Ironflight

VAF Moderator / Line Boy
Mentor
Through a coincidental sequence of events which aren't important to describe here, I took possesion of a brand new Aircraft Products Inc tailwheel for my RV-8 yetserday. (I let Doug Bell know, so that he could free up my spot on the list for the Bell wheel, which still looks to me to be a GREAT product!). I took a little time this evening to do the install, and here are a few notes:

newtailwheel2pt.jpg


1) The quality of the whole assembly is really nice - my A&P friend stopped by while I was installing it and said "Hey, you got a real tailwheel!". The neck is much beefier than Van's, and I like the fact that it has a grease fitting on the swivel portion. The steering arm is beefier as well.

2) Even though my old tailwheel assembly has only been flying a few months, it took some twisting and light tapping to get it off. There was the beginning of a litltle corrosion line where it met the spring. I cleaned up the spring with emory cloth, and before I did the final installation, sprayed it with zinc chromate and assembled it "wet" (the same way I used to install the nosewheel strut on my Yankee) so it should be easier to remove some day.

3) Drilling it to the spring was not hard. I carefully lined it up vertical, and measured for the first hole in the spring from a datum line a couple of inches ahead of the front of the neck. I drilled this with a #30 to make sure I hit the hole, then stepped it up two drill sizes at a time, until I was nicely centerd and at an AN3 size. Once I was through and into the spring's hole, this served as a drill guide to get through the other side. I dropped in a bolt to hold it square, and measured for the second hole - they are exactly 1/2" apart. Same process for that one, and everything came out square. I then removed it, deburred, primed, and assembled.

4) I learned a trick awhile back that maybe everyone knows, but I haven't seen it documented. To compres the springs and make it easy to hook up the chains, run some big safety wire up the center of the spring and twist it with your pliers - it will draw the ends of the spring together (You can see it in the picture). Do it on both sides of each spring, and now you can connect the chains without any stress. Boy, I wish I'd known that the first time!

5)I replaced the cheap spring clips on the arm end of the springs awhile back (when one twisted and fell off!) with small stainless steel shackles from Boat US. They even have a nice hole in the clevis pin to run a safety wire and keep them in place. Breaking strength is some ludicrously high value - definitely aircraft quality!

6) It was dark (and we still have no runway lights) when I finished, so didn't get to taxi or fly it, but I can tell that the nose is lower just sitting in the cockpit. And no, I didn't measure the original value to compare...got too excited to be working on the plane again, and forgot...but the step up on to the wing took a little more of a stretch!

Total Install time was about an hour and a half (not counting chit-chat time with drop-in's). Can't wait to go fly with it, and I am much less worried about ground clearance now!

Paul
 
Last edited:
Ironflight said:
6) It was dark (and we still have no runway lights) when I finished, so didn't get to taxi or fly it, but I can tell that the nose is lower just sitting in the cockpit. And no, I didn't measure the original value to compare...got too excited to be working on the plane again, and forgot...but the step up on to the wing took a little more of a stretch!

Great write up, Paul! As a way around this forgetting to check the before value, did you ever measure your original prop to ground clearance? If so, you could just measure your new prop clearance to get the answer. Thanks, regardless.
 
I'll check ...

I'll check my notes - I might have it somewhere. Failing that, I can hold the old tailwheel up against the new, and probably get a very close measurement.

Paul
 
I have both tailwheels on my workbench right now. It looks like the Aviation Products tailwheel will make the tail about 2.5" higher than the Van's tailwheel. This will not result in the prop being 2.5" lower as the fulcrum (the mains) is much closer to the prop than the tailwheel. My guess would be a bit less than an inch difference in the prop height. If I was ambious, I could calculate it more closely, but it's too cold to go outside and measure right now :)
 
10, 15, or 20 Degrees

I have been contemplating an upgrade to one of the Aircraft Products Inc. tailwheels for my RV-3, and did some measuring today to try and determine which of the spring angle versions available (10, 15, or 20 degrees) best fits the RV geometry.

My RV-3 sits with a spring-to-ground angle of 13 degrees, and two local RV-6s and an RV-8 measured very close to 14 degrees.

From previous discussions on various forums, it seems that to achieve optimal tailwheel performance, the vertical axis of the steering hinge bolt should be tilted about 5 degrees aft, that is the top (nut end) of the bolt should be tilted back about 5 degrees in relation to the lower bolt head when all three gear are on the ground. If the nut (top) end is further forward, the tendency to shimmy is increased, and if tilted further aft, the forces to displace the tailwheel from side to side become too high for optimal steering.

