What's new
Van's Air Force

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

OK, it's time to fix the A's...

R

Ralph Kramden

Active Member
Or at least it is time to fix mine. I am disturbed by all the problems that seem to result from the nosegear on our aircraft. What can I do to fix these problems? I would rebuild my 7A QB (presently working on the empennage) with conventional gear if I could but I don't think that is an option, is it?

I don't intend to try landing on any turf runways. Has anyone done a significant redesign of the nosegear for RV-7As?

--Ralph
 
Ralph Kramden said:
would rebuild my 7A QB (presently working on the empennage) with conventional gear if I could but I don't think that is an option, is it?

I don't intend to try landing on any turf runways. Has anyone done a significant redesign of the nosegear for RV-7As?

--Ralph
Click to expand...


Ralph, I think it's actually pretty easy to build your QB as a tailwheel airplane.

The hardest part would be taking the back of the tailcone apart to add the tailwheel spring, but others have done that before.

The main gear are integrated with the engine mount, so that's a no brainer.

Having said that, I really think the -A models are fine, especially if you stay on pavement. Just be careful about your technique.
 
Glastar Sportsman 2+2

Has the same style nose gear as the -A's, and both are made by Harmon Lange. I think the nose wheel leg for the Sportsman has a thicker cross section at both ends, and this whole issue might just be solved by looking there first. It wouldn't require a radical re-design, only changing the diameter of the tube at the bottom of the engine mount where the -A's nose gear leg mounts and re-bushing the yoke end for a larger diameter rod. I haven't heard about any of the Glastar's nosegears failing, but then again, there aren't that many flying either...

Anybody know the weight of the nose gear on the Sportsman?
 
Ralph Kramden said:
Or at least it is time to fix mine. I am disturbed by all the problems that seem to result from the nosegear on our aircraft. What can I do to fix these problems? I would rebuild my 7A QB (presently working on the empennage) with conventional gear if I could but I don't think that is an option, is it?

I don't intend to try landing on any turf runways. Has anyone done a significant redesign of the nosegear for RV-7As?

--Ralph
Click to expand...

The appropriate thing would be for Van's to redesign the gear because they have the engineering history. It may already have been done with the new fork design, but without controlled testing, it's hard to tell.

Various other suggestions have included skid-plates (my e-glass design or the steel knee-cap design), larger wheels, or a stronger gear leg. The only way to tell if these work is for Van's to set up a test fixture and analyze.

I know the service bulletin for the fuel-tank pickup lock wiring was based on one incident which led to a forced landing. The evidence for a nose-gear design that leads to serious accidents caused by small piloting errors is much stronger.

My guess is that Van's is taking this seriously, and is working on design improvements and/or field-retrofit solution. Of course, they will not make any recommedations or announcements until they have fully tested a proposed solution. As I said before, they may have already found the solution but have not yet got the testing data to prove it.

As a community, we have done our job. I'm sure Van's is taking this seriously. The root cause is not pilot error. The root cause is a small margin in the design for "normal" amounts of pilot error.

Vern
 
Although I do agree with Vern that Vans is the best to re-engineer the issue, I would also like to put out another idea for consideration/discussion.

Something Vans has already done the engineering on.

Take a look at the nose gear on a -10. Specifically the flex/pivoting leg, and the rubber shock absorption system. Drawbacks as I see them are weight, and physical size.

Mike
 
10 nose gear leg ???

Hey, us ordinary, 6/7/8/9 builders do not know what a 10 nose gear leg looks like, please explain! (show pictures ?!)

Regards, PilotTonny
 
Pilottonny said:
Hey, us ordinary, 6/7/8/9 builders do not know what a 10 nose gear leg looks like, please explain! (show pictures ?!)

Regards, PilotTonny
Click to expand...

Well, I hope this works, I copied a photo from the Vans website, and am going to post it below.

Here is a description of the -10 gear. The gear mounts to a horizontal cross piece, and is free to pivot up and down, the upward motion is controlled by compressing a stack of rubber "hockey pucks", and the down motion is limited by a bolt through the rubber discs. Similar to a Mooney, or Lancair setup.

In the photo --------assuming it posts---------you can see the pivot mount, and just below the muffler is the location of the pad where the rubber pucks mount.

Sorry, But I dont have a better shot of it---------perhaps one of the -10 builder sites will show it better.

The leg either doesn't flex at all, or at least very little, all shock absorption is handled by the rubber discs, as the leg pivots upward.

Mike

http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/Rv10/05_09/tail2.jpg
 
If you read the daily accidents listed at

<http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/>

then you might wonder if any aircraft can stand up to the vagaries of "....small pilot errors...."!

