What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

MKII nose forks and rollovers / collapses

I don't want to beat a dead horse.....but,


How have the new nose forks been holding up in service? Any failures?
Please leave any pilot technique comments out.
 
None that i have heard of

I have been able to 'see' a large percentage of the failed gear legs and have not seen any of the new gear legs fail.
 
Made the change in December and have dozens of flights without a problem. Also my nose wheel shimmy seems to have died down a great deal. Wasn't that bad before but between 15-20 mph I would get a transitional shimmy. I believed it was in the nose and since the mod. have felt much much less.

Ivan McLaws RV-6A
 
My only complaint is that there is "stiction" when it steers. Meaning, as it swivels, it makes a series of "clicks" as the torque builds up, it lets go, torque builds up, it lets go and so forth. The breakaway force is identical to what I had before, and I'm ignoring it. All greased up, same belleville washers, etc..
 
Does anyone know if the latest 9A nose collapse in San Diego occured with the MKII fork (the latest generation design)?

I am reviving this thread because I do not want to hijack the other discussion.
 
Yes...

Does anyone know if the latest 9A nose collapse in San Diego occured with the MKII fork (the latest generation design)?

I am reviving this thread because I do not want to hijack the other discussion.

...it was the latest leg design with the "angled yoke"
 
Questions

...it was the latest leg design with the "angled yoke"


After reading the entire thread on the 9 nose gear collapse, I believe there may be more to the story. I cannot believe there would be a lip between intersecting runways or taxiways at that airport large enough to cause this problem, especially on the new fork.

What was the pilot time? Time in RV's? Training etc???
 
I wonder if the shimmy problem is due to putting the fork pivot in front of the wheel. If the pivot were placed above and forward, turning the wheel might involve lifting the nose up a fraction of an inch, dampen the shimmy, and move the nut out of harms way.

If the problem is axle torque, any "breaking" action would force weight forward, spring the strut back where the geometry would likely lower the nut closer to the pavement.

Im assuming that the real problem involves the nut either contacting something or digging into turf; the weight of the plane then continues forward until the strut bends under, sideways, or springs the plane onto its back.

IMHO, the fix involves one or more of the following: 1. lifting the fork pivot (and nut) higher, 2. a larger front wheel, 3. smoother bearings, 4. a redesign of the strut where it is shorter and stronger (less "springy") and pivots closer to the prop with some type of dampening (shock, rubber donuts).

Any other potential solutions to consider (Im not interested in a tail dragger, and there is obviously something more involved than pilot technique when the gear collapses at taxi/parking speeds)?
 
Last edited:
Nuts...

......
If the problem is axle torque, any "breaking" action would force weight forward, spring the strut back where the geometry would likely lower the nut closer to the pavement.

Im assuming that the real problem involves the nut either contacting something or digging into turf; the weight of the plane then continues forward until the strut bends under, sideways, or springs the plane onto its back.
......

I just had a chance to closely look at the San Diego nose strut (only light tapping was needed to remove it from the mount) and one very interesting thing became obivious.

The nut and lower forward portion of the yoke were totally undamaged! Not even scratched.

There must have been enough fore and aft oscillation (hit resonance?) that the edge of the lip hit at a bad point in the travel and the nose gear contacted on the lower bend.... and then the gear folded under.

The nose tire showed no scuffing, cuts or any other marks.

The grass effect (potholes, etc.) of the nut hitting the ground may be different from the hard surface effect which may be more related to fore and aft resonance - which cannot be felt by the pilot, but can be observed by outside spectators. This effect may be related to axle/bearing drag.

There may be two different effects in play....

gil A
 
Gil:
I haven't seen anything yet regarding height of the pavement lip where the wheel made contact. Even a one inch mismatch on a five inch wheel is pretty significant, especially if it's on the ground and brakes are being applied. Hate to hit a 4.5 inch curb head on with my VW at 35-45 mph. I'm guessing it would pretty much take out my entire front end.
Terry
 
I just had a chance to closely look at the San Diego nose strut (only light tapping was needed to remove it from the mount) and one very interesting thing became obivious.

The nut and lower forward portion of the yoke were totally undamaged! Not even scratched.