All four of the planes I looked at had Van's tailwheels, and all showed the bolt tilted slightly in the 'wrong' direction, that is the top end was 2 to 3 degrees further forward than the bottom.

The picture of Paul Dye's Aircraft Performance Inc installation in the lead message in this thread seems to show a similar very slight forward tilt, and I assume that it is most likely a 10 degree unit.

From the sketchy information I have so far, the API 15 degree unit should result in a 2 to 3 degree aft rake, which is pretty good, and the 20 degree unit should be about 8 degrees, probably a little too much.

It would be really helpful if some of the builders who bought the 15 and 20 degree API tailwheels would give us some idea of the actual bolt axis rake angles that they wound up with on their planes.

Thanks,
Hawkeye Hughes
 
Rake Angle

Hawkeye -

Just read your post - all good info! Just FYI, mine is a 20 degree angle unit - The photo is probably a bit deceptive - I can't tell you that the camera was level when I shot it, the tail was still up on the sawhorse, and I was shooting from behind, so it would be hard to measure. I did look when I put the tail on the ground though, and it definitely has some rake to it. Hopefully, I'll get to fly it tomorrow! (Got thunderstorms blowing through righ tnow...)

Paul
 
Hawkeye,

It looks like the picture Paul Dye posted has the tail elevated so I expect that the rake is probably less forward than it looks. I'm not positive but that looks like a 20 deg. unit. I think that if you reduce the angle it will kick the top aft, not the other way around. I think the measurement is degrees off of horizontal for the tailspring socket. In other words, if the tailspring socket is 90 deg. to the post, it would be a 0 deg. unit. Increasing the angle tilts the top of the post forward. I just measured my Van's tailwheel and it measures 20 deg., maybe a tad less, basically the same as my 20 deg. API unit. Since my 8 is under construction, I have no idea where it will actually sit. Since the API unit will raise the height of the tail, it will tilt the post a little forward. If aft tilt is desireable, it may be better to reduce the angle from what Vans uses. I chose the 20 deg. unit based on measuring the Vans unit off the plane. It would have been better to measure a unit in place. Also it should be measured with weight in the plane, as weight will flex the tailspring a little and tilt the post forward as well. I would be interested as to what Paul measures.

When I spoke to API they told me they originally made only 20 deg. units. Then they made the 10 deg. for someone. The 15 deg. wasn't really planned for any particular application.

I can see the logic in a slightly aft tilt to the post so we'll see how it comes out.
 
Tilt

Paul,
As soon as I hit 'submit' on my previous note I realized that my mental picture was wrong and that the 15 and 20 degree configurations would actually tilt the upper end of the bolt forward (to the 'more likely to shimmy' side) as compared to the 10 degree unit mounted on the same spring.

I just confused myself in trying to visualize the effect. It looks like the 10 degree unit would be closest to optimal.

Sorry for the dumb mistake.
Hawkeye
 
Hawkeye,

When I spoke to API they suggested 20 deg. so we'll see. Maybe they made the 10 deg. for this purpose or maybe for the old 4s with shorter gear. It shouldn't be much problem to swap out the head for one with a different angle.
 
Scott,

Very interesting articles. I may have to rethink the angle choice on the API tailwheel.. Hopefully Paul Dye will measure the angle of his installation and let us know what the angle is installed.
 
A Little Data

OK folks, just got back from a very full day, downloaded some pictures off the camera, and here is one that has just about everything on it...angles, heights, direct comparison, etc....

tailwheelgeometry5jf.jpg


The old wheel is placed directly in front of the new one - they are the same size.

It looks to me like the rake angle is about 6 degrees AFT, and the height difference is just about 2 inches (maybe an eighth less than that.) Remember, this is with a "20 degree" neck angle from API.

After taking the angle measurement, and reading last nights posts on rake angle versus stability, I was a bit worried, but decided that I'd give it a try, since this is the assembly API has been sellign to -8 owners for awhile. It was a very gusty day, so I didn't go out and shoot a bunch of landings (I was just happy to get back down in one piece on our narrow runway!), but in three landings at different airports, I noticed no tendency towards shimmy at all. The steering on the ground felt the same, and except for the slightly lower nose angle on the ground, I really couldn't tell the difference.