In the last five years in the NTSB reports the number of airplane accidents listed using the key words "GEAR COLLAPSE" are as follows:

188 CESSNA 150/152
323 CESSNA 172
47 CESSNA 172R
168 PIPER PA-28
71 PIPER PA-28R
10 PIPER PA-38
21 CIRRUS
38 RV- ("A" models)
29 RV- (tail draggers)

The total number of flying planes of each model are not shown but it does show that RV's are not alone in their susceptibility to "small pilot errors" in the landing configuration.
 
My "A" is just fine thank you

I am very pleased with my RV-6A and it lands very well so I am included in the side that says do not change a good basic design that provides good service and performance. This is Van's design and if you don't like it, change your particular experimental airplane to make it more abuse tolerant and require less care in operation. As already has been pointed out if you think the taildragger is better for your needs, make the conversion. In other words fix your own "A" or fly it with the care it deserves. You are not the representative voice for all "A" owners, certainly not this one.

Bob Axsom
 
Thank you, Bob!!! Well said!!! I like my 7A just fine, too! And as I have said in the past, if I have a mishap of anykind, the culprit will most likely be lurking in my mirror.

Roberta
 
I am going to put a perspective in from here in the UK.

I believe that the RV taildraggers were designed to be operated off of grass as Van had a farm. Time goes on, things evolve and folks who may not be comfortable with a tailwheel for either the right, or wrong reasons lobby for a nosewheel version.

So, a nosewheel version is developed.

I also believe that this model was primarily designed to be operated from paved runways, not grass strips.

Now we allow human nature to weave her intricate web and before long, you get guys who feel they want a nosewheel aeroplane, but have access to a grass strip, building or buying one and operating it from grass. No problem, but my question is why or how did these folk not get helped, guided or cajoled into acquiring a tailwheel aeroplane to operate off of grass ?

That my friends, is the $64,000 question, because I believe that while the tailwheel aeroplane is suitable for paved strips and grass strips, the nosewheel should probably avoid grass unless it is very smooth and the pilot knows the area very well.

Hope that was diplomatic enough :D
 
Proper technique does wonders

I paid particular attention this weekend while flying my -7A. My nosewheel is inflated to 35 psi and the mains to 50 psi. I have an ECI O-360-A1A with a fixed pitch Sensenich prop.

I always taxi with full up elevator on pavement as well as grass. Nosewheel shimmy starts at about 20 knots.

On takeoff, I apply full power and hold full-up elevator until the nosewheel unsticks, usually by 20 knots, because the nosewheel shimmy doesn't have a chance to start. As the roll continues, I relax the up elevator just enough to keep the nosewheel off the runway. The plane feels like it "settles in" until it lifts off on its own between 60 and 70 knots.

On landing, I target 65 knots for a final approach speed with full flaps. I maintain a little power (800-1200 rpm) until "in the flare", where it's reduced to idle (800 rpm). Of course, I touchdown on the mains and increasingly add up elevator to hold the nosewheel off until I run out of elevator and the nosewheel lightly touches at 30-35 knots. From there I lightly add braking to get the speed below 20 knots as quickly as possible to avoid the nosewheel shimmy.

I have every confidence in my nose landing gear assembly, but that doesn't mean I won't hit a gopher hole the next time I land on grass.

I'd be interested in what others use for an idle speed, because the plane uses at least a 1000 ft. on landing to rollout without using heavy braking. Of course, the prop doesn't help the deceleration much at idle.

Frankly, if "beefing up" the nose gear involves more weight up front, I'm all for that, within reason. It would help the aft cg tendencies of the fixed pitch prop planes.

Mike
 
mike newall said:
snipped

I believe that the RV taildraggers were designed to be operated off of grass as Van had a farm. Time goes on, things evolve and folks who may not be comfortable with a tailwheel for either the right, or wrong reasons lobby for a nosewheel version.

So, a nosewheel version is developed.

I also believe that this model was primarily designed to be operated from paved runways, not grass strips.
Click to expand...

Ever seen Van's demo tapes of the RV6A from many years ago? Seems like about 12 years ago...

Lot's of flights from "grass" strips are included in these video's. It seems like the 6A even had an edge in takeoff and landing distances on Van's turf runways because of the wheel geometry. But I'll have to dig the tapes out to find out.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
L.Adamson said:
Ever seen Van's demo tapes of the RV6A from many years ago? Seems like about 12 years ago...

Lot's of flights from "grass" strips are included in these video's. It seems like the 6A even had an edge in takeoff and landing distances on Van's turf runways because of the wheel geometry. But I'll have to dig the tapes out to find out.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the demo tapes of the 6A off grass and yes there is a short field advantage for the 6A over the 6 because it can achieve higher angles of attack and can get more weight on the mains earlier for better braking.
 
n5lp said:
Yes, I remember the demo tapes of the 6A off grass and yes there is a short field advantage for the 6A over the 6 because it can achieve higher angles of attack and can get more weight on the mains earlier for better braking.
Click to expand...

