What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Anti-Splat "nose job" - any data points?

Don

Don

Well Known Member
It?s been 7 or 8 months since I first heard about the Anti Splat nose job for A model RV?s. I know there are several anecdotal reviews of the product and at least one user video. The device looks promising. I?m wondering if there?s any data points out there yet? I understand this will be largely anecdotal and subject to a lot of bias, but - do we know of any flip-overs in aircraft using the nose gear mod? If so, what were the circumstances? Has anyone bent their nose gear and had this device prevent a prop strike (and is willing to acknowledge it)?

I also realize the fundamental problem is landing technique and this device doesn't fix pilot error but "stuff" happens and it would seem this device increases the margin for error and that isn't a bad thing (imo) provided pilots don't take advantage of it and get sloppy.

Just curious if there are any more data points that folks are aware of.
 
Have been using it about 60 days. All I can say is that it feels much better and more secure. A lot less bouncing and vibrating on the nose gear. Just a more solld feel and much better control on taxi, T/O and landing. I just plumb like it.:p;)
 
gclark said:
Have been using it about 60 days. All I can say is that it feels much better and more secure. A lot less bouncing and vibrating on the nose gear. Just a more solld feel and much better control on taxi, T/O and landing. I just plumb like it.:p;)
Click to expand...

Interesting. My understanding, from the designer's description and lab bench demonstration, was that this device should have no effect under normal conditions. That the ends of the bar should only come in contact with the gear leg when excessive bending of the gear leg occurs. Is that not the case?
 
I have similar observations in taxi behavior improvement and was surprised (pleasantly). I discussed it with an engineer friend who suggested that the device reinforced the gear at its weakest spot because it attaches by clamping there and it is adding mass, thereby having a damping effect. In my case these combine in a way I feel is beneficial to how my particular plane taxis, especially over bumps and ripples in the taxiway. Much more solid with much less "hobby horse" bucking when disturbed.

All FWIW

Jeremy Constant
 
We installed ours the day before sun n fun. Taxing on the grass at the vor was way less stressful on me and the nose gear. It is a home run.
Phelps
 
Don said:
Has anyone bent their nose gear and had this device prevent a prop strike (and is willing to acknowledge it)?
Click to expand...

I sure WISH I could have had this device.................as I'm 99.9% sure that my prop would look a lot better. It was released about a month too late.
 
I put blue masking tape on the leg under the points where the brace would make contact. No evidence of contact.

Jeremy Constant
 
Analysis

The design is quite effective in that it prevents the infamous tuck-under of the nose gear. There are several minor issues from an engineering and reliability standbpoint: The three fastener bolts present threads across the shear bearing surfaces. This is eventually going to cause some cracks to start growing. Very poor practice. I substituted bolts with smooth bearing surfaces. Only one of the three fasteners actually sees any load (the one closest to the shortest arm. The middle fastener could be eliminated without any change in strength. I have found that the device is engaged more often than you think. When mine engages, I hear a distinct "clacking" noise. Anyone who has a -A model is well advised to install one of these devices.
 
I installed one on my 7A and I would have to say that i notced no difference taxiing or otherwise what so ever. However, I will say it made me feel more confident just knowing the device was there. I wonder if anyone has tried engineering the heavier RV 10 nose folk to suit a 6 or 7 (Vans perhaps) . The 10 dosent seem to have the nose wheel coloapse problems of the two seat models, or at least I havent heard of any at this point.

Paul
 
ferret said:
The design is quite effective in that it prevents the infamous tuck-under of the nose gear. There are several minor issues from an engineering and reliability standbpoint: The three fastener bolts present threads across the shear bearing surfaces. This is eventually going to cause some cracks to start growing. Very poor practice. I substituted bolts with smooth bearing surfaces. Only one of the three fasteners actually sees any load (the one closest to the shortest arm. The middle fastener could be eliminated without any change in strength. I have found that the device is engaged more often than you think. When mine engages, I hear a distinct "clacking" noise. Anyone who has a -A model is well advised to install one of these devices.
Click to expand...

Doug, a number of RV owners with the Anti-splat nose job installed have reported that the device engages the nose gear in normal operations (as you have also confirmed). I'd be concerned that this might cause discontinuities in the surface of the spring steel nose gear that might ultimately lead to stress fractures down the track. What do you think about this.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something.

