This is curious as to why they nose over. It may be that the aircraft is fairly short coupled and tall on the gear. I am familiar with a number of hard landings in a very common current production fixed gear single with a similar nose gear configuration where none have not resulted in nose-overs.
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)
- Thread starter oldsfolks
- Start date
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Someone asked if this was specifically a 7a and/or 9a issue. Absolutely not. I know of multiple RV-6A's (including the EAA's Young Eagle RV-6a based at Pioneer Field) and a couple of RV-8A's which have suffered failed nose gears which led to either prop strikes or flip overs.
As someone else pointed out, we don't hear of this type failure with most certified types, and certainly most RV's are babied by their owners and not subjected to numerous student landings. The fact that the YE RV-6A suffered this failure at Pioneer Airfield is an indicator to me. First, that field is smooth. Second, my understanding is that they don't let just anyone fly their aircraft.
Van's is a great company, but their nosegear design hasn't been as robust as it needs to be. Blaming the problems on builder error and/or pilot error is OK if this problem was infrequent, but there seems to be a common problem where either the gear isn't designed properly, isn't tolerant enough of common builder mistakes, or isn't tolerant enough of less than optimum pilot technique. Somewhere in the equation, the margin is too thin and Van's needs to address it.
As someone else pointed out, we don't hear of this type failure with most certified types, and certainly most RV's are babied by their owners and not subjected to numerous student landings. The fact that the YE RV-6A suffered this failure at Pioneer Airfield is an indicator to me. First, that field is smooth. Second, my understanding is that they don't let just anyone fly their aircraft.
Van's is a great company, but their nosegear design hasn't been as robust as it needs to be. Blaming the problems on builder error and/or pilot error is OK if this problem was infrequent, but there seems to be a common problem where either the gear isn't designed properly, isn't tolerant enough of common builder mistakes, or isn't tolerant enough of less than optimum pilot technique. Somewhere in the equation, the margin is too thin and Van's needs to address it.
I hesitate to make any comments here, but here goes:
In my 25+ years of flying, I have seen quite a few nose over accidents, even before RVs were around in any number. There are more RVs than ever out there and a lot of pilots who haven't been flying a lot, since they were building, are now out there flying their hot little RVs.
In my opinion, even the RV9s are hotter than any of the traditional training planes out there and as a result, there is more possibility for error. Remember the Yankee trainers that came out in the late 60's, very similar to the RV in wingspan, etc. and they had a high accident rate, too.
We all talk about the chain of events that lead to accidents...think about this...an RV6 or RV7, not difficult to fly, but by no means a trainer, a grass field somewhere (Most grass fields have trees or wires nearby, many times as obstacles on the ends), an average pilot who doesn't fly into grass or rough fields much and to top it off, a fly in where there are a bunch of folks watching you land. Come in a little hot, land slightly long and those trees at the end of the strip look BIG!! Hit the brakes and wham! I've seen prop strikes, nose overs and over runs. In almost every case it was pilot error caused by lack of experience, nerves, bad luck or just plain bad judgement. And you know what, talk to the pilots and almost every time they will say it wasn't their fault...the ground was too rough, etc. etc.
I'm not saying that everything is pilot error, but I also can't see trying to place blame on the design of the -As without benefit of some research into what really happened. I have also seen many landings, mostly at flyins like Reclaw and Waco where I couldn't believe how lucky the pilot was to not have crashed, considering the landing that was made.
I make plenty of mistakes and errors in judgement and have had some close calls too, but it wasn't the fault of the plane I was flying.
I would ask all of you to take a close look at your and others' flying skills, as they relate to these type of accidents and not be so quick to place the blame on the aircraft.
In my 25+ years of flying, I have seen quite a few nose over accidents, even before RVs were around in any number. There are more RVs than ever out there and a lot of pilots who haven't been flying a lot, since they were building, are now out there flying their hot little RVs.
In my opinion, even the RV9s are hotter than any of the traditional training planes out there and as a result, there is more possibility for error. Remember the Yankee trainers that came out in the late 60's, very similar to the RV in wingspan, etc. and they had a high accident rate, too.
We all talk about the chain of events that lead to accidents...think about this...an RV6 or RV7, not difficult to fly, but by no means a trainer, a grass field somewhere (Most grass fields have trees or wires nearby, many times as obstacles on the ends), an average pilot who doesn't fly into grass or rough fields much and to top it off, a fly in where there are a bunch of folks watching you land. Come in a little hot, land slightly long and those trees at the end of the strip look BIG!! Hit the brakes and wham! I've seen prop strikes, nose overs and over runs. In almost every case it was pilot error caused by lack of experience, nerves, bad luck or just plain bad judgement. And you know what, talk to the pilots and almost every time they will say it wasn't their fault...the ground was too rough, etc. etc.
I'm not saying that everything is pilot error, but I also can't see trying to place blame on the design of the -As without benefit of some research into what really happened. I have also seen many landings, mostly at flyins like Reclaw and Waco where I couldn't believe how lucky the pilot was to not have crashed, considering the landing that was made.
I make plenty of mistakes and errors in judgement and have had some close calls too, but it wasn't the fault of the plane I was flying.
I would ask all of you to take a close look at your and others' flying skills, as they relate to these type of accidents and not be so quick to place the blame on the aircraft.
stick-n-rudder
I'm New Here
Design flaw
Easy, the nose gear.
rv7 2003 said:
Easy, the nose gear.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Yes you can. Van's doesn't know or care which you are building until you order the fuselage. (Not to start this debate but with a TW RV you have one less gear leg and nose wheel fairing to deal with.)cobra said:
As for the RV-xA on grass strips, in July I helped a friend disassemble his -9A after a hard landing at a paved strip. He landed on the mains, a gust of wind lifted the plane off the ground and before he could react it stalled four feet off the ground. The nose wheel collapsed causing a prop strike. If he had been on a soft field, I'm sure he would have gone over on his back. Total damage: Engine overhaul, prop, front strut, front wheel bracket, front tire and wheel, and front wheel pant. The engine mount was undamaged, which we consider a good thing.
One of the locals who helped dissembled the plane for transport (Of course this didn't happen at the owner's home airport.) had built a -6A and a -9A and told us the nose strut on his -6A folded during a low speed turn while taxing. My vote is for a design flaw.
This makes me wonder how many additional RV-xA's have had nose gear leg failures w/o making the news because they didn't go inverted. When you count these in, is the number double? Only Van's knows for sure because of they are selling the replacement parts.
Bill Dicus
Well Known Member
3rd wheel failures
Someone in this string commented that a big enough hole will fail either a nosewheen or a tailwheel. I'm building an 8 because I love taildraggers, but also because I always figured if the tail wheel is knocked off, the only result will be a shorter stop with loss of tailwheel steering and some possible turning tendancy which probably could be countered with rudder/brakes. The only damage to my precious bird would be in the tailcone area. No flip, no prop or engine damage, wings and probably tail intact etc. No personal injury either. And if you are in the back country, you might even be able to take off and land at another place for repairs. What do others think about this? Bill
Someone in this string commented that a big enough hole will fail either a nosewheen or a tailwheel. I'm building an 8 because I love taildraggers, but also because I always figured if the tail wheel is knocked off, the only result will be a shorter stop with loss of tailwheel steering and some possible turning tendancy which probably could be countered with rudder/brakes. The only damage to my precious bird would be in the tailcone area. No flip, no prop or engine damage, wings and probably tail intact etc. No personal injury either. And if you are in the back country, you might even be able to take off and land at another place for repairs. What do others think about this? Bill
mark manda
Well Known Member
3rd wheel failures
Anybody know the final FAA decision of the cause of Ken Brock's Flipped over tail dragger?
Anybody know the final FAA decision of the cause of Ken Brock's Flipped over tail dragger?
Highflight
Well Known Member
Bill Dicus said:
The thing is, Bill, is that if one of your mains drops into a hole with a TW RV, you could be in just as much world of hurt.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
Good advice. And as much as I try to keep current while building, it's difficult. Still, I built a 7A for a couple of reasons, one of which is I don't "do" sod (although I really enjoy flying a Warrior onto Sod strips) or plan to do sod with the RV. If I did....I'd build a 7.sf3543 said:
I think there are trade-offs to every airplane and I think some missions are beyond the continual ability (defined as the combination of the plane and the pilot) of the involved.
Whether it's pilot error or lousy strips or a combination of the two, the anecdotal evidence obviously at this point is that maybe each of us should recalculate the decision to land on sod strips just as we would if there were an X degree crosswind.
Again, that doesn't mean they can't do it and that a really good pilot can't do it. I'm still a relatively low time pilot and don't consider myself a great pilot. And at this point it doesn't matter to me whether the landing gear is the problem or the pilot is the problem, I'm not spending 6,7 years and 2,000 hours and countless thousands of dollars to end up on my back somewhere.
Everyone needs to make their own decisions with whatever considerations they wish.
YMMV
Noserollers on grass strips
Sure is a lot of "A" bashing going on, "taildraggers can do it where the A's can't" and all that.
Everybody has an opinion that these planes should land here and those shouldn't, etc.
I missed the REKLAW fly-in so I didn't see the landing and resulting flip over. I put my 6A down in a VERY rough cow pasture in southern Oklahoma a couple years ago. I had a total time in make and model of 12.4 hours, 7 in the incident airplane. Hmmm.....I guess, according to all these postings, that I should have flipped it. I kept my nose off the grass until there wasn't any way to keep it up any longer. Minor scuffing to the nosewheel pant (the main pants weren't on at the time) was all the damage to the nosegear.
