Another nose wheel thread

I didn't want to sidetrack the thread about the RV7A tipping over, so I started this thread.
I am starting to do my first conditional inspection and thought that it would be a good time to finish up my wheel and gear fairings and paint them. When I took off my nose wheel fairing I discovered a big crack. This look to have been caused by the nut banging on the inside of the fairing and there was some dirt in the crack. There is not abrasion on the bottom edge so it didn't contact the runway (I have only been landing on paved runways). This must have happened while going to the runway across the grass. I don't recall ever feeling that I had experienced any unusual bump and I always hold the stick aft.




I have repaired the fiberglass and will be looking into building up under the nut to form a skid as someone on this site has suggested.

Kent

Notice the tiny blades of grass stuck in the crack?

Your right.

Yukon said:

Notice the tiny blades of grass stuck in the crack?

Click to expand...

There is some chlorophyll there.

Kent

Kent,
Do you have the old or new style fork on your 9A? I have the new style fork and am also considering modifying the nose wheel fairing. Not sure if I will go with a skid or raise the lower surface of the fairing as far as the nut permits or maybe a combination of both.
Fin 9A

I think that mine is the old style.

I think that raising the fairing would do not good. The problem is that the nut can hit the ground and dig in. I want something that would raise the nose gear up if the tire can't do it.
I am thinking along the lines of placing a small piece of steal in the fairing and fiber-glassing it in. The idea being that if the nut hits the ground the steal will be there to form a skid. The paint on the fairing would be sacrificed for safety.

Kent

Good idea

kentb said:

I am thinking along the lines of placing a small piece of steal in the fairing and fiber-glassing it in. The idea being that if the nut hits the ground the steal will be there to form a skid. The paint on the fairing would be sacrificed for safety. Kent

Click to expand...

Good idea, I and others have suggest things like that, a structural skid to at least give it a chance of not digging in.

Some one asked if you have the old or new gear leg and fork. Do you have the new design or old one? The new design gets the nut up a little higher, with a modified gear leg (shorter pivot) and new fork that has more angle, putting the axial lower relative to the nut.

gmcjetpilot said:

Good idea, I and others have suggest things like that, a structural skid to at least give it a chance of not digging in.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It wouldn't have to be a lot, just something to try and deflect the nut and strut up rather than in.

the_other_dougreeves said:

Agreed. It wouldn't have to be a lot, just something to try and deflect the nut and strut up rather than in.

Click to expand...

Some sort of skid will work, but from my experience the fairing does a good job of being a ski as is. The wheel has sunk in soft wet grass more than once and the fairing kept it from digging in. Last year I broke it trying to hop up on a paved road, the asphalt edge was too high. It now has three or four plies of glass on the bottom area so the fairing is stronger as a ski than a normal unbroken fairing.

If you are going to glass repair the cracks, give it few more plies and you may not need a skid. I've given up on trying to keep the wheel fairings looking nice - a price of operating off of sod.

I designed a fiberglass nose skid for my 9A (search the threads for skid plate). I was hoping to never test it, but...

I hit a pothole on a paved apron. Scraped the bottom of the nose fairing but did not collapse the gear. With the skid plate, the load was transferred upwards, forward of the nose gear leg/fork pivot, providing a moment that tends to push the nose gear back up.

Instead of tucking under, the skid plate provides a restorative force in the opposite direction.

I watched the video of the 7A (6A?) flip over. My interpretation of what I saw was that the nose gear collapse was caused by hard braking after touch down. You can see the tail come up just before the gear collapsed, indicating that there was a pitching down due to braking. A second later, the tail came way up!

After we practiced short-field and soft-field landings in a '172, I asked my flight instructor "What happens if it's a short, soft field?". His response... "That's called a crash!"

For soft field (grass landings)... use the brakes as little as possible. Also, that nosegear should not touch down until you are ready to turn off the runway. If the runway is soft and short you are playing the odds.

There seems to be little margin of error in the nosegear design. You need to land nose high, carrying power and hold the stick back as long as possible to keep the wheel off the ground. Oh... install a skidplate!

Vern

Hey Vern,

Do you have a photo? I'd like to see the angle you used on the skid plate and how far you brought it around the front.

Phil

See this thread

Vern

I checked last night and mine is the old style.

gmcjetpilot said:

Good idea, I and others have suggest things like that, a structural skid to at least give it a chance of not digging in.

Some one asked if you have the old or new gear leg and fork. Do you have the new design or old one? The new design gets the nut up a little higher, with a modified gear leg (shorter pivot) and new fork that has more angle, putting the axial lower relative to the nut.

Click to expand...

After look at it some more last night, I am thinking about using carbon-fiber instead of steel for the skid. I then would back that up with Vernon's flox packing system.

This would be lighter and I could make the skid conform to the shape of the fairing better. Isn't carbon-fiber supposed to be harder then steel?

What say you RV'ers?

Kent

I'm no expert but AFAIK:

Carbon fiber is stiffer, but not more abrasion resistant (and this is of course assuming it's laid up correctly.) If this is done, you probably want to beef up the fairing attach points significantly too.

I'm seriously thinking about designing a 5.00x5 fork for -A models, depending on interest.

osxuser said:

I'm no expert but AFAIK:

Carbon fiber is stiffer, but not more abrasion resistant (and this is of course assuming it's laid up correctly.) If this is done, you probably want to beef up the fairing attach points significantly too.

I'm seriously thinking about designing a 5.00x5 fork for -A models, depending on interest.

Click to expand...

Count me as an interested party!

osxuser said:

I'm no expert but AFAIK:

Carbon fiber is stiffer, but not more abrasion resistant (and this is of course assuming it's laid up correctly.) If this is done, you probably want to beef up the fairing attach points significantly too.

I'm seriously thinking about designing a 5.00x5 fork for -A models, depending on interest.

Click to expand...

I think any new / improved fork design would get considerable interest. Count me in.

kentb said:

. Isn't carbon-fiber supposed to be harder then steel?

Kent

Click to expand...

Carbon-fiber is stronger then steel at equal weight (or lighter for equal strength) when designed/optimized for a specific loading condition. Carbon fiber is much less impact damage tolerant then metals. Hit steel with a hammer and not much happens. It transmits the energy or deforms. Hit carbon-fiber with a hammer and it delaminates, hit it harder and it breaks. So no, "carbon fiber is not harder than steel".

I think a steel/aluminum plate imbedded in carbon-fiber may be the way to go.

plehrke said:

I think a steel/aluminum plate imbedded in carbon-fiber may be the way to go.

Click to expand...

Flying an airplane that is mostly CF, I would recommend steel or aluminum for the skid plate. CF is great unless it gets abraded here and there or torqued in the wrong direction. The CT has headphone jacks that are set into a CF panel. They get loose over time as the plugs get knocked around and the CF comes apart.

Steel and Al are simple, well known and easy to work with. I don't think this needs to be a really heavy part, so weight isn't an issue.

Could you use something that would fit in place of one of the washers spacing the nut, i.e., the attach bracket part of the skid place would go in place of a washer?

5.00x5 nose wheel

osxuser said:

I'm no expert but AFAIK:

Carbon fiber is stiffer, but not more abrasion resistant (and this is of course assuming it's laid up correctly.) If this is done, you probably want to beef up the fairing attach points significantly too.

I'm seriously thinking about designing a 5.00x5 fork for -A models, depending on interest.

Click to expand...

I called Vans last night and talked to Gus about the nose gear issue that is currently being discussed. I asked him about the possibility of using a 5.00x5 tire on the nose gear of the RV9A. He told me the wheel is the same size as the main gear but they use a metric tire on the nose gear. I mentioned to him this thread about discussion of putting a 5.00x5 tire on the nose gear. The current fork will not accommodate that size tire so it would have to be modified to make it work. Then he mentioned that the RV-10 nose wheel is a 5.00x5 and they have a fork designed for it that may work with the RV9. He did say that the gear leg is a bigger diameter on the RV-10 (1.5 inches) than the RV9 (1.25 inches). Because of this I would have to modify the attachment point in some manner on the RV-10 fork to make it work. Also, the wheel pant for the RV9A would not fit over the RV-10 fork so I may have to use the RV-10 wheel pant too. I am thinking this might be a way to allow for installing the 5.00x5 tire on the nose of the RV9A. Does anyone have any thoughts on this modification to make an RV-10 fork and 5.00x5 tire work on an RV9A?

RVbySDI said:

I called Vans last night and talked to Gus about the nose gear issue that is currently being discussed. I asked him about the possibility of using a 5.00x5 tire on the nose gear of the RV9A. .... Then he mentioned that the RV-10 nose wheel is a 5.00x5 and they have a fork designed for it that may work with the RV9. He did say that the gear leg is a bigger diameter on the RV-10 (1.5 inches) than the RV9 (1.25 inches). .... I am thinking this might be a way to allow for installing the 5.00x5 tire on the nose of the RV9A. Does anyone have any thoughts on this modification to make an RV-10 fork and 5.00x5 tire work on an RV9A?

Click to expand...

Interesting that Vans is talking (even if unofficially) about this idea. Could one simply machine down the portion of the -10 leg that fits the gear mount to 1.25"? Please forgive my lack of understanding on how steel would perform with such modifications. The leg would weigh 44% more, just based on the diameters.

Hey and doesn't the -10 (or should we call it the -10A? ) fork include a "rubber biscuit" type of damper as well?

now you have my attention

Three of the same tires?
Is this as simple as bush the ID of the 10 fork and use 10 pants?
Give up 1.3 kts for peace of mind and this thread to stop?

TS
7A QB TU on to the fuse...

T.S. said:

Three of the same tires?
Is this as simple as bush the ID of the 10 fork and use 10 pants?
Give up 1.3 kts for peace of mind and this thread to stop?

Click to expand...

That is my thinking. Since this is a simple castering nose wheel a bushing that can be milled to fit the fork might just be the ticket. Assuming the 10 wheel pant will fit well I can see this as a real world solution.

FWIW, RV-10 NW

Here's a photo of Scott S' RV-10 Nosewheel and strut.



More photos at http://scottandranae.smugmug.com/gallery/425029#17046502

Ok, I think Van's got some things right on the -10 nosegear... a shock absorber. I still think that the whole gear leg needs to be be redesigned to make it more up movement, and less back movement. I think I'll work on some drawings....

osxuser said:

Ok, I think Van's got some things right on the -10 nosegear... a shock absorber. I still think that the whole gear leg needs to be be redesigned to make it more up movement, and less back movement. I think I'll work on some drawings....

Click to expand...

I want to give an update to my continued examination and discussion with Vans concerning the RV-10 nose gear concept for the RV-7/9 airplanes. I had another telephone conversation with one of the guys on the Vans builder assistance line yesterday. I will say this particular gentleman (I am sorry, I cannot remember his name) was not too sympathetic to any of the nose gear issues in terms of a design issue. Paraphrasing his words somewhat, Vans believes that every nose wheel incident is a result of pilot error. My position is not to argue the validity of this stance. My position is that regardless of pilot error the design does lend itself to catastrophic failure. If there indeed is pilot error it should be more forgiving than it currently appears to be.

After some discussion with the Vans employee about using the RV-10 fork, leg gear, etc. he emphatically stated that the RV-10 gear would not mount to the firewall of other RV's or that the 10 fork/yoke could be altered to fit on the 7/9 gear leg. After seeing the pictures posted of the RV-10 gear on this thread I have to disagree with him.

I agree that the pictures of the RV-10 look as if that design is much better than the existing design on the other nose gear RV's. It does appear that there is quite a bit of structure at the firewall behind the engine. This may be an issue in terms of clearance. As I have not yet begun the firewall forward installation and don't even have the finishing kit yet I am not in a good position to do much more than examine other's pictures and comments who may be at this stage of the build. So what say you? Those of you who are flying nose gear RV's or are working on firewall forward issues, do you feel there is enough clearance to construct a similar nose gear design in the RV-6/7/9?

I am very interested in the possibility of working out a nose gear design that could have some of these features. Osxuser, I am one person who would be very interested in any drawings you come up with.

Steve, you will need to engineer a new motor mount.

The RV10 gear leg attaches to the motor mount and has a lot of structure for the rubber donuts. It looks to me that the gear would be the wrong size even if you change the mount, and also very heavy.
On the other hand I think that the current gear leg could be changed to work with the RV10 fork. Possible using a sleeve inside the fork to make it fit the end of the smaller RV's current gear leg.

I am not interested in doing this myself, as I think that the down side of the extra weight and reduction of speed is of no interest to me.

I believe that because I will not often be on grass strips and when I do I will be very careful how I handle my plane, I don't need all this extra performance penalty.

I will be looking at increasing the strength of my nose fairing so that it will be more resistant to digging in the big nut.

Kent

Back to the 7A nose gear leg for a moment

I don't think I've seen anyone mention the "unusual" dimensions of the nose gear leg.

It's smallest diameter is about 6-8" above the fork. I'm guessing it was designed this way to get the proper spring rate or to help it not fracture at either end.
If I recall correctly most of the tip overs show it to be bent right about at that "weak" spot.

I know...if you make it stronger there it will just bend somewhere else, but just maybe it's a little too weak right there.

Anyone know for sure why the diameter tapers to that point and then gets larger on down toward the fork?

Mark

Huge re-design to fit the -10 leg to other RVs. It is a monster piece designed for 50%+ more weight. Impractical to make this design retrofit to other RVs without a new engine mount.

I'm with Vans on this one- well half way. Failures on paved surfaces are 100% due to pilot error (no adequate flare). Failures on rough grass strips with gopher or rabbit holes are due to design of the nose gear for the most part and sometimes could be mitigated by pilot technique. That being said, how strong do you make the gear? There has to be some reasonable limit here. Vans made it strong enough for a smooth grass strip using proper piloting techniques- that's all. It's isn't a 185 or a Beaver.

If you always flare properly on asphalt and stay off grass strips, I doubt if you will ever have a nose leg failure.

kentb said:

The RV10 gear leg attaches to the motor mount and has a lot of structure for the rubber donuts. It looks to me that the gear would be the wrong size even if you change the mount, and also very heavy.
On the other hand I think that the current gear leg could be changed to work with the RV10 fork. Possible using a sleeve inside the fork to make it fit the end of the smaller RV's current gear leg.

I am not interested in doing this myself, as I think that the down side of the extra weight and reduction of speed is of no interest to me.

I believe that because I will not often be on grass strips and when I do I will be very careful how I handle my plane, I don't need all this extra performance penalty.

I will be looking at increasing the strength of my nose fairing so that it will be more resistant to digging in the big nut.

Kent

Click to expand...

I am in agreement on the fact that the redesign to the RV-10 gear may be too difficult of an endeavor to undertake. I also think it is probably much too heavy for the RV7/9 application. However, the design may be plausible in a lighter configuration. I just do not know. I throw it out as fodder for discussion to hear other's opinions on the feasibility of the design change. I am also looking at the issue of keeping the RV9A gear leg and modifying an RV-10 fork/yoke to fit on it. By doing so I can then accommodate a 5.00 x 5 tire on the 5 inch wheel already supplied. This may go a long way toward reducing the risks. Even if I end up going with my own design of the fork/yoke I think this idea of putting a larger tire on the wheel has merit.

As far as my personal needs/desire, my plane will indeed be living on a 3000' private grass strip. We have already had an RV-7A with IO-360 FADEC constant speed MT 3 bladed prop airplane fold its unfoldable nose gear under its nose this past fall on our strip. It did not happen at landing or on roll out from landing. It happened while executing a 180 deg turnaround to back taxi on the runway. The side load was great enough on the turn that the gear flexed enough to catch the ground with some part of the nose gear, fairing or something. At any rate the nose gear leg did fail at the tapered "weak point" that was mentioned by Mark. The collapse allowed the MT prop to strike the ground destroying it. Due to the nose gear collapse the right wing tip struck the ground and crumpled under the load. In all there was over $30,000 in repair and 6 months of time not flying while it was repaired. All of this from a taxi turn around accident.

My RV9A will reside on this very grass strip. I want to do what is necessary to protect my investment in this airplane. I am like others on this forum. I am not a good enough pilot to think that I will always have perfect form when operating my airplane. I do not want a design issue to cause major damage because of my imperfect piloting skills. Especially considering at least one of every landings I perform on every flight will involve landing and taxiing on our grass strip.

I am actively pursuing design ideas for my personal aircraft in hopes of minimizing my risk. My current thoughts are in attempting to increase the tire size of the nose gear to raise the clearance to the ground of that nut hanging down in front of the tire. Perhaps the skid plate may be another mod I will look at. I like the idea from another post of that spring mounted gear fork designed for a Challenger. I think with some modification that system may have merit also, although there may be issues with fairing it.

I am interested and open to hearing any and all comments on these and other ideas. And, yes, I am even interested in hearing Yukon's opinion, George's, and all the others who want to tell me where I am going wrong in my thought process of trying to alter the design. Please feel free to give me all the insight you have to offer. I desire to examine it all in my analysis and ultimately in my final decision.

Steve, can you discribe the damage.

RVbySDI said:

As far as my personal needs/desire, my plane will indeed be living on a 3000' private grass strip. We have already had an RV-7A with IO-360 FADEC constant speed MT 3 bladed prop airplane fold its unfoldable nose gear under its nose this past fall on our strip. It did not happen at landing or on roll out from landing. It happened while executing a 180 deg turnaround to back taxi on the runway. The side load was great enough on the turn that the gear flexed enough to catch the ground with some part of the nose gear, fairing or something. At any rate the nose gear leg did fail at the tapered "weak point" that was mentioned by Mark.

Click to expand...

Where was the damage on the wheel fairing? Front edge, side edge or side?
I am trying to understand how the failure occurred. You said that the plane was turning and it folded at the tapered point. Did it fold back toward the fuse. or sideways because to the turn it was in?

Kent

kentb said:

Where was the damage on the wheel fairing? Front edge, side edge or side?
I am trying to understand how the failure occurred. You said that the plane was turning and it folded at the tapered point. Did it fold back toward the fuse. or sideways because to the turn it was in?

Kent

Click to expand...

I had a brief cursory look at the damage personally and was not present when the accident occurred. My hangar is across the strip from the guy who has the RV7A. I have talked to him on several occasions and any information I have has just been what I have gotten from him in our discussions. Recollecting the damage I saw: the nose fairing was completely destroyed and in multiple fiberglass pieces so I am not sure where the contact was on it. I remember the gear leg had a distinct bend at the taper point. I think it was bent somewhat sideways, back and down. The crease was right at the taper point. This caused the nose to dip down enough for the prop to strike the ground and the turning momentum caused the right wing tip to dip down and contact the ground. This caused the skin to wrinkle two or three ribs in from the wing tip on the right wing. The prop was destroyed. They did a complete teardown, examination and, as far as I know, a rebuild of the new IO-360. He just got his plane back on June 9th.

I am looking at building a -7a, so I have been watching this and other threads with interest. I have built a velocity large wing already. Their nose gear is a caster type also and does get a lot of abuse. The biggest problem they have is the fork is the weakest point and thus cracks, and when the canard stalls the front wheel can come down hard. They did beef up the fork. I have not heard of many nose gear colapses. Their orignal design used 4.00 wheels but now are 5.00 tires and some actually use grass runways. Maybe looking at how their nosegear system is designed to see if it makes sense for the 6/7/9 models. I do know that the top of the strut has a welded gusset that has a bolt that goes through it. This allows the gear to pivit back if needed. To absorb that motion, there is a large bushing near where the stut cmes out of the body. As far as a skid, I would not use carbon fiber because of the fracture mode. If I where to build one with fiberclass, 4 layers of triax would allow for bending and take the abuse of the skids.

I do not have any idea at this time how the nose gear on the -7a is designed. I do have the preview plans but have not studied it that closely yet.

Bob
7a -preview plans

How fast was he making the 180 turn? If it was executed with a bit too much speed, the added momentum combined with a heavy fwf setup could easily cause the gearleg to flex laterally. Especially on grass.

I submit that there are other nosegear designs that may have suffered a similar fate under the same circumstances.


I am curious to know if swinging around too fast in that 180 turn could have been a factor. Any thoughts?

Ok, here is where I'm at:

I'm looking at the three relevant pages from my -7 preview plans. I'm looking to purchase the -10 drawing set from Vans, then I and going to look at a few options:

1. RV-10 fork on exsisting gear leg

2. RV-10 gearleg modified/mounted to modified -7/-9 engine mount

3. RV-10 engine mount fitted to -7/-9 with whole assembly

4. RV 7/9A gearleg modified to fit into -10 style (or possible -10) engine mount with the donuts, and either the current "new" style fork OR the -10 Fork.

I think first will come a way to mount the -10 fork on the exsisting gear leg. This will hopefully allow more clearance, and prevent the nosegear from catching. I think I can get this done pretty easily. Biggest issue might be the fork raising the on-ground attitude of the aircraft to the early-6a proportions. This may or may not be good. I like that look better.

I think #4 is the best solution all around, but that will take some time to develop. I'm rather poor, so I have to gauge interest, find out how much people would be willing to pay, develop a kit, and see if I can make it financially viable for me.

osxuser said:

Ok, here is where I'm at:

I'm looking at the three relevant pages from my -7 preview plans. I'm looking to purchase the -10 drawing set from Vans, then I and going to look at a few options:

1. RV-10 fork on exsisting gear leg

2. RV-10 gearleg modified/mounted to modified -7/-9 engine mount

3. RV-10 engine mount fitted to -7/-9 with whole assembly

4. RV 7/9A gearleg modified to fit into -10 style (or possible -10) engine mount with the donuts, and either the current "new" style fork OR the -10 Fork.

I think first will come a way to mount the -10 fork on the exsisting gear leg. This will hopefully allow more clearance, and prevent the nosegear from catching. I think I can get this done pretty easily. Biggest issue might be the fork raising the on-ground attitude of the aircraft to the early-6a proportions. This may or may not be good. I like that look better.

I think #4 is the best solution all around, but that will take some time to develop. I'm rather poor, so I have to gauge interest, find out how much people would be willing to pay, develop a kit, and see if I can make it financially viable for me.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think #4 may be the first choice for me. In fact I am looking at the possibility of fabricating my own fork to accept the 5.00 x 5 tire. Perhaps taking an existing 9A fork and cutting off the tabs of the fork and welding on wider tabs. Or maybe using that fork as a template and fabricating an entirely new one from scratch.

I am one who is interested in what you find out. I will try to keep everyone informed of any of my experimenting as well.

I just found this old thread and can add a few data points.

I have completed option 1. Stock rv7a nose gear leg, rv10 fork, pants and mounting brackets. Needed to make new bushings for the fork or trim the existing bushings and make an adapter sleeve to take up the difference between the gear leg diameters. I chose to do the later.

The 500x5 nose wheel tire is mounted on a grove wheel (magnesium) to minimize weight gain.

The main's tire size were also increased to 380-150-5 size (which is the largest size that will fit a standard aircraft 5" wheel), to improve performance on unimproved strips and to somewhat restore the stance as it would be very nose high otherwise.

The end result is a stance similar to the rv6a which i think may be slightly better for prop clearance and may add some resistance to classic flipping. The prop's ground clearance is increased by 1.5 inches over the stock fork/tire combo. The aircraft looks a little bigger probably because the fuselage is about 3/4" higher at the cockpit.

I have to say that the tires look (to me) proportionally more correct than before. The cessna 150 that i trained on had 600.6 tires and a lower gross weight than the RV.

The main gear fairings are stock but trimmed and mounted to accomodate the larger tire. If this was a retrofit, new fairings would probably have to be ordered.

This project was initiated partly to see if it was feasible and doable by myself. And if successful, to provide a set of "back country" tires as an option. Since completing this, i like the result so much i that have decided to make this my permanent setup.

Not flying yet.

Bevan.

Bevan do you have any pictures of your set up. Before and after?

RV7A nose wheel upsize pictures

Here are a few pictures of the process. Bevan

RV10 fork modified to accomodate RV7A leg. New stop collar made from .125 steel cut out on drill press and jigsaw. Filed into final shape by hand. A little more filing was done after this photo was taken. Custom leg adapter is not in the photo. Somehow misplaced that photo.


Nose wheel size comparison. Grove wheels and axles = no rolling friction from bearings.


RV10 fork, pant and mounting brackets and new collar with turn stops to allow the nose wheel to turn further than needed when making a min radius turn. Prop clearance is about 1.5" over stock. Nose gear nut is "retracted" providing natural ground clearance. Original grease nipple hole goes nowhere useful (blocked by brass bushing)so it will get plugged.


RV10 wheel pant needs a little more trimming.


RV7A Tow bar widened by 1/8 inch on each side with die grinder for clearance. Towbar studs are extended with washers not the standard RV10 style blocks.


New tires on in level flight attitude.


Main tire size difference (5:00X5 vs 380-150-5). About 1.5" bigger diameter raises the 7 about 3/4" at the main gear. It rolls noticeably easier in the shop on the bigger tires. Needs to be chocked before climing in/out. Final aircraft stance is slightly tail low similar to RV6A.


Stock wheel pant trimmed to fit the bigger tire which is quite a bit wider.


Summary:
Increased tire size, increased prop clearance, increased wheel pant to ground clearance, almost zero rolling friction, tail low stance ala RV6A. Max allowable nose gear weight will be reduced by 17% (from the original design recommendation) to account for the additional leverage of the longer fork. Overall weight gain is estimated to be 5-6 lbs over stock. All mods are easily reversible if this doesn't work out for some reason. But I highly doubt it. These are my new everyday gear.

Very nice. Thanks for the great pictures.

Nose gear

Bevin, That is very much like what I did, except I had a custom gear leg made for the different geometry of the axle. (back further) It works very well. I put a flair on the nose leg fairing to cover the pocket for gear leg rotation. Also put a thrust washer below lower hat bushing.This washer has two .125 slots on the I.D.with a .125 roll pin through leg. This is below the bushing so the fork will pass over the roll pin. When you adjust the pre-load on the Belleville washers the rotation is very smooth because the friction is always between hat bushings and fixed washers. I would put some type of stiffener on the stock leg. Looks very nice. Also ran the bushing up inside RV 10 stop so that the bushing is bolted to the leg besides a light shrink fit. Ron

very nice

what's not to like about this? good job!

868RM said:

Bevin, That is very much like what I did, except I had a custom gear leg made for the different geometry of the axle. (back further) It works very well. I put a flair on the nose leg fairing to cover the pocket for gear leg rotation. Also put a thrust washer below lower hat bushing.This washer has two .125 slots on the I.D.with a .125 roll pin through leg. This is below the bushing so the fork will pass over the roll pin. When you adjust the pre-load on the Belleville washers the rotation is very smooth because the friction is always between hat bushings and fixed washers. I would put some type of stiffener on the stock leg. Looks very nice. Also ran the bushing up inside RV 10 stop so that the bushing is bolted to the leg besides a light shrink fit. Ron

Click to expand...

Ron, Have you got a picture of the roll pin install?

I do have a thrust washer between the Bellevilles and the bushing, and another betwwen the nut and the belleville.

I have the antisplat "nosejob" but it doesn't fit due to the larger wheel fairing unless it is moved up several inches. I don't think it would work as designed that way so I am not planning to use it at this point. I'm not sure that wrapping the leg with fiberglass or carbon fibre will assist the spring steel much. Jury is still out on that one. I would prefer that the gear leg it's self would be offered in a slightly stronger (thicker in the middle) version.

Bevan

Pics

I think I do will check tomorrow afternoon. Not at right computer now. Ron