Captain Avgas said:
Doug, a number of RV owners with the Anti-splat nose job installed have reported that the device engages the nose gear in normal operations (as you have also confirmed). I'd be concerned that this might cause discontinuities in the surface of the spring steel nose gear that might ultimately lead to stress fractures down the track. What do you think about this.
Click to expand...

I understood that Alan designed this device to only start having an effect when the gear was going into a critical (unsafe) condition. If pilots are seeing the device engage under their normal operating conditions, I would think that this indicates that there should be addition efforts placed on proper taxi and landing practice. Or is the 'nose job' supposed to active all the time?

I am not trying to be hard on anyone here, but just want to understand the issues. I have thought about installing one of these, but have not made a decision yet.

Kent
 
I don't have an A model, but the design seems like it would have a dampening effect like wrapping the gear legs with the wood strips. It seems like it would have some effect, even if it wasn't doing its intended job protecting the nose over.

My .02--for what its worth!
 
Captain Avgas: I use electrical tape as a consumable faying layer. Replace as necessary. I would be concerned without a faying layer.

Kentb: I think Alan's statement that the device would only engage when the nose gear started to go into a near failure mode is correct. I think he is incorrect in that he thinks this event rarely occurs. It has occurred several times with me taxing on concrete surfaces about 25 Kts ground speed. The seams in the concrete appear to be providing the impulse force. I am running 40psi in the nose tire.
 
Clearify please...

ferret said:
Kentb: I think Alan's statement that the device would only engage when the nose gear started to go into a near failure mode is correct. I think he is incorrect in that he thinks this event rarely occurs. It has occurred several times with me taxing on concrete surfaces about 25 Kts ground speed. The seams in the concrete appear to be providing the impulse force. I am running 40psi in the nose tire.
Click to expand...

If you were taxiing at 25 kts :eek: or landing (takeoff) roll-out?
Never taxi that fast!
If it is the landing roll-out, most of the weight should be off the nose (stick back). Unless you're braking hard at the same time.
I would avoid landing at an airport with a bad runway that you had to use your brakes at.
Just my preferences.

Kent
 
ferret said:
Kentb: I think Alan's statement that the device would only engage when the nose gear started to go into a near failure mode is correct. I think he is incorrect in that he thinks this event rarely occurs. It has occurred several times with me taxing on concrete surfaces about 25 Kts ground speed. The seams in the concrete appear to be providing the impulse force. I am running 40psi in the nose tire.
Click to expand...

According to Anti-Splat their "nose job" device should not come into contact with the Vans nose strut until after the strut has exceeded it's elastic range (ie. the strut has yielded and permanently deformed).

However a number of installers of the device are now starting to report that the device is coming into contact with the nose strut under "normal operations". This suggests one of two possible scenarios.

1. These installers are experiencing yielding of their nose gear under "normal operations" which would be evidenced by a measurable permanent deformation of the strut.

2. Miscalculation by Anti-Splat of the amount of deflection inherent in the elastic range of the RV spring steel nose strut.

Given the basic computational error made by Anti-Splat in the recent great prop wrench torque debate I'd suggest that the second scenario is considerably more likely.

At any rate I would still be concerned about bare metal contact between the Anti-Splat device and the nose strut causing discontinuities in the surface of the spring steel that might ultimately lead to critical stress cracks in the future.
 
At any rate I would still be concerned about bare metal contact between the Anti-Splat device and the nose strut causing discontinuities in the surface of the spring steel that might ultimately lead to critical stress cracks in the future.
Click to expand...

Might, might, & might

Pick a preference..... might or this...

28jyyxg.jpg


edit: above pic is without the added benefit of "anti-splat"
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
According to Anti-Splat their "nose job" device should not come into contact with the Vans nose strut until after the strut has exceeded it's elastic range (ie. the strut has yielded and permanently deformed).

However a number of installers of the device are now starting to report that the device is coming into contact with the nose strut under "normal operations". This suggests one of two possible scenarios.

1. These installers are experiencing yielding of their nose gear under "normal operations" which would be evidenced by a measurable permanent deformation of the strut.

2. Miscalculation by Anti-Splat of the amount of deflection inherent in the elastic range of the RV spring steel nose strut.