There must have been enough fore and aft oscillation (hit resonance?) that the edge of the lip hit at a bad point in the travel and the nose gear contacted on the lower bend.... and then the gear folded under.

The nose tire showed no scuffing, cuts or any other marks.

The grass effect (potholes, etc.) of the nut hitting the ground may be different from the hard surface effect which may be more related to fore and aft resonance - which cannot be felt by the pilot, but can be observed by outside spectators. This effect may be related to axle/bearing drag.

There may be two different effects in play....

gil A

Gil, I'm confused. Are you saying that the only scuffing is on the top of the gear leg above the wheel?
 
Gil, I don't think that's very good news. What your statement of the wheel and pivot condition seems to be intimating is that the nose wheel curls under just because. Am I wrong in taking it this way?
 
Not the words I would use... but...

Gil, I don't think that's very good news. What your statement of the wheel and pivot condition seems to be intimating is that the nose wheel curls under just because. Am I wrong in taking it this way?

I think that may be the case....

I would not say it's "just because", but some sort of resonance gets the system oscillating. Something is happening.

I find it difficult to provide any other mechanism to explain the damage that occured, and yes, it's not good news. I would like to see something proving that my thoughts are wrong in this case.

gil A
 
A quick look at the last few photos at the end of the reference in Gil Alexander's post # 18 leads to the idea that the nosewheel and yoke assembly jammed in the full right position (perhaps as the result of a violent shimmy) and it was the drag of the tire that caused the nosewheel strut to collapse.

Frank Russell
1300 hrs, original style axle plus wooden stiffeners
 
axel drag?

My 6A has the "translational" shimmy mentioned above. Only shows up on roll out as I decelerate through 30+-10ish. Replacing all the gear assy. per the SB decreased the intensity, but it persisted. I had planned on adding the wood damper, but I havn't thought of the axel drag as a cause. I'm going to go out and check mine, I know its tight. I'll report my findings.
 
A quick look at the last few photos at the end of the reference in Gil Alexander's post # 18 leads to the idea that the nosewheel and yoke assembly jammed in the full right position (perhaps as the result of a violent shimmy) and it was the drag of the tire that caused the nosewheel strut to collapse.

Frank Russell
1300 hrs, original style axle plus wooden stiffeners

Frank, excellent theory. That is certainly one I hadn't thought of. In Barry's case though, it has been reported that the tire had no signs of scuffing, so the porpoising mode (pitch vibration of the fork assy, possibly due to things I have previously written about) might have been the cause, or a bearing lockup. Once the gear tucked under, it is easy to imagine that the steering would go full tilt to one side or the other.

Gil and/or Barry - it would be valuable to very carefully clean and inspect the bearings and related parts, to see if there is any sign of damage. Additionally, some noting of the "tightness" of the bearings would be helpful.
 
Tire marks

A quick look at the last few photos at the end of the reference in Gil Alexander's post # 18 leads to the idea that the nosewheel and yoke assembly jammed in the full right position (perhaps as the result of a violent shimmy) and it was the drag of the tire that caused the nosewheel strut to collapse.

Frank Russell
1300 hrs, original style axle plus wooden stiffeners

There were no scuff marks at all on the tire. It could have had drag, but probably did not lock up.

gil A
 
???????

With all do respect, there is a piece(s) of the puzzle missing here. Anyone agree?

We need more information in order for the pictures to match the event. If it happened as described, this event would be a very unique occurrence. I'm sure many with nose gears have hit more significant bumps, holes etc...without issue.

So please provide more information.

1) How much flying time do you have?
2) If low time, what were you flying before this?
3) RV Training? Type? Hours? Where?
4) Actual flight time in your plane as PIC? (I saw 64 hours but did you fly it all?)
5) Number of landings?
6) Any hard landings that could have weakened the structure? (be honest)
7) How was the final landing? Smooth, bounced?
8) Speed of touch down?
9) Speed at time of contact?
10) Stick position at time of contact?
11) Throttle position at time of contact?
12) Pictures of the runway landed on?
13) Pictures of lip on intersecting runway?
14) Pictures of scrapes and gouge marks on runway after event?
15) Measurements of lip to first harmful event? (first gouge or scrap?)

