RV6 incident,South Australia

[Steve Melton]

Originally Posted by Jpm757

The "A" models are more than capable to operate out of soft/unimproved strips, not quite as rugged as conventional gear models, but still up to the task. Unfortunately "some" of our nosewheel friends do not have a clue as to proper soft field operations. Thorough soft field training is essential to staying out of trouble.

maybe a pilot having a bad day or a gust of wind or something else could trigger a chain of events.

[mturnerb]

Originally Posted by Steve Melton

maybe a pilot having a bad day or a gust of wind or something else could trigger a chain of events.

Safety isn't just about better pilots/piloting. It can and should include equipment fixes/improvement where a design has a weak point, or as you have suggested, operational adjustments to reduce risk of failure. One of the reasons I chose the -14A is the much more robust nose gear: I hope my skills/technique are enough to never test it but why not take advantage of every opportunity to mitigate risk?

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by mturnerb

Safety isn't just about better pilots/piloting. It can and should include equipment fixes/improvement where a design has a weak point, or as you have suggested, operational adjustments to reduce risk of failure. One of the reasons I chose the -14A is the much more robust nose gear: I hope my skills/technique are enough to never test it but why not take advantage of every opportunity to mitigate risk?

I agree with this comment. There is another thread running on VansAirforce at the moment about an in-flight fire on an RV14A east of Salem that resulted in an emergency landing into a farmer’s field. The interesting thing about that incident is that the beefed up RV14A nose gear with the shock absorber appears to have been robust enough to prevent the aircraft from tipping upside down. If the aircraft had gone over and trapped the pilot inside with the plane on fire the outcome might have been dire indeed.

I did transitional training with Mike Seager so I know what is required to keep the stress off my RV7A nose gear. But I dread the thought of an engine failure leading to an off-field landing on a less than perfect surface. The RV7A nosegear is very fragile and when it fails the plane almost always tips over...that’s the reality. It was good that Vans finally re-engineered the 7A nosegear, but it was 10 years too late.

[jcarne]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

I agree with this comment. There is another thread running on VansAirforce at the moment about an in-flight fire on an RV14A east of Salem that resulted in an emergency landing into a farmer’s field. The interesting thing about that incident is that the beefed up RV14A nose gear with the shock absorber appears to have been robust enough to prevent the aircraft from tipping upside down. If the aircraft had gone over and trapped the pilot inside with the plane on fire the outcome might have been dire indeed.

I did transitional training with Mike Seager so I know what is required to keep the stress off my RV7A nose gear. But I dread the thought of an engine failure leading to an off-field landing on a less than perfect surface. The RV7A nosegear is very fragile and when it fails the plane almost always tips over...that’s the reality. It was good that Vans finally re-engineered the 7A nosegear, but it was 10 years too late.

Interesting take on that accident, I hadn't thought about that before. One more reason I'm glad I upgraded.

[KatanaPilot]

Talked with both Rian Johnson and Gus Funnell at OSH about the improved nose gear design. When they asked how far along my project was and I stated "flying", they both in unison stated unequivocally "don't do it".

Their comments were more about the level of complexity of converting a flying airplane. Specifically about the amount of working re-doing baffles (I have a BL plenum) and the likelihood of extensive cowling rework. Additionally, there may be some issues of interference with accessories on the firewall and concerns of exhaust routing.

As to the new nose gear design - you don't need to be an engineer to understand the improvements over the old design. As they both stated, the original design met Van's criteria of light, functional and inexpensive - but the new gear is a lot more robust.

We are still going to do the mod later this year...

[AlexPeterson]

Perhaps instead of rehashing the same old arguments about nose gear this or that, it might be helpful instead to find out what sort of axle/bearing adjustment design the subject airplane had. Since people started changing to a solid axle design some years ago (as was the design in the early models of 6A), the reported incidences of nose gear tuck-unders appears to have dropped significantly.

If anyone has knowledge about or access to this aircraft, it would be very good to learn about this detail.

See this thread for more about this.

[N42AH]

Talk about a long way from initial medical services.


Two hour drive to William Creek Airfield for ambulance crew.

Originally Posted by SPX

Pretty good article with two photos:
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-...field/11354666

[newt]

Originally Posted by Steve Melton

that nose wheel should only be used on hard surfaces. if you land on soft fields get the upgrade. Van's should really make that a service bulletin.

William Creek is a well-maintained hard surface (bitumen) runway, so I don't know why that's relevant here.

- mark

[Hornet2008]

Most outback runways are in really good condition the flying doctor uses them. Mate and I visit many outback bitumen strips and are suitably impressed by the condition of them. Hungerford pop about 15 has a fenced bitumen runway for the Royal Flying Doctor Service King Air. The fence is to keep kangaroos and emus out.

[airguy]

Originally Posted by newt

William Creek is a well-maintained hard surface (bitumen) runway, so I don't know why that's relevant here.

- mark

Maybe, but the photographs show the airplane sitting on a dirt strip.