Given the basic computational error made by Anti-Splat in the recent great prop wrench torque debate I'd suggest that the second scenario is considerably more likely.

At any rate I would still be concerned about bare metal contact between the Anti-Splat device and the nose strut causing discontinuities in the surface of the spring steel that might ultimately lead to critical stress cracks in the future.
Click to expand...

...We did not state any such thing! Intentionally misquoting could be considered libelous. What we said was "the ASA stop will only contact the gear leg when the forces applied to the gear leg become great enough that if not checked and were allowed to increase, permanent damage will occur." It will actually take approximately twenty percent more bend to destroy the gear leg. I have thirteen gear legs that we purchased and destroyed, arriving at the numbers. Perhaps you should invest a few thousand dollars is gear parts, equipment, test fixtures and effort as we did. Who knows, you may come up with a better mouse trap!
...As for the stop contacting the gear leg, that should be of no concern as the saddles on the stop are soft material with a hardness only 40% that of the gear leg and there is no sliding action, only smooth contact. If you were to hit something hard enough to cause substantial contact of these parts We can assure you that you would have destroyed your gear leg and most likely been on your head without the Anti-Splat-Aero devise. I seriously doubt that you are privy to more information about our products, customers or as you call them "installers" than we are as I personally talk to many of them daily. We have many hundreds of these safety products out there and if people were experiencing problems I think we would know before anyone as we stand behind all products 100%. To my knowledge with total ASA products sold numbering in excess of 7,000 we don't have even one unhappy or concerned costumer with this or any of our products Regards, Allan..:D
 
L.Adamson said:
Might, might, & might
Click to expand...

If that is your aircraft Mr Adamson, did the event happen on a paved surface or grass/dirt?

I have only seen the aftermath of one 6A flipover. The plane was sliding with gear bent for a ways on asphalt and did not flip until that nosegear encountered dirt when the plane went off the runway.
 
Wrap the gear leg with some uhmw tape where the contact points are, problem solved. No need to pole vault over mouse turds.
 
PerfTech said:
...We did not state any such thing! Intentionally misquoting could be considered libelous. What we said was "the ASA stop will only contact the gear leg when the forces applied to the gear leg become great enough that if not checked and were allowed to increase, permanent damage will occur." It will actually take approximately twenty percent more bend to destroy the gear leg. Regards, Allan..:D
Click to expand...

Firstly, I did not misquote you (intentionally or unintentionally) as far as I can see. I wish to quote verbatim from your website which states as follows in the product description:

"The product only comes into play when the forces on the gear leg become greater than is (sic) was designed to see or handle without permanent damage to itself or the aircraft".

Your English is a bit tortured but it does seem to be stating that the product only comes into play when the forces on the gear leg are greater than those required to induce permanent damage (ie plastic deformation or yielding has occurred).

Secondly, I think you are not-so-subtly attempting to threaten me with libel because I have raised a minor concern I have about your product. I feel that this may be a bit of an over-reaction on your part ...and perhaps a bit ugly.

To be honest I hope the Anti-Splat nose job is a big success. But I don't think it can be deemed to be a success until it has proven itself in the field over an extended period of time. That's just the way it is with new mechanical devices.
 
Last edited:
...My intention wasn't to threaten you, and I apologize for coming on that strong. For some reason I seem to find myself defending our products with a very few people, perhaps three or four, here on this forum. I do this for one reason only, and that is to keep others from being misinformed or becoming needlessly concerned with the safety of our products or services.
...We invested considerable time and well in excess of $35K in the development and engineering of "The Nose Job" product and attempted to address any and all issues. We also developed other gear related parts and services that enhance the original product when used in conjunction with one another.
...We own and operate very advanced and capable manufacturing facilities with annual sales well into seven figures. We make everything from turbine blades to state of the art racing engines, components and complete racecars. Our engineering department is equipped with the latest computer modeling and stress analyses software. The laser cutting department is the finest available, our machine shop, fabrication shop, and dyno cells are also top of the line. To our knowledge, no one to date including Vans, has put forth this kind of effort and resources addressed at making RVers safer, or finding a solution. We have tried to offer the finest quality, 100% guaranteed products and services, at very reasonable pricing (some below our cost). Our shipping is usually same day with machining operations typically no more than two days. This being said, there isn't much we could do to improve. If you know of something, please let us know. Again, sorry if I came on to strong. Thanks, Allan
 
Allan, here is my 2 cents without meaning to offend anyone and I wish this product the best of success

PerfTech said:
...My intention wasn't to threaten you, and I apologize for coming on that strong. For some reason I seem to find myself defending our products with a very few people, perhaps three or four, here on this forum
Click to expand...

