The nose gear issue...again

[s_tones]

I fly a 1976 Archer.
Have been (again) considering the RV7A build.
For a number of reasons, I greatly prefer the trike over tail wheel.
I have just reviewed the NTSB reports linked through Dan C's site.
Looking through all the 6A,7A,and 9A reports I can't help but notice that if you take out the nose wheel collapse events there's not much left!
In other words nose wheel collapse is a substantial source of accidents (generally resulting in overturned airplanes with minor injuries) for these "A series" aircraft.
I find this very disconcerting and can't help but wonder if there isn't something on the horizon in the way of improvement in this situation at Van's.

I consider myself a fairly adept pilot and am always working to make my landings the best they can be. Still, like everyone, I have off days occaisionally. It's unsettling, to say the least, that a poor landing that would be well tolerated by, say, an Archer, could result in the destruction of the aircraft or worse.

I have flown in these planes and I love them. I think the build would be a total gas. But this one thing is really hanging me up.

S_tones

[Bob Axsom]

I flew Archer N8304L for 22 years and it is a wonderful airplane. The RV "A" models are less tolerance of poor landing technique because there is no oleo strut on the nose, or main gear either for that matter. You are also going to be limited on payload, etc. but that is another story. Castering nose gear does not have to accommodate a heavy, draggy, round strut that extends in flight when unloaded and a sissors to maintain stearing control etc. Not only must you land an RV reasonably clean with the nose in the air but if you lose a brake you have a significant ground handling problem. Even the new Cessna appears to be headed in this direction for performance reasons.

I think you are doing the right thing to consider this decision very carefully and except for the RV-12 I would not expect to see any performance degrading modifications.

Bob Axsom

[s_tones]

Thanks Bob. I have to say I really love the Archer and have about 400 hours in 'em so far. But, I'm sure you'll agree that the RV puts the beast to shame in most respects (cargo carrying excepted)

Soooo....
How bad is BAD (landing)?
I can't imagine that RV flyers are necessarily just the worlds best pilots.
(No offense!)
But we're all human. Can you land that sucker flat and a bit hard once in a while?
Do you guys just grit your teeth with each landing or what?

S_tones

[pierre smith]

Hi guys,
There's nothing wrong with the design of the tri-gears. What I see as most of the problem amounts to one of two things and also a combination of the two.

1) Not landing the airplane in a nose-high, stalled or nearly stalled condition.

2) An inability to salvage a botched flare and bounce with the airplane nosing over into a dive and little or no correction as the nosewheel comes down first.

Technique, or lack thereof is the culprit. These airplanes are pussycats to land if it's done correctly (the way you were taught, or should have been).

A sure way to preserve the nosegear is to hold the stick back upon main gear touchdown and DO NOT suddenly let the stick forward and let the nose slam down. It seems to be a habit for some guys and it is really easy to overcome. I tell most of the transition guys who come here that they are going to have to ratchet their flying technique up a couple of notches and show more finesse than in the spam cans they're graduating from.
Regards,

[chaskuss]

Originally Posted by s_tones

I fly a 1976 Archer.
snipped
I find this very disconcerting and can't help but wonder if there isn't something on the horizon in the way of improvement in this situation at Van's.
snipped
S_tones

Vans has made an upgrade. The U shaped fork which connects the gear leg to the tire's axle was recently redesigned to allow more clearance between the front of the fork and the ground. This was discussed within the past 2 months. One lister even posted photos showing how the early and late style nose forks compared.
Charlie Kuss

[ProCoach]

The best insurance you can have to protect the nose gear is a tailwheel endorsement. Every plane should be landed as if it were a taildragger. (right, Pierre?) Once you learn how and why, your A series plane will likely provide better short field performance than the TDs because you can land at a greater AOA. This maximizes landing performance and nosewheel protection.

Like almost everything else in aviation, the machine (nosewheel) is better engineered than it's pilot (training/technique).

[CraigH@KRPH]

Originally Posted by ProCoach

The best insurance you can have to protect the nose gear is a tailwheel endorsement. Every plane should be landed as if it were a taildragger. (right, Pierre?) Once you learn how and why, your A series plane will likely provide better short field performance than the TDs because you can land at a greater AOA.

VERY good point! My tri-gear technique improved dramatically after several hundred hours of tailwheel flying.

[Bob Axsom]

Originally Posted by s_tones

But we're all human. Can you land that sucker flat and a bit hard once in a while?
S_tones

Short answer - No you can't. If you do not land the plane properly you will eventually hurt it.

Bob Axsom

[svanarts]

From what I've read the nosegear collapses seem to come from nose gear oscillations after a particularly bad bounce, or hitting a chuck hole or some such. The nose gear starts to oscillate fore to aft until the fork digs in and curls up the nose gear. I've read that a wood or fiberglass rod bonded to the nosegear can effectively dampen these oscillations and thus reduce the likelihood of a nosegear collapse. The redesign of the fork so that it doesn't dig in as easly is probably going to help the most.

[s_tones]

I appreciate all your responses to my query.
I hope that I am able to embark on this project at some point in the not so distant future. I really cannot imagine a more fascinating or rewarding journey than building and customizing one's own aircraft.
I guess I will have to come to terms with this one issue....that is that an RV may not forgive pilot shortcomings that my Archer would suffer gladly.

S_tones