Further news on Croft Farm RV-7A flip

[Captain Avgas]

There is further news on the RV7A that flipped on landing at Crofts Farm in the UK at the following site. Interesting to note that the pilot claims he was down to only 10 to 15 MPH when the incident took place. It has been suggested by others that the perception that the plane was travelling faster was created by the slow frame rate of the mobile phone video camera.

www.eezicam.co.uk/intro.htm

Scan down the page.

I have reposted this here in the General Section because the main thread was moved by a Moderator to the "Nosewheel vs Tailwheel" section.
Incidentally the state of the Croft Farm surface looks like a billiard table top compared to the really rough country strips I'm used to flying my 182 in to. People can rave on all they like about pilot error but I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Vans 2 seat nosegear is VERY fragile and flimsy.

[painless]

How difficult do you guys think it is going to be to repair the damage to the fuselage? Seems like there is an appreciable amount of deformation at the aft baggage compartment bulkhead.

I am not familiar with the new-fangled way these airplanes go together now-a-days with the matched hole feature. Can he just build a new tailcone???

Just curious.


Regards,

[aelkins]

Interesting video and comments on the Croft Farm incident.
Although these nosewheel failures are rare compared to the many daily turf landings per day, it's still frequent enough to require corrective structural modification. Simply put, if this same type of failure was on a certified castering nosewheel airplane, a correction would have been implemented by the manufacturer long before a prolonged trend such as this.
Pointing the finger at Pilot error and turf conditions is not a proactive solution. (however, it's probably financially positive for the manufacturer)
Now, enough for my nosewheel rant.. to the question at hand.

In the event one finds themself in the same position.
(upside down on the turf from a nosewheel failure)
What is the safest method to escape?
Assume that nobody is outside to assist. (as on many private grass strips)
Chances are the canopy will crack/bust. And hopefully the rollbar will provide some gap to crawl out of.
Just wondering if anyone has given some preventive thoughts to escape.
Any reasonable suggestions?

[GrayHawk]

It was the old style fork.

[kevinsky18]

lets all realise that these are homebuilt / experimental planes and thus the manufactor is not Vans but us the builders. Its our responsibility to either come up with a beefier nose wheel system or restrict in the POH the off field operations on this configuration.

[Rick of Austin]

Kevin, yes we assembled the airplane but its obvious to all that Vans aircraft designed, tested and manufactured the flimsy nosewheel assembly.
I used to have a huge amount of loyalty to Vans having been flying one model or another since 1984 but this recent position of theirs of having their head in the sand is getting absurd.
No disresppect intended.
rick

[joeboisselle]

I found this post from ealier this year about a -6a's nose gear colapsing after hitting a rabbit. *whew* Sounds flimsy to me.

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=14057

[allbee]

Sorry guys, I haved watched the video several times and he didn't do a soft field landing.

[vlittle]

Originally Posted by allbee

Sorry guys, I haved watched the video several times and he didn't do a soft field landing.

You are correct. here's the direct quote: "Unfortunately, Romeo Mike was damaged in an incident at Croft Farm on 9th June. The damage is substantial. At the end of the landing roll, and with some braking applied, the nose was bounced back into the air and when it came down it buckled under and flipped the aircraft over.

Speed was estimated as 10-15 mph by Richard and a ground marshal."

The big clue here was "with some braking applied". This definitely not a soft-field landing. A simple mind experiment is this... nose bounces up with brakes applied. Rather than softly settling back, it's driven back into the ground by the effect of the braking, which provides a large negative pitching moment. He may have exceeded the load limit for the nose gear... which has very little margin for error.

This is not really pilot error... the nose gear should be tolerant of a wide range of normal conditions, including this one.

So we have evidence as to the root cause... excessive braking causes excessive breaking. We just don't have a foolproof solution.

I'm the emcee at the Langley BC fly-in next week. Usually, Gus Fennell attends our builder's seminar. I will be listening carefully if this comes up in discussion.

Vern

[Ron Lee]

And which is better?