Please keep in mind that not everyone will speak up as it may be interperted as naysayer and only remain skeptic. The strong language does come across as a thread and helps creating an atmosphere of unwelcome comment if not a praise. So, if you are genuinely interested in feedback, both positive and also concerns, then perhaps ought to reconsider. Lastly, while I appreciate the amount of $$$ and effort spent, it is not the only qualifier for a safe and successful product.

Having said that, I think you have done a great job addressing this issue with A model and with as many accident that has happened with the tricycle model, we should learn soon or later how it preforms.
 
options

it is better to have more options rather than less. users can decide for themselves what is best for them. I applaud Alan's effort to make more options available.
 
Proving a negative

Problem is, it's impossible to prove a negative i.e., proving that the device causes flip overs (or nose gear damage) NOT to happen. I think the best we'll be able to do is wait a rather long time, gather a lot of data and then look at ALL nose gear damage and then divide the data into those A models with the device installed and those without it, and see if there is a statistical difference.
 
I think it may not be that long before some evidence may be forthcoming about the Nose-Jobs effectiveness. My understanding is that the Nose Job moves the bending force further up the nose gear leg so it bends closer to the top instead of at the bottom of the leg and raises the nose as the gear leg bends instead of lowering the nose. This is supposed to prevent a prop strike and a possible roll-over. With as many Nose Jobs installed as it sound like there are, someone is going to bend their gear leg sooner or later. If no prop strike or roll-over occurs and only a bent gear leg happens, it seems to me that the Nose Job is working effectively. What do you think?
 
Bavafa said:
Allan, here is my 2 cents without meaning to offend anyone and I wish this product the best of success



Please keep in mind that not everyone will speak up as it may be interperted as naysayer and only remain skeptic. The strong language does come across as a thread and helps creating an atmosphere of unwelcome comment if not a praise. So, if you are genuinely interested in feedback, both positive and also concerns, then perhaps ought to reconsider. Lastly, while I appreciate the amount of $$$ and effort spent, it is not the only qualifier for a safe and successful product.

Having said that, I think you have done a great job addressing this issue with A model and with as many accident that has happened with the tricycle model, we should learn soon or later how it preforms.
Click to expand...

...Thank you for your comments and I assure you they are very appreciated. I really didn't get into any strong language and am sorry it was taken that way. It's just that we have studied this problem to greater lengths than anyone I am aware of, and have proven to ourselves just how much extra margin this devise provides. I will admit we are very passionate about this product. I truly wish every A model could have one, not because I want the sales as I have been blessed monetarily with far more than I need. I truly believe in this product and know over time, it will eventually save much grief, ma-ham and possible some lives.
...The safety issues with aircraft unfortunately came home to me this past week end. One of my long time friends and flying buddy "Chuck Ross" was killed in a crash on Saturday so perhaps, I am a little over sensitive.
Lets just all be safe out there. Regards all.Allan...:)
 
Av8torTom said:
Problem is, it's impossible to prove a negative i.e., proving that the device causes flip overs (or nose gear damage) NOT to happen. I think the best we'll be able to do is wait a rather long time, gather a lot of data and then look at ALL nose gear damage and then divide the data into those A models with the device installed and those without it, and see if there is a statistical difference.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, while I agree it is impossible to prove a negative, I disagree that we're trying to do that. In an ideal world we'd have exact numbers on tip overs in RV's with and without the nose job and we'd have precise numbers on which gear style they were, how many landings there were in each type and on what surface. A multilevel analysis of variance would tell us a lot. If by chance the "nose job" planes had zero tip overs that isn't a lack of data, its a lack of accidents. A lack of accidents IS data and should not be confused with no data.

