What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-6A nose gear with Anti-Splat device fails

Captain Avgas

Well Known Member
A thread was started in the VansAirforce classified section yesterday to sell a damaged RV6A that had experienced a nose gear failure. As it turned out the nose gear had an Anti-Splat Nose Job installed. The case is interesting because according to the pilot/owner ("Flydoc") the nose gear failed in seemingly very benign circumstances.

The original thread has been closed but those wanting to read it can access it here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=111922

The most relevant comments by "Flydoc" in that thread in relation to the incident are as follows:

"It was at the end of a smooth landing, extrememly smooth grass strip, about 20MPH, nose wheel just folded under above nose job, engine was at idle. It was like slow motion, no flip of course, just utter dissapointment and sadness.

This was a crazy bummer of a day. I've landed on this strip I happen to own many many times. Its smooth like butter according to all who have also landed there. hard packed, grassy, mowed. It kills me to lose one of my favorite toys".


Subsequently "Flydoc" contacted me by private message and gave me permission to post his further comments on the nose gear collapse. They are as follows:

"Feel free to post a little summary if you think it will help people. Just I had the anti-splat nose job on the RV six-day. I also had the upgraded front strut going to the service bulletin in two thousand and nine. Nose gear that over and broke right at the point of insertion of coarse above the nose job. There were no other modifications that I know of like to the bearings, or the bouncing of the wheel or anything to that effect. The plane flew and landed very smoothly. On about the time of the accident, I felt a little bit of vibration and then just folded over. The plane just went straight down onto his nose, the engine was at idol, and it just stopped I n the ground. Like I said, it was slow motion, nonviolent whatsoever, and just kind of all **** moment. I certainly can't fault people who manufacture the nose job, Its a very nice device. I've seen video with the planes have flipped over and going very slow. This however, was a little bit different. It was he at the end of a very smooth landing going 15 to 20 mph basically taxing speed, and it just folded over. But I sold the plane to the very first looker and he is very happy".

I thank Flydoc for commenting on this incident. I'm sure the information will be interesting to many people.
 
Kind of like the Malaysia airliner mystery; lots of questions and no answers. Leave the Antisplat nose job out of it for now. Without further info/analysis there is no indication of any reason for the gear leg failure here at all. Sure would be nice to see some photos of the gear leg for starters. Otherwise all we have is speculation
erich
 
Kind of like the Malaysia airliner mystery; lots of questions and no answers. Leave the Antisplat nose job out of it for now. Without further info/analysis there is no indication of any reason for the gear leg failure here at all. Sure would be nice to see some photos of the gear leg for starters. Otherwise all we have is speculation
erich

Pictures of the ground where the gear failed and the 10' or 20' of turf leading up to that point might be beneficial too.
 
This seems like a typical (maybe) case where something (a rut) took out the gear. Maybe we could give the Mod some credit for aircraft not flipping over. Just saying?? Larry
 
Maybe

I commend the pilot of the RV for giving us a description of the incident. Seems to be a mystery at this time. Maybe the 'new owner' can shed some light on this puzzle. It would be great to have more info.:cool:
 
Nose gear

Thank you Bob for posting this thread. There have been more than a few Anti-Splat accidents since there introduction. Trends are starting to emerge.IMHO,The brace alone is not enough.The sealed bearings and associated upgrades as well as the skid plate under the retaining nut are required.During construction and on inspection the fit of the leg&socket is another critical point of concern.The size of the nose wheel&tire as well as balance also play a roll.I can't help but to wonder if a hard wood dampener should be added to the mix.
Any Thoughts?
RHill
 
Oh' No not again

I was kind of hoping the whole 6A nose problem had been put to bed with the Anti-Splat accessories. :) Wondering (speculating) if the Anti-Splat option just concentrates the stress to the area below the engine mount / gear socket and will cause fatigue failure at that point over time.:confused: Was really looking forward to visiting a lot of grass strips some day. Come on all you engineers on the forum, anybody got anything better than my humble opinion ( guessing)? :rolleyes::p At the least my Anti-Splat goodies may keep me from flipping. :)
I know all about not speculation on somebody's bad fortune but this is more about an elusive possible structural /design problem than anybody's flying skill and maybe after tossing the subject around a answer can be found. I'm sure most folks flying / building A's are very concerned.
 
