What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Any advantage of long gear vs short?

PropMan

Well Known Member
I'm trying to decide on gear leg length for my 4 build. I have a nos mount with short gear legs available.
My question is:
What advantages are gained with the long gear legs?
Thanks
 
Clearance

Prop clearance is the big one and it is especially true of you go with a constant speed and/or o-360. Level attitude my -4 with 360 and hartzel has about 6 or 7 inches when I pick the tail up off the ground.
 
Whichever you decide, try and get pre-drilled gear legs if available. Aligning and drilling the gear legs is a real PITA.
 
I cannot state this as fact; however, it was interesting to hear and worth some validation. A well known and respected TW instructor in Winter Haven FL claims that the short leg 4 is not (always?) in full stall at touchdown thus making it less safe to a degree vs other tail draggers. I’m sure this will be a bit controversial here but it made sense at the time. Not debating wheel versus three point landings. I’d always wondered what the community here would say and this thread seems a decent place to broach this topic.
 
from some old vans pub

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • page-12.JPG
    page-12.JPG
    361.5 KB · Views: 191
  • page-13.JPG
    page-13.JPG
    353.8 KB · Views: 197
Either is fine, but..

I've flown both and I built my 4 with longs because that was standard at the time. I would build long again and recommend for others. Your unused short set would probably sell to rebuilders or repairs quickly if you chose to order longs. The 4 lands 3 point slightly better with longs, but if I have a PAX, I can still hit the TW first . I believe resale is better with longs, but if I was shoping, I would not let short vs long be a deal breaker. They are all incredible machines.
 
I would not let short vs long be a deal breaker. They are all incredible machines.

+1
IMHO, there are many other dealbreakers way above gear length.
FWIW, I have a short gear -4. The flatter landing attitude means that it flys onto the deck with all 3 points. I find the lower AOA at touchdown is an advantage in gusty crosswinds.
 
I cannot state this as fact; however, it was interesting to hear and worth some validation. A well known and respected TW instructor in Winter Haven FL claims that the short leg 4 is not (always?) in full stall at touchdown thus making it less safe to a degree vs other tail draggers. I’m sure this will be a bit controversial here but it made sense at the time. Not debating wheel versus three point landings. I’d always wondered what the community here would say and this thread seems a decent place to broach this topic.

None of the tailwheel RVs are at "full stall" in 3-point attitude!

Longer gear gives better prop clearance. Shorter gear gives better forward visibility while taxiing. Landing attitude doesn't make a huge difference. You learn to land whatever you have.
 
Last edited:
Well, my humble experience on the -8 says otherwise…

And my humble expedience in the -8 says otherwise to your humble experience. :D

My experience has been the -8 three point attitude is not a full stall at landing attitude.
 
What is the *Deck Angle? The biplane I just built has really tall grove gear and has a 12 degree deck angle. Haven't flown it yet buy when I taxi (to quote a friend with cataracts ) "I can't see ****". hahaha. My wings are set at zero degrees incidence and stall should be somewhere around 22 degrees right? I'm thinking I'll be ok but planning to wheel land it at first. I guess I'll find out. Solo is from the rear seat which won't help with visibility.
 
What is the *Deck Angle? The biplane I just built has really tall grove gear and has a 12 degree deck angle. Haven't flown it yet buy when I taxi (to quote a friend with cataracts ) "I can't see ****". hahaha. My wings are set at zero degrees incidence and stall should be somewhere around 22 degrees right? I'm thinking I'll be ok but planning to wheel land it at first. I guess I'll find out. Solo is from the rear seat which won't help with visibility.

Sorry but the terms "Biplane" and "Visibility" do not fit within the same paragraph!
 
Fly it on

Well my short gear RV4 is difficult to get a full stall landing consistently. So like Mel says "you learn to land what ever you have" and for me thats fly it on.
 
I'll Start the Controvercy...

I cannot state this as fact; however, it was interesting to hear and worth some validation. A well known and respected TW instructor in Winter Haven FL claims that the short leg 4 is not (always?) in full stall at touchdown thus making it less safe to a degree vs other tail draggers. I’m sure this will be a bit controversial here but it made sense at the time. Not debating wheel versus three point landings. I’d always wondered what the community here would say and this thread seems a decent place to broach this topic.