Personally, I'm pretty sure there are pilots out there who can flip an RV - even one with the nose job. The question is, has anyone managed to do it and either confess to it or have a witness testify to it. Whether one with the nose job flips isn't the question, and when one flips, you won't see me condemning the product. What I'm looking to see is if there is a divergence in the lines graphing the A-model turn overs between those wearing the anti-splat device and those not wearing it. If the difference is statistically significant then we can conclude the product helps at some level - maybe a little and maybe a lot.

The theory behind the system looks good. My original question was an attempt to find out if the data supports the initial hypotheses (i.e., let's use the scientific method - even if our data are non-parametric). After 8 months I can't find a tip over with a 'nose job' equipped RV. If there was one I figure someone, maybe not the pilot, but someone, would have mentioned it or PM'd me with the information. So far NADA. While this isn't proof, it sure is strongly suggestive that Anti-Splat is on to something. The two graphs SEEM to be diverging.

I am a skeptic and likely always will be. Data is what convinces me - and at this point in time, I find it unlikely that no A-model RV has tipped over in a landing or taxi incident in the past 8 months. That suggests to me that the slope of the line tracking 'nose job' flips is lower than stock RV's. It doesn't tell me what the safety factor is, nor is it proof, yet. But it sure does suggest to me that Allen and his team are heading in the right direction.

Now if anyone knows of any RV A-model turn overs in the past 8 months, I'd love to hear about them - publicly or privately. If you know whether the planes were stock or not, that would be really helpful. As it is, I'm leaning toward adding the system to my build.
 
rvator51 said:
I think it may not be that long before some evidence may be forthcoming about the Nose-Jobs effectiveness. My understanding is that the Nose Job moves the bending force further up the nose gear leg so it bends closer to the top instead of at the bottom of the leg and raises the nose as the gear leg bends instead of lowering the nose. This is supposed to prevent a prop strike and a possible roll-over. With as many Nose Jobs installed as it sound like there are, someone is going to bend their gear leg sooner or later. If no prop strike or roll-over occurs and only a bent gear leg happens, it seems to me that the Nose Job is working effectively. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I agree...and I'm 99% sure these data already exist but I can't prove it.
 
Unless you have proof that there have been flipovers in the last eight months of non-modified A models, there is no way to state that the graphs are diverging in a manner to prove that the device is working.

Perhaps all you have is the development video/data that supports the idea that it can reasonably be assumed to be effective.
 
I agree with you Don, that data is king! So....have you already plotted the frequency of flip-overs prior to the development of the device? That you should be able to do from records - and if you can't then you can't validate your results post-invention either. I am used to making technical decisions based on very limited data (small fleet size), and it can be done - but you have to be very, very detailed in your data examination. For instance, is the fleet flying less hours since the invention (I wouldn't be surprised, due to high fuel prices)...that will have to be taken into account. Looking for binary data is one thing - looking for a rate change is another. Oh yeah - seasonal variation probably needs to be accounted for.

So from the pre-invention data, how often would the "flips" occur? I am totally in favor of data-based decisions...so let's see the data.

Paul
 
Ron Lee said:
Unless you have proof that there have been flipovers in the last eight months of non-modified A models, there is no way to state that the graphs are diverging in a manner to prove that the device is working.
Click to expand...

Okay. But what rationale explanation would you suggest to explain why A-model flip overs would suddenly stop occurring 8 months ago? I think Occam's Razor comes in to play here. If A models have been flipping over at some rate, then until there's some external change, they'll keep flipping over at the same rate. Perhaps there's some new pilot training program, an across the board airport surface improvement program, or some other reasonable explanation for the flip overs stopping. Barring that, then I believe its reasonable to assume they're continuing at the same rate +/- statistical variation.

If you really don't believe this, let's wait 6-8 more months and check the NTSB database for RV flip overs and see if they changes between October 2011 and May 2012 compared to earlier data. Maybe by then someone will have flipped an RV with a nose job and we can argue population sizes or hours flown.

My point is simply that zero is not no data. It is in fact a data point. Given the methods of reporting, it is a weak data point (non parametric) but it is a point.
 
Don, perhaps I missed it but at what rate were the flipovers occurring as of some suitable period prior to the introduction of the antisplat device?

How many devices have been installed in what size population of A model?

That is just a start.

I have no dog in this discussion. I have a 6A model with unmodified nose gear. Over 1700 hours with no flips. But I avoid unpaved surfaces or marginal paved surfaces.