I have an updated nose gear leg, and installed all the Anti-Splat modifications. I am fanatical about technique on every movement of the plane to keep it light on the nose. I have insurance. I land on grass. I only hope not to tip over, may Forculus, god of the threshold, forever look kindly on my risk mitigation.
 
I have an updated nose gear leg, and installed all the Anti-Splat modifications. I am fanatical about technique on every movement of the plane to keep it light on the nose. I have insurance. I land on grass. I only hope not to tip over, may Forculus, god of the threshold, forever look kindly on my risk mitigation.

......... Ah-men
 
Nose weight and stick location

I would be interested in the pilot's technique. Specifically, did he have the stick all the way back in his lap like a tail-dragger when he was taxiing? I'm not condemning or criticizing in any way, just wanted to know if he conscientiously remembered where the stick was when the incident occurred.

Another interesting bit of information is how much weight on the nose does the W&B show? How much nose weight at time of incident? I'd like to plot that on Van's nose wheel weight graph to see where it's located.

Nose weight and stick location.


Thanks,
cj
74ga
 
I know all about not speculation on somebody's bad fortune

It's not about any one Bend & Flip,we are talking about more than one.No reason not to discuss it here. We are talking about a piece of ground spring steel,un dampened,that with contributing factors, bends like a wet noodle and for all the tea in China can't be bent again.Vans under pressure looked at the problem and redesigned the fork and shortened the gear.The Anti-Splat brace is a huge steep forward,the trend is to move the bend to the top of the brace. The question is What force is taking this gear to the Event Horizon and how do we stay under that thresh hold? IMHO
RHill

"we are talking about hundreds of them" has been edited to a more realistic number.I don't have the number but I bet Vans has it.
RH
 
Last edited:
agreed. polling the brain trust for ideas.

My observations; (lengthy perhaps.)

1. Van's sells kits for 'experimental' aircraft. They are purposely built with little tires,
light gear legs, etc. so they are 300 lbs. lighter and 25+ kts. faster than a similar Cherokee or......
and, apparently, we like that, and built 8,000 of them.
Anything Van's does to help address areas where the design limits are being exceeded is really just a bonus.
With a scratchbuilt plane, we would all have either chosen superlight gear that may bend when landed hard, or heavy duty gear/tires that were indestructable, but slowed us down,
and wouldn't really know which we had....until......ooops!

2. If we are asking Van's to do this, then we are saying, 'we want a heavy, slow, off-airport version of the gear.
We are ok with a beefed up engine mount & firewall to take the loads, and losing some speed/payload.'
Van's may just say, 'we have the taildragger version, so we're done with that.'

3. The concern over technique is admirable, but hard to see where the science backs it up.
IF you always have the stick back, at idle/taxi thru grass, the effect on the nose weight is likely in the single digits. One 'bounce' over a tire track or molehill creates much more load than can be counteracted by up elevator.
A touch on the brake will create similar instant loads of hundreds of pounds on the nosewheel.
I am as concerned as the next guy, but 'be careful and skilful' is impossible to achieve 100% of the time.

4. I agree it's time to address this, before the insurance companies ban us from grass. As a builders'/owners group, there are none better or larger.
Can we ask the gear and mount manufacturer's to engineer a solution? I'd be surprised if this hasn't happened many times in the certified world.

IMHO etc.
 
It's not about any one Bend & Flip,we are talking about hundreds of them.

Hundreds of RVs have flipped because of nose gear failures??

I understand the passion and concern some have for preventing nose gear failures but credibility will be enhanced if hyperbole is not used in the discussions. Guess I would have to defer to the hundreds of -A RVs that have operated safely on grass strips for the past 25 years.
 
My observation:

First, we would be better served if we had more information. Without it, we can only speculate and nothing more.

