What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV tip over (flip upside down)

osxuser said:
Yeah, that Ercoupe that they did the testing on is still somewhere at CCB if I'm not mistaken.

Speaking of Ercoupes, anyone want and Ercoupe project? Have one sitting in my hanger right now... relitively complete, and relitively cheap...
Click to expand...

...relatively cheap...I'm bet. Would you pay someone to move it? :)

Years ago while working as an apprentice A&P, I was asked to see if an Ercoupe residing in a patch of weeds could be rescued. It had been there for some time and was a mess. I worked dilegently cleaning out birds nests, replaced some fuel hose and pumped up the tires and finally got the engine running (much to my surprise). After some slow taxi tests, it went roaring down the grass strip and almost flew, but I chickened out at the last minute. Flying it, at that final moment, did not seem like a good idea.

The airplane, with it's B-25 tail is rather cool. Someone eventually bought the thing and trucked it out. The two old farmers who had owned it were not pilots and it never flew while they owned it.

I wonder how many Ercoupes have been flipped? It has a robust nose gear.
 
Well steve, I'm not flying an RV yet. But I am flying a kitfox and the answer is tough to answer. I know at altitude and slow flight that if I have no pitch and slow and pull power and pull back on the stick, I cannot stall the kitfox. If I have airspeed and pull back and give it up pitch and then slow it and pull back on the stick it stalls. Don't know if this helps you understand on landing the RV or not. But I think if you come in and round out the rv and let it bleed off and then pull up slightly and do and nice round out with a slight flair nose off the ground you can hold it off rather nicely. On the other hand if you hold off and then pull back quit a bit then the pitch is high that aircraft will stall out and the nose will drop like a rock. Just my observations with the kitfox. ONce the aircraft stops flying, it's done. If I had the example you where discribing, I would probably give it a little sugar(power) on touch down and pull back on the stick as the mains touch, keep a little sugar and lightly put on the brakes to keep airflow over the elevator. Bring it to a slow crawl and still keep the nose up, don't know. I will have to see what my 7A will do when I start flying it. But I will have fun learing it, can't wait. Oh and by the way, I'm installing Grove brakes and wheels all around. Goes with the masters as well.
 
Captain Avgas said:
A check of the NTSB data base (last 5 years) reveals that RVAs are 5 times more likely to suffer a gear collapse (and virtually every "gear collapse" is in fact a nose gear collapse) than a Cessna 172. This is based on projected average flight hours of 50 per annum for RVs and 150 per annum for Cessna 172s.

That's very interesting when you consider that Cessna 172s are the favourite American trainer....and virtually no-one ever learns to fly in an RV.

Sure you can take off the nosegear from a Cessna....but it's a LOT easier to do it in an RV and any assertions to the contrary are without foundation.
Click to expand...

I agree that flight hours per year must be consider when comparing the data but I strongly disagree with your estimate of flight hours per year for the average C-172 versus the average RV. Where did you get these #'s?
Is it published data?

I also disagree with "but it's a LOT easier to do it in an RV and any assertions to the contrary are without foundation".

This can be excepted as an opinion only, because there appears to be no actual data to back it up. With out knowing the actual flight hours per year of all currently registered (and flown) single engine certificated aircraft, and RV's, this type of a statement can not be stated as fact.
I believe it is far closer to a similar percentage of this type of accident per flight hour. In general I think an airplane like the C-150 or 172 should have a better record because as designed they are a lower performance more forgiving airplane
 
Hey, I'm not saying it WASN'T pilot error. I cracked a couple of pieces of our cardinals nosegear in a bum landing at Cable. And i've seen a guy collapse the nosegear on an Archer before too. Of course, that was after he porpused it off the nose the THIRD time.

I just say the pilot needs to be innocent until proven guilty. The Cessna/Piper nosegear it's sufficienly proven that, to collapse one, it is assumed pilot error. The RV nosegear has proven weak enough that I assume airplane malfunction...
 
