Scott tailwheel - that needs larger force to "break -out" from the limited steering system.

Dennis H.
Renesis Powered 7A :mad:
 
clouduster said:
He did not see the flip happen but said the runway was "very-very rough" He will not go back because of the rough runway.
Click to expand...
Rough is a subjective term, but it appears that none of the other 400+ airplanes flying into Reklaw had any problems with the field. :rolleyes: I've personally flown a nosewheel aircraft into Flying M and not had any problems.
 
While these nose-overs seem to be happening with enough regualrity to give any of us with a trike cause for concern, what really strikes me is the lack sound reasoning as to why these are occuring.
From a design perspective, the fairing clearance (ground to fiberglass) would suggest that it would take a very small "hole" during rollout to significantly change the rolling resistance of the A/C. With a conventional gear, the result may be limited to damage to a wheel fairing. With a trike, even momentarily grounding a main gear fairing would likely send a large load pulse to the nose. Whether this type of event would lead to sufficient deflection of the front leg to cause a prop strike or catastrophic failure of the gear leg would require simulation/testing that seems to be lacking at this point.
Of greater concern to me is the ground clearance of the nose gear, particularly the "fork" weldment. If this structure imbeds during rollout, at nearly any speed, the result is likely what we're seeing in these nose-overs. These is enough anecdotal information at this point to convince me that I sould stay off of turf strips. If one relatively shallow, unseen pothole can result in major damage to my A/C or person, it isn't worth the risk. In the meantime, I hope that Van's is following this issue closely and will ultimately offer an opinion as to whether we're dealing with a design issue, metallurgical/quality issue (has any failure analysis been done on failed parts to verify material composition, hardness, micro, etc.), or pilot error. Further, I would hope that such an opinion be followed by a recommendation. In any case, if the "A" models gain a reputation for nose-overs, the insurance industry will ultimatley react in a way that benefits neither Van's or us.

Terry Kohler
N323TP (RV9A)
 
Terry,

You make an interesting observation about the fork. As you're probably already aware, Van's has changed the forks in the newer kits. I just received my finish kit a while back and mine has the new fork and new gear leg. It should provide an additional inch of clearance off the ground.

It will be interesting to see if any of the aircraft with newer forks go over. It will also be interesting to see if any -10's go over.
 
Condition of strip at Reclaw

I have attended this event about 4-5 times, generally camping out of my Cardinal. This year was no exception. I had several friends that saw the bird flip over. Being an engineer, I was curious as to why this happened, so I talked to several folks and looked at what I could.

Here is what I know.

The nose gear was broken and folded over just above the wheel pant, but was still attached.

Several friends say that when it finally went over, it went very slowly.

Bird did a good job of protecting occupants. Cockpit in tact. Injurys very minor.

Several say the approach and landing looked perfect, several said the guy porposed the plane. I don't know who to believe.

The pilot's son/passenger stated that the runway roughness was the cause of the accident.

I looked at the rut in the runway caused by the nosewheel. It was about 100' long and a good 1-2" deep with fiberglass chards from the wheelpant impregnated into the dirt within the first 6" of the rut. This means that the gear structurally failed where there was sufficient drag and weight to cause the rut. I read this to be inconsistent with the rut being caused by the wheel being turned sideways, rather it was flipped over.

Projecting the rut backward toward the approach path where the nosewheel must have traveled, I walked about about 100 yards backward looking closely at the ground. I found the runway to be fine.

I reject the suggestion that runway condition was a factor.

Perhaps the landing was bad. Perhaps a previous landing was bad and the nosewheel was waiting to go. If a plane cannot handle the runway over the path where this particular plane traveled, it has no business being on any grass feild that I have been to in my 30 years of flying.

Dale Lambert
RV-6 finishing kit
 
This is probably a stupid observation...but..... maybe the RV isn't the best bird for back-country and rough strip operations. Now, yes, I know a lot of RVs fly into rough strips, but it certainly appears the margin of (pilot) error is rather small here.

Maybe the mission profile calls for a different plane?
 
Reply to Dale

No potholes, not a rough field; perhaps we have a design or quality problem. There seems to be too many nose gear failures to attribute this to bad pilot technique. I seem to recall one incident that happened during taxi. If at some point quality can be ruled out thru analysis of failed part(s), perhaps the design needs to be examined further. I guess my concern here is that I suspect most RVs are flown primarily by owner/pilots and are not abused day in and out by students practicing landings-yet we are seeing failures that are not evident in factory built aircraft, some of which are subjected to thousands of cycles. In the end, I want to be reasonably confident that when I land, the nose gear is going to remain intact after elevator authority runs out.
 
