Anyone know why the gear length change between 6A to 7A/9/A

[Pmerems]

Just wondering if anyone knows the history behind the change in gear length from the 6A to the 7A/9A.

I compared the tail heights between the 6A and 7A at the Copperstate Fly-In this past weekend. The tail height of the 6A's were approximately 6 feet while the 7A's/9A's were almost 8 feet. That is a rather substantial change.

I know the rudder is a bit taller but the majority of the difference is in the gear leg lengths.

What is the reasoning behind the change?

[PCHunt]

I'm going out on a limb to hazard a guess: The longer Main Gear is to lessen the chance of touching down on the nose gear first.

Flame suit on.

[vlittle]

I have the answer from Gus Fennell at Van's:

"because it looks better"

That's it.

[hevansrv7a]

I didn't ask Van's but I always thought that allowing 20 additional HP meant the need for a longer prop which in turn needs more clearance. I would have been just as happy with shorter legs!

[N941WR]

One other thought...

The 7A & 9A have a longer fuselage, thus you would need longer gear legs to keep from hitting the tail on landing.

With the -9, you need longer gear legs than the -7 to get the wing to stall in the landing attitude.

[gmcjetpilot]

May be the reason for the taller Trike gear is the tallier Tail Dragger Gear?

The Trikes are related to the TG's. The TD level attitude (tail up) was looked at I'm sure. Van looked for some parity between the two gear types, height wise.

Changes to the Tail Dragger version has obvious affects. Ostensibly higher angle of attack in the three point attitude allows slower landings. Another advantage is more prop tip to ground clearance. The RV wing is such a low speed loving monster its impossible to fully stall in ground effect with out hitting the tail wheel first, even with the taller gear. A full stall landing means hitting the tail wheel first, with mains still a foot or more off the ground. This makes a somewhat inelegant "drop it in" technique with little or no advantage over flying on a few MPH faster. The down side is less forward visibility.

The affect of taller gear on the trike is somewhat the same as a TD, in that you can be at a higher angle of attack with the tail tie-down ring in the dirt. Of course with the main being set back further on the fuselage it does no need to be as tall. Also you do get more prop tip to dirt clearance. Taller trike gear makes it harder to climb in and out, with a low wing. The reason is it looks better is probably also a reason. The other down side is more flexable longer gear. That may be a disadvantage with the nose gear which some call a poll vault.

[rvpilot]

Not sure it looks any better, really not sure it would be any more likely to drag the tail. Sure looks like it may be easier to transfer a lot more weight to the front in a given situation though! Throwing it out for comment!!

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by vlittle

I have the answer from Gus Fennell at Van's:

"because it looks better"

That's it.

I do not think the taller tail looks better. I think the 6A looks better with the 5 degrees nose high attutude. Looks more like a tail dragger.

[GrayHawk]

Originally Posted by rvpilot

Not sure it looks any better, really not sure it would be any more likely to drag the tail. Sure looks like it may be easier to transfer a lot more weight to the front in a given situation though! Throwing it out for comment!!

The tail dragger crowd is always telling us how their planes (with tail on the ground) look 'cool'. So it stands to reason, 'coolness' is the inverse of tail height above ground. Then it follows that a 6A is more 'cool' than a 7A or 9A.

[Sam Buchanan]

Not sure it looks any better, really not sure it would be any more likely to drag the tail. Sure looks like it may be easier to transfer a lot more weight to the front in a given situation though! Throwing it out for comment!!

I have considered the same thing. Haven't most of the nose-over accidents involved the newer models?