Ercoupes

Speaking of Ercoupes, A couple of friends of mine have resurrected one from storage and have it more or less airworthy. About a month ago, I test flew it. It's a strange airplane. I'd never flown one in my life. When I landed, the wind had shifted and was about 16 KTS at about 80 degrees to the runway. It's crazy landing while crabbing into the wind. Maybe beginner's luck, but the landing was a greaser. I believe this was the first nosewheel airplane I've flown since about 1979. I did come back from the flight with a small punch list of things to fix.
 
David-aviator said:
I wonder how many Ercoupes have been flipped? It has a robust nose gear.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wonder how many aircraft flip due to nose gear failures in general.

To get back to RV's, the crux of the issue doesn't appear to be the collapsing...it's the subsequent flipping. If it just collapsed and slid on the nose I doubt this would really get any attention. It's only because it flips and people have gotten hurt (or worse) that anyone cares.

So I get back to the idea that maybe strengthening the gear isn't the right thing to do at all. Maybe what it really needs is weak points designed to shear when overloaded. It's not uncommon for failure points to be built into a design so that the parts fail in an orderly way.

It's like crumple zones in a car. Unless ya'll know something I don't, there's no doubt that the vast majority of car accidents are "pilot error". That's totally beside the point. The primary concern is protecting the occupant, not assigning blame.

Looking at it from another direction, I doubt if most of us have the engineering background to really analyze the dynamics involved, design a "solution" and then TEST it to know that we've actually done anything useful (or at least that we haven't made something worse). Testing seems like it would be a very expensive proposition. This really is the true spirit of homebuilding and experimentation...all I suggest is we be very careful 'cause we're treading in potentially dangerous territory. Someone's gotta do it, right? My hat's off to you.

And I still haven't seen anyone give a precise definition of the problem. Does the gear partially buckle allowing it to dig in? Does the wheel pant have to fly off first? Does the leg turn sideways and then friction between the tire of the ground cause the flip? Maybe THAT'S why it happens on rough surfaces?? Unload the leg for a second, it turns sideways and lands crooked with high loads, possibly jamming the yoke? I dunno. There's a lot of speculation on causes and solutions but it's just speculation.

And then again, the vast majority of RV's flying seem to be just ducky 100% stock.

For the record, I'm not picking on David at all. I've just been reading all of this stuff for a couple of weeks and the quote got me thinking about how little we actually know about what's going on. I don't even think we have enough information to say that there's a problem compared to other GA aircraft. Collapses per landing categorized by landing surface for RV's vs. Cessna's/Pipers? I don't know that number.

I've got no skin in the game as I wasn't building an -A, and I'm not even building an RV anymore but for my money I'd be concentrating on a root cause investigation before worrying about how to solve it.

*off my Bearhawk building, rag and tube soapbox* :D
 
Last edited:
Don't think that I can be call superior in any way, but...

Steve Sampson said:
I have asked this several times but no one ever answers. What do those with superior nosedragger skills, or appropriate training, do to avoid flip over accidents, once the full up elevator will no longer keep the nosewheel off the ground? I have only ever steered at that stage, (with the stick full back)but clearly I am missing something.
.
Click to expand...
Once the nose wheel comes down, avoid using the brakes. Use the rudder as long as you have authority and then light braking only. Using the brakes puts more loading on the front gear. The extra loading will amplify any surface problems that exist.

If you are using lots of brake, then you made a bad approach and should go-around. If you aren't lined up with the runway or land to long and try to use all the brakes you have to correct expect to increase you tip-over risk.

I don't think that the nose gear is perfect, but I would not be willing to sacrifice any speed for a stronger gear. The problem is that the gear can tuck under if the forward speed is sufficient and there is an obstruction of some sort and the gear has enough loading on it.

If the gear were made stronger, I don't think that would change anything. The gear might not bend, but instead the firewall would take the damage.
A larger tire will ride over obstruction better, but will cost you speed.
A skid might help unload the tire, but I am not sure of that.

Kent
 
Gear leg is not the problem

In my opinion the problem with the nose gear collapse and/or nose over accidents are not due to an inefficiency of the nose gear leg. Instead it is due to the fact that the leading link yoke/fork is too (that is t double ooooo) close to the ground. The gear leg is designed to flex. That is the only shock absorbing quality of the current design. When that yoke that is sitting too (again with that t double ooooo) close to the ground has an opportunity to come into contact with some stationary obstacle, such as the ground, because of whatever reason, lets say. . .