I just went through the tapes, "The RV Story" and "Total Performance". Every 6A takeoff and landing, except one, is from grass strips; and this includes customer completed aircraft.

L.Adamson
 
DECREASE BY 300 FT.

alcladrv said:
I paid particular attention this weekend while flying my -7A. My nosewheel is inflated to 35 psi and the mains to 50 psi. I have an ECI O-360-A1A with a fixed pitch Sensenich prop.
On landing, I target 65 knots for a final approach speed with full flaps. I maintain a little power (800-1200 rpm) until "in the flare", where it's reduced to idle (800 rpm).
I'd be interested in what others use for an idle speed, because the plane uses at least a 1000 ft. on landing to rollout without using heavy braking. Of course, the prop doesn't help the deceleration much at idle.Mike
Click to expand...

Try your tires at 30# all three. 50# is too much strain on the wheel. When you touch down, get rid of the flaps and hold the nose off just like you said. It will slow down quicker and the stick pressure will be less. but keep increasing the pull as the nose sets down.
Set your idle at 500 but don't idle it there, only use it for landing.

1. lower tire pressure.
2. get rid of the flaps.
3. 500 rpm idle. Now you will land and rollout in about 650 to 700 ft.

My 6A is 1030# and manual flaps 320 and fix pitch, touch down at stall and dump the flaps (easy with manual) hold the nose up and on the brakes......Dead stop 400 ft. on blacktop. But the flaps have to be gone NOW!!! and you can't be heavy. You can't do that in a dragger!! With our mains under the spar, we can make a deeper flair and slow down quicker.

P.S. get rid of the nose wheel shimmy, it's NOT normal. read the manual or call Vans for some tips :)
 
Most likely not shimmy

Have someone who knows what to look for look at the nosewheel head on and from the side when you have the "shimmy." Most likely it is not rotational about the nose gear strut but rather an up and down motion from the wheel/tire being out of balance and/or out of round. A video will also reveal the problem.
 
Shimmy

Many of the 172 jockeys I fly with also say their nose wheel shimmy problem is usually an out-of-round tire.

Rupester
N319TE, 9A, QB fuse
 
AlcladRV, One more thing to add to your to do list. Get the flaps up as soon as possible. More weight on the mains = better breaking.
 
Chickenlips said:
If you read the daily accidents listed at

then you might wonder if any aircraft can stand up to the vagaries of "....small pilot errors...."!

In the last five years in the NTSB reports the number of airplane accidents listed using the key words "GEAR COLLAPSE" are as follows:

188 CESSNA 150/152
323 CESSNA 172
47 CESSNA 172R
168 PIPER PA-28
71 PIPER PA-28R
10 PIPER PA-38
21 CIRRUS
38 RV- ("A" models)
29 RV- (tail draggers)

The total number of flying planes of each model are not shown but it does show that RV's are not alone in their susceptibility to "small pilot errors" in the landing configuration.
Click to expand...


Whoooaaa there. Let's look at these figures a little more closely. And let's start with all the Cessna 172 vs all RV(A) nose gear models. We'll have to make a few guesstimates but we shouldn't be far off the mark.

Over 35,000 Cessna 172s have been produced. Let's assume half of those are still flying in the US today...let's say 17500 (give or take).

The average Cessna probably does 150 hours per year so over a 5 year period we might expect Cessna 172s to accumulate roughly 13 million flight hours. And because the Cessna 172 is the world's most popular training plane we can assume a lot of those hours involve very botched landings.

In comparison approx 1600 nose gear RVs have been registered. Let's assume that two-thirds are flying in the US today (and have been for 5 years....I'm being generous here). And virtually none will be used for ab initio training.

The average RV probably does 50 hours per year so over a 5 year period we might expect RVAs to accumulate roughly 266,000 flight hours.

In other words the FAA data is indicating that your chances of having a gear collapse in a Cessna is roughly 1 in 35,000 flight hours (13 million hours divided by 370 incidents). By comparison your chances of having a gear collapse in an RVA is roughly 1 in 7000 flight hours (266,000 hours divided by 38 incidents).

However you wish to interpret this data....no case can possibly be made for concluding that the RVA gear is ANYWHERE near as robust as the gear on a Cessna. People who claim otherwise are fooling themselves in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
The flips I have heard about have involved the old nosegear. I have not heard of any with the new nosegear. Does anyone have a feel for : if these are still occuring at the same rate with the lighter "not a fix for a non problem" nosegear?
I can image with an extra 1.5 inches clearance for the nut, rigerous attention to tyre pressure, wheel pant clearance and most importantly pilot technique, that this should not be such an issue.