I guess the difference was that I was expecting it to be a rough experience where the guy at Reklaw assumed it was going to be just another normal landing on grass.
I land at Cedars Mills Resort (3T0) on Lake Texoma quite often and have never had a problem. Yet, a 7A pilot managed to flip his over. I have to defend the design and point the finger more at the technique.
One attendee at Reklaw posted that you needed to land in the first 1,000 feet at Reklaw because it got pretty rough beyond that. Maybe the witnesses that claim the guy started porpoising were right. Even the passenger claimed the field was rough. Sometimes you gotta go with facts and not speculation. It will be interesting to see what the feds claim.
They wrote my incident off to fuel contamination because there was a very small piece of hard sealant in the gascolator bowl. When I turned the prop and showed the FAA inspector that the vacuum pump wasn't rotating, he wasn't impressed. He filed his report with the wrong cause. Go figure!
350 hours later, after reinstalling the drive gear on the end of the crankshaft, my nose gear is still holding me up!
Sure is a lot of "A" bashing going on, "taildraggers can do it where the A's can't" and all that.
Everybody has an opinion that these planes should land here and those shouldn't, etc.
I missed the REKLAW fly-in so I didn't see the landing and resulting flip over. I put my 6A down in a VERY rough cow pasture in southern Oklahoma a couple years ago. I had a total time in make and model of 12.4 hours, 7 in the incident airplane. Hmmm.....I guess, according to all these postings, that I should have flipped it. I kept my nose off the grass until there wasn't any way to keep it up any longer. Minor scuffing to the nosewheel pant (the main pants weren't on at the time) was all the damage to the nosegear.
I guess the difference was that I was expecting it to be a rough experience where the guy at Reklaw assumed it was going to be just another normal landing on grass.
I land at Cedars Mills Resort (3T0) on Lake Texoma quite often and have never had a problem. Yet, a 7A pilot managed to flip his over. I have to defend the design and point the finger more at the technique.
One attendee at Reklaw posted that you needed to land in the first 1,000 feet at Reklaw because it got pretty rough beyond that. Maybe the witnesses that claim the guy started porpoising were right. Even the passenger claimed the field was rough. Sometimes you gotta go with facts and not speculation. It will be interesting to see what the feds claim.
They wrote my incident off to fuel contamination because there was a very small piece of hard sealant in the gascolator bowl. When I turned the prop and showed the FAA inspector that the vacuum pump wasn't rotating, he wasn't impressed. He filed his report with the wrong cause. Go figure!
350 hours later, after reinstalling the drive gear on the end of the crankshaft, my nose gear is still holding me up!
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
flips vs loops?
Does anyone have any data on the percentage of RV trikes that have nose-flipped vs. the percentage of RV taildraggers that have ground looped?
Maybe this thread should be moved to the taildragger vs nosedragger section.
tobinbasford said:
Does anyone have any data on the percentage of RV trikes that have nose-flipped vs. the percentage of RV taildraggers that have ground looped?
Maybe this thread should be moved to the taildragger vs nosedragger section.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
You might've misread my post so let me clarify. I'm certainly not saying nobody should land their RV-A on grass. That's a decision that's up to them. I'm saying that I'm not going to because I think everyone needs to make an assessment for themselves.mrreddick said:
I think part of the problem is everyone is looking for a glob solution to a situation in which there are too many variables.
So people say "you shouldn't land there," or "if I land mine, you can land yours."
I think that's wrong and -- let's face it -- it's just the aviation verson of the old MAC vs. PC debate. Turns out MACS were fine for some people and PCs were fine for other people and it was stupid for people on one side to waste a moment of their lives trying to convince other people that their decision was incorrect.
In my case, I'm not convinced I have the piloting skills to properly fly an RV onto sod. I'm not sure the RV can compensate for my mistakes in that endeavor. Likewise, I'm not yet convinced that reasonable care is sufficient to avoid problems. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. But I'm not that interested -- anymore -- in finding out if it can.
But that doesn't mean for a second that I think anybody else should use or have the same judgement and the sooner we can drop the "one size fits all" approach, the better.
KirkGrovesRV8
Well Known Member
Hi Redbeard,
I am not taking sides here, but I think taildraggers grondlooping and the A models flipping are different. A grond loop is 95% of the time pilot error, where as I think this tread is more about if the A model planes have design problem. I personally don't have any idea how many of these flip overs are pilot error or design flaw. But I think that if someone grond loops their taildragger thats on them, but if someone makes a good approach-flare-touchdown and then hits a dip and goes over than that could be a design flaw.
I choose to build a taildragger because thats what I wanted, but I do not think that the nose gear is less of plane or less of a pilot for building one. But if their is a problem people should know, I know a taildragger will require more care, and mabye people should start treating their nose draggers with more care as well.
All the Best
I am not taking sides here, but I think taildraggers grondlooping and the A models flipping are different. A grond loop is 95% of the time pilot error, where as I think this tread is more about if the A model planes have design problem. I personally don't have any idea how many of these flip overs are pilot error or design flaw. But I think that if someone grond loops their taildragger thats on them, but if someone makes a good approach-flare-touchdown and then hits a dip and goes over than that could be a design flaw.
I choose to build a taildragger because thats what I wanted, but I do not think that the nose gear is less of plane or less of a pilot for building one. But if their is a problem people should know, I know a taildragger will require more care, and mabye people should start treating their nose draggers with more care as well.
All the Best
If there were as many ground loops in RV-6's, 7's etc as there are noseovers in the -A models, RV taildraggers would quickly get a reputation as a bear to handle on the ground and it would rightly be considered a design flaw. Surely it must be easier to land a 7A than it is to land a 7?
Maybe there are more goundloops out there than we know about? I don't know. Anyone have any information on this? And how do the noseover rates compare to rates in GA? What about in experimental aircraft? Maybe -A's are no worse than others and we're all just sensitized to it now.
There appear to only be two possibilities IF the anecdotal evidence of high failure rates is actually representative of some sort of general trend when compared to other trike aircraft:
a) -A models have fragile nose gears which require mothering and babying by pilots over and above what is considered "normal" in most other trike aircraft. This isn't a bad thing...it's just something that we need to be aware of that possibly we're not aware of yet (although discussions like this certainly help).
b) RV pilots, in general, suck and don't fly as well as other trike pilots
Hmmmm....
Maybe there are more goundloops out there than we know about? I don't know. Anyone have any information on this? And how do the noseover rates compare to rates in GA? What about in experimental aircraft? Maybe -A's are no worse than others and we're all just sensitized to it now.
There appear to only be two possibilities IF the anecdotal evidence of high failure rates is actually representative of some sort of general trend when compared to other trike aircraft:
a) -A models have fragile nose gears which require mothering and babying by pilots over and above what is considered "normal" in most other trike aircraft. This isn't a bad thing...it's just something that we need to be aware of that possibly we're not aware of yet (although discussions like this certainly help).
b) RV pilots, in general, suck and don't fly as well as other trike pilots
Hmmmm....
CraigH@KRPH
Well Known Member
I think your first sentence pretty much sums it up. I've probably landed at Reklaw 10 or so times from both directions. Yes, the field gets a little wavy towards the middle but not anything that a pilot proficient in soft field techniques shouldn't be able to handle. A nosewheel airplane DOES require an little extra care, but it doesn't take the skills of Bob Hoover to land an aircraft there with no damage. There were plenty of nosegear RV's that made it just fine, along with several other fragile nosewheel type airplanes (Diamond Katana, Europa, etc). Heck, a Mitchell Wing even flew in/out that day!mrreddick said:
It all boils down to one of two possibilities 1) aircraft problem or 2) pilot problem. Not sure if the Feds will ever make a determination though, looking through the FAA incident reports / NTSB reports it doesn't look like it has even been reported.
Last edited:
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
It could be a little of both, rather than a lot of one.CraigH@KRPH said:
Frank N821BF
Active Member
Things you may want to check on an "A"
I feel that I could write several pages on this subject but I want to keep it short. I want to give the "A" people some food for thought. My wife and I flew to several fly-ins almost every weekend this summer in our 9A, so we were into alot of grass strips. Upon our 3rd or 4th grass strip (it was very rough) while still on the main's with the noise still up, we heard a loud snap. After parking I checked the aircraft and could not find anything that would not alow us to fly home. Upon checking the wheel pants during the following week (still looking for what made the snap) I pulled the nose on all the wheel pants. Now I'm like alot of the guy's and thought if I keep the wheel pant to tire clearance nice and tight I'll fly a little bit faster. Well, I found where the snap came from, the right main tire had taken a piece (about the size of my thumb nail) off the inboard rear pant. That was enough for me, I took all of the pants off and found where all three tires had been rubbing. My NEW tire clearance is 1/2" on the sides and front and 3/4" in the rear. Tire clearance problems may have played a facter with some of "A's" problems. I also have found the I had to tighten the front fork nut to increase the pressure on the compression washers 2 times this summer. Just my observation.
Thanks
Frank
I feel that I could write several pages on this subject but I want to keep it short. I want to give the "A" people some food for thought. My wife and I flew to several fly-ins almost every weekend this summer in our 9A, so we were into alot of grass strips. Upon our 3rd or 4th grass strip (it was very rough) while still on the main's with the noise still up, we heard a loud snap. After parking I checked the aircraft and could not find anything that would not alow us to fly home. Upon checking the wheel pants during the following week (still looking for what made the snap) I pulled the nose on all the wheel pants. Now I'm like alot of the guy's and thought if I keep the wheel pant to tire clearance nice and tight I'll fly a little bit faster. Well, I found where the snap came from, the right main tire had taken a piece (about the size of my thumb nail) off the inboard rear pant. That was enough for me, I took all of the pants off and found where all three tires had been rubbing. My NEW tire clearance is 1/2" on the sides and front and 3/4" in the rear. Tire clearance problems may have played a facter with some of "A's" problems. I also have found the I had to tighten the front fork nut to increase the pressure on the compression washers 2 times this summer. Just my observation.