I'm not trying to be contrary, but unless these questions are answered we don't have the full picture and can't eliminate any other potential issues. I hate to see everyone chasing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The new fork by all other reports seem to be working without issue.

When I posted earlier asking for further information, several sent me private emails agreeing that something is wrong. State your thoughts folks so everyone can learn and prevent this from happening again.
 
Do you think the wheel can rotate too far left and right? Perhaps we should limit the turning radius more than the factory limit.
 
So, if I am reading it correctly it went something like this. The aircraft is going straight and the wheel is centered ( not swiveled to one side). The wheel contacts the runway lip at an angle to the direction of travel of the aircraft. The lip is big enough that the wheel swings to the right as it naturally tries to to "line up" perpendicular to the runway lip. The wheel/fork is now swung out to the right relative to the direction of travel of the aircraft. The strut is now seeing side forces that the free castering nose fork is meant to prevent. The side forces on the strut, the relatively large runway lip and the forward speed of the aircraft cause the wheel/fork to tuck under.
If this is what happened then what can be concluded? The strut was subjected to a side load that it was never designed for and it is understandable it failed (in my opinion). I was not there so I can't say for sure, but given the extensive wear on the fork and strut I suspect the aircraft was taxing relatively fast?? The obvious ways to lessen the chance of an accident of this type with a castering nose wheel (on any type of aircraft) would be to keep the pre-load properly adjusted on the big nut, approach ledges/lips/bumps at 90 degrees and taxi at a slow speed when turning or crossing a ledge/lip/bump that is at an angle to the direction of travel such as the one that caused this problem.
Comments and opposing views welcome.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
So, if I am reading it correctly it went something like this. The aircraft is going straight and the wheel is centered ( not swiveled to one side). The wheel contacts the runway lip at an angle to the direction of travel of the aircraft. T(snip)The strut was subjected to a side load that it was never designed for and it is understandable it failed(snip)
Fin
9A

This video is not an RV, but I think may be demonstrating what you are talking about.
 
A variation on my thoughts in post #26 is that the nose wheel got "caught" behind the lip on the runway so the wheel swiveled as it continued to travel along the lower side of the lip for some time while the aircraft was continuing in it's straight line across the lip in the runway, a bit like being caught in tram tracks on a bike. The end result is the same with excessive side force put on the strut. I think this would be more likely to happen when something like this lip on the runway is approached at a relatively small angle?
Fin 9A
 
Last edited:
James, that video is fantastic! Look ho the airplane barely even slows down as the nosewheel breaks off - the momentum in the entire system is pretty awesome at that speed!

I think that people need to keep the entire RV nosewheel debate in perspective - if you read the daily FAA accident summaries, you will find that barely a day goes by without a main or nose gear collapse - usually several in a day. And rarely are they RV's! Cessnas. Pipers, Beech's.....they all can lose a gear under the right circumstances!

I am NOT saying that the RV nosewheel shouldn't be fixed if the cause can truly be identified - but I think that people who expect an "unfailable" gear are not being realistic, and they're not paying attention to the facts - any aircraft's gear can be failed, and they do, on a regular basis! A small fraction of "A"-model aircraft have had gear problems, just as a small fraction of other types have.

Paul
 
More...

So, if I am reading it correctly it went something like this. The aircraft is going straight and the wheel is centered ( not swiveled to one side). The wheel contacts the runway lip at an angle to the direction of travel of the aircraft. The lip is big enough that the wheel swings to the right as it naturally tries to to "line up" perpendicular to the runway lip. The wheel/fork is now swung out to the right relative to the direction of travel of the aircraft. The strut is now seeing side forces that the free castering nose fork is meant to prevent. The side forces on the strut, the relatively large runway lip and the forward speed of the aircraft cause the wheel/fork to tuck under.
If this is what happened then what can be concluded? The strut was subjected to a side load that it was never designed for and it is understandable it failed (in my opinion). I was not there so I can't say for sure, but given the extensive wear on the fork and strut I suspect the aircraft was taxing relatively fast?? The obvious ways to lessen the chance of an accident of this type with a castering nose wheel (on any type of aircraft) would be to keep the pre-load properly adjusted on the big nut, approach ledges/lips/bumps at 90 degrees and taxi at a slow speed when turning or crossing a ledge/lip/bump that is at an angle to the direction of travel such as the one that caused this problem.
Comments and opposing views welcome.

