The trike can be dangerous on landing when the machine is too fast and the NG touches first. The machine will porpoise severely causing a harder NG touch down the second time. A go around must be the first reaction when this happens. Fly the approach and landing at the proper air speed and the matter is a non issue.
David, with all due respect you're talking about Cessnas and Pipers which have such robust nosegear that you really have to brutalise them with a nose-gear-first or porpoise landing to collapse them. But that is not the case with the two seat RV(A)s. The RV(A) nose gear is very fragile and you do NOT need to touch down nose gear first or induce a porpoise to cause a collapse.....in fact many of the failures have occurred on mid to late roll-out.
Yes, it is absolutely true that keeping the nose off the ground for as long as possible in both take-off and landing is super crucial for the RV(A)s. I did 8 hours of transition training with Mike Seager and most of that was simply learning to keep the load off the nose.
Both Vans and Mike Seager understand that the RV nosegear is not anywhere near as robust as a Piper or Cessna oleo strut...and therefore they stress the need to fly accordingly.
So I fully understand the theory. But as others often point out the theory is fine in fine weather but may be harder to execute in more trying conditions.
On a rainy day in a gusting crosswind near the limits at a demanding and unfamiliar airstrip it may not be possible to pull off that optimum landing that you speak of. I know what to do but I certainly can't pull it off 100% of the time....and I doubt that you can either.
It sure would be nice to think that the RV nosegear might be able to take a bit of punishment when the circumstances become a more demanding....but it obviously cannot be relied on to do so.
My best guess is that the two-seat RV nosegear saga will never go away because a disproportionate number of RV nosegears will continue to collapse in relatively benign circumstances. And so the fire (and the bad press) will never die.
Thus in the end Vans will probably be forced to make serious changes to the design. My guess is that they will retain the same size wheel but ultimately adopt a design that is closer to the RV10 (which was probably largely stolen from the Cirrus.....larger diameter circular hollow section leg with hinged gear and dampeners).
The problem is that making any meaningful structural improvements to the nosegear will require modifications to the engine mount. For all the thousands of RV(A) owners flying (or at an advanced stage of building) that will present a major dilemma because it will mean removing the engine and replacing the mounting, and also re-routing some FWF hardware. A real nighmare actually...and expensive (not to mention the cost of the new nose gear).
The problem will be that (like the last nosegear upgrade) planes that are not upgraded will be financially devalued because they will be seen to be less safe. That will be the politics of the matter.
I read that many posters are of the belief that simply putting a larger wheel up front might solve the problem. But in reality while it might improve clearance I suspect that the extra mass on the existing leg might actually make the problem much worse.