Pilot error (click)
Pilot error (click)
Pilot error (click)

. . .the nut at the bottom of the yoke, that just happens to be the closest thing to the ground, digs into whatever it comes into contact with. If the force is big enough this is transferred up the gear leg. The gear leg will then fail at the weakest point (which usually happens to be at that tapered point part way up the leg).

It is my opinion then that the close proximity of the leading yoke to the ground is the true culprit. Too (dad blast those t double oooo's) much flex from a rough surface, too (hmmmm) much speed at taxi over said rough surface or some other various form of

Pilot error (click)
Pilot error (click)
Pilot error (click)

and the nut digs into the said rough surface.

The solution seems to be to get that ridiculously low slung leading link yoke/fork higher up off of the ground and put a larger tire under all that metal to allow for an opportunity to roll over any hole rather than sink into it. Now most speed demons are opposed to that because it will mean placing more surface into the air stream thus inducing more drag. For those with this speed requirement I say stay with the current design. LONG LIVE THE KING OF SPEED!

However, for any others like me who find that giving up 1 or 2 (h, e double hockey sticks, I'll even give up 3) knots is a welcome compromise to mitigate some of this nose over risk, lets look at this solution. Moving the yoke further away from the ground and putting a larger tire under there is going to solve a lot of these issues.

Oh yeah, I forgot the other part. Just like those disclaimers for diets that say things like "results for our super duper diet pill work best when used along with proper nutrition and regular exercise", pilot technique is always going to be the ultimate key to avoiding these accidents. Just like popping pills without exercise will not melt the pounds off, "fixing" this yoke without proper pilot technique is not going to do much either. I would like to hope this solution will go a long way toward reducing the risk of serious damage to my aircraft should I fail to be a good pilot on some inattentive occasion.

My .02 worth and a little comment on plans I intend to work with for my 9A.

Live Long and Prosper! :D
 
Last edited:
Finally!

RVbySDI said:
In my opinion the problem with the nose gear collapse and/or nose over accidents are not due to an inefficiency of the nose gear leg. Instead it is due to the fact that the leading link yoke/fork is too (that is t double ooooo) close to the ground . . . :D
Click to expand...

Well said ! I have been waiting for someone to succinctly talk this problem through without dismissing it as a purely pilot error problem. About time. Thanks.

--Ralph
 
It's time (again) for my off road RV design

Standard Off road
newgear27yr.jpg


High speed version (ain't she purdy)
newgear34rs.jpg


Incorporates 6 by tires utilizing new materials for the gear legs, un-obtain-inum and transparent aluminum. It will never flip and the speed is the same as the standard RV gear minus 40 kts.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
I agree that flight hours per year must be consider when comparing the data but I strongly disagree with your estimate of flight hours per year for the average C-172 versus the average RV. Where did you get these #'s?
Click to expand...
A typical 10 year old Cessna 172R coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 1500 hours on it....that's 150 hours per year.

A typical 6 year old RV (any model) coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 300 hours on it....that's 50 hours per year.

These figures are rough but they're probably not too far off the mark. If you "strongly" disagree with them then presumably you have access to data that is quite different. OK, let's have it.
 
Last edited:
Insurance Costs

Whatever you pilots do,,, making mods, changes, upgrades, improving landing skills, whatever, lets help with keeping insurance costs down.

The more accidents, the higher the insurance costs, doesn't matter if it's a tail wheel or nose gear.
Be SAFE. :D
 
Wrong stats Bob....maybe

My guess is that you are seeing flight school C172s. Look at individual owner Cessnas vs RVs if you can. From what I see around here, take away the flight school flights and a significant amount of the rest are RVs. Look at the number of RVs going places for breakfast or fly-ins. No proof. Just my estimate of reality...right or wrong.
 
Another Angle

I've been reading this thread for a long time and have observed a lot of "pilot tecnique" talk/criticism directed at the imperfect folks (I'm one) who don't always manage to land "by the book". Yes, I think a lot of disciplined pattern flying would help considerably...BUT...what about a rejected takeoff? By nature, it's likely to be a maximum effort event and the loads on the nosewheel then are probably going to be great. How is it going to hold up then? Are there any folks that have experienced an RTO? Results?

