What's new
Van's Air Force

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

MKII nose forks and rollovers / collapses

More info from the nose gear incident

Since the front gear bent on my 9A, I've received many emails and lots of advice. Most of it was pretty useful but some people were downright $%#@ and incorrect. Let's separate fiction from fact.

To the fellow who emailed that the "crank won't bend from a low rpm strike." Wrong, my crank is bent at the flange. If it can be straightened w/o cracking, it's $400 plus $$ already spent to measure & dial. Lycoming cranks are not hardened at the flange, unlike Continentals. Lycomings can be straightened. We'll see, my fingers and toes are crossed.

To the fellow who commented that the engine mount never breaks? Wrong, the engine mount has one tiny crack. JET WELD in Chandler will fix it and then it will be magnafluxed (again) to confirm.

For those who criticized AES in Chandler, AZ? Dead wrong, those guys were great, they let me help split the case and dial the crank. "Professional" and "expert" is how I'd describe Chuck Estergaard and his fellows.

For those who sent the suggestion: "You can split the case by tapping the bolts". Wrong, AES in Chandler used two cut down connecting rods & two presses driven by a breaker bar to split the case. Had I tried screwdrivers and pounding, I would have disfigured a beautiful piece of art work, my case.

Then there was the advice which said you can magnaflux w/o removing paint. Wrong, if you want to see the cracks, remove the paint & powder coat which comes off with Home Depot stripper. At $75 an hour, strip the paint before you contract magnafluxing.

For the many people who offered the following free advice on my bent prop: "No problem, I've seen worse props get straightened". Wrong, Warner prop shop says there's too much material on a Sensenich prop to easily bend it back. He doubts he'll be able to fix it. Cost: $180 to try, $720 to overhaul, $2000 approx to replace. Again, my fingers and toes are crossed.

And the preventative measures I've received via email have been hot and heavy. Trim the bearing felt, pin the bushings, sleeve them, buy a Matco wheel, convert to a tail dragger, add maple to stiffen the front gear leg, wrap it in fiberglass, go back to an old gear, place a jock strap over the gear, convert the front wheel pant into a skid plate, add material to the inside of the wheel pant so it sacrifices its life, don't land on grass, etc.

Fortunately, I'm blessed with a great circle of intelligent & experienced pilot friends. We're considering all of these ideas and applying the best possible remedies.

But there always has to be one "bottom of the barrel". The most offensive post was the suggestion that I change the wording in my original submission to PILOT BENDS NOSE GEAR. He's right, I deliberately bent my front gear (sic). Not only did I bend the nose gear on purpose (sic), this old man with a bad back un-bent it using a pipe wrench, an extension, and a helper. I deliberately decided to trash 18 months of 7 days a week, 12 hour days, $72k+/-, 64 hours of flying the 9A with 129 landings at many different airports, and intentionally bent the gear to scare the dickens out of my wonderful wife of 39 years.

It worked. She refuses to fly and is already going nuts with the latest round of bills. And to add to the excitement of sliding down a runway looking down at the ground thanks to a collapsed main gear, I now have the pleasure (sic) of rebuilding my beautiful toy at another $4,500 to $12,000, disassembling the airplane, and reassembling it during the Tucson summer.

Ok, my venting is now complete.

You may have noticed I have not bashed the vendor (I love the airplane) . Building your own airplane from a box of parts, and flying the 9 is something few people will ever experience in their lifetime, but some comparisons are in order. When my Dynon D180 failed to boot off battery after rev 4 software was loaded, the vendor called me and sent a patch. When my new $3,000 Garmin SL30 reception was inadequate, the vendor gave us several suggestions how to improve reception which remedied the problem. Virtually every vendor, including Vans, was helpful during the 18 month build process. Why Vans has not called me to interview me since my initial report, despite thousands of hits and hundreds of posts, remains a mystery.

Finally, I have answered every email including one that just arrived from a fellow serving in Iraq. I posted pictures on my website so others can weigh in. Rather than submit "un"-constructive criticism (I got a few of those), I urge those experts with many more hours than me to document, photograph, and demonstrate any and all flying techniques so that others can avoid the miserable grief and expense I'm going thru. If you know Van, try to promulgate a volunteer study group that can fully examine the issue in an organized way so that we achieve solutions rather than criticism and/or speculation. IF I made a mistake (and that's a big IF), help me identify and correct because as we all know, flying airplanes is not exactly the most forgiving hobby. As my tech counselor Gil Alexander will attest, my good friend Chet and I welcomed constructive criticism during the 18 month build cycle. We invited experts to examine the plane and offer any criticism they had. After each visit from Gil and other sophisticated builders we always had a Honey Doo list for which we said "thank you". The goal was a perfect airplane, no shortcuts were taken, no junk installed.