The conclusion that the device solved this issue is not supportable when you cannot even define how many aircraft have been modified.
 
My point

Don, I don't think we disagree. My point is that to do this properly, as I said, there will need to be a fair amount of data involving BOTH modified and unmodified nose gears. My point was that to JUST look at the incidence of tip overs in A models fitted with the device would be trying to prove a negative.

Being a student of binomial statistics, I don't think there are enough data on unmodified aircraft to make a meaningful comparison. Show me 100 cases where there was an incident without and 100 incidences with the device and then we can start to factor in and control for all the other variables (paved runway, grass, pilot time in type, etc, etc, etc) and MAYBE a meaningful conclusion could be drawn, but I suspect the data will be all over the place.

This is not to say the device doesn't work - if a tip over never happens with a modified nose gear then that would be very compelling. I just don't think it will be easy to prove.
 
Don said:
Now if anyone knows of any RV A-model turn overs in the past 8 months, I'd love to hear about them - publicly or privately. If you know whether the planes were stock or not, that would be really helpful. As it is, I'm leaning toward adding the system to my build.
Click to expand...

Don, you , and others on this thread, keep referring to the prevention of "flip-overs" or "turn-overs" as the defining criterion of success in respect of the Anti-Splat Nose Job.

However I would refer again to the Anti-Splat product description from their website:

"A propeller strike, engine disassembly for inspection or other damage may be avoided not to mention a dreaded possible flip over we have seen so many times".

Thus it is clear that the manufacturers are claiming that the product will assist in reducing the incidence of nose gear failures leading to "propellor strike" and "other damage".

Therefore it is logical that the statistics we are are looking for will not only include tip-overs resulting from gear failure but also include prop strikes and nose damage resulting from gear failures.

My guess is that installers of the Nose Job are expecting (hoping) that the product will assist in preventing gear failure leading to any aircraft damage (whether the plane tips over or not). After all, that is the promise of the manufacturer.

Therefore we wish to hear from any builder who has experienced any nose gear failure with the product installed that resulted in ANY subsequent aircraft damage (whether the aircraft tipped or not).

As a postscript to all of this I think it is a very sad indictment of the Vans nose gear design that perhaps 1000 builders or more (to date) have exhibited so little faith in Vans offering that they have rushed out to buy a relatively expensive third party bracing device which has yet to be proven successful in the field. It really does suggest that there's a lot of concern, and even desperation, among RV(A) builders/flyers out there.
 
Landing gear

Captain Avgas said:
As a postscript to all of this I think it is a very sad indictment of the Vans nose gear design that perhaps 1000 builders or more (to date) have exhibited so little faith in Vans offering that they have rushed out to buy a relatively expensive third party bracing device which has yet to be proven successful in the field. It really does suggest that there's a lot of concern, and even desperation, among RV(A) builders/flyers out there.
Click to expand...

I am one that had zero faith in the current 9a front wheel landing gear. If it wasn't for the funny anti-splat logo that caught my eye while researching what plane to build, I would be building a Lancair Legacy FG now. Van's front gear looks like it is half failing just sitting there the way the leg bends and attaches to the wheel. Reading about the anti-splat device gave me a reason to look at the RV 9a again and decide it was for me.

I would much rather have a front wheel like on the Warrior or most other tricycle gear airplanes. The design just doesn't make sense to me. I know it works almost all the time and the failure rate is small, but what is the flip over rate of the Warrior? How about any other tricycle gear airplane compared to the A models. Those are the figures I would like to have.

* I know in almost every landing, the skill of the pilot is what makes the difference in keeping the wheels in the right location. I also know that the design for the A models does have failures either from hitting something or pilot error. It is not blasphemy to say something Vans designed could be improved.
 
Captain Avgas said:
Don, you , and others on this thread, keep referring to the prevention of "flip-overs" or "turn-overs" as the defining criterion of success in respect of the Anti-Splat Nose Job.

However I would refer again to the Anti-Splat product description from their website:

"A propeller strike, engine disassembly for inspection or other damage may be avoided not to mention a dreaded possible flip over we have seen so many times".

Thus it is clear that the manufacturers are claiming that the product will assist in reducing the incidence of nose gear failures leading to "propellor strike" and "other damage".