Second, It is very aparent that we are a frustrated group, frustrated by the lack of information of nose over accidents in general, and lack of research to find answers.

Third, I would think someone would want to get their hands on the parts from the new owner, some photos of the ground, photos of the damage to the plane, and finally investigate what happened. In the event that anyone would like to do this, the best we can do as concerned owners is to suggest a bunch of questions to help make sure the investigation is complete.

This may be part of a trend of failures or not at all. How can we possibly know without any evidence?

I think for the time being, I will choose to avoid grass if I can.
 
It's not about any one Bend & Flip,we are talking about more than one.No reason not to discuss it here. We are talking about a piece of ground spring steel,un dampened,that with contributing factors, bends like a wet noodle and for all the tea in China can't be bent again.Vans under pressure looked at the problem and redesigned the fork and shortened the gear.The Anti-Splat brace is a huge steep forward,the trend is to move the bend to the top of the brace. The question is What force is taking this gear to the Event Horizon and how do we stay under that thresh hold? IMHO
RHill

"we are talking about hundreds of them" has been edited to a more realistic number.I don't have the number but I bet Vans has it.
RH

Yes, "more than one" is definitely more realistic than "hundreds". :)

A scan through the NTSB records, and anecdotal accounts on this site yields a number that is very low in comparison to the number of accidents caused by other factors. But we have been through all that before.

Having said that, any one accident is too many if it is our plane.
 
Last edited:
Having recently completed an RV7A I read ever forum article regarding nose wheel failure.


There is one common thread in almost all the tip overs....... They almost all occur at a slow roll out speed, 20 mph.

Due to this slow speed the following can be ruled out ,landing technique and not taxiing with stick back.

The pilot nearly always reports the nose pitched up and when it came down the plane tipped over.

The problem is that the nose wheel bearings are jamming and stopping wheel rotation.

I spoke to Allan at Antisplat and he confirmed nearly all nose wheels he is modifying show serious signs of distress on the "mushroom" fittings holding the bearings in place.

This is caused by lack of a spacer between the "mushroom" and the use of a 3/8 inch bolt which flexes when the wheel hits a rut or bounces

I used the Matco axle which has a diameter of 1.5 inches and will not flex, it also helps keep the bearings in alignment plus I cut off one of the bearing seals, as per Matco instructions, to allow the wheel to spin easier. Allan agreed this was close to what he is doing, he also suggested trimming the tire round and balance
 
Last edited:
2. If we are asking Van's to do this, then we are saying, 'we want a heavy, slow, off-airport version of the gear.
We are ok with a beefed up engine mount & firewall to take the loads, and losing some speed/payload.'
Van's may just say, 'we have the taildragger version, so we're done with that.'

Perry, I think Vans has already addressed this issue in the RV10 and now in the new RV14, both of which have a totally different and more robust nose gear design whereby they did away with the solid spring steel gear and introduced a tubular nose gear with a pivotting action and dampers.

My guess is that Vans copied this nose gear design from the Cirrus.

I'm not aware that there has been any significant problems with the RV10 nose gear collapsing, therefore one might expect the RV14 gear will be successful as well.
 
Perry, I think Vans has already addressed this issue in the RV10 and now in the new RV14, both of which have a totally different and more robust nose gear design whereby they did away with the solid spring steel gear and introduced a tubular nose gear with a pivotting action and dampers.

My guess is that Vans copied this nose gear design from the Cirrus.

I'm not aware that there has been any significant problems with the RV10 nose gear collapsing, therefore one might expect the RV14 gear will be successful as well.

Of course it's addressed. But with heavier planes, more powerful engines, and more wing area to support it. As one, who's been through the nose gear collapse (RV6A), I don't see this heavier and beefed up gear setup........being applied to these light weight and responsive airplanes.
 