BUT........... I am not confident!
 
justinmg said:
The flips I have heard about have involved the old nosegear. I have not heard of any with the new nosegear. Does anyone have a feel for : if these are still occuring at the same rate with the lighter "not a fix for a non problem" nosegear?
I can image with an extra 1.5 inches clearance for the nut, rigerous attention to tyre pressure, wheel pant clearance and most importantly pilot technique, that this should not be such an issue.

BUT........... I am not confident!
Click to expand...

There's probably not a lot of RVAs flying yet with the new nose gear so it's too early to draw any conclusions. But the extra clearance under that front nut MUST be of some benefit...it stands to reason.

However the thing that amazes me is that Vans didn't redesign the nose gear fairing at the same time as the fork to take better advantage of the clearance. It's not satisfactory to have additional nut clearance when the fairing can bottom out. If the fairing bottoms out it can cause one of two major problems. Firstly the ground friction can act like a brake on the nosegear causing it to tuck under until the nut DOES come in contact with the ground. Secondly the fairing can disintegrate and be pushed back onto the tire...also causing braking of the nose gear.

Walt Aronow's mod to provide the full measure of fairing clearance allowed by the new fork design seems so logical. It adds no weight, no cost, and I doubt there'd by any noticeable speed penalty. Also I doubt there's be any possible adverse structural implications. And it could be retrofitted easily.

I think Vans has really dropped the ball on this one.
 
Amen Bob and Roberta, I like my A model over the tail dragger as well. If you fly an A model and think there may be an issue with it's safety sell it and get a tail wheel model. If you are deciding which to build and think there is an issue than build a tail dragger. If you are uncomfortable flying your A model on an unimproved field than don't. But the last time I checked it was my hand controlling this aircraft which is attached to my brain. It is my job to land this airplane CORRECTLY. End the A model bashing.
Tad Sargent
7"A" with 265 hours on both grass and hard pavement.
 
Touchy nosegear subject. Sheesh.

tadsargent said:
Amen Bob and Roberta,

. . .

End the A model bashing.

Tad Sargent
7"A" with 265 hours on both grass and hard pavement.
Click to expand...

OK, all I was doing was:

1) observing that there seems to be a problem (shimmy, nose gear catching ruts) that seems to lead to flipped RVs. Where do I observe this from? Well, from the postings on this forum

2) observing that the damage that results seems to lead to damage that ranges from severe airframe to possibly fatal

3) observing that I have an RV-7A QB and that I am not "mister-super-pilot" and I don't want to spend years building it only to have it flip within 100 hours and then have to spend years repairing it.

This is not "A model bashing". I am simply asking for help in understanding whether I can avoid the apparent problems of A model nosegear.

Regards.

Ralph.

.
 
Ralph, The majority of the accidents are poor pilot technique. You don't have to be a super pilot to fly an RV just get some good instruction. The biggest cause of the nose gear collapse is guys chasing a bounced landing and the other is not getting the nose high enough in the flair because they can't see over the nose and don't know how to look out the side. Both of these scenerios are common to other airplanes beside RVs. So build your A get some compatent instruction and enjoy. Don
 
justinmg said:
The flips I have heard about have involved the old nosegear. I have not heard of any with the new nosegear. Does anyone have a feel for : if these are still occuring at the same rate with the lighter "not a fix for a non problem" nosegear?
Click to expand...

As I previously stated. I've been around flying RV's since 1994. I know many pilots who own nose wheel versions, including lot's of the older models of less clearance. These machines have many hundreds or thousands of hours indivdually.

The only "two" flips in my part of the world, were with taildragger versions. A "6" in a field, and a "3" with a loss of control on a paved runway.

Another "6A" took out some fence post's, but didn't flip; as well as a "6" taking out some runway lighting and not flipping. However, a tailwheel "6" did flip during an off airport landing last year just a few hundred miles up the road.

IMO, this thread is getting completely over-blown!

L.Adamson RV6A
 
2 sides of the fence...

In most every subject there's 2 sides of the fence.
The 'A' model nosegear is no exception.
First off, I haven't read any post that is asking for a mandatory nosegear correction for existing/future 'A' models.
What I have heard is a recognition of repetitve accidents that could be lessened if corrective action opportunities are executed. Some of this is design, some of this is pilot technique, some of it may be presently unknown.
In any case, nobody has suggested that anyone be mandated into modifying their 'A' model if they choose not to.

The reason that the nosegear conversation keeps surfacing is the lack of options to improve the situation. Sure, we can improve our technique and avoid any grass strip if we choose to. However, the nosegear design request is a message to VANs that there are many pilots that love the 'A' model AND want to utilize grass strips in a SAFE reliable manner.