Regards,
Mitch Garner
RV-4 flying
 
ronlee said:
My guess is that you are seeing flight school C172s. Look at individual owner Cessnas vs RVs if you can. From what I see around here, take away the flight school flights and a significant amount of the rest are RVs. Look at the number of RVs going places for breakfast or fly-ins. No proof. Just my estimate of reality...right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Ron it doesn't make any sense to take flight school Cessnas out of the equation. Why would you do that.

If anyone thinks the average RV flies as many hours per year as the average Cessna (in all categories)...they're way off the mark.

If there is one thing that continuously strikes me as amazing, it's the VERY small number of hours logged on most RVs when they come up for sale.
 
Captain Avgas said:
If there is one thing that continuously strikes me as amazing, it's the VERY small number of hours logged on most RVs when they come up for sale.
Click to expand...

These forums easily tell the story of why...

A-- Itch to build a new one

B-- Trying to make a few bucks, and then on to the next build job

C-- Building is more fun than flying for some

D -- Family size increases & two seats just aren't enough anymore.

E- Spouse doesn't like sitting behind, in a tandem

F- Pilot realizes that spouse never fly's in the side by side, and now wants a tandem.

G-- Couldn't afford it in the first place :D
 
Captain Avgas said:
A typical 10 year old Cessna 172R coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 1500 hours on it....that's 150 hours per year.

A typical 6 year old RV (any model) coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 300 hours on it....that's 50 hours per year.

These figures are rough but they're probably not too far off the mark. If you "strongly" disagree with them then presumably you have access to data that is quite different. OK, let's have it.
Click to expand...

Bob I don't have any personal data to disprove your estimate of 150 hrs for a 172 and 50 for an RV, but with 18 years working in general aviation and 14 years with RV's, my gut feeling is that your numbers are off. It would take a lot of for sale adds to have enough data to to do an averaging for a realistic number...but I might be totally off the mark too.
It wont help with the cessna # but I think this calls for a poll of the RV owners on this site. I will admit right from the start that even that wont give us a very definite # because many of the RV's that don't fly much are owned by people that aren't active in the RV community but I think it still might be interesting.

In answer to your later post...I think the answer most often is one of two things. The seller is a builder, not a flyer; or they have never gotten comfortable flying the airplane.

My prediction is that on average, RV's fly at least more than 100 hrs per year.
 
mark manda said:
Lane Wallace a "Flying Magazine" writer told me an almost unbelievable bit of info today. She has lots of great stories. You know what the first plane the Air Force IIRC used to test JATO's on? According to Lane?
Click to expand...
jato1.jpg
 
Mitch757 said:
BUT...what about a rejected takeoff? By nature, it's likely to be a maximum effort event and the loads on the nosewheel then are probably going to be great. How is it going to hold up then? Are there any folks that have experienced an RTO? Results?
Click to expand...

Several months ago a Chief departed just before I did and radioed he was doing a close-in pattern. When I saw him turn crosswind I taxied onto the runway and started my take-off. Just as I got to full power I saw him turn a down wind only about 300 ft off the ground and maybe 500 feet parrallel to the runway. I did not think much of it as there was a photographer standing out by the runway taking pictures and I figured he was staying close-in (as he said on the radio) for pictures. Just as I was ready to lift off he angled right towards me and was crossing the active runway about 200 ft off the ground. I hesitated on rotation (good thing or I would have center punched him) and then pulled the throttle and did maximum braking. Not sure whether I used full aft sick or not to try and unload the nose gear some. Needless to say no damage to the nose gear (lots of hot brake smell). It was a newly surfaced (last 5 years) concrete runway. It turns out the Chief had only partial power (hard to tell on a Chief) and was attempting an emergency landing on the cross wind grass runway.
 
Don't have an answer, but...

Captain Avgas said:
A typical 10 year old Cessna 172R coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 1500 hours on it....that's 150 hours per year.

A typical 6 year old RV (any model) coming up for sale in Trade-A-Plane has around 300 hours on it....that's 50 hours per year.