Thanks
Frank
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Highflight said:
Some weeds crammed between the taildraggers wheel pants & the tire , makes for a good flipping over too! Just like slamming on the brakes with no nose gear for support. In fact the only actual RV that I've seen up side down, was a RV6 taildragger that made an unplanned off airport landing into a field.
L.Adamson
mark manda
Well Known Member
bent-- but on the showline
courtesy of Craig Helm, Graham,TX
http://www.cessna120-140.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2322
http://www.cessna120-140.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2322
Bill Dicus
Well Known Member
Main wheel in hole
Vern: Good point. I don't have any idea of relative frequency of taildragger ground loops vs -A flips. Probably a ground loop in either type (I assume a -A hitting a big hole with a main could ground loop too) would likely result in wing and gear damage and perhaps more. But... no injury is likely and some of the plane would be salvaged. Has anybody out there with a taildragger had the little wheel come off the back end? If so, what other bad things ensued? Surely ground loops would be more frequent overall in the tailwheel airplanes. Believe me, I don't have anything against nosewheel airplanes and fly one regularly. I do wonder if RV's (-A's or 10's) take a little more attention to the nose wheel loading than do Cherokees and 182's etc. Thanks for your comment. Bill
Vern: Good point. I don't have any idea of relative frequency of taildragger ground loops vs -A flips. Probably a ground loop in either type (I assume a -A hitting a big hole with a main could ground loop too) would likely result in wing and gear damage and perhaps more. But... no injury is likely and some of the plane would be salvaged. Has anybody out there with a taildragger had the little wheel come off the back end? If so, what other bad things ensued? Surely ground loops would be more frequent overall in the tailwheel airplanes. Believe me, I don't have anything against nosewheel airplanes and fly one regularly. I do wonder if RV's (-A's or 10's) take a little more attention to the nose wheel loading than do Cherokees and 182's etc. Thanks for your comment. Bill
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
design flaws
Anyone who has done RV transition training in a trike would most certainly have gone home having learned to take care of the nose wheel because it isn't built to land on(like Cessnas which have incredibly stout nosegear). Is this a design flaw or a weakness? It is a weakness... a known weakness.
Taildraggers also have a weakness due to the fact that the CG is aft of the wheels(otherwise, the rear end wouldn't be on the end while parked). A taildragger is more prone to ground loop than a trike. Is this a design flaw or a weakness? A weakness... again, a known weakness.
It is also possible to 'build in' a problem in the nosewheel. Van addressed that in the RVator.
RV's have small wheels. Those who haven't received that part of the kit are in for a surprise. You will not be able to safely follow a tundra-tire-equipped SuperCub into the roughest backcountry in your RV... trike or taildragger. The RV's have wide-spectrum performance, but not full-spectrum performance(nothing has full-spectrum performance).
It is a good idea to become aware of the weaknesses in each model. But, let's not get worked up into a lather.
p.s. Please note that I did refrain from poking fun at the little taildragger wheel that looks like it was stolen from a shopping cart.
Anyone who has done RV transition training in a trike would most certainly have gone home having learned to take care of the nose wheel because it isn't built to land on(like Cessnas which have incredibly stout nosegear). Is this a design flaw or a weakness? It is a weakness... a known weakness.
Taildraggers also have a weakness due to the fact that the CG is aft of the wheels(otherwise, the rear end wouldn't be on the end while parked). A taildragger is more prone to ground loop than a trike. Is this a design flaw or a weakness? A weakness... again, a known weakness.
It is also possible to 'build in' a problem in the nosewheel. Van addressed that in the RVator.
RV's have small wheels. Those who haven't received that part of the kit are in for a surprise. You will not be able to safely follow a tundra-tire-equipped SuperCub into the roughest backcountry in your RV... trike or taildragger. The RV's have wide-spectrum performance, but not full-spectrum performance(nothing has full-spectrum performance).
It is a good idea to become aware of the weaknesses in each model. But, let's not get worked up into a lather.
p.s. Please note that I did refrain from poking fun at the little taildragger wheel that looks like it was stolen from a shopping cart.
One thing that no one has mentioned here, in comparing RVs to production aircraft is that there is no comparison.
There's a reason why we are required to put the EXPERIMENTAL placard at the entrance and also why there is a required passenger warning placard that says this aircraft has not been built to the FAA standards. Production aircraft, like the C-150, etc. have been built to those standards and they probably are a lot more crash worthy in some respects, such as the nose gear.
There's a reason why the RVs are fast and nimble...they aren't built the same.
Sure they are safe and they are designed well and I believe VAN's has done enough testing to make it safe. But, you can't necessarily fly them like a production aircraft.
To answer someone's earlier question, an RV-6A flipped over on landing at my home airport a few months ago. This is a nice wide paved strip. Per the pilot, it was PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation) that caused it. The stick on an RV is very sensitive and it doesn't take much to get a PIO started and it happens FAST! One or two hits on the nose wheel and it's all over.
The RV is nothing like a certificated aircraft and you can't fly it like one and expect all good things to happen. They are high performance machines with their own special quirks and in my opinion, this is probably one of them. Better technique and lots of practice in proper landings would probably reduce these types of accidents. That's why we should get checked out in type before we fly them solo. As a TD pilot, I spend a lot of time practicing and perfecting my landings in hopes to keep from having a landing accident. In the end, no matter how much you practice and how good you are, there might eventually be a time when something bad happens, but the idea is to try to minimize those occurances.
There's a reason why we are required to put the EXPERIMENTAL placard at the entrance and also why there is a required passenger warning placard that says this aircraft has not been built to the FAA standards. Production aircraft, like the C-150, etc. have been built to those standards and they probably are a lot more crash worthy in some respects, such as the nose gear.
There's a reason why the RVs are fast and nimble...they aren't built the same.
Sure they are safe and they are designed well and I believe VAN's has done enough testing to make it safe. But, you can't necessarily fly them like a production aircraft.
To answer someone's earlier question, an RV-6A flipped over on landing at my home airport a few months ago. This is a nice wide paved strip. Per the pilot, it was PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation) that caused it. The stick on an RV is very sensitive and it doesn't take much to get a PIO started and it happens FAST! One or two hits on the nose wheel and it's all over.
The RV is nothing like a certificated aircraft and you can't fly it like one and expect all good things to happen. They are high performance machines with their own special quirks and in my opinion, this is probably one of them. Better technique and lots of practice in proper landings would probably reduce these types of accidents. That's why we should get checked out in type before we fly them solo. As a TD pilot, I spend a lot of time practicing and perfecting my landings in hopes to keep from having a landing accident. In the end, no matter how much you practice and how good you are, there might eventually be a time when something bad happens, but the idea is to try to minimize those occurances.
Highflight
Well Known Member
I haven't seen all the photos of all the flip-overs, but from the ones I have seen like that posted a few messages above, the nose gear is still in place although mangled a bit.
So consider this; if you land hard on the front leg or put it into a hole at speed, it's like a pole vaulter planting a stick at the point of the jump. An RV with a 6" diameter nose gear tube would still flip if involved in a "pole vault" style landing. Of course, you get that kind of landing even easier on a sod strip because a hard nose touch down (bad soft field technique) could dig the front gear right in.
My point is that I'm still favoring Vans side that pilot technique is still the biggest cause. Someone said that the flip-overs happen, therefore it MUST be the design of the nose gear.
But the nose gear seems to hold up pretty well even in flip-over accidents. To stop the nose gear damage in those cases, Vans could double the size of the tube and beef up the mount, but if an RVA sticks THAT gear in a hole or digs in to sod, it's STILL going over. So that brings it all back to technique rather than design.
Redbeardmark pointed out that the RV is a wide spectrum performance aircraft, but not a FULL spectrum aircraft. Absolutely. Know your aircraft, pick your sod strips carefully, and take special care with soft-field landing techniques and you will probably be fine.
Or else you could get a Husky...
So consider this; if you land hard on the front leg or put it into a hole at speed, it's like a pole vaulter planting a stick at the point of the jump. An RV with a 6" diameter nose gear tube would still flip if involved in a "pole vault" style landing. Of course, you get that kind of landing even easier on a sod strip because a hard nose touch down (bad soft field technique) could dig the front gear right in.
My point is that I'm still favoring Vans side that pilot technique is still the biggest cause. Someone said that the flip-overs happen, therefore it MUST be the design of the nose gear.
But the nose gear seems to hold up pretty well even in flip-over accidents. To stop the nose gear damage in those cases, Vans could double the size of the tube and beef up the mount, but if an RVA sticks THAT gear in a hole or digs in to sod, it's STILL going over. So that brings it all back to technique rather than design.
Redbeardmark pointed out that the RV is a wide spectrum performance aircraft, but not a FULL spectrum aircraft. Absolutely. Know your aircraft, pick your sod strips carefully, and take special care with soft-field landing techniques and you will probably be fine.
Or else you could get a Husky...
N941WR
Legacy Member
That's the point of being a home builder. You as the manufacture have to ensure each component is airworthy, not the seller of the kit.RV7Aflyer said:
That is one reason Van's is still in business, the lack of product law suites help keep there prices down.
IMHO Van's has been much better at resolving problems with their products and notifying customers than any other kit seller I know of.
Couple of points.....
Having flown alot of different taildraggers, I can say that without doubt my RV-4 is the easiest tailwheel plane I have flown as far as taildragging goes.