Hopefully, I'll shoot a few more landings tomorrow, and if I feel any instability, I'll let folks know.

Them's the facts as I know them tonight! ;)

(Yeah, I know...I need to wash the mud off my rudder bottom.... :rolleyes: )

Paul
 
And a few other things

Ironflight said:
OK folks, just got back from a very full day, downloaded some pictures off the camera, and here is one that has just about everything on it...angles, heights, direct comparison, etc....

Including mud, debris, etc :)... Couldn't resist...Now how are ya gonna feel when there is *fresh new paint* all over the bottom of that tail? :eek: :D
 
Hey Now!

...Even Lindbergh carried a small blob of mud on his strut that was kicked up by his wheels on take-off - all the way to Paris! I consider that a good luck charm... ;)

Paul
 
Paint

aadamson said:
Including mud, debris, etc :)... Couldn't resist...Now how are ya gonna feel when there is *fresh new paint* all over the bottom of that tail? :eek: :D

Paint is for hangar queens! Paul, when you file your flight plans you can say "silver & mud" under the color field. Don't take any flak from these painted plane pilots! :cool:

)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (812 hours and no paint!)
http://www.rvproject.com
 
Paul,

From your picture it looks like a 20 deg. API tailwheel gives you basicaly the same rake (7 deg. forward) as the standard Van's tailwheel. I would hope that Van's chose this angle on purpose rather than accidentally, but if not then the 10 deg. API unit would give about a 3 deg. aft rake.
 
I agree - similar to Van's...

Yes Paul, it does appear that the API 20 degree matches Van's original pretty closely. This just disagrees with the pictures that Mickey posted regarding what is "good" and what is "bad". I'm going to go shoot some landings this morning and see if I can get a little more experience with the new one.

Paul
 
Is anyone worried about raising the tail 2.5" with these alternative tailwheels? IIRC, all RV taildraggers sit at less than the angle of incidence at the stall which means that if you do a true 3 point landing you will plop the tailwheel first. Raising the tail just exacerbates this situation by increasing the discrepancy. In practical application maybe this isn't a problem, just do tail-low wheel landings.

Hawkeye, with the RV-3 being shorter the 2.5" height increase would have even more effect, that's why I converted to full-swivel by using a Van's full-swivel. Check the Fuselage section on this page for details...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm

Food for thought,
 
randylervold said:
Is anyone worried about raising the tail 2.5" with these alternative tailwheels? IIRC, all RV taildraggers sit at less than the angle of incidence at the stall which means that if you do a true 3 point landing you will plop the tailwheel first. Raising the tail just exacerbates this situation by increasing the discrepancy. In practical application maybe this isn't a problem, just do tail-low wheel landings.
,

Very good question Randy - I was going to shoot some landings yesterday to kind of explore the envelope a little bit, but it was gusty and bumpy again, and not good for evaluations. I am being cautious until I get a chance to really try different techniques. I have generally been wheel landing anyways, having not gotten any satisfactory 3-pointers - even with the original Van's tailwheel.

Paul
 
Additional tailwheel height

Randy,
Very valid points on the concern over height. From the beginning of Dad and I building the original for my 8, he stressed concern over this and that it will change the landing angle at touchdown.
Moving from Van's to ours....I am aware of it and have not seen anthing to cause me concern to this point. I am aware that I have not near the hours as many of you and I respect all your comments.

Each person should understand these items within their decisions. We look forward to hearing from the guys that are installing them, especially on the other models .

One point of comment. Dad is not taking any payment from guys until they are happy. So, if anyone puts on one of our tailwheels and finds it not what they wanted or is uncomfortable with it in any way...send it back.
 
Bell Tailwheel flying!

Just got in from flying with the Bell tailwheel on my 7. The facts: Tail is 1 3/8 inches higher than the Vans tailwheel. Prop is 1/2 inch lower. I felt like the vis was better over the nose, but I think in fact there is very little difference. (the cushion was cold, my butt hadn't settled in yet) :) Both my runways are sod. Wind is 210 at 16. Two takeoff and landings on 18 and one on 29. One wheel landing and two 3 point. Bottom line......it's just a non-event. The airplane taxis no different and handles just fine landing. This tailwheel is a huge improvement for just what it is for, better gound clearance and much better looking. I should be on a hard surface runway in the moring. I'll let you know how it does.