Slider/Tipup, Taildragger/Nosedragger, 150HP/180HP... Vans RVs has always been about options directed to the desires of pilots.. ALL P-I-L-O-T-S.. So, how is requesting a turf-friendly reliable nosewheel as an 'option' perceived as an infringement on 'A' models owners that choose not to modify?

I'll even concede that most of the 'A' pilots that are not concerned with the frequency of nosewheel failures 'may' execute better landing/TO techniques. But, that should not defer the opportunity to improve the nosegear for the remaining pilots. Simply put, accidents DO happen. If not, we would still be driving cars with solid bumpers (minus airbags and restraint systems)
We still have accidents however, the survivability rate has greatly improved.
Improvement requires change, otherwise expect the same results.

Finally, as we review the accident events (and comments from the pilots that DID experience a nosegear collapse) there was one comment that sticks in my mind. "I never had a problem before, and it happened so fast"
Amazing how a pilot's perspective changes when he finds himself inverted on the runway". Those shoulda/coulda/woulda-s come back full circle.

So, for the 'A' model lovers that also desire safe grass strip access. Don't concede into a taildragger (unless you really want it). Keep talking about the nosegear failure trends, and any suggestions that may improve it. Repetition exposure of the problem WILL eventually evolve a solution.
For 'A' model owners that are satisfied with the nosegear as-is. We respect your opinion and are very happy for you. If the on-going discussion of designing a nosegear option offends you, we deeply apologize and respectively remind you that you have the option to skip this subject by the power of your left index finger. ;)

(Are they gone yet?.. :rolleyes: )
Now, let's get back to the improvement process..
Anyone took a closer look at the RV10 nosegear. Wonder how much performance reduction it generates compared to the others.
(VANs definately beefed it up to handle more load in comparison).
Just a thought...
 
tadsargent said:
Amen Bob and Roberta, I like my A model over the tail dragger as well. If you fly an A model and think there may be an issue with it's safety sell it and get a tail wheel model. If you are deciding which to build and think there is an issue than build a tail dragger. If you are uncomfortable flying your A model on an unimproved field than don't. But the last time I checked it was my hand controlling this aircraft which is attached to my brain. It is my job to land this airplane CORRECTLY. End the A model bashing.
Tad Sargent
7"A" with 265 hours on both grass and hard pavement.
Click to expand...

If there was nothing wrong with the RVA nose gear then why did Vans modify it by changing the fork to improve the nut ground clearance. Dick VanG is not prone to making adhoc design changes to existing models just because of some forum chatter. If my memory serves me right he has only made 3 changes to the RV7A since its inception.....the new rudder to improve authority ...the beefed up tip-up canopy roll bar...and the nose gear clearance mod. I'm sure these changes all reflected serious concerns that Vans had about these items.
 
I think Id rather see a rough surface "A" alternative (bigger wheels/pant, larger/reinforced or carbon composite strut, etc) offered than an across-the-board change from Vans. Any alteration will likely add weight to the nose, which will probably involve c/g issues with big engines and c/s props, so it would not be desired by many.

The tailwheel choice is still a valid choice, but it seems to me that that alternative is basically unstable :rolleyes:
 
I'm going to say this again. THe pilot in the video flat landed, and bounced the front wheel on the ground at least 3 times with the 4th having the brakes applied and then the flip over. I believe the pilot felt the only way to stop the nose wheel from bouncing was to hit the brakes. This is futile. He needed to pull back on the stick slightly and apply some power, fly in ground effect, and then slowly pull off power until he made a soft field landing. If this didn't work then he needed to do a go around and try again. If he couldn't get it right, then fly home, and forget landing at this field.

Sorry, no matter how strong the nose wheel, it can be ripped off. THE NOSE WHEEL IS FOR TAXI, NOT LANDING ON. I see this stuff at my field all the time and NOT with just RV's.

I agree with another statement that the RV's are not BUSH planes. NOT even the tail planes.
 
Van secretly re-designing RV's !!!

The scuttlebutt is that Van's has hired a couple of new engineers who formerly worked at another aircraft manufacturer. Not only is the nosewheel being re-designed, but so is the wing and FWF. The aircraft is expected to be much more robust to handle "firmer landings", have improved flight characteristics in the flare(so forgiving in fact that one employee said "Heck, you can fall asleep on final approach and still have a safe landing!") and with the down-sized powerplant it will be suitable as a trainer. Specifications and performance will change slightly: empty weight 2207lbs and cruise at 75%power is expected to top 107mph!!! Production is expected to begin as soon as the lawsuits with Cessna and Hormel have been settled. ;)

Mark Andrews
creeping up on 700hrs in 8A--"scared yet?"
 
rtry9a said:
....The tailwheel choice is still a valid choice, but it seems to me that that alternative is basically unstable :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is.