Without nosewheel steering and stout nose gear, I am not so sure a trigear RV will be that much easier to handle.......
Last point, I have seen ALOT of people flying airplanes that shouldn't have been flying airplanes. I have seen stuff that scares the hell out of me... So my point is there is bad pilots out there and also poorly built or poorly maintained aircraft, so I don't always buy into what I see on the surface of things.
Having flown alot of different taildraggers, I can say that without doubt my RV-4 is the easiest tailwheel plane I have flown as far as taildragging goes.
Without nosewheel steering and stout nose gear, I am not so sure a trigear RV will be that much easier to handle.......
Last point, I have seen ALOT of people flying airplanes that shouldn't have been flying airplanes. I have seen stuff that scares the hell out of me... So my point is there is bad pilots out there and also poorly built or poorly maintained aircraft, so I don't always buy into what I see on the surface of things.
mlw450802
Well Known Member
It is apparent that the nose gear design is not tolerant to poor pilot technique.
On the technique side of the equation, I wonder if proper use of an AOA would have prevented the accidents?
On the design side, Perhaps a trailing link design would eliminate the tendency to plant like a pole vaulter and would be inherently stable directionally as opposed to the unstable current design.
On the aesthetics side would anyone want the (probably) clunkier look af a trailing link?
Just thinking of applying a little (probably a lot of) effort into a redesign that my intuition says won't be lighter and will likely not be prettier than the nice elegant look currently.
All speculation above, but I am going to apply some of the tools and design expertise I have into other nose gear geometries that ideally will be retrofittable.
(expertise in vehicle dynamics, roll over and crash survivability, roadside barrier design, modelling and analysis using Ls-Dyna, Abaqus etc.)
-mike
PS anybody have a solid model of a 7A/9A engine mount? reverse engineering the existing stuff will be fairly time consuming but knowledge of tubing diameters and wall thicknesses is critical to understanding the dynamic response of the system.
On the technique side of the equation, I wonder if proper use of an AOA would have prevented the accidents?
On the design side, Perhaps a trailing link design would eliminate the tendency to plant like a pole vaulter and would be inherently stable directionally as opposed to the unstable current design.
On the aesthetics side would anyone want the (probably) clunkier look af a trailing link?
Just thinking of applying a little (probably a lot of) effort into a redesign that my intuition says won't be lighter and will likely not be prettier than the nice elegant look currently.
All speculation above, but I am going to apply some of the tools and design expertise I have into other nose gear geometries that ideally will be retrofittable.
(expertise in vehicle dynamics, roll over and crash survivability, roadside barrier design, modelling and analysis using Ls-Dyna, Abaqus etc.)
-mike
PS anybody have a solid model of a 7A/9A engine mount? reverse engineering the existing stuff will be fairly time consuming but knowledge of tubing diameters and wall thicknesses is critical to understanding the dynamic response of the system.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Leave the Tail Wheel planes out of it
L.Adamson: Some weeds crammed between the taildraggers wheel pants & the tire, makes for a good flipping
(Possible but prove it. Has this ever happended? I don't think so. This does nothing to help the ?A? model flip issue.)[/I]
Mark Andrews: Taildraggers also have a weakness due to the fact that the CG is aft of the wheels (otherwise, the rear end wouldn't be on the end while parked). A taildragger is more prone to ground loop than a trike.
(Again nothing that helps the ?A? model. From your "funny" comment that the tailwheel is like a shopping cart, you are clearly just defensive. BTW the nose wheel on the "A" model is just like a shopping cart wheel, however it is way more critical. It is OK to have a shopping cart wheel when that is all that is needed. If that makes you feel better to say that, great. but the CG loacation and distribution is what helps the TG not hurt it. It is not a weakness. The only time CG is a problem is when a TG aircraft gets sideways going down the runway with speed (ground loop). This sideway condition is well within the pilots control, and with good rudder authority and forward visability of the RV, it's not an issue. As long as the airplane is pointed straight down the runway, the weakness as you call it is a moot point. Otherwise leave the TG out of it. In my opinion the tail dragger is 100% better from a standpoint it has no nose wheel to fold under airplane and flip. Focus on that.)
Jamie D. Painter: It's also not normal for an airplane's landing gear to get ripped off during a ground loop....but this is what you can expect if you ground-loop your RV-7. It has happened to two -8's that I know of. A local guy just trailered his from Texas back to Georgia this past weekend. Maybe we should look at that as well?
(Again leave the TG RV?s out of this. You say gear is ripped off? That is so sensational, may be bent. Hey flying has risk but after almost 1000 hours in RV?s I can tell you ground loops are hard to do; they just don?t just happen. What is of concern is the "A" models seem to just happen, and happen on soft dirt, although there was a take-off case on hard surface.)
Bob Collins: This is probably a stupid observation...but..... maybe the RV isn't the best bird for back-country and rough strip operations.
(That is a very true comment. Now could the ?A? model be improved, yes at the cost of weight, looks and speed. Is it needed? NO comment but this may be time for some builder to make an aftermarket heavy gear kit.)
Bill Dicus: I'm building an 8 because I love taildraggers, but also because I always figured if the tail wheel is knocked off, the only result will be a shorter stop.
(Bill are you kidding, knocked off. May be still take-off with the tailwheel gone? Ha Ha Ha. If it falls off you did not install the bolts, but it is more possible with Van?s tailwheel it can get caught on the front of the tailwheel castor fork. This could cause serious damage by pulling the stinger out the fuselage. BTW: the tailwheel fork is just like a nose wheel castor fork, but smaller. If the nose wheel fork gets caught in the ground it can cause the gear to bend back and cause a flip, as we have seen. This condition on a TW happened once, I know of, when the guy taxied from grass to hard surface ramp and caught on the concrete. It was as such a slow speed nothing happend. In dirt the tail wheel will just plow thru it. A nose gear bends in this condition because it is not stable. However a simple mod for the tail wheel (which mak help on a nose gear) is the weld a piece of wedge shaped steel on the front of the tailwheel fork to allow it to ride over uneven surfaces. Again we are off the point, the TG RV is totally differnt than the nose wheel setup.)
Vern Wanzong : The thing is, Bill, is that if one of your mains drops into a hole with a TW RV, you could be in just as much world of hurt.
(Prove it. I have not heard of any holes swollowing up TG'ers. Yes a few had off field landings on VERY rough surfaces and flipped, but on a typical dirt/grass strip? Doubt it. Any hole big enough to DROP main wheels into causing a TG to flip, would bend a nose gear like a pretzel. It is a moot point what a TG does, because "A" models are flipping in there own way. It is more likely to put a TG on it's nose by locking the brakes up on a hard runway or pushing the stick fowrward during run up. This is not a Nose/Tail wheel debate. If you never flown a TG you should try it.)
Mike Reddick: Sure is a lot of "A" bashing going on, "taildraggers can do it where the A's can't" and all that.
(Mike, that is NOT true, no one is bashing ?A? models but there is a lot of justification and defensiveness with a bunch of ?Oh yea well your TG plane does this and that.? First most people talking about tail draggers have NEVER flown one. Also, it is like a Ford Pinto driver defending their exploding car by saying your car gets bad gas mileage.)
Craig Helm: It all boils down to one of two possibilities 1) aircraft problem or 2) pilot problem. Not sure if the Feds will ever make a determination though, looking through the FAA incident reports / NTSB reports it doesn't look like it has even been reported.
(The FAA does not care and there are cases that go unreported, both TG and TW. Our planes are experimental and do NOT meet FAA certification regulations, right. So I doubt the FAA will mandate a gear fix. Assuming one is needed.)
Bill Dicus: Vern: Good point. I don't have any idea of relative frequency of taildragger ground loops vs -A flips. Probably a ground loop in either type (I assume a -A hitting a big hole with a main could ground loop too) would likely result in wing and gear damage and perhaps more.
(Whatever helps you guys get through the night, but if you have never flown a TG, for fun, get some TG training and TG RV time. It is a lot of fun and easy. Who knows you may discover you like it. Other wise leave the TW out of the TG flipping debate.)
There has been great comments, most from Bob and a few others. The rest are attacking TW planes for some reason, which makes no sense. Yes I fly TW RV?s and my gut feeling is they are a little more resistant to flipping over, overall, on typical soft surfaces than a nose wheel. Two larger wheels are less likely to catch than on small nose wheel with a fork that is blocking the rolling surface and close to the ground. The main gear wheels are larger and has NO metal to catch on the front like the nose gear castor fork.
Also CG on an "A" model is such when a nose wheel DROPS into a hole, the CG is forced down and the mass rotates down and around the main gears. When the TG two main wheels drop into a hole the CG is aft, the wheels just drop down. They are not driven down with the inertia aircraft mass. (Nose gears like the RV angled forward are unstable from a structural deflection load stand point). The wheel base of a TG is also much larger and vertical DROPS tend to be shared by all three wheels. Yes, a REAL BIG HOLE could cause a large drag load on the mains of TG, causing it to flip, because the CG is vertically offset from the drag load, but this apples to all planes. The dynamics of a TG are not even close to what is happening to ?A? models. The geometry, physics and dynamics are all differnt. Also the ?A? model, once it starts to hang up, it bends the gear back which is angle forward like a pole vault'er. The MAIN GEAR on a TG is WAY more stable than the NOSE GEAR is on a "A" model. None of this is a put-down, just geometry.