I purchased a very early 7A kit in 2001. At that time Vans suggested the nose wheel version if you will be flying off of grass as the 7A will get off the grass quicker than the 7. This was actually promoted in their early 7 series literature.
I chose to build the 7A because I had no tail wheel time and I did want to fly off of grass. I completed my 7A and have not yet landed it on grass. A whimp?
Maybe but Vans no longer suggested the 7A is a better choice for grass. They changed their literature! hmmmmm
 
Jeff, a wimp for sure... But not a whimp. I think that might be a British or Aussie term that goes with whilst. I am longing to put my 9A on some green grass. Can't find any here in Arizona! Darn.
Stuff breaks. Learned that in 40 years of flying aluminum around at high speed.
Got Allan to turn my little wheel on his lathe. A work of precision and enjoyable to watch! The special cutter he then used on my Chinese tire made it really round. We build, we fly, we fix we fuel. All in fun I hope.
 
Thank you Bob for posting this thread. There have been more than a few Anti-Splat accidents since there introduction. Trends are starting to emerge.IMHO,The brace alone is not enough.The sealed bearings and associated upgrades as well as the skid plate under the retaining nut are required.During construction and on inspection the fit of the leg&socket is another critical point of concern.The size of the nose wheel&tire as well as balance also play a roll.I can't help but to wonder if a hard wood dampener should be added to the mix.
Any Thoughts?
RHill

Just like the early -6A plans that showed a wooden dampener glassed and bonded on to the nose gear leg and was the only aerodynamic fairing involved.

nose-leg_zpsfe6cf8bb.jpg


IIRC this moved the breaking point to the top of the gear leg, and maybe corrosion issues occurred when foam was used instead of wood.
 
Wood Dampener

With the Anti-Splat brace clamp mounted center span underneath.I'm thinking two similar clamps holding a wood strip across the top to dampen the oscillations of the leg.
 
I've read these threads with passing interest as I don't fly an A model. But the issue has got my curiosity up and am searching for an answer. One problem seems to be lack of hard data and an understandable amount of angst.

But it seems to me that if the nose gear is indeed "folding up" then there can only be on way for that to occur. Looking at the drawing above it would seem that in order to apply sufficient force in the "x" or horizontal direction to the gear leg to fold backwards the leg must be bent enough such that some part of the assembly holding the front wheel/tire must be impacting the surface. In other words "stubbing its toe".

This could be caused by flexibility of the gear rod being too great, locked up wheels, gopher hole, etc. The various solutions seem to attempt to address all three likely causes with varying degrees of success. With no intention of slighting anyone I tend to want to discount the notion that this would happen on a smooth roll out. Things happen so fast that the eyewitness probably can't distinguish between events that occurred prior to the fold up and the fold up itself.

Something has to be catching the front of that gear and then Isaac Newton takes over. Even at 20mph the force generated by a 1500lb vehicle hitting something is over 20,000 lbs if I did the math right.

But enough of that - how to fix? Would seem solution would require a design where the gear is constrained (or encouraged) to deflect more in the 'y' direction and less in the 'x' direction to prevent rotation of the front such that it catches on terra firma. There are much more qualified engineers than me on here and I'd appreciate if someone could point out flaws in my reasoning.
 
This is reminding me of the Zenith Ch601xl issues a few years back. The Zenith faithful speculated, argued and fought each other for years and the factory remained quiet rufusing to admit an issue. Eventually the NTSB and FAA got involved and all but forced AMD to supply a "fix" for the issue they still claim does not exist. I suppose the airplane being grounded in other countries didn't help either.
 
Lots of speculation and few facts.

Anecdotally, it would seem the Anti-Splat mods are a significant improvement (and I've been skeptical). I can only recall one other failure with the ASA and as I recall it was a 9A in SC that landed on a muddy field. It was universally attributed to poor judgement, not technique nor a failure of the ASA.

Another bit of anecdotal evidence in my book is I don't know of any well-experienced and recognized RV pilots having problems on grass with A models. Doesn't Van fly out of a grass field? How many grass fields does Vlad have in his log book with the Van's gear and not all of them were manicured fields. My point is I think technique is important.

I'd be more than willing to collect data and report back once we know what we want to collect. I'd think the following data at a minimum: N-number, Model, if there's more than one front gear - ID which one, wheel bearing used: stock, Berringer, ASA mod, (are there more?), field condition (this is going to be a judgement), flip or collapse, and speed. Photos would be great to have and comments. I'll start a spreadsheet with what's listed here and will add more points as suggested. When I start getting data, I'll post it publicly and keep it updated.