These figures are rough but they're probably not too far off the mark. If you "strongly" disagree with them then presumably you have access to data that is quite different. OK, let's have it.
Click to expand...

To figure this you have to assume that Cessna's and RVs are only sold on Trade-A-Plane or that the ones that aren't are sold else where at the same ratio. This also assumes that owners keep Cessna and RV the same length of time.

I don't know of another way to figure this statistic. Maybe there isn't any without the FAA giving us the data.

Kent
 
Here is a useless data point for you.

I have owned and flown a C172 for about 6 years. I used to fly about 120 hours per year, but the last couple of years of building my RV9A my flight time went to about 70 and then to about 30. During this last year I flew about 30 hours on the C172 and 70 hours on my RV9A.

I have landed both planes a little hard at times, but always with the controls mostly aft. I have never damaged the C172 front gear or flipped over.
The only damage to the RV was a cracked nose fairing where the big nut hit the fiberglass at some time. I don't even know at what point this happened, I just noticed it when it was removed for painting.

There you are one sample (or is this two). By the way the C172 is for sale and has 5200 hours total on it (1970 model).

Kent
 
kentb said:
During this last year I flew about 30 hours on the C172 and 70 hours on my RV9A.

There you are one sample (or is this two). By the way the C172 is for sale and has 5200 hours total on it (1970 model).

Kent
Click to expand...

Let's see. 5200 hours divided by 37 years (1970 model).....that equals 140.5 hours per year. Yep, that's about right for a Cessna 172.

But if I was a betting man, I'd bet that your RV9A will never log more than one quarter of that time in its life. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw an RV for sale with 1000 hours on the clock. There must be some out there....but obviously not many.
 
Last edited:
questionable data

Bob, I thought your approach to determing exposure hours was inventive and thoughtful. Sometimes we have to use what is available. But I think there is much more to the story. While your approach to determining exposure hours may be all we have at the moment, that still does not mean the conclusions are valid. I would consider your 5X number interesting but potentially flawed. I would suggest that the number of hours flown is a very nebulous number and industry or govt does not have a good handle on it. Of course, we could invite the govt in to collect more data, not. More importantly, how many C-172 and RV landings on grass do we have? How many off field? Compare those numbers to the unknown number of nose gear collapes which happen to be not reportable? (landing gear and prop damage are not requried to be reported) And how many of those Cessnas and RVs were bounced landings, off the end or side, or essentially crashed on the runway? How many C-172s had folded gears but did not go inverted? Unfortunantly, much of that data does not exist. However, using potentially flawed data or being unable to properly adjust for exposure probably does not help clarify the issue.


Again, I still enjoyed thinking about your approach which was certainly thought provoking.


Regards, John.
 
Last edited:
I personally know over a dozen folks who have well over 1000hrs on their RV's (mine has 2400). Having been part of the RV community for 19 years I have noticed that some builders never fly much from the beginning for various reasons - they like to build more than fly, are intimidated by the airplane and never get good training, run out of money or have significant events in their lives that keep them from flying as much as they want. These are the airplanes you most often see for sale. The RV's that are beeing flow are not up for sale because their owners love them and fly them every chance they get.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
 
John C said:
I would suggest that the number of hours flown is a very nebulous number and industry or govt does not have a good handle on it.

Regards, John.
Click to expand...

John, you're right of course....there's no way to come up with exact numbers.

But just as a matter of interest I looked in the VansAirforce Classified Section and took a quick peek at every RV that has been offered for sale since 5/28/07 (last 2 months....they don't go back any further).

I found 11 RVs that had both year of manufacture and flight hours listed. Total years on these planes added up to 73. Total hours on these planes added up to 3345. That's an average of 45.82 hours per year. Once again...not far from my projection of 50 hours.

The trouble with doing polls on annual pilot flight hours on the VansAirforce Forum is that it's a bit like doing a poll on annual income in the Hollywood Hills....hardly representative of the broader community.

The fact is that builders tend to evaporate from builders' forums like VansAirforce once they get passed their first annual. The one's that stay on tend to be those who've turned RVs into a lifestyle rather than just an occasional hobby. The RV fraternity is all the better off for ongoing contributions from high time flyers like Dan Checkoway, Paul Dye, Paul Rosales and their ilk (God bless them all) but these guys are not typical of the average RV owner.
 