My wife agreed to this project because she's seen the many classic cars I've built and trophies we've won. I also thank Roberta for her phone calls and expert advice.

The 9A is a lot of fun. It's proven economical, responsive, easy to fly, plans were readable, vendor support acceptable, and Doug's website invaluable. W/o Doug's website, I suspect few airplanes would ever see the light of day. If you're reading this post but have not sent in your annual $25, (fill in your own answer here).

Barry
Tucson
 
Courage!

Barry, I mean this sincerely when I commend you on your courage!

Courage to face the facts, do the work, and rebuild....with the intent to re-fly!

and Courage to post here publicly in the full knowledge that there are people that don't know how NOT to make posts that will sound offensive to a person that is already hurt and is doing his best to share whatever he can to help others.

I have been involved in a lot of post-incident analysis, and there are several things that I have found to be true. First is that the answer(s) are usually not obvious - what seems to be the case at first usually turns out to be wrong.

Second, it takes serious (and sometimes expensive) analysis to really chase down a "root cause". Armchair quarterbacking is good for brainstorming ideas, and there is value to that, but those should be thought of as ideas, and everyone needs to be willing to give them up in the face of additional data.

Third, it is very hard for a person (even a trained test pilot) to remember the exact sequence of events when they are expecting everything to go well - in other words, it is hard to be in 100% record mode 100% of the time. (I use this to explain why I can't find the pen I just put down while on the other hand, I can run a space mission!).


Lastly, people come across in writing, on the internet, in a way that sometimes they don't even intend. Sometimes we take them wrong, and sometimes, they really haven't thought out how their words can be taken. (And yes, there are the 2% jerks that really DO mean exactly how their words come across....I just ignore them!)

You're doing well Barry, and taking this all well. I have no idea, and no preconceived notions about what happened in your case, because I haven't seen all the data - no one has. There are many things in aviation that are done (or designed) a certain way because there was incident after incident that finally gave clues to how things really are. The crime in experimental aviation is not that we have incidents - the crime is if we don't chase the incidents down to their root cause.

All my opinion - hang in there Barry!

Paul
 
Barry, thanks for the patient reply to everyone's questions.

I think I was the first person to design a skid-plate for the old fork design, and it served it's purpose if the scrapes on the nose cone were any indication. I've been tracking this issue for a long time.

I ran some experiments in my hangar the other day, and I may a theory that may apply hear.

When an -A is yawed on the ground, the gear leg tends to flex the wheel assembly left or right. I believe that this may be aggravated by heavy braking (yawing and braking at the same time).

You mentioned the condition of the runway and the gusty conditions and that you were braking. Is it possible that this yawing and braking led to a wheelbarrowing situation? I think most of us have experienced this with a heavy wheelbarrow hitting a ridge on an angle, and having the whole load dump to the side.

The Van's gear leg has little resistance to lateral flex and this will exacerbate the effect. I see no easy fix to this-- but I am changing my taxiing technique.

I will no longer do an expedited turn-off from the runway. I will slow the aircraft first, then make my turn with minimal braking.

It's truly sad that you bent your a/c by taxiing the way most of us do. It's probably just the right combination of loading, yawing, braking and the runway lip.

Let's face it, the design leads very little margin for error, and when the circumstances line up, bad things happen. For example, if it works fine in 99.999% of all situations (aka five-nine's), and we estimate that there are 2000 A models flying, with 200 take-off/landings per year, there will be about 2.5 of these incidents per year, but any one aircraft over it's lifespan would have no measureable problem.

Statistically, the design works "perfectly". Practically, with thousands of them flying, we will see these situations a few times per year. It's the same kind of situation for ground loops on conventional gear... the right combination of circumstances triggers the event.

It's no help to you, but thanks for sharing the information to help everyone else.

Vern
 
I think he's got it

When an -A is yawed on the ground, the gear leg tends to flex the wheel assembly left or right. I believe that this may be aggravated by heavy braking (yawing and braking at the same time).

Vern,
I was thinking the same thing. This seems to fit the description of the accident and the forensic evidence that Gil posted. I think part of transition training should be to roll out in a forward direction, and not try to turn until you are down to slow taxi speed. That should reduce, if not eliminate, any fore-aft oscillation of the nose gear (during the turn) as well.