Wolfgang Langewiesche clearly states why this is so in his book "Stick and Rudder" first published in 1944.

The U.S. lost some 60,000 aircraft in WWII, of which 20,000 bit the dust in training accidents. Most of those were tail draggers....
 
vlittle said:
The appropriate thing would be for Van's to redesign the gear because they have the engineering history. It may already have been done with the new fork design, but without controlled testing, it's hard to tell.

Various other suggestions have included skid-plates (my e-glass design or the steel knee-cap design), larger wheels, or a stronger gear leg. The only way to tell if these work is for Van's to set up a test fixture and analyze.

I know the service bulletin for the fuel-tank pickup lock wiring was based on one incident which led to a forced landing. The evidence for a nose-gear design that leads to serious accidents caused by small piloting errors is much stronger.

My guess is that Van's is taking this seriously, and is working on design improvements and/or field-retrofit solution. Of course, they will not make any recommedations or announcements until they have fully tested a proposed solution. As I said before, they may have already found the solution but have not yet got the testing data to prove it.

As a community, we have done our job. I'm sure Van's is taking this seriously. The root cause is not pilot error. The root cause is a small margin in the design for "normal" amounts of pilot error.

Vern
Click to expand...
Vern, if my conversation yesterday with a Van's builder assist line employee is an indication, I would say your assumption that Vans believes "The root cause is not pilot error. The root cause is a small margin in the design for "normal" amounts of pilot error. is very wrong. I was specifically informed by this gentleman that all the nose gear incidents that have occurred have been the result of pilot error. Now I do not know if this particular employee is reciting the "official Vans stance" or his opinion only. I do know that he whole heartedly believed that ALL nose gear accidents that have occurred are because of pilot error.

If Vans is taking these incidents seriously he is definitely not displaying that to his customers and, at least in the case of this particular employee, is not telling his employees to convey that fact.
 
RVbySDI said:
Vern, if my conversation yesterday with a Van's builder assist line employee is an indication, I would say your assumption that Vans believes "The root cause is not pilot error. The root cause is a small margin in the design for "normal" amounts of pilot error. is very wrong. I was specifically informed by this gentleman that all the nose gear incidents that have occurred have been the result of pilot error. Now I do not know if this particular employee is reciting the "official Vans stance" or his opinion only. I do know that he whole heartedly believed that ALL nose gear accidents that have occurred are because of pilot error.

If Vans is taking these incidents seriously he is definitely not displaying that to his customers and, at least in the case of this particular employee, is not telling his employees to convey that fact.
Click to expand...



It is comments like this coming form VANS that disturbs me!! This is a very arrogant response, and tells me that VANS is not even investigating this. I guess it will have to take a lawsuit or two against VANS to get them to pull their heads out of the sand.
 
rvwantabe said:
It is comments like this coming form VANS that disturbs me!! This is a very arrogant response, and tells me that VANS is not even investigating this. I guess it will have to take a lawsuit or two against VANS to get them to pull their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...

I believe you signed a waiver of liability when you took possession of your kit... so their motivation to fix this is...?
 
Perfect Pilots?

I have watched this back and forth for the 16 months since I joined this website. I hope to be an RV builder in the future - but have to say I AM concerned. I am interested in the RV-12, and was very dismayed that Van's has chosen to remove what was probably a very robust front gear, and appears to be putting a gear similar to the other "A" models.

Basically - we have the "A" supporters claiming that there is no problem if you use proper technique. Well... that is unless there is an unseen hole to drop into, or a rabbit, or a bump, or you have to brake firmly, or...

Hey guys... I will be the first to admit that despite being a perfectionist and working hard on my technique I will have an occasional "oops" landing. I guess some of you guys who never do are waaaay better than I. Bottom line for me is that the "A" gear is not forgiving of any "oops". My OPINION is that it is designed for pavement or perfect grass strips.

Personally - I have to decide if I am willing to never fly to a grass strip. Because I will be flying a nosedragger. But as of now, I would not fly an "A" into a grass strip that I don't absolutely know is FLAT, DRY and clear of any holes or imperfections. There is enough evidence to indicate that there is at best - room for improvement. My only hope is that Van's is not sticking their head in the sand as it appears, but is willing to beef it up or make some change for those few of us that aren't perfect pilots. :eek:

Respectfully shared - DJ
 
rvwantabe said:
It is comments like this coming form VANS that disturbs me!! This is a very arrogant response, and tells me that VANS is not even investigating this. I guess it will have to take a lawsuit or two against VANS to get them to pull their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...