My point is, lets get the data together that we can and see if it shows anything. Everything else is opinion and speculation...which have a place but data is king.
 
Great thread. When it comes time to get my currency training (most likely in a Cherokee), I'll really work on nose high/full stall landings, and keeping the nose up as long as possible. I plan only on flying only from paved strips, but I like the idea of the skid plate on the gear's pivot nut, just in case.
 
To make this type of database of much use, one other important data point would need to be known.

We would need to know how many of the "A" models actively flying, have any or all of the listed mods installed.
Based on the total # of RV-6A's, 7A's, 8A's, and 9A's that have been completed, I think it would be very conservitave to estimate the total number of A models at 2500 (I am pretty sure it is a higher #).
We would need to know how many of those are flying with an entirely standard nose gear, and how many have (and which ones) modifications to make a meaningful comparison of the benefits of any/all of the modifications.
 
To make this type of database of much use, one other important data point would need to be known.

We would need to know how many of the "A" models actively flying, have any or all of the listed mods installed.
Based on the total # of RV-6A's, 7A's, 8A's, and 9A's that have been completed, I think it would be very conservitave to estimate the total number of A models at 2500 (I am pretty sure it is a higher #).
We would need to know how many of those are flying with an entirely standard nose gear, and how many have (and which ones) modifications to make a meaningful comparison of the benefits of any/all of the modifications.

..and which year the "standard nose gear" belongs to.

I know of at least one that is still flying on the old style skinnier gear leg. :rolleyes:

I've suggested an upgrade to him but to no avail.
 
To make this type of database of much use, one other important data point would need to be known.

We would need to know how many of the "A" models actively flying, have any or all of the listed mods installed.
Based on the total # of RV-6A's, 7A's, 8A's, and 9A's that have been completed, I think it would be very conservitave to estimate the total number of A models at 2500 (I am pretty sure it is a higher #).
We would need to know how many of those are flying with an entirely standard nose gear, and how many have (and which ones) modifications to make a meaningful comparison of the benefits of any/all of the modifications.

I was wondering about this, too. Perhaps Alan will weigh in here sometime. My guess, and it's just a guess, based on a few e-mails and one telephone conversation with him, is he's trying to get the facts on this incident before he comments.
 
I was wondering about this, too. Perhaps Alan will weigh in here sometime. My guess, and it's just a guess, based on a few e-mails and one telephone conversation with him, is he's trying to get the facts on this incident before he comments.

Some time in the past Alan had stated he had already sold thousands of the anti-splat add on brace (the plural thousand to me means at least 2000).
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... that it was a just bit of salesmaneees when he said thousands. If that were the case, then more than 2/3s of the entire "A" model fleet would now be flying with the device. From what I have seen, it is not anywhere close to that.

There in lays the challenge.... getting useful data...
 
To make this type of database of much use, one other important data point would need to be known.

We would need to know how many of the "A" models actively flying, have any or all of the listed mods installed.
Based on the total # of RV-6A's, 7A's, 8A's, and 9A's that have been completed, I think it would be very conservitave to estimate the total number of A models at 2500 (I am pretty sure it is a higher #).
We would need to know how many of those are flying with an entirely standard nose gear, and how many have (and which ones) modifications to make a meaningful comparison of the benefits of any/all of the modifications.

There in lays the challenge.... getting useful data...

The advantage of Experimental Amature Built (we build them the way we want) can also be the curse (no good data).

Thank goodness for Vans and this forum.
 
Last edited:
As Warren Buffett once said, "should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks."

For me, the idea of getting useful and accurate data on all A-model nose overs implies the desire to create another patch. It would seem useful enough to know that A-models have a tendency to nose-over while taxiing at low speed while most all other nosewheel aircraft do not. It would be useful to know that one patch has been implemented quite widely but apparently still allows for a nose-over phenomenon that simply doesn't occur with any frequency in other nosewheel aircraft. If other (seemingly) proven designs exist, for how long would you continue to develop patches?