Ever sense I have been flying, TG?ers have always been thought to be better on soft fields, regardless of the model of aircraft. All the famous Bush planes are TG?ers. Nose gear's are great, OK. You can make a great bush plane with nose gears, but they are heavy heavy duty and have large wheels and the nose folk is vertical and not trailling castoring (like a shopping cart). There are always trade offs. Builders like to think there model is far superior in every way. They accept the advantages but don't accept the disadvantages. There are very few clear cut best designs in aviation, only trade offs.
George
L.Adamson: Some weeds crammed between the taildraggers wheel pants & the tire, makes for a good flipping
(Possible but prove it. Has this ever happended? I don't think so. This does nothing to help the ?A? model flip issue.)[/I]
Mark Andrews: Taildraggers also have a weakness due to the fact that the CG is aft of the wheels (otherwise, the rear end wouldn't be on the end while parked). A taildragger is more prone to ground loop than a trike.
(Again nothing that helps the ?A? model. From your "funny" comment that the tailwheel is like a shopping cart, you are clearly just defensive. BTW the nose wheel on the "A" model is just like a shopping cart wheel, however it is way more critical. It is OK to have a shopping cart wheel when that is all that is needed. If that makes you feel better to say that, great. but the CG loacation and distribution is what helps the TG not hurt it. It is not a weakness. The only time CG is a problem is when a TG aircraft gets sideways going down the runway with speed (ground loop). This sideway condition is well within the pilots control, and with good rudder authority and forward visability of the RV, it's not an issue. As long as the airplane is pointed straight down the runway, the weakness as you call it is a moot point. Otherwise leave the TG out of it. In my opinion the tail dragger is 100% better from a standpoint it has no nose wheel to fold under airplane and flip. Focus on that.)
Jamie D. Painter: It's also not normal for an airplane's landing gear to get ripped off during a ground loop....but this is what you can expect if you ground-loop your RV-7. It has happened to two -8's that I know of. A local guy just trailered his from Texas back to Georgia this past weekend. Maybe we should look at that as well?
(Again leave the TG RV?s out of this. You say gear is ripped off? That is so sensational, may be bent. Hey flying has risk but after almost 1000 hours in RV?s I can tell you ground loops are hard to do; they just don?t just happen. What is of concern is the "A" models seem to just happen, and happen on soft dirt, although there was a take-off case on hard surface.)
Bob Collins: This is probably a stupid observation...but..... maybe the RV isn't the best bird for back-country and rough strip operations.
(That is a very true comment. Now could the ?A? model be improved, yes at the cost of weight, looks and speed. Is it needed? NO comment but this may be time for some builder to make an aftermarket heavy gear kit.)
Bill Dicus: I'm building an 8 because I love taildraggers, but also because I always figured if the tail wheel is knocked off, the only result will be a shorter stop.
(Bill are you kidding, knocked off. May be still take-off with the tailwheel gone?
Ha Ha Ha. If it falls off you did not install the bolts, but it is more possible with Van?s tailwheel it can get caught on the front of the tailwheel castor fork. This could cause serious damage by pulling the stinger out the fuselage. BTW: the tailwheel fork is just like a nose wheel castor fork, but smaller. If the nose wheel fork gets caught in the ground it can cause the gear to bend back and cause a flip, as we have seen. This condition on a TW happened once, I know of, when the guy taxied from grass to hard surface ramp and caught on the concrete. It was as such a slow speed nothing happend. In dirt the tail wheel will just plow thru it. A nose gear bends in this condition because it is not stable. However a simple mod for the tail wheel (which mak help on a nose gear) is the weld a piece of wedge shaped steel on the front of the tailwheel fork to allow it to ride over uneven surfaces. Again we are off the point, the TG RV is totally differnt than the nose wheel setup.)Vern Wanzong : The thing is, Bill, is that if one of your mains drops into a hole with a TW RV, you could be in just as much world of hurt.
(Prove it. I have not heard of any holes swollowing up TG'ers. Yes a few had off field landings on VERY rough surfaces and flipped, but on a typical dirt/grass strip? Doubt it. Any hole big enough to DROP main wheels into causing a TG to flip, would bend a nose gear like a pretzel. It is a moot point what a TG does, because "A" models are flipping in there own way. It is more likely to put a TG on it's nose by locking the brakes up on a hard runway or pushing the stick fowrward during run up. This is not a Nose/Tail wheel debate. If you never flown a TG you should try it.)
Mike Reddick: Sure is a lot of "A" bashing going on, "taildraggers can do it where the A's can't" and all that.
(Mike, that is NOT true, no one is bashing ?A? models but there is a lot of justification and defensiveness with a bunch of ?Oh yea well your TG plane does this and that.? First most people talking about tail draggers have NEVER flown one. Also, it is like a Ford Pinto driver defending their exploding car by saying your car gets bad gas mileage.)
Craig Helm: It all boils down to one of two possibilities 1) aircraft problem or 2) pilot problem. Not sure if the Feds will ever make a determination though, looking through the FAA incident reports / NTSB reports it doesn't look like it has even been reported.
(The FAA does not care and there are cases that go unreported, both TG and TW. Our planes are experimental and do NOT meet FAA certification regulations, right. So I doubt the FAA will mandate a gear fix. Assuming one is needed.)
Bill Dicus: Vern: Good point. I don't have any idea of relative frequency of taildragger ground loops vs -A flips. Probably a ground loop in either type (I assume a -A hitting a big hole with a main could ground loop too) would likely result in wing and gear damage and perhaps more.
(Whatever helps you guys get through the night, but if you have never flown a TG, for fun, get some TG training and TG RV time. It is a lot of fun and easy. Who knows you may discover you like it. Other wise leave the TW out of the TG flipping debate.)
There has been great comments, most from Bob and a few others. The rest are attacking TW planes for some reason, which makes no sense. Yes I fly TW RV?s and my gut feeling is they are a little more resistant to flipping over, overall, on typical soft surfaces than a nose wheel. Two larger wheels are less likely to catch than on small nose wheel with a fork that is blocking the rolling surface and close to the ground. The main gear wheels are larger and has NO metal to catch on the front like the nose gear castor fork.
Also CG on an "A" model is such when a nose wheel DROPS into a hole, the CG is forced down and the mass rotates down and around the main gears. When the TG two main wheels drop into a hole the CG is aft, the wheels just drop down. They are not driven down with the inertia aircraft mass. (Nose gears like the RV angled forward are unstable from a structural deflection load stand point). The wheel base of a TG is also much larger and vertical DROPS tend to be shared by all three wheels. Yes, a REAL BIG HOLE could cause a large drag load on the mains of TG, causing it to flip, because the CG is vertically offset from the drag load, but this apples to all planes. The dynamics of a TG are not even close to what is happening to ?A? models. The geometry, physics and dynamics are all differnt. Also the ?A? model, once it starts to hang up, it bends the gear back which is angle forward like a pole vault'er. The MAIN GEAR on a TG is WAY more stable than the NOSE GEAR is on a "A" model. None of this is a put-down, just geometry.
Ever sense I have been flying, TG?ers have always been thought to be better on soft fields, regardless of the model of aircraft. All the famous Bush planes are TG?ers. Nose gear's are great, OK. You can make a great bush plane with nose gears, but they are heavy heavy duty and have large wheels and the nose folk is vertical and not trailling castoring (like a shopping cart). There are always trade offs. Builders like to think there model is far superior in every way. They accept the advantages but don't accept the disadvantages. There are very few clear cut best designs in aviation, only trade offs.
George
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
gmcjetpilot -----------you lose!
See paragraph following the 3rd pic; the one lifting the airplane , regarding weeds & the wheel pants.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/bird.html
I knew the plane, and the pilot, and I've flown out of that airport often. The pilot (John Perri) passed away last year, and the plane was sold after an extensive re-build followed by a few more years of flight. After John's passing, the plane and it's new owner lost all oil during the cross-country flight to it's new home, due to the inverted oil system. It was another off airport landing, but I don't know the full details.
L.Adamson
edit --- spell error (any more.... too bad!)
Last edited by a moderator:
CraigH@KRPH
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. I was simply stating that whether the accident was caused by an problem with the aircraft, a problem with the pilots handling of the aircraft or a combination of both, it WAS NOT caused by the condition of the field at Reklaw. And unless I'm mistaken, experimental or not, the accident should have been reported to the NTSB. Personally, I don't care whether it was or not, nor was I implying that the FAA should get involved in some sort of gear fix. Looks like you're trying to read way too much into my post.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
And RV's just just do not make good "bush planes". RV's need wheel pants for low drag and speed, and tundra tires are a lousey fit. Not to mention the low wings getting clobbered by loose gravel!
Just get something like an Aviat Husky (my favorite) and be done with the argument....
L.Adamson
terrykohler
Well Known Member
Reply to N941WR
Bill:
Yes, you as a homebuilder are the manufacturer of the A/C. However, as to shouldering all of the responsibility for airworthiness, consider the following:
The vertical stab and rudder on the RV7 was changed after product introduction. In this case, Van's determined a design weakness relative to (as I best recall) recovery from spins. Van's addressed this issue even though they recommend not spinning their A/C. Certainly, they could have taken a position of non-responsibility and pointed to their recommendation when incidents of spin-crashes started to pile up. That's a design issue. Similar to this was their introduction of the brace kit for the roll bar in tip-ups. This was added to address events where the A/C has nosed over and starts to slid backwards, pulling the roll bar from the upper portion of the fuselage and rendering it useless. I can't imagine coming up with that fix on my own unless I had experienced (and survived) the circumstances it was designed for.
Consider a hypothetical quality situation wherein Van's specs the grade and temper designation of spar materials, but decides not to require certification or audit the builder of the spars. You rivet the pre-build spar into your aircraft, take off at some point in the near future and have one or both wings fold up while aloft (material later found to be not to spec). My point is that you have no way of certifying the airworthiness of such a structure without flying it.