The RV series of airplanes are what they are and perhaps not suitable for every pilot. Some 5000 are flying and perhaps another 18000 under construction, this would indicate they do meet the needs of many individuals. The airplane is a total perfomance machine unmatched by any other and it is available at a reasonable cost.

If the design is troublesome, move on to another airplane. These things are flown every day by many satisfied pilots who wouldn't dream of filing a lawsuit over a screwed up landing. RV's are fast, very stable and responsive, but they will stall, spin and kill you if flown carelessly. Same goes for landing on the nose wheel, it might flip.

To suggest that the RV factory has not looked at or does not care is ridiculous. The facts are the airplane will flip under certain circumstances, like a botched landing or a fox hole in the runway or taxiway. We also know an engine will quit in flight now and then. The entire experience is a calculated risk. We do the best we can to manage the risk and get on with life.

Lawyers always get paid first, no matter what, and there is no way such action will result in an idiot proof airplane.
 
Walk Lightly Here

I recently had the opportunity to, within the same day, hold in my hands my RV-4 flap and a C182 flap. The latter is a heavy, ugly, corrogated boat anchor by comparison. RV's perform better because they are delicate, there's no getting around it.
As the number of RV's grows, so too does the variation of pilot experience flying them and the number of damage incidents. The demise of GA came in part from lawsuits that claimed design changes were synonomous to design flaws, so year 2000 C172's don't look much different than 1969 C172's. RV's are not "every man's airplanes" so I think it's unrealistic and dangerous to our future to expect Vans to make them bullet proof. If you think you're over your head buy a spam can, but let's not villify Van's design because they're not Abram tanks.
 
rvwantabe said:
It is comments like this coming form VANS that disturbs me!! This is a very arrogant response, and tells me that VANS is not even investigating this. I guess it will have to take a lawsuit or two against VANS to get them to pull their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...

rvwantabe,

If you don't like Van's trike design, buy a different one. Or, if you think you can design part or all of your RV better, then go for it. You are the manufacturer of your airplane.

Speaking of lawsuits, if you did not build your trike RV sturdy enough for your landing capabilities after already expressing your concern that part or all of the landing gear was not strong enough, and someone other than you gets injured, who do you suppose 12 of your peers is going to think is responsible? :eek:

Safe operation of an aircraft is the sole responsibility of the pilot in command. If you don't think you can safely land your aircraft EVERY TIME, then you should not take off.

Since you won't be needing them, I would be happy to buy your Van's Homecoming Banquet tickets. :eek: :rolleyes: :D
 
I don't think that anyone is vilifying Van's designs, or denying that they aren't terrific aircraft. Insinuating that if you question a part of the design than maybe the aircraft isn't for you sounds more like blind allegiance than anything. I am not that kind of koolaid drinker. The nosewheel/front gear leg is a design that is probably a series of compromises. However, there are enough accidents where that gear has snagged, tucked and the plane flipped that I think it is reasonable for the manufacturer to reassess it's compromises. With all due respect, I personally believe that there is an identified weak point that could be improved upon. I have no dog in this fight. I am just a potential customer expressing a personal opinion.

Why not beef up the leg so it is less susceptible to tuck under? Why not go with a little bigger tire and an improved fairing design? There are some great engineers on this site with some other wonderful ideas that would have minimal impact on speed or W&B.

In most industries, weak points are rapidly improved or you could lose sales. Unfortunately it appears to me that in the aircraft industry in general (not referring specifically to Van's) there is understandably a HUGE hesitancy to admit a flaw, or provide an upgrade - especially after there have been accidents or "events". Due to our litigious society that is seen as admitting you screwed up and opening the door to lawsuits. That "redesign" is evidence that could be used against you. Do a significant or complete redesign - and you just gave them the smoking gun.

Nobody is looking for an Abram's tank. But then again, nobody is looking for a balsa glider either. I honestly feel for Van's as they are kind of between a rock and a hard spot. Address the issue, and possibly open yourself to crippling lawsuits, or continue to stand behind the mostly correct evidence that these crashes were caused by less than perfect pilots.

I think that the best solution for Van's, and anyone who is concerned is for a third party to make a ruggedized solution. Sell it as an upgrade and leave Van's out.

DJ
 
great idea

a third party to make a ruggedized solution. Sell it as an upgrade
Click to expand...

I haven't gotten that far in my build, so I have no opinions about this particular matter, but based on the length of this thread I would bet there would be a market for such a third-party upgrade. Based on what I've read, I would at least seriously consider purchasing such an upgrade if one became available.
 
My observations...