I have come to the conclusion (for myself only), that the reason this issue is so difficult to pin down, is there isn't just one reason it happens. I was trying to find ONE problem that caused ALL the failures. I now believe there are multiple problems and will stick all my fingers in the dike. Also, there are many unknown variables. We would be in a better position to troubleshoot this issue if we had more objective data from past accidents. But that data will probably never be known now.

Barry,
Ditto Paul's comments above. Remember, opinions are like...let's say...noses. Everybody has one. And they're all full of...well you know. Hang in there.

Clear skies to all,
 
Kudos to Barry

Paul kind of stole my thunder here. But I also want to say that I REALLY admire your patience under such trying circumstances.

I think I'll refrain from any other comments.....

Good luck

John
 
Barry - thanks for the many informative points in your latest post. Glad to hear that despite the challenges and frustrations you're sticking to your guns, doing it right, and getting back in the air.

I had a thought strike me the other day as I watched a friends airplane being taxied... The RV-xA's are having more nosegear trouble than anybody would like. Let's face it - statistics be darned, if it's YOUR baby that's standing on its nose that's one too many nosegear failures.

What is the rate of similar incidents in the Grumman Cheetah and Tiger airplanes? They use a very similar setup, have similar engines, and may (or may not) have many other similarities. While the Vans design may work 99.x% of the time, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at other successful designs and either adapt them or copy them outright. If the Grumman design has a much lower incidence of failure, maybe it's worthy of being copied? The same might be said for Chris Heintz's CH200/250/300 nosedraggers that also use the same general nosegear shape.

I'm not trying to poison the waters here, but when I watched my friends Cheetah do a high speed taxi over bumps that make me think twice in my airplane, it suddenly dawned on me that reinventing the wheel may be unnecessary. In fact, the right "wheel" might already have been invented, and maybe just needs to be grafted on to the magnificent Vans airframes.

Just a thought that I hope inspires "A" owners to perservere in finding a solution to this problem.
 
This ?ain?t? happening again.

Vern and Tom:

Your conclusion is the same conclusion we came to in my shop where we laid out the runways and the direction of taxi while Chet, holding the gear, simulated the forward movement of the gear.



Your analysis is RIGHT ON. You said:



When an -A is yawed on the ground, the gear leg tends to flex the wheel assembly left or right. I believe that this may be aggravated by heavy braking (yawing and braking at the same time).

The Van's gear leg has little resistance to lateral flex and this will exacerbate the effect. I see no easy fix to this-- but I am changing my taxiing technique.


I am fairly certain all 3 wheels remained on the ground, and having done many brake jobs when I worked at auto garages to get thru college, I never resort to heavy braking and didn?t heavy brake at MYF. However, I was braking and a mere undulation of the surface of the runway (which is reasonable to expect where two runways intersect) can cause the nose wheel to follow the track making it easier for it to collapse due to the sideways leverage afforded at that moment. That possibility notwithstanding, runway 23 is pockmarked and my wife, who is speaking to me for the moment, just confirmed the pockmarked pavement as she walked off too. Add the wind gust component, the intentional braking due to the 3,500 foot runway (which is 1,000 feet shorter than I?m used to), the additional weight of full fuel 30 minutes earlier, the breaks in the pavement (any description of 23 as NOT having obstructions more than ? inch at the location this mishap occurred is pure fantasy) and you have the right combination for a lousy outcome.

The nose gear tells the tale. The fact that the tire has NO scuff marks indicates it moved out of the way very quickly. The fork was heavily worn on one side, not in the center front. The nut was untouched. The bend to the gear was to the rear but also twisted. So now we have a sideways load which adds leverage making the bending of the gear that much easier. If you look at the pictures I posted, the gear didn?t simply fold to the rear. It folded to the rear and also to the side. I expect the hardness was OK (we?ll know in 10 days), but the sideways load, which leveraged the bending, added just enough force to produce the outcome.

Back in the dark ages of the software business (when I wrote assembly language) we used to call it a core dump. Today, it?s called a forensic analysis but no matter what we call it, the goal is to identify and solve the problem.

At least that?s my goal cause this ?ain?t? happening again.

Thanks fellas. Keep thinking these thoughts cause somewhere, someday, someone else will thank you whether he knows it or not.



Vern, when the time is right, I'd like to discuss your work on the front fairing.



FYI, FAIRINGS-ETC just called and said the missing fairing "... is in the mail".