Back to the gear leg. I have no idea what sort of loads it will take nor do I know what sort of loads it may encounter under a range of conditions-Design. Just as importantly, I don't have the material and heat treatment specs for the gear leg nor do I posess the equipment in my workshop to validate these attributes-quality. Yes, as the A/C builder, I'm willing to accept a reasonable level of responsibility. At the same time, I'd like to have a reasonable expectation that something as important as a rudder, spar, or gear leg will not fail under a reasonable range of conditions.
As I stated in an earlier posting on this same subject, if we continue to write this off to "Pilot error" and incidents continue to pile up, the insurance industry will ultimately wade in and penalize all of the RV trike flyers. I hope this is not the case, as no amount of bullitins after the fact will do any good.
Bill:
Yes, you as a homebuilder are the manufacturer of the A/C. However, as to shouldering all of the responsibility for airworthiness, consider the following:
The vertical stab and rudder on the RV7 was changed after product introduction. In this case, Van's determined a design weakness relative to (as I best recall) recovery from spins. Van's addressed this issue even though they recommend not spinning their A/C. Certainly, they could have taken a position of non-responsibility and pointed to their recommendation when incidents of spin-crashes started to pile up. That's a design issue. Similar to this was their introduction of the brace kit for the roll bar in tip-ups. This was added to address events where the A/C has nosed over and starts to slid backwards, pulling the roll bar from the upper portion of the fuselage and rendering it useless. I can't imagine coming up with that fix on my own unless I had experienced (and survived) the circumstances it was designed for.
Consider a hypothetical quality situation wherein Van's specs the grade and temper designation of spar materials, but decides not to require certification or audit the builder of the spars. You rivet the pre-build spar into your aircraft, take off at some point in the near future and have one or both wings fold up while aloft (material later found to be not to spec). My point is that you have no way of certifying the airworthiness of such a structure without flying it.
Back to the gear leg. I have no idea what sort of loads it will take nor do I know what sort of loads it may encounter under a range of conditions-Design. Just as importantly, I don't have the material and heat treatment specs for the gear leg nor do I posess the equipment in my workshop to validate these attributes-quality. Yes, as the A/C builder, I'm willing to accept a reasonable level of responsibility. At the same time, I'd like to have a reasonable expectation that something as important as a rudder, spar, or gear leg will not fail under a reasonable range of conditions.
As I stated in an earlier posting on this same subject, if we continue to write this off to "Pilot error" and incidents continue to pile up, the insurance industry will ultimately wade in and penalize all of the RV trike flyers. I hope this is not the case, as no amount of bullitins after the fact will do any good.
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
Sorry George
about the shopping cart wheel comment. It was in jest. In fact, I almost went with the taildragger 8 because it looks so good on the ramp.
Roughly three years ago, there was all sorts of hoopla about how the taildraggers were ground looping and some folks were saying that it made no sense to buy anything but a trike, blah, safety, blah, insurance, blah, blah,... which is malarky. The RV's, taildraggers and nosewheels, are good aircraft.
It appears that NO ONE has ponied up with comprehensive, objective data that would support a reasonable conclusion regarding the nose wheel flip-overs. This is quite surprising given the number of engineers, scientists, and technicians who visit this forum. Anyone care to take a poke at what the confidence intervals will be on a multi-factorial problem like this?
The main point is: the RV crowd seems to get wound up on occasions, it seems to be cyclic, and is either about primers or about "the safety of" TD's or nosewheels. Given the number of "views" on this thread, we aren't doing the RV community any good by whipping up hysteria based upon anecdotal evidence(looking back through this thread it is mostly suppositions, opinions, questions, and TD/nosewheel comparisons).
Again, no offense was intended. Some of my best friends fly taildraggers.
gmcjetpilot said:L.Adamson: Some weeds crammed between the taildraggers wheel pants & the tire, makes for a good flipping
(Possible but prove it. Has this ever happended? I don't think so. This does nothing to help the ?A? model flip issue.)[/I]
Mark Andrews: Taildraggers also have a weakness due to the fact that the CG is aft of the wheels (otherwise, the rear end wouldn't be on the end while parked). A taildragger is more prone to ground loop than a trike.
(Again nothing that helps the ?A? model. From your "funny" comment that the tailwheel is like a shopping cart, you are clearly just defensive. BTW the nose wheel on the "A" model is just like a shopping cart wheel, however it is way more critical. It is OK to have a shopping cart wheel when that is all that is needed. If that makes you feel better to say that, great. but the CG loacation and distribution is what helps the TG not hurt it. It is not a weakness. The only time CG is a problem is when a TG aircraft gets sideways going down the runway with speed (ground loop). This sideway condition is well within the pilots control, and with good rudder authority and forward visability of the RV, it's not an issue. As long as the airplane is pointed straight down the runway, the weakness as you call it is a moot point. Otherwise leave the TG out of it. In my opinion the tail dragger is 100% better from a standpoint it has no nose wheel to fold under airplane and flip. Focus on that.)
Jamie D. Painter: It's also not normal for an airplane's landing gear to get ripped off during a ground loop....but this is what you can expect if you ground-loop your RV-7. It has happened to two -8's that I know of. A local guy just trailered his from Texas back to Georgia this past weekend. Maybe we should look at that as well?
(Again leave the TG RV?s out of this. You say gear is ripped off? That is so sensational, may be bent. Hey flying has risk but after almost 1000 hours in RV?s I can tell you ground loops are hard to do; they just don?t just happen. What is of concern is the "A" models seem to just happen, and happen on soft dirt, although there was a take-off case on hard surface.)
Bob Collins: This is probably a stupid observation...but..... maybe the RV isn't the best bird for back-country and rough strip operations.
(That is a very true comment. Now could the ?A? model be improved, yes at the cost of weight, looks and speed. Is it needed? NO comment but this may be time for some builder to make an aftermarket heavy gear kit.)
Bill Dicus: I'm building an 8 because I love taildraggers, but also because I always figured if the tail wheel is knocked off, the only result will be a shorter stop.
(Bill are you kidding, knocked off. May be still take-off with the tailwheel gone?
Vern Wanzong : The thing is, Bill, is that if one of your mains drops into a hole with a TW RV, you could be in just as much world of hurt.
(Prove it. I have not heard of any holes swollowing up TG'ers. Yes a few had off field landings on VERY rough surfaces and flipped, but on a typical dirt/grass strip? Doubt it. Any hole big enough to DROP main wheels into causing a TG to flip, would bend a nose gear like a pretzel. It is a moot point what a TG does, because "A" models are flipping in there own way. It is more likely to put a TG on it's nose by locking the brakes up on a hard runway or pushing the stick fowrward during run up. This is not a Nose/Tail wheel debate. If you never flown a TG you should try it.)
Mike Reddick: Sure is a lot of "A" bashing going on, "taildraggers can do it where the A's can't" and all that.
(Mike, that is NOT true, no one is bashing ?A? models but there is a lot of justification and defensiveness with a bunch of ?Oh yea well your TG plane does this and that.? First most people talking about tail draggers have NEVER flown one. Also, it is like a Ford Pinto driver defending their exploding car by saying your car gets bad gas mileage.)
Craig Helm: It all boils down to one of two possibilities 1) aircraft problem or 2) pilot problem. Not sure if the Feds will ever make a determination though, looking through the FAA incident reports / NTSB reports it doesn't look like it has even been reported.
(The FAA does not care and there are cases that go unreported, both TG and TW. Our planes are experimental and do NOT meet FAA certification regulations, right. So I doubt the FAA will mandate a gear fix. Assuming one is needed.)
Bill Dicus: Vern: Good point. I don't have any idea of relative frequency of taildragger ground loops vs -A flips. Probably a ground loop in either type (I assume a -A hitting a big hole with a main could ground loop too) would likely result in wing and gear damage and perhaps more.
(Whatever helps you guys get through the night, but if you have never flown a TG, for fun, get some TG training and TG RV time. It is a lot of fun and easy. Who knows you may discover you like it. Other wise leave the TW out of the TG flipping debate.)
There has been great comments, most from Bob and a few others. The rest are attacking TW planes for some reason, which makes no sense. Yes I fly TW RV?s and my gut feeling is they are a little more resistant to flipping over, overall, on typical soft surfaces than a nose wheel. Two larger wheels are less likely to catch than on small nose wheel with a fork that is blocking the rolling surface and close to the ground. The main gear wheels are larger and has NO metal to catch on the front like the nose gear castor fork.
Also CG on an "A" model is such when a nose wheel DROPS into a hole, the CG is forced down and the mass rotates down and around the main gears. When the TG two main wheels drop into a hole the CG is aft, the wheels just drop down. They are not driven down with the inertia aircraft mass. (Nose gears like the RV angled forward are unstable from a structural deflection load stand point). The wheel base of a TG is also much larger and vertical DROPS tend to be shared by all three wheels. Yes, a REAL BIG HOLE could cause a large drag load on the mains of TG, causing it to flip, because the CG is vertically offset from the drag load, but this apples to all planes. The dynamics of a TG are not even close to what is happening to ?A? models. The geometry, physics and dynamics are all differnt. Also the ?A? model, once it starts to hang up, it bends the gear back which is angle forward like a pole vault'er. The MAIN GEAR on a TG is WAY more stable than the NOSE GEAR is on a "A" model. None of this is a put-down, just geometry.