I think it is becoming obvious to everyone here on this forum that you have some sort of not so hidden agenda. Again you very conveniently are playing word games by leaving out the prior sentence in the statement you quoted that defines it. Why is beyond me!
.
"When operating your aircraft from an unimproved surface i.e. grass, dirt, poor runway surface or in an emergency off field landing this devise could help prevent a costly rebuild or repair. A propeller strike, engine dis-assembly for inspection or other damage may be avoided not to mention a dreaded possible flip over we have seen so many times."
.
These are very intelligent people here and are not that easily deceived....:rolleyes:
On an added note, Thanks in part to this thread, we sold seven "Nose Jobs" today!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As a postscript to all of this I think it is a very sad indictment of the Vans nose gear design that perhaps 1000 builders or more (to date) have exhibited so little faith in Vans offering that they have rushed out to buy a relatively expensive third party bracing device which has yet to be proven successful in the field. It really does suggest that there's a lot of concern, and even desperation, among RV(A) builders/flyers out there.
Click to expand...

I do get the feeling, that this is one of those "glass half empty" statements. Otherwise known, as a pessimistic attitude. This product is one of those, "when **** hits the fan, kind of products. Kind of like a parachute when the wing falls off. Or synthetic vision just before you hit the mountain.

This is a product, that I definitely wish I'd had. After all, I owned an RV6A. It's the one with shorter gear, and not that many nose wheel collapses. My prop is destroyed. The gear is ruined, and possibly the engine. Let's don't be so dismissive based on conjecture. Yes conjecture. I read a previous post from this same author, that was almost total conjecture in the last paragraph. Quite a pessimistic outlook at best.

L.Adamson
 
Ron Lee said:
If that is your aircraft Mr Adamson, did the event happen on a paved surface or grass/dirt?

I have only seen the aftermath of one 6A flipover. The plane was sliding with gear bent for a ways on asphalt and did not flip until that nosegear encountered dirt when the plane went off the runway.
Click to expand...

Paved runway, in excellent shape. No momentum to flip over, nor did we ever feel we were about to. This is a case of the little "almost" benign bounce developing into a bigger one. In other words, I should have just powered out of it. I must have seen to many taildraggers landing, and dimissed it. This event was a follow up to the best landing, my RV ever saw. This accident is an "incident". You might not find it, in a search.
 
Captain Avgas said:
I think it is becoming obvious to everyone here on this forum that you have some sort of not so hidden agenda. Again you very conveniently are playing word games by leaving out the prior sentence in the statement you quoted that defines it. Why is beyond me!
.
"When operating your aircraft from an unimproved surface i.e. grass, dirt, poor runway surface or in an emergency off field landing this devise could help prevent a costly rebuild or repair. A propeller strike, engine dis-assembly for inspection or other damage may be avoided not to mention a dreaded possible flip over we have seen so many times."
.
These are very intelligent people here and are not that easily deceived....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have no hidden agenda whatsoever and the accusation that I am trying to "deceive" forum readers borders on the paranoid. I left out the first sentence because it adds no significant meaning to the second sentence that I quoted (in the context of the point being made). It's as simple as that.

As I have stated previously I am totally impartial on this issue. And I am not pessimistic, nor optimistic about the product. I just prefer an enlightened statistical approach to gauging the success of the Anti-Splat brace based on field experience, rather than relying on the word of the manufacturer or the wishful and intuitive thoughts of builders who are not even in the air with the product yet. One of the main benefits of VansAirforce is to enable a forum that allows for members to openly discuss RV products with a view to a considered exchange of opinion based on personal experience and leading hopefully to enlightenment for all concerned.

That a manufacturer is now making posts haranguing members in a bid to dissuade them from making other than complimentary comments about his product is unprecedented on VansAirforce. And I'm not sure that it's a good trend.
 
Last edited:
[ed. Civility rules violation. I deleted the text here. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering

We trust the discipline of engineering with our lives every day. It generally works. In some cases, the value of a mechanism in terms of added safety factor is obvious to the layman, for example adding redundancy to an electrical circuit. In other cases, for example the ASA device, it is not so obvious to the layman but to the engineer who understands strength of materials, finite element analysis, etc., that added factor of safety is no less certain.