Barry
Tucson
 
Why Vans has not called me to interview me since my initial report, despite thousands of hits and hundreds of posts, remains a mystery.

Barry,
I must agree with this sentiment. Vans is a great company with a great product, however the head scratching, speculation,confusion and unanswered questions concerning your nose gear collapse would be doing their image no good.
Many years ago I built a Vari-Eze (designed by Burt Rutan). All the accidents that RAF (Rutan Aircraft Factory) were aware of were reported and analyzed in their regular news letters. If something needed to be changed as a result of their investigation, such as pilot technique or modifications to the aircraft then the fix would usually appear in the same newsletter. In the case of what initially appeared to be an accident caused by an apparent structural failure then they would quickly send someone to investigate in person. The detailed description of accidents was depressing reading but their expert analysis and willingness to quickly respond with changes and recommendations made for a safer more airworthy aircraft and pilot.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Vans is a great company with a great product, however the head scratching, speculation,confusion and unanswered questions concerning your nose gear collapse would be doing their image no good.

Now there's going to be speculation about why they don't express any concern. Is it because they think it isn't their fault, or because they think it is? Either way, it just seems like poor customer relations not to even express concern. The American way seems to be, wait until someone dies before people take a problem seriously. We see it in certified aircraft all the time. The DC-10 comes to mind immediately.
 
Fellow builders and pilots

After following this and several other threads related to repeated nose gear collapses, I decided to write Vans and try to break through their never ending silence to see if they were even aware of our concerns. Below is a copy of my emails and one response from Gus at Vans. I may be wrong but it seems apparent to me that they refuse to say anything to us for fear of litigation or they think that if they keep silent the issue will just fade away.



Dear Vans,

I don't know if you have anyone at your company monitor the VansAirforce.net forum or if you even care what is discussed there. As a builder of the 7A model, I just thought I would take a moment and make you aware of an ongoing discussion/concern among builders and pilots of your "A" aircraft. If you are not concerned about what is discussed, that is your business but if you do take notice of what your customers are MOST
concerned about, I would urge you to read the threads related to the real/perceived weakness/danger of the nose gear. I understand that your past stance has been that nose gear incidents have been the fault of the pilot/builder and you have thousands of hours on your aircraft without incident. My only comment to you is that you have customers and possible future customers getting the idea that you have designed an unsafe airplane. "As a business owner, that in itself would make me take notice" Fortunately to date there have been no fatalities that I know of related to nose gear failure but when or if that ever occurs, this longstanding discussion/concern will definitely be addressed and in all likelihood not be seen favorable to your company if litigation is ever sought.

Just my opinion and as always take it for what it is
worth

Jim Kinsey
7A Finish kit



From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:06:57 -0700
Subject:

Van's employees certainly look at the forms on VAF, but as policy we
choose not to post there directly. It's a great resource, but you need to
discriminate. The fact that Doug has a "never ending debate" section gives
you some idea of the black hole for time and energy to which it can lead.

The nose gear "issue" has been thrashed to death on VAF and other forums
multiple times. Everything that we can say about it (at least for the present)
is listed in the Service Bulletin and Construction FAQ sections of our
website.

I'm not sure from your email what exactly you think that we should do, other
than be aware of these posts?

Gus




Gus,

First of all I want to thank you for responding to my email.
It is satisfying to know that you do indeed follow your customer forums.
My primary reason in writing to you was only to make you aware of the growing discontent and concern among your customers. Whether you believe that there is a flaw/weakness in your nose gear design or not, the increasing number of failures reported by pilots on those forums are obviously making a negative impact and is increasing the belief that the nose gear is indeed faulty. The fact that one thread alone on VAF has seen over 22,000 views in a very short period of time makes it clear that there is interest and concern among your pilots, builders as well as potential builders. That "black hole" that you speak of is "your customers" grasping at straws and looking for answers/solutions to a potential danger in landing our plane only to end up on our backs due to a collapsed nose gear. We as pilots/builders have to deal with these concerns/dangers if we want to build and fly a plane that your company has designed.

As far as what I expect you to do.......YES be aware of the builder concerns... but more personal than that... I would like to feel secure in the fact that after spending years of my time and a great deal of my money in building a plane that you designed; I will be able to land with my children and grandchildren on board and feel confident that I am not going to kill them when the nose gear folds up under the cowl!

Jim Kinsey
 
No Concern?

Now there's going to be speculation about why they don't express any concern. Is it because they think it isn't their fault, or because they think it is? Either way, it just seems like poor customer relations not to even express concern. The American way seems to be, wait until someone dies before people take a problem seriously. We see it in certified aircraft all the time. The DC-10 comes to mind immediately.