Reply to Terry and Bob

Terry,

Good point. I was not suggesting pilot error or design flaw, but in my mind, it is simply not the runway in this case. I have not flown a nosewheel RV, but I would suspect that it is easy to fly. I would also suspect that most folks serious enough about aviation to own an RV are experienced enough not to bung up a well mannered nosewheel bird so does it lead to suspision elsewhere based on the number of occurances.

Bob, You may be right that an RV with it's small wheels is not a the best backcountry bird, but neither is my Cardinal, and I have no qualms about landing at Reclaw. The owner of the strip regularly flew a big twin (Cessna 421?) in and out with no problems. Other friends of mine regularly go there in Mooneys, Bonanzas, and Barons, none of which are BC birds. Some of them have complained about the potato salad, but none have complained about the strip!

Cheers,
Dale
 
What about other 'A' models

All,

I've been following these discussions since the first incidents came to light many 'moons' ago. Generally speaking, a large number of the posters question piloting technique and how it could have contributed to the accidents. Maybe so, but this does lead me to the following question:

"If poor piloting played a major part in these incident, then surely, we should have seen a steady stream of 'nose-overs' of other 'A' models going back over the years?". We all make mistakes from time to time.

Am I mistaken or is this a '7A' thing?

Regards,
Leonard
RV6 in New Zealand
 
7 or 9 A

Both models have had flip overs. I've called tech support at Vans regarding this (not this accidend, but this issue) and they say it's typically pilot or builder error.

Van published a nose gear article in the RVator a few issues ago and talked about fairing clearance and low tire pressure as being probable causes. However, soon after the article they started shipping new nose gear for the 7A, if I'm not mistaken.

On the pilot error side.........doesn't 100 feet of 1-2ft deep scar on this accident show some evidence of landing maybe a little too much on the nose? I'm not trying to be critical, just curious if that might be an indicator. Or maybe low tire pressure and fairing clearance caused the tire to catch on the fairing and rotate it forward as described in the RVator article. jack
 
Not sure if this is an engineering, builder, or pilot skill problem. That said, I have observed (through a casual NTSB database search) that there are a higher PROPORTION of nosewheel "issues" (accidents) on off-field or rough field landings for RVs than other nosewheel equipped production aircraft.

Perhaps piloting technique could have prevented some or most of these failures as Van's seems to like to suggest, but I think we would all be kidding ourselves if we said the RV nosewheels did not require more attention that production nosewheels, especially on rough surfaces. All of us can and do have bad piloting days. It's a shame that 1, 2, or 100 of them might culminate in a nosegear failure that would not happen on other nosewheel aircraft. Although I really like Van's as a company (and their general philosophy), I think that blaming this on pilot skill (or lack thereof) is failing to acknowledge that there is occasionally going to be bad piloting. Rather than just pointing out the obvious, can they provide a SOLUTION that will allow for some occasional "bad" piloting? Maybe this new style nosegear with the 1" extra clearance will solve the problem simply and inexpensively. If so, good job Van's!

(BTW, this is not meant to imply that either nosewheels or tailwheels are better, but that ALL of the RV's probably require more attention to flying properly than the 150s or Warriors we trained in.)

Just my thoughts.
 
But , you know, I might take an SUV off-roading, but I wouldn't take my Chevy Cavalier off-roading. Maybe the RV has its limitations and maybe this mission is one of them.
 
Bob Collins said:
But , you know, I might take an SUV off-roading, but I wouldn't take my Chevy Cavalier off-roading. Maybe the RV has its limitations and maybe this mission is one of them.
Click to expand...

Good point, Bob, and I was basically parroting your earlier post in mine (but in different words) because I agree with you, but what complicates this is Van's actively markets the RVs as being great off of grass strips. Do they need to revise that to "RVs are great for perfectly manicured smooth grass strips when flown by perfect pilots"? It DOESN'T seem like the failures are occuring only on really rough strips. If I'm NORMALLY a good pilot, should I be flying out of a what is NORMALLY a good grass airstrip? In my mind, those are two big questions that many of the recent failures don't seem to answer in the affirmative.

Just my 1 cent.
 
Two questions:

Is there any reason one can't change between trike and tail wheel prior to ordering the fuselage kit?

As we are supposed to land both versions on the main gear until we slow down and lose rudder authority on all field types, is there any advantage at all in favor of the front wheeler for landings? Similarly, on rough fields, the recommended takeoff method suggests getting the front wheel up as soon as possible, again I fail to see any advantage there either. Im starting to think a tail dragger is the logical choice, even with a small insurance disadvantage. :confused:
 
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
If I'm NORMALLY a good pilot, should I be flying out of a what is NORMALLY a good grass airstrip? In my mind, those are two big questions that many of the recent failures don't seem to answer in the affirmative.
Click to expand...

See RV of the Week (Jerry Thorne). It's a 9A that's hangard at a grass strip. Link to web page with pics is included.

L.Adamson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top