Is it just me or is there a misleading trend developing in this thread? I keep reading (or maybe reading into) some of these posts that ANY bad landing (even on hard surfaces) is going to buckle the nose gear. It seems that some of those that are questioning the nose gear are saying that sloppy landings will kill you every time.

Secondly, there are, from what I can tell, only a couple vocal nay-sayers that consistently raise the "anti-nosegear" issue. Out of all the -A's out there, I'm betting that all of them are just fine under normal operation, even consistent crappy landings on hard surfaces.

Now, maybe the landing gear isn't safe for landing on a rough field with potholes while combined with a crappy landing. But I'm not questioning that. I'm mearly saying that it seems that some are making mountains out of mole-hills with regard to the normal, everyday operation of a -A.
 
lostpilot28 said:
Is it just me or is there a misleading trend developing in this thread? I keep reading (or maybe reading into) some of these posts that ANY bad landing (even on hard surfaces) is going to buckle the nose gear. It seems that some of those that are questioning the nose gear are saying that sloppy landings will kill you every time.
Click to expand...

Great question. I'm no expert by any means but I'm building a 9A and I've taken a few hours of transition training and I've taken up every offer for a ride in ANY RV (provided I trusted the pilot). If every bad landing resulted in a buckled nose gear, I would have been involved in at least 1 incident (probably 2) and that simply hasn't been the case. More over, I would have witnessed several more incidents.

Given my lack of expertise I won't opine on Van's nose gear design but given my experience with them, I'm not afraid to build, fly, or land one. I certainly won't say it couldn't happen to me but in perspective with the rest of life's risks, I'm not wasting time worrying about it.
 
Phyrcooler said:
I don't think that anyone is vilifying Van's designs, or denying that they aren't terrific aircraft. Insinuating that if you question a part of the design than maybe the aircraft isn't for you sounds more like blind allegiance than anything. I am not that kind of koolaid drinker.
DJ
Click to expand...
Design objectives appear subjective to the outsider but the RV's meet their objectives. Calling Van's "arrogant" because they don't admit their design is flawed and needs improvement is vilifying, IMO. Also, I'm satisfied with the design and realize they are experimental so I can (and have) change anything if I so choose. I don't need to force Van's to change their design to satisfy me, because it's not all about me. Keeping Van's viable, affordable and solvent is about all of us who enjoy RV's.
 
Phyrcooler said:
The nosewheel/front gear leg is a design that is probably a series of compromises. However, there are enough accidents where that gear has snagged, tucked and the plane flipped that I think it is reasonable for the manufacturer to reassess it's compromises.
Click to expand...
This is correct, and as the manufacturer you should do what you think is the right thing. Vans is a parts supplier not the manufacturer.
Phyrcooler said:
Why not beef up the leg so it is less susceptible to tuck under? Why not go with a little bigger tire and an improved fairing design? There are some great engineers on this site with some other wonderful ideas that would have minimal impact on speed or W&B.
Click to expand...
I am sure that you are right about the talent represented by the views of this web site. IMHO if you change the -A gear you will effect other performance factors.
Phyrcooler said:
In most industries, weak points are rapidly improved or you could lose sales.
Click to expand...
This is correct. If Vans customer quit buying the nose gear components, either because they make there own or a third party starts selling a different setup that gains popularity, then Vans will make a different setup for their customers. After all they are in the business of selling parts for planes.
The most likely thing to happen if someone comes up with a popular option/addition for the RV, is that Vans will help market and resale those parts. This has happened many times before.
Phyrcooler said:
I think that the best solution for Van's, and anyone who is concerned is for a third party to make a ruggedized solution. Sell it as an upgrade and leave Van's out.

DJ
Click to expand...
Right on DJ.

Kent
 
rvwantabe said:
It is comments like this coming form VANS that disturbs me!! This is a very arrogant response, and tells me that VANS is not even investigating this. I guess it will have to take a lawsuit or two against VANS to get them to pull their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...


I think you're seeing something that's not there.

Van's reasonable position is that it's not a problem. The nosegear design is mature, and has been for some time now. Some of these airplanes have been operating for decades now without incident, and will likely continue to do so.

There was a design/manufacturing issue several years ago with the nose gear legs (possible fatigue failure) and Van's did investigate thoroughly and revise the design.

The current nosewheel works fine, provided that you don't stuff it in a hole (or hit a "killer" rabbit). It won't take the same kind of abuse that a 152 nosegear would, but compare the performance of a 152 to an O-235 powered RV-9A.
 
Consider this: Mike Seager has given several thousand hours of RV training with a good portion of that in "old Blue", the factory RV6A. He has operated that airplane in and out of Vernonia, the less than smooth grass strip he is based on for many years. I am sure some of his new students are rusty when they show up but when they are done they know how to land a tricycle RV.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top