OK, I still don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't like to let misconceptions go by as fact....last year, Van's re-designed the nose wheel to address what they believed to be the problem and issued a service bulletin to give existing owners the chance to upgrade. Is this "expressing no concern?" I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that Van's operates on fairly small margins, and everything they do costs money and affects their future, so I think they act carefully.

It's just my personal opinion, but I bet that they take everything they see and hear and think about what it means. This might seem slow to some folks. I guess that they could recommend that all "A's" be grounded until they have the answer, as some engine folks have done (not that everyone listened). But I I imagine that a few folks would be displeased with that as well.

I don't think that we can "demand" an immediate solution to a problem that no one understands, and I think that the redesign showed their concern.

Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That "black hole" that you speak of is "your customers" grasping at straws and looking for answers/solutions to a potential danger in landing our plane only to end up on our backs due to a collapsed nose gear. We as pilots/builders have to deal with these concerns/dangers if we want to build and fly a plane that your company has designed.

As far as what I expect you to do.......YES be aware of the builder concerns... but more personal than that... I would like to feel secure in the fact that after spending years of my time and a great deal of my money in building a plane that you designed; I will be able to land with my children and grandchildren on board and feel confident that I am not going to kill them when the nose gear folds up under the cowl!

I guess I just don't share the paranoia of the "black hole" crowd. Perhaps my mind is just numb. :confused: Yet with six landings in a 9A two days ago, and more a few days before that................. I just didn't seem to get bothered at all.

Maybe it's all the "nose draggers" that I've been around for the last 14 years, that haven't had a collapsed nose wheel. My mind must be playing a numbers game, that says the ratio of gear collapsed accidents to actual nose gear landings is very small.

But for what it's worth, I read every small detail concerning this issue. In fact, I catch up on all NTSB reports three times a week. Yet, I'm still not worrying about landing the 9A....

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
I would like to know the actual numbers of A's that have lost the front landing gear? total and for the last year to date.
 
I guess I just don't share the paranoia of the "black hole" crowd. Perhaps my mind is just numb. :confused: Yet with six landings in a 9A two days ago, and more a few days before that................. I just didn't seem to get bothered at all.

L.Adamson -- RV6A

I agree there is some paranoia, but not everyone fits that category. I am a 9A pilot that operates off a strip that I suspect many RV tail wheel pilots would avoid. I have complete confidence in the nose wheel system. That's my problem. I just cannot understand how this incident could occur with such a well designed nose wheel system on a licensed runway. Given the unusual nature of this incident (no contact to the big nut) and the facts as I understand them, I think that all our laymen's explanations have not satisfactorily explained what happened and it would be great if the real experts (Vans) were able to give their opinion.
Thats it. No more posts from me . No point flogging a dead horse!

Fin
9A with complete confidence in the nose wheel system.
 
I have another question, one that has been ignored. What about Weight and Balance? This subject has been ignored, but it is very important. What if the weight on the nose gear is too much, that little wheel is going to take the brunt.
 
Van's re-designed the nose wheel to address what they believed to be the problem and issued a service bulletin to give existing owners the chance to upgrade. Is this "expressing no concern?" I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that Van's operates on fairly small margins, and everything they do costs money and affects their future, so I think they act carefully.

Paul,
I understand all that. I'm a one-man computer programming company, and my margins couldn't be any smaller. But when one of my customers has a problem, I do whatever it takes to resolve it. More often than not, it's something they did wrong. But how long do you think I would stay in business if I said nothing, or implied, "It's not my problem." They need help, I'm supposed to be the expert, and I provide whatever help I can. We discuss who should pay, and how much, after the problem is resolved.

I'm not suggesting that Van's give anything away. As their customers, we all have an interest in Van's long term success. But as Barry said, if it's technique that is causing this, tell us what to do, and what not to do. Instead, we have to figure it out for ourselves. We are all, by necessity, becoming seat-of-the-pants engineers. And that may be the most dangerous situation. All I'm saying is, I think we all would feel al whole lot better if someone from Van's said, "We are aware of the situation, and are looking into it." It's true they redesigned the nose gear, but that doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong again (been there, done that). And if I'm not mistaken, all the while they were redesigning the nose gear, they were telling everyone it was fine the way it was; the same thing they are telling us now. But SOMETHING is causing these accidents. I'm sure technique, weight & balance, and ham-handed building account for some. I just can't believe that accounts for all of them.