I agree that this is a good place to discuss; I disagree in said TW instructor's blanket conclusion...
-Critical AOA ("full stall") is a function of airspeed and WEIGHT
-At touchdown, the weight born by the wing immediately decreases as it is transferred to the wheels.
-So, "full stall" is only transitory. As soon as the wing sheds some of the weight upon landing it is no longer stalled. The long gear -4 is again flying in the 3 point attitude just like the short gear -4 that never experienced a "full stall" seconds before.
Question: Why would introducing a "full stall" into a critical operating phase like landing be a good thing?
-Some will say "a full stall 3 point landing places the aircraft more solidly on the ground." I counter: Stalling an aircraft is loosing a degree of control, yes? Is this really a good thing just prior to touchdown when seconds later the aircraft will not be stalled? In other words, introducing a second or 2 of control loss is a good thing in a phase of flight where safety margins are at their smallest?
-Lastly: When on deck, when flying is not the goal, lift on the wings is undesirable. From landing roll out, to taxi, to being tied down: Any wing AOA combined with wind (relative or natural) is a negative. Except for rough/soft field ops.

So, in the taildragger world, safety would favor the short gear -4 over the long gear -4.
Provided prop clearance were not an issue...
And provided a slower speed at touchdown is not needed for short field considerations...
And more lift at any given time during take-off or landing is not desired for soft and/or rough field considerations...
And provided the pilot is as comfortable and experienced in either...

Dan
 
Last edited:
Short vs Long gear legs

I just got my 4 flying again after changing engine mount from short legs to the long legs. Here is the skinny. If you mostly do wheel landings the short legs are fine, I had never had a prop clearance with the short legs, I do however have 21" tires. Visibility on taxi is much better with the short legs. I like to do stall landings and with the short legs tail will touch down first. I like the look of the stance of the taller legs. I know if I had not had as many hours in it before I would have been more intimidated with taxi and and after touchdown because you can not see near as well forward.
 
The Long and Short of it.....

+1
IMHO, there are many other dealbreakers way above gear length.
FWIW, I have a short gear -4. The flatter landing attitude means that it flys onto the deck with all 3 points. I find the lower AOA at touchdown is an advantage in gusty crosswinds.

SuzieQ came with short gear so I don't have much experience with long gear. FWIW, I personally like the looks of the short gear. Personal preference. Less drag as well. When I was building, there were no long legged -4s: long gear hadn't come out yet. I looked at other high-performance aircraft and how they departed and landed. It isn't that the -4 compares to a P-51 but it was a tail dragger that was higher in performance than I was currently flying (a 90 hp J-3 Cub) so I was looking for any hint as to what I should be doing. It is a RARE thing to see a P-51 three-point. They are almost wheel landing. Departing: slow application of power and compensating rudder input for the torque. Watching others helped.

My first test flight was amazing, of course! The airplane that I built actually FLEW!!:):):) Take-off was a non-issue. But I had to land an airplane I had never landed before. The Cub has more control with wheel landings and most all of mine are tail-low wheel landings with an occasional three-point to keep in practice. My first landing in SuzieQ was a tail-low wheel landing that happened to be a greaser! :):):) Subsequently, most all my landings are tail-low wheel landings: roll her ON! Works well in stiff crosswinds as well. No prop-clearance issues with my wooden prop. And I can drag her in for short field work when necessary; still tail-low wheel landings.

I like the visibility I have with the short legs and her landing characteristics. But again: never landed a long-legged one.....IMHO
 
Tall gear:
-Looks better
-Better resale, probably
-Lands great, regardless of all these "stall" opinions

The document I posted tells what Vans thought, and their words are pretty solid.

While you are at it put on the newer "pressure recovery" wheel pants. Apparently you gain like 25 knots with those!.....joking of course
 
1) How long does it take to do the conversion?
2) Do you need to replace the brake lines due to the longer leg?
3) Any other things to consider when doing the conversion?
 
Back
Top