Again, THANKS Doug SR. and Jr. :) ;)

belltw2zo.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Observation only. No intelligence offered!

JACKR said:
I can't help but notice the "bad castor angle" in this photo. (See page 2, third post. Offered by Mickey C.)

In order to get the "Positive Castor Angle-Good" condition shown in that post, one would have to rotate the tail spring bracket 180 degrees and stuff the tail wheel "king pin" in from the other side.

I don't know which of those conditions is truly more dynamically stable in real life but the tailwheel in the picture for sure matches the claimed unstable condition.

-mike
 
Steering Geometry.

I have been pondering the Steering Geometry diagram since it was posted and something about the diagram did not sit right with me.
It appears that the Author is using Geometry for an Auto steering where there is no true trail and the King Pin position is co-incident with the axle: albeit inclined (Caster) But we are talking about Shopping Trolly Wheels.

So I went searching for Bicycle Geometry and found a lot clarified.
Here's an extract:

Bicycle designs with a negative steering axis angle are quite unusual and for this reason there is very little information on their handling performance. It appears, however, that a small negative steering axis angle (less than 10 degress) may be superior to positive angles. From personal experience, a negative angle is not harmful to handling, and no theoretical argument that this author is aware of contradicts that experience.

That is available at:
http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/psychology/bok/posneg.html

And there is more on Negative castor by a bloke who builds one at.
http://www.the-nerds.org/cycling-page.htm

Pete.
 
Interesting stuff. I think I can understand from a shimmy perspective why a positive rake is better, but I also think that a negative rake will ride over bumps better. I think the tail will lift easier with a negative rake as it will have a lever action, rather than fighting the wheel post (I hope this makes sense). On the other hand, the geometry of Van's rudder cables seems to be better with a positive rake. I guess there are a lot of trade-offs. Intuitively, I think I like a slight negative rake. A little forward stick should get rid of any shimmy anyway (at least it works on the Citabria I fly).
 
Paul,
You are correct. A little foward stick will stop the shimmy. Today I flew my 7 (with the Bell fork) on hard surface and got the same shimmy I get with the vans fork....."IF" I'm going faster than need be when I put tail down, I little foward stick and it stops. I can not think that Vans didn't put a lot of thought into the design of this tailwheel. I would sure like to hear his input on the subject. Thoughts from someone that actual knows what he is talking about.
 
Sorry to dig up an old thread.

Where can the Aviation Products tail wheel be purchased? Do they have a web site? GOOGLE has not been my friend.

thanks,

:)
 
Check this post

randylervold said:
Is anyone worried about raising the tail 2.5" with these alternative tailwheels? IIRC, all RV taildraggers sit at less than the angle of incidence at the stall which means that if you do a true 3 point landing you will plop the tailwheel first. Raising the tail just exacerbates this situation by increasing the discrepancy. In practical application maybe this isn't a problem, just do tail-low wheel landings.


Food for thought,

Randy

Look at this post.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=5361&page=7&pp=10

The angle of incidence change was less than 0.6 of a degree. This concerns the Bell tailwheel fork and -7, but the others could be tested this way as well.
 
Since my -8 is the only real taildragger I've ever flown, I really can't compare how the tailwheel setup feels compared with other planes or with other RV setups.

That said, I have the Bell fork and a Silver Bullet control arm running the stock Van's tailwheel. This has worked well for 80 hours or so, with a couple hundred landings. However, I've noticed lately that the tailwheel was making some grinding noises when pushing it in and out of the hangar, so I decided to check it out.

After reading this thread, I remembered that I'd already bought a Flyboy Accessories tailwheel, saving it for a rainy day. Well, it was raining, so I installed it.

I removed the fork and noted that there wasn't much grease in there. So, I disassembled the whole shebang, swapped out the Van's wheel with the Flyboy one per the instructions and put it all back together. It tightened up nicely with no slop or wobble.

I measured the prop clearance prior to doing the change and had exactly 20" of clearance. After the swap, I had 19 13/16". I lost 3/16" clearance. I neglected to measure how much tail clearance I had before the swap, but Vince's wheel has a larger diameter than the Van's wheel, so I know I gained a little bit of clearance. If I'm ever in danger of a prop strike, I have a feeling that the lost 3/16" won't really be a factor.

The plane moves silently and effortlessly now. I haven't flown with it yet, but I did taxi around a bit to see if it felt any different than what I'm used to -- nope. No difference.