Bob, don't forget that a good number of these 172s you looked at had been trainers at some point in their life. Our RVs are (probably 99%) owned and flown by one person..

Those folks you mentioned may not be average RV owners, but from my first hand experience, all the guys here in town that I regularly fly with have flown 200+ hrs in last 12 months.... Combine that with what Martin said, and I'd say -- those would be your average guys :) Quite a bit more than 40-50 hrs a year. Save for one exception, I don't know anyone who flies their RV that little...
 
Martin Sutter said:
Having been part of the RV community for 19 years I have noticed that some builders never fly much from the beginning for various reasons - they like to build more than fly, are intimidated by the airplane and never get good training, run out of money or have significant events in their lives that keep them from flying as much as they want. Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
Click to expand...

Quite true Martin. And some of those people sell their RVs..... but MANY keep them and just fly occasionally.

Remember we're not talking about some-one we know personally with 3000 hours on the clock.....we're discussing what the AVERAGE annual hours are.

Most RV pilots I know get off to a flying start, so to speak. They're keen to fly off their restrictions. They've been planning on several big flying trips while they laboured for years on the project. So in the first year they fly fly fly. And then they find that it costs almost as much money to fly as to build. They sometimes also find that their wives quickly get bored with it all as well.

So they tend to chalk up quite a few hours in the first year or two and then, as the novelty (and perhaps the money) wears thinner, they tend to do less hours. Not EVERYONE.....but on AVERAGE.

If you really want to find out how many hours per year the AVERAGE RV flies then it would be best to compile data on RVs for sale that are at least 7 years old (say pre 2000). The hours that pilots fly in the first year or two are unlikely to be representative of what they average over say a decade.
 
Another set of data points ...

Captain Avgas said:
Let's see. 5200 hours divided by 37 years (1970 model).....that equals 140.5 hours per year. Yep, that's about right for a Cessna 172.

But if I was a betting man, I'd bet that your RV9A will never log more than one quarter of that time in its life. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw an RV for sale with 1000 hours on the clock. There must be some out there....but obviously not many.
Click to expand...
I started not to say anything on this but here is another set of data points ...

RV6 ... 900 hours since 2003 (about 200 hours/year)
Piper Archer II ... (before RV) about 100 hours/year)
Piper Archer II ... (after RV) about 20 hours/year)

I, for one, definitely fly the RV **at least** TWICE as much as I used to fly the Piper (which I really like).

My theory is that most people will be surprised at the amount that RVs really get flown. Now there are some that don't get flown, but those owners probably did not fly their ___________'s that much either, or they were people who simply enjoyed building way more than flying.

James
 
Radomir said:
Bob, don't forget that a good number of these 172s you looked at had been trainers at some point in their life. Our RVs are (probably 99%) owned and flown by one person..
Click to expand...


Hi Radomir, if you look back through this thread you will find that the issue of annual hours arose because one good soul looked at the NTSB statistics and concluded that there were more Cessna 172s suffering gear collapses than RVs (after all , this IS a thread on nose gear collapses)

I pointed out that while that was true....it was also true that there were a heap more Cessna 172s...and I proferred that in addition, the average Cessna over its life will do more hours per annum than the average RV.

And the very reason that they will do so (on average) is because so many Cessna's ARE in fact used for training (and other intensive commercial tasks). It just makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Did Richard VanG have a nosegear failure?

Whenever the RV nose gear debate arises it is inevitable that some-one from the "pilot error" camp will raise the "exemplary" performance of 'Old Blue'....Vans first RV6A prototype N666RV which has more hours on the clock than any other RV in the world and is currently used by Mike Seager for transition training (I did my own transition training in it!). This plane's history is repeatedly used as an example of what can be achieved if "proper pilot technique" is adopted.

But they may be citing a very poor example.

It has been rumoured that this particular aircraft has in fact had 3 different nosegears installed over the years due to either failure or fatigue. It has further been rumoured that Richard VanGrunsven himself collapsed the nose gear on this plane...and on a paved strip!!!.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily any truth to these rumours. But they're out there, and in the context of the broader debate on nosegear failures I believe it would be highly relevant to know one way or the other.
 