Ever sense I have been flying, TG?ers have always been thought to be better on soft fields, regardless of the model of aircraft. All the famous Bush planes are TG?ers. Nose gear's are great, OK. You can make a great bush plane with nose gears, but they are heavy heavy duty and have large wheels and the nose folk is vertical and not trailling castoring (like a shopping cart). There are always trade offs. Builders like to think there model is far superior in every way. They accept the advantages but don't accept the disadvantages. There are very few clear cut best designs in aviation, only trade offs.
George
about the shopping cart wheel comment. It was in jest. In fact, I almost went with the taildragger 8 because it looks so good on the ramp.
Roughly three years ago, there was all sorts of hoopla about how the taildraggers were ground looping and some folks were saying that it made no sense to buy anything but a trike, blah, safety, blah, insurance, blah, blah,... which is malarky. The RV's, taildraggers and nosewheels, are good aircraft.
It appears that NO ONE has ponied up with comprehensive, objective data that would support a reasonable conclusion regarding the nose wheel flip-overs. This is quite surprising given the number of engineers, scientists, and technicians who visit this forum. Anyone care to take a poke at what the confidence intervals will be on a multi-factorial problem like this?
The main point is: the RV crowd seems to get wound up on occasions, it seems to be cyclic, and is either about primers or about "the safety of" TD's or nosewheels. Given the number of "views" on this thread, we aren't doing the RV community any good by whipping up hysteria based upon anecdotal evidence(looking back through this thread it is mostly suppositions, opinions, questions, and TD/nosewheel comparisons).
Again, no offense was intended. Some of my best friends fly taildraggers.
mlw450802
Well Known Member
I think there probably exists the engineering talent to arrive at some reasonable causality for the failures IF one had the opportunity to study in detail each of the failures.redbeardmark said:
Without the detailed analysis, we are left with speculation as to the real causes.
Too bad.
-mike
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Opinions, Opinions, Opinions
"Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one." Whoever coined that phrase definetly understood human nature and absolutely nailed us aviators on the head. Why in the world are aviation buffs so willing to lay blame on fellow aviators? Accidents are caused by "pilot error" (I think the FAA is inclined to believe every accident is "pilot error"), design flaws, material failure, etc. ad nauseum! What good does all this opinionated Bull**** do for all of us trying to understand problems such as a nose wheel equiped aircraft flipping over upon landing.
"Nah, nah na na, see, I told you my tailwheel airplane is better than yours!"
"No it isn't, look at all those tailwheel planes that ground loop! Put that up your pipe and smoke it!"
Oh give me a break and grow up everyone. I really don't care what design you like and don't care whether you like the design I like. It is as if we aviators think if we are unable to convince everyone else in the world that our decisions are the "right" ones for every other pilot then everyone out there not agreeing with us is going to die because their airplane design will eventully fail and kill everyone in sight.
I am interested in knowing facts that will tell me what happened and that I may be able to use when evaluating potential problems I may face in the future. If facts are not available I still am not at all interested in hearing a "TW stud's" opinion about the "nosegearhead's" lack of acceptance of their chosen design's failures. Nor am I interested in hearing nosegearhead's opinions about how the TW stud's chosen design has other flaws that cause their chosen design choice to ground loop. This BS does little to help me understand how to best address the construction, maintenance, characteristics or flight of my airplane or other airplanes that I may fly in the future.
Give me some facts I can analyze and upon which I can make an informed decision.
RVBYSDI
Steve
"Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one." Whoever coined that phrase definetly understood human nature and absolutely nailed us aviators on the head. Why in the world are aviation buffs so willing to lay blame on fellow aviators? Accidents are caused by "pilot error" (I think the FAA is inclined to believe every accident is "pilot error"), design flaws, material failure, etc. ad nauseum! What good does all this opinionated Bull**** do for all of us trying to understand problems such as a nose wheel equiped aircraft flipping over upon landing.
"Nah, nah na na, see, I told you my tailwheel airplane is better than yours!"
"No it isn't, look at all those tailwheel planes that ground loop! Put that up your pipe and smoke it!"
Oh give me a break and grow up everyone. I really don't care what design you like and don't care whether you like the design I like. It is as if we aviators think if we are unable to convince everyone else in the world that our decisions are the "right" ones for every other pilot then everyone out there not agreeing with us is going to die because their airplane design will eventully fail and kill everyone in sight.
I am interested in knowing facts that will tell me what happened and that I may be able to use when evaluating potential problems I may face in the future. If facts are not available I still am not at all interested in hearing a "TW stud's" opinion about the "nosegearhead's" lack of acceptance of their chosen design's failures. Nor am I interested in hearing nosegearhead's opinions about how the TW stud's chosen design has other flaws that cause their chosen design choice to ground loop. This BS does little to help me understand how to best address the construction, maintenance, characteristics or flight of my airplane or other airplanes that I may fly in the future.
Give me some facts I can analyze and upon which I can make an informed decision.
RVBYSDI
Steve
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
I am not that serious
It sounded more serious than I meant. As far as food cart wheels it is a good analogy, but the wheel axial on the food cart is lower relative to the castor pivot and it has more relative ground clearance than our RV's have. The bad part of having the wheel axial dropped down too far tends to make it shimmy or flutter.
I am interested in these these flips from an engineering standpoint. I was an engineer for Boeing on landing gear and support structure, of all things, many years ago, so I am interested in the subject and hate that this happens from time to time. What is not important is tail draggers. They are not the issue. That was my point.
The picture of the RV-7A with the Subaru that folded a few months back during taxi, looked identical to this one. It was at taxi speed and did not go over all the way but the nose gear was bent the same. Van wrote about this and showed the "Free Body" diagram (balanced force picture) in the RVator. Van wrote the article after one folded on takeoff on a hard surface runway. The wheel pant was thought to have grabbed the tire. Van also suggested that the wheel pants have a large tire to fairing gap and the tire pressure be correct. Also someone mentioned the pivot friction be correct. These are all good ideas.
What is the fix? If the nose gear was much stronger (stiffer: less deflection for a given load), it would solve the thing from bending back, but you may just move the problem back to the firewall. Van knows the loads on the gear and has made it strong enough for "normal loads", but the loads are not normal to bend it back. STATIC loads and DYNAMIC loads are diffent. Clearly this is a dynamic loading and stability issue.
Anyone who has followed this suspect, including Van, the bottom of the nose gear leg and wheel fork is digging. As long as the tire ROLLS you should not have large drag loads to bend the gear. Also someone mentioned side loads. Clearly as it bends back it tends to deflect to the side. Once it gets so far, with enough energy (speed), it fails. I am not 100% on what is going on, but sonething is going on. Till then, keep the nose gear light (stick back), tire pressure proper.
One MODIFICATION I think could be made to make a difference, without a re-design, is a steel SKID bar welded on the front of the nose-wheel fork, on the front of the pivot tube. The steel "plow" or ramp would keep the gear from digging in but ride up and over any ground obstacles too high for the wheel. When these nose gear failures occure the fiberglass wheel pant is shattered, may be for soft field work the fairing should be left off.
Another MOD is a structural gear leg fairing. Wrapped around the gear leg, the integral fairing would be made of foam and fiberglass or carbon fiber. The nose gear with a stiff structural fairing will bend less for little loads, especially to the side. This may reduce the combined effect of side deflections, which may be getting things started, leading to the gear severely digging. It can't hurt and would only add a little weight and installation time.
Every time I see these pictures, the gear is bent in the middle, back and to one side. It is clear there is too much drag load and the darn thing, and undisputedly it has deflected too far. Why does Van not just put a new gear on it? Some mention liability. That may be it, or they may not think it is the planes fault. Also anything bigger and heavier will affect performance and cost. Also the thought of having to offer new gears to customer's would be more than Van's aircraft can afford.
Van did added a little more ground to gear clearance by making the pivot height shorter and cutting the gear leg about and inch. Another MOD or next step would be another wheel fork redesign, so you can put a bigger tire on. The current "LAMB" tire is about 2 inches smaller in diameter than the 5X5's on the mains. This would of course cost speed and affect the looks.
As far as the bird strike and the RV-6 flipping, looking at the field it landed in. The weeds where up to the belt buckle of the people standing next to the plane. What was the surface of the ground like? I don't think it rolled very far after touch down, but I guess you are right and I am wrong, however I would never land in a field with 3-foot tall grass intentionally. Again Tail Draggers will give you no insight to what is going on with the Trikes.
George
It sounded more serious than I meant. As far as food cart wheels it is a good analogy, but the wheel axial on the food cart is lower relative to the castor pivot and it has more relative ground clearance than our RV's have. The bad part of having the wheel axial dropped down too far tends to make it shimmy or flutter.
I am interested in these these flips from an engineering standpoint. I was an engineer for Boeing on landing gear and support structure, of all things, many years ago, so I am interested in the subject and hate that this happens from time to time. What is not important is tail draggers. They are not the issue. That was my point.
The picture of the RV-7A with the Subaru that folded a few months back during taxi, looked identical to this one. It was at taxi speed and did not go over all the way but the nose gear was bent the same. Van wrote about this and showed the "Free Body" diagram (balanced force picture) in the RVator. Van wrote the article after one folded on takeoff on a hard surface runway. The wheel pant was thought to have grabbed the tire. Van also suggested that the wheel pants have a large tire to fairing gap and the tire pressure be correct. Also someone mentioned the pivot friction be correct. These are all good ideas.
What is the fix? If the nose gear was much stronger (stiffer: less deflection for a given load), it would solve the thing from bending back, but you may just move the problem back to the firewall. Van knows the loads on the gear and has made it strong enough for "normal loads", but the loads are not normal to bend it back. STATIC loads and DYNAMIC loads are diffent. Clearly this is a dynamic loading and stability issue.
