What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New "A" Nose Gear - Should I Update?

KazooRV-9A

Well Known Member
Patron
So we saw the New "A" Nose gear at Oshkosh. I'm building an RV-9A and have the original (currently uninstalled) firewall forward Lycoming Dynafocal mount and original gear leg.

The Van's salesman said that the cost of the new A mount was approx. $4200 retrofit/$3900 if original was never mounted.

So,,,,

-Should I update to the new "A" mount?
-Is the original mount/leg that prone to damage or shimmy, that I should update?
-What are builders thinking about this new option?

Andy C.
 
I know of one person waiting for someone to upgrade as he is looking for a budget friendly front mount/nose gear.

In my view it all depends on maybe safety margin. The stock works and has for years, very simple. The new probably can absorb a few more not so good landings though.
 
So we saw the New "A" Nose gear at Oshkosh. I'm building an RV-9A and have the original (currently uninstalled) firewall forward Lycoming Dynafocal mount and original gear leg.

The Van's salesman said that the cost of the new A mount was approx. $4200 retrofit/$3900 if original was never mounted.

So,,,,

-Should I update to the new "A" mount?
-Is the original mount/leg that prone to damage or shimmy, that I should update?
-What are builders thinking about this new option?

Andy C.

Wether one thinks the update is needed or not....when it comes to resale, this will be a must have upgrade and the RVs with this mod will bring a premium...IMHO
 
Last edited:
Wether one thinks the update is needed or not....when it comes to resale, this will be a must have upgrade and the RVs with this mod will bring a premium...IMHO

That's my opinion on it as well. If/when I build a 9, it will have the new style gear. I wouldn't even consider building with the old style at this point.
 
In my discussions with a Vans rep, he said the best time to install the new style mount/gear is when the initial engine mount has been mounted to the airframe. It can be retrofit to completed planes, BUT each engine mount comes out just enough different after the welding process that cowl work likely would need to be done. This could a little work or a lot of work to match up up the cowl to fuselage. That means possibly repainting the cowl.

Apparently, even with using the same engine mount jig for the metal tubes, you can't predict exactly how much the tubing could change or deform after the welding process.

I've considered it for my flying and nicely painted RV-7A, but I'm comfortable with the original design as it has served me well for the past 14 years, 1450+ hrs. and 900+ landings.
 
I talked to one of the Vans Representatives at the booth and said I was on the fence about putting in the new nose gear. Since I have my mount drilled and my cowling all set where the current mount is he said if it was his plane he wouldn't do it. I have decided I'm not going to spend that money and upgrade. To me that's a crazy amount of money for what I saw that part looks like. I know it's a better nose gear but I have seen some of the places that Vlad has landed with the current nose gear.
As far as resale goes I don't plan on selling my plane so that doesn't even enter my mind right now. To know how much it's worth you would have to have two exact planes side by side for sale with different nose gear to see how much resale is going to be affected. Will the original nose gear plane sell for $5000 miles or $10000 less? Who knows.
I am going to put the anti splat device on my original nose gear and be careful. Right or wrong this is how I'm going about it.
 
If it were me...

Take that $3900, purchase some extra 100LL and practice a bunch of nose-high landings at near stall speed. With proper technique, the standard nose gear will serve you just fine, and you'll have a lighter & simpler aircraft.

As for shimmy, make sure your wheels/tires are balanced, you have proper break-out force on the nose gear, and consider adding the wooden vibration dampers during the build.
 
I went back and forth on this too, but having just started the cowl fitting process I decided it was worth it for me to pull the trigger now.

It's a lot of money, but also some piece of mind for me too and if I ever do sell it can't hurt.

I too will have a mount and gear for sale once the new parts are available. I also have a brand new Anti-splat that'll I'll be selling at that time (the version with their fairing).