Hmm. I've been a devoted member of the Van's online community for 10 years, and this is the first I've heard of this rumor.

Anyone else heard this?
 
Just rumours

I spoke to Ken from Van's and he said it was just rumours. The nose gear is well designed and with proper use and care it will do what it suppose to do. He said he landed in many rough strips and so have others and there is no problems except rumors. I agree, that once you adopt a poor technique of landing-taxiing, you will have a problem. I am happy with my nose gear. It's my mini airliner......RV9A-200. Sounds cool just like Boeing 737-300. BTW Boeing have a nose gear

Pete :D
 
Great. Rumors. Precisely what we need in this debate. :rolleyes:

Why don't we just stick to the facts?

Van has been very forthcoming about every issue the RV has ever had, including the RV-3 spar 'shortcomings', the loss of the RV-8 demonstrator, etc. In the RV-8 incident he was VERY transparent and posted every detail of the incident and subsequent investigation on the company website.

I see no reason why he would intentionally withhold information about nose gear failures. Van's reputation is one of a sound and honest businessman.

If you think he is lying, why in the world would you build one of his airplanes? If he would lie about the nose gear, what else would he lie about?
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
snip...rumoured that Richard VanGrunsven himself collapsed the nose gear on this plane...snip
Click to expand...
Urban Legend. I'm usually in the know on stuff like this.

Doug
(on my second propellor, second engine, third GPS, third set of tires and second tailwheel. Fatigue may have played a role...;))
 
Last edited:
I have now warned the RV-6A owner in the hangar next to mine, that his 6A nosegear is going to collapse any moment, thanks to the information I've gained in these threads. :D

He just completed his 11th year condition inspection, has over a 1000 hrs on this plane, but does not read these internet forums.

Those 1000+ hrs, also include some grass and gravel strips. The improved gear leg was installed in 98'/99'.

His only comment, was that some tailwheel buddies, when flying his plane, have let the nosewheel hit the runway to fast during the landing sequence. He always keeps pressure off it, until the last possible moment. Perhaps the buddies are use to wheel landings, while he is going for the angles of a three- pointer! :)

L.Adamson
 
The Ford Pinto was a perfectly safe car because thousands of them drove everyday without exploding. I knew many people that had pintos, in fact, and not even one of them blew up. The ones that exploded were due to driver error...they should have driven better and not hit other cars so hard.

Ridiculous reasoning!

There are two rumors at play here:

1) Vans had a nosegear failure of thier own (propogated by us)
2) Nose gears fail because of bad pilot technique (propogated by Vans)

The NTSB report seems to confirm what Vans already knew - the old gear doesn't have enough clearance. If Vans would simply come out and say, "Hey, we screwed up...the old gears don't work....they're dangerous. It's our fault, and here's the solution", this issue would go away. Instead, they childishly insist (supported by many on VAF it seems) that a pole-vaulting aircraft is normal and expected behavior when someone makes a bad landing.

Please. :rolleyes:

Congrats to all you folks that have never experienced a problem. You must all make perfect landings EVERY time. Amazing. Either that or you haven't yet had the misfortune of making a bad landing at just the wrong spot on an airport.

Sorry to hijack the thread but the more I think about this, the more outrageous it seems.
 
Captain Avgas said:
It has been rumoured that this particular aircraft has in fact had 3 different nosegears installed over the years due to either failure or fatigue. It has further been rumoured that Richard VanGrunsven himself collapsed the nose gear on this plane...and on a paved strip!!!.
Click to expand...

I heard that if you eat PopRocks and Coke at the same time, your stomach will explode! :eek:
 
High time "A" drivers

Who has logged more than 500hrs or more in an A model? Please give your experience with the nose gear.
 
Just curious. Is there any new MEANINGFUL information today that anyone has about nose gear in an RV? There's, like, a thousand threads a day to follow on VAF now (bless its heart) and I just want to cross this one off if we're just regurgitating old stuff... in which case, why start a NEW thread?
 
Maybe not...