A successful businessman once said to me, "You meet the same people on the way down, that you met on the way up."

Respectfully,
 
Last edited:
Numbers...

I have another question, one that has been ignored. What about Weight and Balance? This subject has been ignored, but it is very important. What if the weight on the nose gear is too much, that little wheel is going to take the brunt.

It wasn't ignored - you just have to read the parallel thread....:)

The weight on the nose gear was high at about 300#, but within Vans published limits.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=230854&postcount=69
 
:cool:With just now 500 hours on my 6A, and some pretty bad landings to boot (U-603-2 leg w/orginal fork)...., I have had nary a problem... However, after reading these post's, will adjust my roll out/:rolleyes:taxing procedures...
Now with the parts on hand to do the SB, I'm wondering if in doing so won't induce some unknowns (at least in my head)?? I await for the report on the failed gear leg's hardening test...
 
:cool:With just now 500 hours on my 6A, and some pretty bad landings to boot (U-603-2 leg w/orginal fork)...., I have had nary a problem... However, after reading these post's, will adjust my roll out/:rolleyes:taxing procedures...
Now with the parts on hand to do the SB, I'm wondering if in doing so won't induce some unknowns (at least in my head)?? I await for the report on the failed gear leg's hardening test...

I think we've got a better wheel bearing setup with the older 6A's . I have the improved gear leg from around the year 2000, but am not intending to update with the SB at this time.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
Paul,
And if I'm not mistaken, all the while they were redesigning the nose gear, they were telling everyone it was fine the way it was; the same thing they are telling us now. But SOMETHING is causing these accidents.

Actually, it would seem that the nose gear WAS fine the way it was. You just didn't hear of many 6A's flipping over with the lower fork/nut design.

But since the newer 7 & 9's sit more level with their longer main gear..............it has apparently become somewhat of a problem. Therefor the solution was to provide some extra clearence, before the fork nut clobbers something. I have a 6A and don't intend to change anything.

L.Adamson
 
I have my own theory about what is happening; and would like to know if any -xA models with the wooden splints fiberglassed to the nose gear bar have had any problems? I think we are seeing a case where, because of significantly greater rolling friction with the latest design fork/wheel/axle assembly, the nose gear can get into a forward/aft shimmy. If you happen to apply brakes at the right time and at the right speed you could possibly create a scenario where the pivot point of the front axle is farther aft than normal, i.e. closer to the CG, and there is enough energy for the center of mass of the airplane to rotate forward around the front axle. If this can be demonstrated mathematically you just might have the reason so many models with the new draggy nose wheel have gone over. Interesting that the RV-10 nose gear has been made much stronger and presumably doesn't allow the forward/aft shimmy to get started.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't ignored - you just have to read the parallel thread....:)

The weight on the nose gear was high at about 300#, but within Vans published limits.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=230854&postcount=69

Ok that's cool, I must of missed it.

But lets look at that for a second. Is that 300 dry weight? I haven't tried looking into the other post. But lets say it is. What happens when we fill the tanks on an RV? The fuel is all forward to the spar, which is the CG for the airplane, so logic would put it that the nose wheel will get the brunt. Now lets put in a passenger and pilot, that's going to put more weight on the nose. Now we are hitting an area that is different between RV's, the people, how much do they weigh. I believe the Weight and Balance is a critical part of an RV, expecially in an A model. What can we do about it? I thought up a couple quick things, like having a balast weight of lead. Either one that screws into the spot for the tie down or put in a blader inside the inspection cover in the back that we can add water to when we need it. Just thoughts here, after all the tail planes have a tail wheel and that puts weight back there, why not something for the A models to balance out things to put as little weight on the nose as possible. It sure seems that the front was awful heavy to cause the wheel to skid sideways on a turn. just thinking here.
 
Now lets put in a passenger and pilot, that's going to put more weight on the nose.

Most of the pilot and passenger, except for the weight of your legs is behind the CG. This will offset the fuel weight.

edit: When you do your weight and balance figures, you'll find that you can have quite a variance with fuel, pilot, passenger, and baggage, while still remaining in the CG range. Adding ballast isn't required unless the engine/prop is super light, or extremely heavy (as with some auto conversion).

L.Adamson
 
Last edited:
Static weight at that time

Ok that's cool, I must of missed it.

But lets look at that for a second. Is that 300 dry weight? I haven't tried looking into the other post. But lets say it is.

No... that is the actual static weight in the landing configuration on that day.

There are more specific details in the other referenced thread.
 
Back
Top