If Vans or a reputable aftermarket shop offered retrofit 10/14 style mound and nose gear for the 7/8/9, would there be interest in beta testers? While this path would be uncharted I would personally take one.

Tyson
 
As Warren Buffett once said, "should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks."

For me, the idea of getting useful and accurate data on all A-model nose overs implies the desire to create another patch. It would seem useful enough to know that A-models have a tendency to nose-over while taxiing at low speed while most all other nosewheel aircraft do not. It would be useful to know that one patch has been implemented quite widely but apparently still allows for a nose-over phenomenon that simply doesn't occur with any frequency in other nosewheel aircraft. If other (seemingly) proven designs exist, for how long would you continue to develop patches?

If Vans or a reputable aftermarket shop offered retrofit 10/14 style mound and nose gear for the 7/8/9, would there be interest in beta testers? While this path would be uncharted I would personally take one.

Tyson

Wile I agree in principal, there is no data to suggest the Anti-Splat Brace & Wheel Bearing Mod and Nose Skid are or are not an effective "Patch". I recall there own ship got dropped in hard and recovered.I'm confident Vans knows the number of bent nose gears but would have no idea as to wheel bearing modifications.As Sam has correctly pointed out,the number of failures is small statistically with one being too many.This Thread and Spreed Sheet is of tremendous Value to All.Keep in mind there are four wheel bearing configurations that I'm aware of,the question of what works and what doesn't needs to be sorted out. I know of a least two 10s that have gone down without flipping and one that the hand of God lowered to the ground himself,without the nose gear influencing the outcome,so a 10 style gear would be welcome but doesn't negate the need for information.
RHill
 
Some time in the past Alan had stated he had already sold thousands of the anti-splat add on brace (the plural thousand to me means at least 2000).
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... that it was a just bit of salesmaneees when he said thousands. If that were the case, then more than 2/3s of the entire "A" model fleet would now be flying with the device. From what I have seen, it is not anywhere close to that.

There in lays the challenge.... getting useful data...

I may have misinterpreted your comment about the number of A model fleet that is flying with the nose gear mod. I have the mod on mine, but I am still under construction and not flying. There are probably a few more like me. So the does the number you used of 2/3's of the fleet include those still under construction?
 
Have any 8As gone over?

While everyone is talking about failure data, I was wondering if there has been a reported nose gear failure on an 8A.

Thanks!
 
So the does the number you used of 2/3's of the fleet include those still under construction?

No.
There is realistically no practical way to put a number on how many A model builders who have not yet flown, are part of the total # that Alan has sold (unless he has kept records of that... not likely).
My comment was that if Alan has sold thousands, and we discounted the # that could be on yet to be flown airplanes (something I failed to mention), then possibly 2/3's of the flying A models should have it installed.
Trying to account for yet to be flown aircraft that have it installed adds one more challenge to acquiring useful data.
 
NTSB accident reports

I am an RV-7A driver and follow all the posts of nose gear collapses.

During my morning wake-up session at work I eat my breakfast and check the latest US and world news. But I also check the latest NTSB accident reports. Maybe I can learn something from these incidence reports that might help someday. These aren't the full reports just the initial posting of the accident. Not a lot of tremendous detail but some basic info. Here is what I learned so far:

1. It is very common to have a commercial jet damaged on the ground on the ramp. Happens multiple times a week.

2. Bird strikes are all to common for the big jets.

3. Many GA airplanes land with their gear up (don't know why, forgetfulness or mechanical problems)

4. Many tail draggers ground loop.

5. Many GA airplanes (Cessna, Beech, Piper etc) have nose gear collapses all to often.

Food for thought.
 
5. Many GA airplanes (Cessna, Beech, Piper etc) have nose gear collapses all to often.

I read the same reports for the same reasons. I don't mean to argue, but the statement above deserves qualification. We aren't talking about Mooney pilots porpoising into the deck, retractable gear folding, or fixed-gear aircraft flying nose first into the ground for want of flare. We are talking about fixed nose gears folding during slow taxi. I'm sure that such events have happened but you'd be hard pressed to find one.
 