Most of the "best" aviators are from the military. Military SWITCHED from taildraggers to nose wheels over 50 years ago - and never looked back. Just an observation ;)

WT
 
The Right Tool for the Job

WildThing said:
Most of the "best" aviators are from the military. Military SWITCHED from taildraggers to nose wheels over 50 years ago - and never looked back. Just an observation ;)

WT
Click to expand...

Since you put "best" in quotes, I won't take issue with it. However, your analysis about the military using nose wheels is meaningless, as it relates to RV's. The military no longer operates off of grass or unimproved strips with fixed wing aircraft. When they need to, they use helicopters.

Since all of the gnarly polevaulting noseovers have occured on grass strips,
the tailwheel aircraft will always be the the right tool for the job.
 
RV9798 said:
Who has logged more than 500hrs or more in an A model? Please give your experience with the nose gear.
Click to expand...

Pete,
FWIW, I have around 780 hours on my RV-6A. I usually operate off of paved strips, but have landed on grass strips in the past.

To date there have been no problems on either grass or pavement. I do use soft field techniques for takeoffs and landings, i.e. Lift the nose wheel off the ground as soon as possible on take off, and roll on the mains. On landing, keep the nose gear off the ground and roll on the mains until the nose gear drops down with full aft elevator.

The only time I have had a problem with shimmy was when I had too much air in the mains. Bled a bit off and no further problems.

Have I been lucky? Am I an accident waiting for a place to happen? Maybe so. I think we all realize that the nose gear is probably the weakest part of the 6-A. Heck, I think even Vans has said the same thing about keeping the forces on the nose gear as light as possible.

I may tip it over tomorrow, but so far everything has been fine. It can happen to any of us. I saw a Mooney taxiing out on grass and when the nose wheel dropped off in a hole, the prop started kicking up one heck of a cloud of dust.

Just my $.02. YMMV.

Wes Hays
RV-6A
N844WB
Winters, TX
 
Amen, Louise!

Seriously, folks. Those that keep stirring this pot need to chill.





Louise Hose said:
:mad:

snip...let's please go back to acting like pilots...snip.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yukon said:
Since all of the gnarly polevaulting noseovers have occured on grass strips,
the tailwheel aircraft will always be the the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

I've seen numerous pics, as well as the web cam of "A" models at Johnson Creek, Idaho.

It seems, that if the back country landing strip terrain is going to get much rougher than Johnson Creek, then I'd truly prefer a "realistic" taildragger such as an Aviat Husky with no wheel pants and larger diameter tires for the purpose.

After all, as we have quite a few back country pilots here in Utah, as well as neighboring Idaho, I've never seen ANY RV as their aircraft of choice!

Yes, tailwheel aircraft "will" be right for the job. Just not RV's... :D

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
My RV7A is the one that sat in front of the Johnson Creek webcam for most of the previous week. I would have to agree that Johnson Creek is about as rough a strip as I would take my tri-gear into. It used to be smoother but last winter they had a fungus attack the grass under the snow and when it thawed the runway was pocketed with dinnerplate size bare spots in the otherwise thick stand of grass. I was not aware of that until after we landed. Having flown over 2400hrs in my RV6 I land my 7A with minimum use of the nose wheel. My airplane had about 100lbs in the baggage area wich helped a lot and I touched down at the same moment as I started to rise my half flaps. They were fully retracted before the elevator ran out of authority and the nose wheel stayed up until I was vitually stopped (did not use brakes). I feel that in its present condition this runway wouild probably claim the nose gear of an A model RV if the pilot came in fast for a landing and touched down with all three at once or used full flaps and breaking at the same time. Having landed my RV6 on many grass strips rougher than that I would agree that the tail dragger is the better tool for that job.

On another note, we met a fellow with a heavily modified Harmon Rocket at Johnson Creek. His had a 25' wing span, vortex generators on the wings and horizontal stab and 6.00x6 tires with RV10 wheel pants. He uses it for all the really challenging strips up in Idaho and it was impressive to see this 325HP machine come and go.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
LOVE JOHNSON CREEK!!!
 
Steve, not always....

szicree said:
I heard that if you eat PopRocks and Coke at the same time, your stomach will explode! :eek:
Click to expand...
Only if you don't keep your nose off the ground until the last moment. :p

Kent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top