My point is that even without statistics, we have data. Engineering data. Humans, particularly the ones smart enough to build airplanes, understand that and they put their money where their understanding of engineering tells them there is a reasonable rate of return. The thousand builder/pilots, many engineers themselves, that bought this product are highly unlikely to be wrong.

And I will add that the statistics that many folks would suppose to be conclusive on this issue won't be. There is a pervasive human characteristic that simply can't be accounted for. If the device works, folks will slowly build up tolerance for poorer and poorer landing techniques until bad things happen, even with the reengineered leg. Unless we have data for all of the variables that go into landing technique ( rate of descent, back pressure, etc), as well as damage rates, the stats will be misleading.

I do not have to wait for statistics to assess this product. They will be interesting, but I trust the engineer before the statistician.
 
Let's face it, the 7A NG has reason to give pause

I don't think I am desperate, but I am concerned. My 7A is not flying yet but it does already have an Antisplat on it. A guy in my EAA chapter just had this happen on a smooth field and now we have seen and heard of too many of these incidents to dismiss this problem as a non problem. He did not strike the prop or go on its back, but the strut looks like all the others, bent way back with that characteristic arc to it. Something is going on and it is reasonable for concerned builders to try something, IMO.

I was not convinced by the marketing words. But the video is impressive and sold me. Clearly the leg can take much more rearward force without failing with it. On that basis I felt it was worth a try. I will watch for odd wear on the back of the leg though during routine inspections though.

Captain Avgas said:
As a postscript to all of this I think it is a very sad indictment of the Vans nose gear design that perhaps 1000 builders or more (to date) have exhibited so little faith in Vans offering that they have rushed out to buy a relatively expensive third party bracing device which has yet to be proven successful in the field. It really does suggest that there's a lot of concern, and even desperation, among RV(A) builders/flyers out there.
Click to expand...
 
"In other cases, for example the ASA device, it is not so obvious to the layman but to the engineer who understands strength of materials, finite element analysis, etc."

THAT'S what I'd like to see...the engineering analyses that were done on both the unadorned gear leg, and this new mitigation device.
 
I have done about 50 landings with the brace on my 9A and hundreds of landings before installing the brace. Most of these landings have been on my short grass airstrip with at least moderate and sometimes hard braking required. The surface of the strip is reasonably smooth although it is a bit tussocky and therefore bumpy in places. I know the nose strut is working hard and presumably flexing because I can feel and hear it jiggling about once the nose is lowered to the ground.

I just had a close inspection of the strut and there is absolutely no evidence that the ends of the brace have contacted the strut. So it would seem likely that the strut is mostly flexing to a concave shape (as viewed from the front of the aircraft) and this would actually increase the distance between the ends of the brace and the strut. To contact the brace, the strut would have to bend the other way. I posted this video on another thread so apologies if you have seen it before but if you increase the quality and screen size you can see the movement of the strut on my grass airstrip.

I have noticed no difference in the feel of the ground handling with the brace installed.

Others have reported that the ends of the strut have contacted the brace. Maybe all struts do not come out of the factory the same and some have a slightly convex shape however this is unlikely as Antisplat Aero would have noticed this as they used a number of new struts in their product development. Could it be possible that some struts that show contact with the brace have been deformed due to an earlier landing/taxing incident that put a slight permanent bend in the strut???

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Finley Atherton said:
I just had a close inspection of the strut and there is absolutely no evidence that the ends of the brace have contacted the strut. So it would seem likely that the strut is mostly flexing to a concave shape (as viewed from the front of the aircraft) and this would actually increase the distance between the ends of the brace and the strut. To contact the brace, the strut would have to bend the other way. I posted this video on another thread so apologies if you have seen it before but if you increase the quality and screen size you can see the movement of the strut on my grass airstrip.

I have noticed no difference in the feel of the ground handling with the brace installed.

Fin
9A
Click to expand...

Fin, thanks for the very informative feedback and comments. It was particularly encouraging that you have not noticed any wear of the brace against the gear strut given your "unmade" strip. Hopefully others will follow suit and also provide reports on their real-world experiences with the Anti-Splat mechanism in due course so that a greater body of knowledge can be made available to RV builders/flyers to assist them in making an informed purchase decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top