Supposedly, I am first or close to first on the upgrade list and am local so I'll be running over and picking it up as soon as I get the call. I'll share lots of pics when I get to that point too.

dan
 
The answer to if the new gear is worth it or not was answered to me in the photo of the 14 A that just caught on fire and the pilot had to land in a field - quick. The photo of the plane with the burned cockpit was scary to see. The answer to if it was worth it is the plane did not flip over. He was able to pop the canopy off and escape a burning plane. would he have remained upright with the standard A nose wheel? Who knows. What we do know is he did and is alive now.

I will be ordering a new mount and nose gear.
 
My experience with Vans welded items so far is that there is large variation from item to item, another poster also mentioned this. It would seem that were would be a very high risk that your cowl would no longer fit.

You might be able to retro but more likely your going to need to build a new cowl. The cost is one thing but time is something else, it takes hundreds of hours at least for me to build, prep and paint to a high standard. I know I am not not alone here as see so many planes(like 50%) where people have struggled with cowl workmanship. I find both the cowl and the canopy on the RV9A to be soul crushing experiences. People put in hundreds of hour only to have it come out poorly. One of the worst cases of manufacturability I have every seen in my life.
 
As far as resale goes I don't plan on selling my plane so that doesn't even enter my mind right now.

I?ve been reading posts from RV builders since I first frequented Matt Dralle?s RV-List back in the 1990s. If I had a dollar for every RV builder who said he was never going to sell his plane (but ended up selling anyway) I?d probably have enough today for a nice Caribbean cruise. ;)
 
Go for it

Andy C

You are going to have $80,000 or more invested in the plane before it's finished.

Adding $4,000 to the total is not that much more for the peace of mind and will also add to the resale value.

I would recommend you go for the up grade as you haven't mounted the original one yet.

My opinion only.

Bryan Carr
 
I think the answer to the OPs question depends on what type of builder you are:

There are two types - those to whom $3900 is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things and will glady pony up for just about every option - and those who have to (or choose to) make careful judgements about where to spend their limited resources. There is nothing wrong with being either type of builder, but these sorts of questions invariably result in responses from both types.

If it were me and I were still building, I would consider where else I could use that $3900 - upgraded avionics, paint, engine upgrades, etc, and would probably defer. But then I very rarely fly on grass, and when I do it's good grass (think Triple Tree), and I have a light airplane with not too much weight on the nosewheel. I did transition training in an RV6A that has spent its whole, tough life, on a rough grass strip, so I know the design is reasonably sufficient when handled appropriately. That being said, if I were based on a grass strip, or planned a lot of rough-field operations, I would spring for the upgrade (or more likely build a tailwheel), otherwise I'd pass and spend the money elsewhere. My nosewheel pops up almost immediately on takeoff roll, and stays up on landing until almost walking speed.

There may be a slight resale hit far in the future, but that's future money vs money in your pocket now. Invest the $3900 and sell in 10 years and I bet you come out on top. Or put the money towards OTHER things in your airplane that also improve resale (interior, paint, avionics, etc). Or if you can spend $3900 without much worry, go for it and enjoy the improved piece of mind.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Just to comment on the cost. For a new builder the cost is less since the original mount is $1200. So the delta is more around $2700. Retrofits would see the full cost though.

For better or worse I pulled the trigger on the new mount. For me now was the time to make that decision. I should hopefully have mine in a week or so.
 
I'm not sure where some of these costs are coming from. After talking to Van's to finalize my order on the list the cost of the new mount and leg is $2985 (although there are a few variations including various small parts like fuel lines etc. so this number will not be the same for everyone but I haven't heard anywhere close to 4k). I was also told that I will get a $750 dollar credit when I send my old mount and leg back (there is a time limit on when you received your old one).

Another perspective is what Anti-Splat parts you aren't going to buy now that you planned on. If you planned on the nose job $339 and the front wheel mod $235 and lipskid $89 but no longer do any of those your total cost now is down to $1572. I for one am still going to the nose wheel mod (just sent my nosewheel off today) because I think it is a superior method to the taper bearings with little rolling resistance, not to mention they will true the tire as well.