Anyone who has followed this suspect, including Van, the bottom of the nose gear leg and wheel fork is digging. As long as the tire ROLLS you should not have large drag loads to bend the gear. Also someone mentioned side loads. Clearly as it bends back it tends to deflect to the side. Once it gets so far, with enough energy (speed), it fails. I am not 100% on what is going on, but sonething is going on. Till then, keep the nose gear light (stick back), tire pressure proper.
One MODIFICATION I think could be made to make a difference, without a re-design, is a steel SKID bar welded on the front of the nose-wheel fork, on the front of the pivot tube. The steel "plow" or ramp would keep the gear from digging in but ride up and over any ground obstacles too high for the wheel. When these nose gear failures occure the fiberglass wheel pant is shattered, may be for soft field work the fairing should be left off.
Another MOD is a structural gear leg fairing. Wrapped around the gear leg, the integral fairing would be made of foam and fiberglass or carbon fiber. The nose gear with a stiff structural fairing will bend less for little loads, especially to the side. This may reduce the combined effect of side deflections, which may be getting things started, leading to the gear severely digging. It can't hurt and would only add a little weight and installation time.
Every time I see these pictures, the gear is bent in the middle, back and to one side. It is clear there is too much drag load and the darn thing, and undisputedly it has deflected too far. Why does Van not just put a new gear on it? Some mention liability. That may be it, or they may not think it is the planes fault. Also anything bigger and heavier will affect performance and cost. Also the thought of having to offer new gears to customer's would be more than Van's aircraft can afford.
Van did added a little more ground to gear clearance by making the pivot height shorter and cutting the gear leg about and inch. Another MOD or next step would be another wheel fork redesign, so you can put a bigger tire on. The current "LAMB" tire is about 2 inches smaller in diameter than the 5X5's on the mains. This would of course cost speed and affect the looks.
As far as the bird strike and the RV-6 flipping, looking at the field it landed in. The weeds where up to the belt buckle of the people standing next to the plane. What was the surface of the ground like? I don't think it rolled very far after touch down, but I guess you are right and I am wrong, however I would never land in a field with 3-foot tall grass intentionally. Again Tail Draggers will give you no insight to what is going on with the Trikes.
George
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Facts Sir, nothing but the facts
In other words a 100% fact is a RV with a tailwheel will never flip because the nose gear folded. True statement. Focus on the facts.
That is my point, attacking a totally seperate gear design, even by the same kit maker, has nothing to do with understanding the problem. As far as facts, they are all there. I have NOTHING but great things to say about how elegent the RV-"A"'s nose gear design is. It is lean mean and gets the job done with min weight and drag. Although it is no C-182 gear in strength, but than a C-182 does not do 200 MPH on 160HP.
My other point is TW planes are not that hard to fly. This has nothing to do with the TW stud issue. There are some TG'ers that are ball busters, but the RV is not one of them. It is like a fast piper Cub. My other point is hearing about TG planes from pilots who never flew one is hard to hear, so my point is for fun try one just for the sake of learning something new. 2-3 hours in a Citabria will get you a TG endorsment. However I am not saying you should not build and enjoy your RV Trike, which is a cool plane.
George
I agree, Steve. It is fun to have debates about primers, canopies and gear configurations, but this is not the place for it. As far as Tailwheel being better I never said that. However I can say as a 100% fact TAIL WHEEL planes have nothing to do with what is going on with Trike RV's.RVbySDI said:
In other words a 100% fact is a RV with a tailwheel will never flip because the nose gear folded. True statement. Focus on the facts.
That is my point, attacking a totally seperate gear design, even by the same kit maker, has nothing to do with understanding the problem. As far as facts, they are all there. I have NOTHING but great things to say about how elegent the RV-"A"'s nose gear design is. It is lean mean and gets the job done with min weight and drag. Although it is no C-182 gear in strength, but than a C-182 does not do 200 MPH on 160HP.
My other point is TW planes are not that hard to fly. This has nothing to do with the TW stud issue. There are some TG'ers that are ball busters, but the RV is not one of them. It is like a fast piper Cub. My other point is hearing about TG planes from pilots who never flew one is hard to hear, so my point is for fun try one just for the sake of learning something new. 2-3 hours in a Citabria will get you a TG endorsment. However I am not saying you should not build and enjoy your RV Trike, which is a cool plane.
George
Last edited:
robertahegy
Moderator/Tech Counselor
Thanks, Rosie!!! I love my RV-7A and wouldn't change a thing. Van's created a very wonderful flying airplane. Treated with the respect it deserves, it will get you where you want to go (within reason), short field or long, turf or hardsurface. For all who think the nose wheel is too weak, don't pilot a Long Easy.
Nuff said.
Roberta
Nuff said.
Roberta
joe gremlin
Well Known Member
gmcjetpilot said:
I don't mean to nitpick an otherwise well thoughout post but I believe the fed has changed the reg regarding TW endorsements. IIRC 10 hours of dual are now required to earn the endorsement. Still it's something I think everyone should do. I don't know anyone that regrets getting TW qualified.
rvatornate
Active Member
Tailwheel endorsement requirement
10 hours not required, just training and logbook endorsement:
far part 61.31 reads in part:
(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9E
10 hours not required, just training and logbook endorsement:
far part 61.31 reads in part:
(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9E
TW endorsement a total cinch. I don't know why taildraggers have such a bad rep. Once you do your first 10 landings, or so, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
If you really want to have some fun, just go for a basic 5 or 10 hour aerobatics course. Unless you're flying in Cessna Akrobat (aerobat? I forget) it's going to be in a TD of some sort. Most places are more than happy to combine the TW endorsement with the akro course.
If you really want to have some fun, just go for a basic 5 or 10 hour aerobatics course. Unless you're flying in Cessna Akrobat (aerobat? I forget) it's going to be in a TD of some sort. Most places are more than happy to combine the TW endorsement with the akro course.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
Has anybody detected any insurance ramifications so far on these flip-overs? Id no't mean on those who have had them. On those who haven't but fly a particular model.
Front suspension
fork leg to use on the front gear. I believe that a small amount of
suspension on the front gear leg would greatly reduce the likelyhood
of a flip.
These things are light and strong. You'd only need one.
If I were building an A model, I'd look at finding a strong motorcycle
fork leg to use on the front gear. I believe that a small amount of
suspension on the front gear leg would greatly reduce the likelyhood
of a flip.
These things are light and strong. You'd only need one.
joe gremlin
Well Known Member
I stand corrected. An ex co-worker was getting his endorsement last year in prep for flying his Aeronca something or other he was restoring and I seemed to remember him saying the regs now required 10 hours of dual. Apparently that's not the case though. Still, it's an endorsement worth getting either way.
There are lots of FBO's whos insurance has requirements for TD's. For example, the place I happen to rent from requires a profiency check every 6 months. The place I flew at before this requires 30 day currency. I wouldn't doubt that there are lots of places that have a requirement for X number of hours dual.
IowaRV9Dreamer
Well Known Member
As a low time (250 hr) nosegear-only, spamcan-only pilot who is/was just about to pull the trigger on an RV-9A build before Christmas, this issue has given me "cause to pause,"
I had noticed well before this thread that there are a lot of pictures of upside down A's. I'm sure it could all be pilot error, but I'm a pilot and I make errors.
I wish Vans would take some sound engineering steps to add some margin to the design, if only to allow for error-prone nosegear-only spamcan pilots like me to feel good about building a 9A.
Dave
I had noticed well before this thread that there are a lot of pictures of upside down A's. I'm sure it could all be pilot error, but I'm a pilot and I make errors.
I wish Vans would take some sound engineering steps to add some margin to the design, if only to allow for error-prone nosegear-only spamcan pilots like me to feel good about building a 9A.
Dave
RV's are designed to be light and go fast. The -10 excluded, they can carry 2 passengers (Fat USA size passengers, not skinny FAA size), full fuel and baggage. They cruise at 200mph on very little horsepower. Except for the -9 & -10, they're aerobatic.
I think many of us building planes nowadays are doing it because we can't buy the certified plane we want. You don't think if Cessna created a plane like this and sold it for $70,000 new that I wouldn't just buy that instead of knocking my head against the wall every night building my own? Sure, I like the challenge and the sense of accomplishment, by I like flying a whole lot more.
I wondered for a long time why someone out there hasn't designed and certified an aircraft like the RV. It would sell incredibly well, I would think. Now I think I know the answer. They can't. We've come to expect everything to be bullet proof and tolerant of carelessness. Fact is, those nose gears are flimsy...It doesn't take FE analysis to see that, just look at the thing. THAT, combined with about a billion other design details and compromises gives us plane that outperforms just about any single in GA, for 1/4 the price, that we can build in our garage.
I hope you decide to build your -9. This is nothing to be afraid of. It's simply something to be aware of.
I think many of us building planes nowadays are doing it because we can't buy the certified plane we want. You don't think if Cessna created a plane like this and sold it for $70,000 new that I wouldn't just buy that instead of knocking my head against the wall every night building my own? Sure, I like the challenge and the sense of accomplishment, by I like flying a whole lot more.
I wondered for a long time why someone out there hasn't designed and certified an aircraft like the RV. It would sell incredibly well, I would think. Now I think I know the answer. They can't. We've come to expect everything to be bullet proof and tolerant of carelessness. Fact is, those nose gears are flimsy...It doesn't take FE analysis to see that, just look at the thing. THAT, combined with about a billion other design details and compromises gives us plane that outperforms just about any single in GA, for 1/4 the price, that we can build in our garage.
I hope you decide to build your -9. This is nothing to be afraid of. It's simply something to be aware of.
Last edited:
