What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Tailwheels tip over (flip) too.

JimLogajan

Active Member
Just to make sure there isn't any myopia regarding tipover accidents - here are some NTSB reports where it appears tailwheel RV's tipped over (this is not a comprehensive list):

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070409X00383&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050415X00464&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050404X00397&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040805X01151&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030612X00857&key=1

Here are a few forced landing tipover reports (and so aren't quite as fair):
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051004X01569&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030306X00296&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051005X01586&key=1

Then there is this accident which seems to indicate limited visibility of RV tailwheels had lead to at least one accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001204X00086&key=2

So it appears a tailwheel can tip over, fishtail, and yet has somewhat less forward visibility during taxi than nosewheels.

Of course a nosewheel can also both tip over and I believe even fishtail under some circumstances.

I guess one has to decide which propensity for failures one wishes to choose.
 
Not that they are the smartest guys around, but....

The insurance companies have voted that the tailwheel plane is more likely to have more claims (or more expensive claims) then the nose wheel.

I am sure that the rates will always reflect their risk for payouts.

Kent
 
JimLogajan said:
Just to make sure there isn't any myopia regarding tipover accidents - here are some NTSB reports where it appears tailwheel RV's tipped over (snip)
Of course a nosewheel can also both tip over and I believe even fishtail under some circumstances.

I guess one has to decide which propensity for failures one wishes to choose.


Of course.

What's interesting about the RV series though, is that -A models appear to be just as likely to end up on their backs as the tailwheel airplanes, if not more so

I'm not trying to start or exacerbate a flame war. I think that both types of RVs are good designs, but the -A models are less forgiving of poor technique than the tailwheel airplanes.

Tailwheel aircraft are, in general, more challenging to land than nosewheel airplanes. Tailwheel RVs are easy to land and forgivng compared to many other taildraggers.

The nosewheel airplanes are easy to land, but unforgiving if mishandled, IMHO.

If you compare other aircraft that are available in both configurations, this doesn't seem to be the case. An example would be comparing ground-loop and noseover rates between the Cessna 120/140 and the 150/152.
 
Does that make you feel better?

JimLogajan said:
Just to make sure there isn't any myopia regarding tip-over accidents - here are some NTSB reports where it appears tail wheel RV's tipped over (this is not a comprehensive list):

Then there is this accident which seems to indicate limited visibility of RV tail-wheels had lead to at least one accident: <snip> So it appears a tail wheel can tip over, fishtail, and yet has somewhat less forward visibility during taxi than nose-wheels. Of course a nose-wheel can also both tip over and I believe even fishtail under some circumstances.

I guess one has to decide which propensity for failures one wishes to choose.
What do tail draggers have to do with nose wheel tip overs? Nothing.

A Tail dragger would not have flipped in those low speed taxi conditions.

Now if you are driving along soft or hard surface in you tail dragger and locked the brakes, pushed the stick forward and even applied power you will put it on the nose because of improper pilot inputs. Even on the nose a tail dragger may not go full over unless the prop and spinner dig in.

You can put a tail dragger on its nose in the run-up area, while dead stopped during run-up, if you push the stick forward, indeed. Still this is just not relevant to those pics of the RV-7A flipping.

The way the nose gear is angled forward like a pole vaulter, which makes it digs in, a unique thing which is nothing like any "mechanism" involved in a tail dragger flipping. Tail draggers flip for entirely different reasons, like off field landings in soft mud, which might flip any plane over.

I think if you take the statistics and look at TAXI only accidents between models of RV, the nose gear does seem to go over more. Even Cessna 172's flip over, I have seen them. How about a DC-10.

MD-11-toast.jpg


Does this make YOU feel better about a RV trike "model-A"? It should not make a difference one way are another.

The Trike/TG issues are totally unrelated and unique scenarios. The thing the bothers me and most pilots is a flip you can't avoid no matter how good you are. I am not saying a flip in a trike is not avoidable; I don't know for sure, but those pictures rattled me a little and I am a tail dragger pilot. I started with TG's well before there was any inkling of an issue with RV nose gears.

I think it's fair to say RV-A's have some "extra" vulnerability when taxing on soft surfaces? :rolleyes: Not that a RV TG's do not have their own unique pilot demands. A RV TG would not have flipped like those horrible but fascinating pictures of that RV-7A showed, but they can flip in their own uniquely horrible and fascinating ways. :D

This always happens. Around summer when more planes are flying and a few RV model A's flip, people get un-nerved, especially when there's graphic time laps photography. Than comes the recrimination against TAIL DRAGGERS for no reasons at all. It's a "straw-man" argument (my word for the week). The RV-7A that flipped over was not a tail dragger, which WOULD NOT HAVE FLIPPED IN THOSE CONDITIONS.

However A+ for getting the NTSB reports. All pilots of any RV need to be careful.
 
Last edited:
The only two RV's I've seen flipped on their back at our local airport KBTF, were both taildraggers. A 6 & a 3. The "3" was just three months ago.

Therefor, I'll conclude that it's the taildraggers with the problem! :D

Afterall, we sure have a lot of RV nose wheelers around here, that seem to stay upright! :)

L.Adamson RV6A
 
Wise guy, huh?

L.Adamson said:
The only two RV's I've seen flipped on their back at our local airport KBTF, were both taildraggers. A 6 & a 3. The "3" was just three months ago.

Therefor, I'll conclude that it's the taildraggers with the problem! :D

Afterall, we sure have a lot of RV nose wheelers around here, that seem to stay upright! :)

L.Adamson RV6A
ha ha ha ha you devil. :D Wisenheimer, but you are right it depends on your prespective and the model you are flying.
 