Anyways, just wanted to offer another perspective.
 
Just to add----I took a look at the mount on Sunday and again on Monday---because I too will need to do something when I get back to working on my 7--changing to 7A. (yeah I know). For right now my focus was on the plumbing side of things. In talking to Eric prior to Osh, I really wasnt sure if the firewall bulkhead fitting was going to be re-configured, or left in the OE position. The SB said use the VA136 hose from OP32 which allows the original install of the bulkhead fitting AND the cabin plumbing from the boost pump to the firewall to remain unchanged, As a note---the mount resembles the RV14A mount, but the bulkhead fitting is configured opposite---with the 90* side at the engine, and not in the cabin as the 7A configuration is. The VA136 uses a 90* hose end, and this will connect to the bulkhead fitting to turn the hose away from the gear portion of the mount.

WE would love to hear from someone that actually has the new mount.

Tom and Steve
 
Hey Leonard- I assume you hadn't drilled your FW yet? Would you mind sharing some pics for those of us on the list?

Thanks!
dan
 
$750 credit for the old!
I would like to know what exactly does $2200 get you plus the double shipping cost.
Also plus the difference between original price and credit.

R
 
new gear leg not needed

No, when you learn to fly the 9A you'll see that when you take off you'll pull the nose gear off the pavement a little and take off from the mains. And when you land you'll hold the nose off the payment as you slow down until about 40 knots when it settles back down. I did all the Nose Job upgrades to my 7A gear, but now that I'm finally flying it I think the concern is over done hype. I'm surprised how easy the 7A is to fly and land correctly once you've been taught. It is an accurate flyer. The nose gear doesn't see much action when you fly the way you're suppose to.
 
14A in Australia??

Have u seen the picture of the 14A that flipped in Australia?? Beefy nose gear didn?t help.
 
Have u seen the picture of the 14A that flipped in Australia?? Beefy nose gear didn’t help.

They don't make beefy enough nose gear to deal with that situation.

The airplane came down short of the runway in foot high vegetation and on fairly rough ground. I don't think any light aircraft nose gear without very large wheel/tire would have held up in those circumstances.
 
Keep in mind lots of people are flipping tail wheel aircraft, you can do it with just over braking. The standard nose gear works just fine as long as the pilot does his part. Think of it as a taxi wheel and as others have noted keep it off the ground unless you are taxiing and you won't have any problems. For those of you that learned to land using the chop and drop techniques then it's best you hook up with one of Vans guys and take some training in how best to fly these aircraft. I've watched many aircraft being driven on during landing with all 3 wheels touching at the same time or worse yet the nose wheel touching first and in my opinion this will eventually cause you big problems with RV trikes, as it will on most trikes. Another way to approach it might be to take some tail wheel dual and simply fly it like you would a tail wheel except your taxi wheel is in the front. :)
 

Both of those videos are crazy. I can't believe the first one the plane didnt drag a wing or just plow into the ground. How would you like to be the next guy to rent that trainer!

Scott - I appreciate the work your guys at Vans have done to come up with a new A gear design. I am at the certification stage of my build and I will be ordering a new mount - gear. One suggestion - make it easier to find the part to order on the web site. I probably just missed it, but I couldnt find how to order.

Thanks
 
No, when you learn to fly the 9A you'll see that when you take off you'll pull the nose gear off the pavement a little and take off from the mains. And when you land you'll hold the nose off the payment as you slow down until about 40 knots when it settles back down. I did all the Nose Job upgrades to my 7A gear, but now that I'm finally flying it I think the concern is over done hype. I'm surprised how easy the 7A is to fly and land correctly once you've been taught. It is an accurate flyer. The nose gear doesn't see much action when you fly the way you're suppose to.

Flown correctly as described above and in my experience of 14 years flying, 1400+ hours and 900+ uneventful landings in my 7A, I've found the original design to be entirely adequate. As Van has said, the third wheel is for taxiing, not landing. I am also pretty anal about keeping the nose tire pressure at 40 psi before any flying, That usually requires adding air at least monthly. A strategically placed hole in the nose wheel fairing that lines up with the tire valve and a homemade inflation extension tube greatly reduces the effort to add air to the tire.

Early on, I replaced the original design mushroom bearing holders with the Matco axle, which is easier to accurately tighten and definitely reduces the rolling resistance of the nose wheel itself. Nowadays, the Beringer nose wheel with its tubeless tire is worth a look.

How much margin for pilot error is built into the nose gear leg original versus new design is hard to say. The new design seems beefier thus offering a greater margin for pilot error and, therefore, warrants consideration..
 
Last edited:
Most don't understand the dangers of Vans weak nose design. It's not the normal planned landings that is where the risk is its the off field Ldg's that present the real risk!
There's been a few A models that hve flipped of late in Australia and we have bugger all Vans here compared to the States!
 
Last edited:
Most don't understand the dangers of Vans weak nose design. It's not the normal planned landings that is where the risk is its the off field Ldg's that present the real risk!

I totally agree. You can have all the transition training in the world and know exactly how to baby the nose wheel but if the engine quits and you?re not over a big billiard table you?ve got a real problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in most off-runway attempts at a forced landing into an open field the nose gear collapses and the plane tips over.
 
I totally agree. You can have all the transition training in the world and know exactly how to baby the nose wheel but if the engine quits and you’re not over a big billiard table you’ve got a real problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in most off-runway attempts at a forced landing into an open field the nose gear collapses and the plane tips over.

Anecdotal evidence? That same thing would suggest that most pilots don't know how to fly to Oshkosh at 90kts, don't know how to properly choose which type of canopy to opt for, and use the wrong primer on their aircraft while building. It would also suggest that the new nose gear design won't present a flipover as evidenced by the recent -14A accident in Australia (see this thread).

More facts/data and less opinion would be helpful.
 
Last edited:
You could always put the nose wheel on the back... where it belongs... Ha ha :D

I appologize.

What is the big difference with the new gear?
Is it more draggy?
Is it heaver?
How much testing has been done?
Did it really prevent folding up?
 
Here?s a must watch video of a nose wheel KR2 shot during a forced landing on a wide street south of Tacoma, Washington, a couple of days ago. It was shot from a police car dash cam. Have a look at how this guy lands under real pressure. This is a prime example of how in a real emergency situation involving an engine failure all finer skills of pilotage can go out the window under the stress. Amazing that the KR2 nosewheel withstood the abuse. Watch the actual moment of touchdown.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=pkOg9qh3unM

Now don?t get me wrong on this one. This guy did a fine job to land this plane in a suburban street and walk away with presumably no injury and no damage to the plane. However my point is that under such a real time stressful emergency it is unlikely that many pilots are going to execute a classic hold-the-nose-off landing....and that?s when you need a bit of reasonable safety factor on the nosegear.
 
Last edited:
Anecdotal evidence? That same thing would suggest that most pilots don't know how to fly to Oshkosh at 90kts, don't know how to properly choose which type of canopy to opt for, and use the wrong primer on their aircraft while building. It would also suggest that the new nose gear design won't present a flipover as evidenced by the recent -14A accident in Australia (see this thread).

More facts/data and less opinion would be helpful.

Sorry, I?m not sure what you?re trying to say. The anecdotal evidence that a large percentage of two-place RV(A)s with the original nose gear tip over during off-field forced landings (and often during on-field botched landings...particularly on unsealed runways) is manifestly obvious just from the posts over the years detailing the accidents on VansAirforce. I mean, it?s not exactly a secret is it ?
The original nosegear design is quite fragile and does not have a lot of safety factor. And when it collapses the plane invariably tips over because the 2 place RVs have a very short coupled gear design.
 
Just my opinion but RV's have some limitations in their design. They are not back woods type aircraft and are not designed for this type of flying. They are sporty, cross country aircraft that have terrific climb and cruise speeds compared to your average certified built piper or Cessna. They have very small tires that are usually filled to higher pressures that are really not suitable for off airport landings. Even the tail wheel models have very small tailwheels that don't lend themselves to rougher strips plus next to no clearance on the wheel pants.:) If your looking for an aircraft that you can operate in the back woods the RV is probably one of your worst choices.
If you've got a decent gravel or turf runway then any RV can handle these conditions if operated properly. If your operating in a field that is not suitable for an A model flown properly your probably pushing the envelope for a straight RV, in my opinion.
In my experience it has way more to do with pilot skills than aircraft design. Having said that tail wheel aircraft can usually take a bit more abuse before things start to break but why bother? The odds of a forced landing is pretty small and I wouldn't be making my choice based on that scenario. If that was the target then buy a Super Cub and call it a day but your going to have to give up on aerobatics and be happy with 90 knot cruise speeds
 
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. The anecdotal evidence that a large percentage of two-place RV(A)s with the original nose gear tip over during off-field forced landings (and often during on-field botched landings...particularly on unsealed runways) is manifestly obvious just from the posts over the years detailing the accidents on VansAirforce. I mean, it’s not exactly a secret is it ?
The original nosegear design is quite fragile and does not have a lot of safety factor. And when it collapses the plane invariably tips over because the 2 place RVs have a very short coupled gear design.

I think the point is that just because A models tend to nose over on rough off-field landings, doesn't mean that the new gear model will change that. It is still a short-coupled gear and can only absorb so much. -A models just have this disadvantage when it comes to off field-landings. Of course my 9A may still have an advantage over other models because of a 10 knot slower stall speed. The point is that LOTS of factors impact what happens in an off-field landing. Big engines and heavy props out front don't help, either. Pilot technique appears to be a factor in a large number of on-airport incidents. Cheaper to change technique than change landing gear.

100% of RV14A accidents in Australia resulted in a tipover, and that's with new nosegear, so I think we need more than anecdotal evidence here.

Chrus
 
I think the point is that just because A models tend to nose over on rough off-field landings, doesn't mean that the new gear model will change that. It is still a short-coupled gear and can only absorb so much. -A models just have this disadvantage when it comes to off field-landings. Of course my 9A may still have an advantage over other models because of a 10 knot slower stall speed. The point is that LOTS of factors impact what happens in an off-field landing. Big engines and heavy props out front don't help, either. Pilot technique appears to be a factor in a large number of on-airport incidents. Cheaper to change technique than change landing gear.

100% of RV14A accidents in Australia resulted in a tipover, and that's with new nosegear, so I think we need more than anecdotal evidence here.

Chrus

Chris, there’s nothing in your post that I disagree with...nothing. Certainly the jury will be out on the new gear model for some time yet. I think it will be a slight improvement but only time in service will determine that. I know that poor pilot technique is the cause of many (perhaps most) nose gear failures on the RVs. I did my transition training with Mike Seager. That was a revelation. However I am also fully aware that in off-field forced landings the subtle nuances of good pilot technique can go out the window under the stress...particularly amongst older pilots (and RV pilots tend to be older pilots) who can really struggle with the multi-tasking involved. I just think the RV fraternity needs to fully understand that these planes are designed for speed at low cost and the downside to that is they do not perform well in off-field emergency landings. If your engine quits in your 2-seat RV mid flight there is a very high probability that your nose gear will collapse, that the plane will tip over, and that it will be extremely difficult to exit the aircraft by yourself in any timely manner. That’s just the way it is. I am a strong advocate for good RV piloting techniques but there is a lot to be said also for good engine maintenance on these planes. As for builders putting auto conversions into RVs to save a few dollars...well don’t get me started. :)
 
Last edited:
Pictures of New Gear Kit

Hi all,

Here’s a link to some photos of the new Nose Gear Kit for the RV-7A. I’ve included photos of all the accessories included, drawings, etc. Also a picture of the parts laid together with the donuts in place.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q1z8DSJJgxMkHbm1A

There’s a lot more engineering involved here than in the original gear, so the cost begins to be justified.

Hope this helps the undecided.

Leonard Westermeyer
RV-7A “almost” completed.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Leonard!

Very nice looking mount. Anxious to get my hands on mine!

One question- what is the blue (alu?) bolt for?
 
Hi all,

Here?s a link to some photos of the new Nose Gear Kit for the RV-7A. I?ve included photos of all the accessories included, drawings, etc. Also a picture of the parts laid together with the donuts in place.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q1z8DSJJgxMkHbm1A

There?s a lot more engineering involved here than in the original gear, so the cost begins to be justified.

Hope this helps the undecided.

Leonard Westermeyer
RV-7A ?almost? completed.


Gee that's a vast improvement to the weak original design. Top job Vans, they obviously know the A models need 'attention' :)
 
Hi all,

Here?s a link to some photos of the new Nose Gear Kit for the RV-7A. I?ve included photos of all the accessories included, drawings, etc. Also a picture of the parts laid together with the donuts in place.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q1z8DSJJgxMkHbm1A

There?s a lot more engineering involved here than in the original gear, so the cost begins to be justified.

Hope this helps the undecided.

Leonard Westermeyer
RV-7A ?almost? completed.

Thanks for posting the pics Leonard, there is a lot more parts to it than I thought.
 
Hi all,

Here?s a link to some photos of the new Nose Gear Kit for the RV-7A. I?ve included photos of all the accessories included, drawings, etc. Also a picture of the parts laid together with the donuts in place.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q1z8DSJJgxMkHbm1A

There?s a lot more engineering involved here than in the original gear, so the cost begins to be justified.

Hope this helps the undecided.

Leonard Westermeyer
RV-7A ?almost? completed.

Thanks for posting the pics Leonard, there is a lot more parts to it than I thought.
 
Andy,

I intend to go with the newer solution. The original design was revised at some point to give more clearance to the nose fork. Since you have a low serial number, if you do not yet have the parts for SB 07-11-09 then the upgrade is a no-brainer. A lot of people believe in some of the aftermarket solutions for the original nose gear design, I haven't seen one that I would install.
 
Axle Improvement on New Nose Gear

In answer to Dan Reed’s question about the blue aluminum part shown in the photos of the new Nose Gear Kit, I have investigated and have some really good news to report!

As you probably know, one of the problems which contributed to the failures of the original Nose Gear was the difficulty in the adjustment of the axle torque. The conical bearings were adjusted with the same bolt which torqued the wheel in the fork. If this bearing torque was incorrect or was affected by a rough landing or uneven landing surfaces, it could cause the bearings to freeze up and provoke the collapse of the gear.

Currently there are two solutions to this problem. One offered by the Anti Splat company for $234 which replaces the conical bearings with sealed ball bearings and includes a spacer between the bearings to permit the axle to be tightened to the fork without affecting the bearing operation.

The other solution is offered by Matco, the manufacturers of the wheel, and for $80 adds an internal axle on which the conical bearings are mounted. The internal axle has an adjustment nut with its own locking mechanism to allow the bearing torque to be adjusted independently from the main axle bolt’s torque on the fork.

The good news is that this Matco solution is included in the new Nose Gear kit!

I will include a link to the old and new C1 drawings where you can see the modification:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yV2NyjyNVsViJn6p8

Leonard Westermeyer
RV-7A in “final” stages of construction
 
Last edited:
Axle Manufacturer

Sorry for the misinformation.

It does appear to be a similar solution to the Matco part, although I think it?s probably superior in the design of the locking mechanism.

Anyway, super happy with the solutions which will help us to sleep better!

Leonard Westermeyer
 
My choice for a nose wheel is the Beringer, plus it's tubeless:
IMG_5777a.jpg
 
Back
Top