We aren't talking about Mooney pilots porpoising into the deck, retractable gear folding, or fixed-gear aircraft flying nose first into the ground for want of flare. We are talking about fixed nose gears folding during slow taxi. I'm sure that such events have happened but you'd be hard pressed to find one.

But if we are to keep things fully in perspective...
Only a very small # of the folded up nose gear legs on trigear RV's have happened the like the one described in this thread. And of those, not a lot of detailed data is available (how deep of a hole the wheel rolled attempted to roll through, etc.)
 
Could you list the four? I'm only aware of 3 - stock, ASA, and Berringer. Thanks.

There are two stock bearing designs. The original, supplied until somewhere in the late 90's, had a solid aluminum axle, which spanned from fork to fork. Newer ones had the no axle, "mushroom" design, with only the bolt spanning the whole distance. As far as I know, that is still what is supplied.
 
If you look on the forums of the 152, Grumman, 172, Piper, any of the LSA planes, are their discussions of nose gear problems? If we want to keep things in perspective, it goes both ways.

I chose to the 9A after researching what to build for several years. I talked with two 9A pilots that had nose gear problems. One went over, one just needed a new engine and repairs. Neither had the anti splat device. After discussions and research, I am building the 9A and not sorry for my choice. I spoke with Alan and have every modification to the nose gear he makes. When I am landing, I will do my best to keep the nose wheel off the ground until I am in the hangar. If I go over, I will have a canopy cracking tool in the cockpit. I will also keep my 5 point harness tightened all the time.

If we are waiting for Vans to design a "fix", that won't happen. I am not an engineer, but I understand business. Vans designed a bunch of great planes for many specific missions. Their goal has always been to put kits out that are fun to fly, cheap to fly, and fast. They hit it out of the park reaching their goals.

That doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement. I have no doubt a better nose gear could be built at a reasonable cost and minimal increase in weight. Would you give up your CS prop for a stronger engine mount and nose wheel? I would. And before people start saying that would just transfer the stresses in a different place, I say I sure hope so! It sure needed to be transferred in this case and in both of the guys I talked to.

When somebody comes up with another modification or Allen gets really creative, I am still in the market for a move "forgiving" nose wheel. That in no way means I am not happy with Vans, Scott, or anybody. It is an experimental airplane. I just wish I had the engineering background to experiment a way around this.

Maybe it is as simple as a bigger nose wheel. I guess I could try that! Best of luck to all of us building or flying the A models.



But if we are to keep things fully in perspective...
Only a very small # of the folded up nose gear legs on trigear RV's have happened the like the one described in this thread. And of those, not a lot of detailed data is available (how deep of a hole the wheel rolled attempted to roll through, etc.)
 
Of course it's addressed. But with heavier planes, more powerful engines, and more wing area to support it. As one, who's been through the nose gear collapse (RV6A), I don't see this heavier and beefed up gear setup........being applied to these light weight and responsive airplanes.

Larry, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without data about the RV14A nose gear system being substantially heavier than the RV7A system. The difference in weight, if any, may in fact be quite marginal. Consider that the RV7A nose gear strut is a solid rod whereas the RV14A nose gear strut is a hollow tube.

My best guess is that the RV14A nose gear system is just a more sophisticated design providing greater structural redundancy for little or no increase in weight or drag. I certainly don't regard it as a "beefed up" version of the RV7A system because it works on an entirely different engineering principle. The RV7A gear strut is designed to flex, the RV14 gear strut is designed to resist flex.

The RV14A nose gear system undoubtedly costs more to manufacture but it would probably cost no more than an RV7A system with all of the ASA mods (and might cost less).
 
The RV-14A nose gear / engine mount design has a high level of engineering integration with the design of the fwd fuselage (as is the RV-10 for that matter).
There is not likely to be a bolt on option of a nose gear / mount of this style for an RV-6,7, or 9 any time soon.
 
Back
Top