Last edited:
Wow, from a new guy's perspective this "never ending debate section" is very adequately named. :)
 
DaX said:
Wow, from a new guy's perspective this "never ending debate section" is very adequately named. :)
This is nothing. Check out prior debates on Primers, Fuel Injection, CS Props.

Opinions are like ashls everybody has one! But that is what makes this site all the more fun,....and, every once in a while, people actually agree on something, although I doubt it will be on this topic!

I always thought Nosewheel aircraft where just for sissys. Now I realize that it takes some big blls to own one! (Just kidding, just kidding!!!)
 
JonJay said:
I always thought Nosewheel aircraft where just for sissys. Now I realize that it takes some big blls to own one! (Just kidding, just kidding!!!)
And in the words of Shrek the tailwheel guys are just "compensating for something". :) :)

::rimshot::
 
Jamie said:
And in the words of Shrek the tailwheel guys are just "compensating for something".
You're right. Some of us were BORED and underchallenged by tricycle gear.
 
dan said:
You're right. Some of us were BORED and underchallenged by tricycle gear.

Painting your airplane can help with those spells of boredom. Time consuming as ****, sometimes frustrating, fumy & messy! :D

L.Adamson

P.S. from reading these threads, I'm getting the idea that the RV taildraggers are meeker, milder, and more forgiving than their tail dragging brethren. I'm also getting the impression, that it's the nosedragger RV that appears to be the challenge! At least if I was new to these forums and the general philosophy of it all , that's what I'd begin to believe! :)
 
The never-ending debate...

L.Adamson said:
P.S. from reading these threads, I'm getting the idea that the RV taildraggers are meeker, milder, and more forgiving than their tail dragging brethren. I'm also getting the impression, that it's the nosedragger RV that appears to be the challenge! At least if I was new to these forums and the general philosophy of it all , that's what I'd begin to believe! :)

I agree with Dan's sentiment about being BORED. I am a taildragger pilot for most of my 10 years of flying, and for me it was exactly what Dan was saying, the nosewheel aircraft just didn't provide much of a challenge. Also 10 years ago, I couldn't afford an RV kit then and all the cool airplanes that were fun to fly and that I could afford were taildraggers. Now with lots of TW time under my belt, I don't have any reason to go back. But, just to do something different every now and then I still a drive nosegear spam can or two just to remind myself of why I fly the RV-8.

But getting to your statement, yes, RV's are very forgiving TW aircraft in comparison to most. Particularly in the experimental world. However, they still have same issues that TW aircraft will always have, but the RV's ground handling characteristics are superb for TW aircraft.

That said, I think what happens is that the nosewheel folks tend to pancake landings too often. This is not so much because these are poor or inexperienced pilots, but because they were never taught otherwise and because you can beat up a number of certified planes pretty harshly with poor ground technique and get away with it for a long time.

Take that same pilot and and let them fly in an RV-xA, add in the fact that the nosewheel is known to be a weak link and it is a recipe for trouble. When I say weak link, I don't blame Van for that. He is giving the A drivers the same high performance aircraft as a TW RV, but that high performance that we all share in the RV series does come with a few sacrafices that are not so much a part of the certified world. Short wings, high wing loading, and in the case of an A model, a lighter than average nosegear. And then there's RV's and how they handle turbulence, but that is another topic altogether.

After all, each of us flying RV's is flying a spin off design from the original RV-3 and our models, TW or A model are part of the same heritage. RV's are very, very strong aircraft in ways that they generally need to be; however, these are light and fast aircraft and they are always going to be more demanding of pilots and less forgiving of pilot technique and rough surfaces.

Still, you nosedragger types will have an easier time with x/winds and more forgiving runway alignment on those funky windy days. Just don't pancake it, hard brake or hit a gopher hole that you can't see...

My 2 cents...
 
OK, OK, You TW guys have won me over....

Tonight I going to the hanger and screw one of the caster wheel off of my tool chest into the tie down on my tail. :eek: That way I will be splitting the difference between TW and NW. :rolleyes:

Kent
 
kentb said:
Tonight I going to the hanger and screw one of the caster wheel off of my tool chest into the tie down on my tail. :eek: That way I will be splitting the difference between TW and NW. :rolleyes:

Excellent idea.... :)

But it sounds like the taildraggin RVs are just to easy!

How about a Cessna 195, a Pitts, or perhaps a WWII FU4 Corsair...........on a carrier approach! :D

L.Adamson
 
JonJay said:
This is nothing. Check out prior debates on Primers, Fuel Injection, CS Props.

Opinions are like ashls everybody has one! But that is what makes this site all the more fun,....and, every once in a while, people actually agree on something, although I doubt it will be on this topic!

I always thought Nosewheel aircraft where just for sissys. Now I realize that it takes some big blls to own one! (Just kidding, just kidding!!!)

Looking back through the posts, it would appear that we all DO agree: regardless of which end of the fuselage you prefer to drag across planet earth, all RV's require skill to land safely and a little bad luck at exactly the wrong moment can result in a flip-over or ground loop. I would be willing to wager that some very good pilots have been at the controls of some of the RV's that have been damaged, and that their misfortune was simply that... misfortune... bad luck. Can't help but feel badly for them. It could have been me or you or your flying partner. There is no aircraft design that completely eliminates risk, but there are things that can be done to mitigate risk--like proper transition training, lots of practice, and caution.

Murphy's Law supercedes all other laws of the universe. :(

(Need a little pick-me-up after such a downer of a post? Visit wwwdotdespairdotcom--home of the frownie)
 
Aw, we are all wusses. The only REAL pilot is that guy that had the Pitts a few years back with another set of gear on the top. Plumb up'd and taxied out, took off, flew around and landed the dang thing upside down. Had a winch to reef himself up into the cockpit. That's what happens to guys who get bored with trikes, then bored with TG's.
 
Back
Top