Fin
9A

Fin... I think that is about right, but with one extra.

If you add a fore-aft oscillation into it, the wheel could have been in an aft position when the lip came up.

While the strut did fail in a sideways position, it moved aft more than sideways. The bottom of the yoke did not appear to hit the pavement enough to scuff it, and the tire was unmarked. The big nut is unmarked, so it's not the classic pitch over scenario.

The phase of flight was not taxi, but landing roll out. It would have been difficult to change to a 90 degree crossing of a second runway in the middle of a roll out on another runway.

Our RVs do seem to exhibit an unusual nose gear fore and aft motion - I've seen it on others, and a video has been posted here - that cannot be felt by the pilot.
 
THE SEAL...THE TORQUE...AND THE FORK.

Fin... I think that is about right, but with one extra.
If you add a fore-aft oscillation into it, the wheel could have been in an aft position when the lip came up.

Our RVs do seem to exhibit an unusual nose gear fore and aft motion - I've seen it on others, and a video has been posted here - that cannot be felt by the pilot.

Go to this thread......... http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=231999&postcount=176

This is my response to the "RV9A front gear folds", and why some do and some don't.
 
Well, the runway has been inspected and there is only a 1/4" lip, so I think the current theories involving a significant lip may be off the mark.

Gil, Given the damage, I don't suppose it is possible to tell if the big nut was properly adjusted to give the correct pre-load?
(On a more serious note, I am still thinking about that beer you owe me :) )

Fin
9A
 
Big nuts...

Well, the runway has been inspected and there is only a 1/4" lip, so I think the current theories involving a significant lip may be off the mark.

Gil, Given the damage, I don't suppose it is possible to tell if the big nut was properly adjusted to give the correct pre-load?
(On a more serious note, I am still thinking about that beer you owe me :) )

Fin
9A

Fin... haven't forgotten about the beer....:)

But...about the big nut... I think it was not too far out on this plane.

Observers at our strip had noticed the fore-aft movement, but no-one had commented on shimmy. If it was too loose, I think shimmy would have been easily noticed on most landings.
 
I think Gil and Fin have given a pretty good theory

The one element that I think should be added is that braking at the time could have contributed to the problem. This could also have been amplified if the plane was turning away from the looming intersection causing more side pressure on the gear.

I am not suggesting that Barry should not be able to use his brakes, but feel that all those factor may have combined to cause the gear to tuck under to the side.

It still bothers me that the gear could be easily bent back after the event. This seems like a weak piece of metal to me.

Kent
 
I think we have just about exhausted our layman's theories on this incident. The only way I can see the top of the fork contacting first is if the fork shimmied violently to the side putting a side load on the strut causing it to fold while the fork was out to one side??? If Vans reads these posts I put out a plea to them to investigate this collapse. This is not the "normal" collapse involving the big nut hitting first, and therefore requires the expert designers of the nose wheel system to investigate the cause. Personally, this is very perplexing. I operate my 9A on my short, bumpy, undulating grass strip and over time have developed considerable confidence in the nose wheel system. I just cannot believe that a 1/4" lip can fold the strut.

Beer! What time & coordinates! :p
Unless I can get over to your part of the world, you may have to be prepared to travel out of town a bit:
S 30 degrees, 15.663'
E 151 degrees, 37.718'

Fin
9A
 
Another possibility

I think we have just about exhausted our layman's theories on this incident. The only way I can see the top of the fork contacting first is if the fork shimmied violently to the side putting a side load on the strut causing it to fold while the fork was out to one side??? If Vans reads these posts I put out a plea to them to investigate this collapse. This is not the "normal" collapse involving the big nut hitting first, and therefore requires the expert designers of the nose wheel system to investigate the cause.


Fin
9A

I have suggested there is more to the story. There is to much information missing and Barry and Gil have been very quiet on the requests for further information. If the additional information could be provided this matter could most likely be put to bed. The fact that the new nose gears have been working great is another factor. Another factor is a low time RV pilot with unknown training in the airframe. Again, I'm trying to bring out facts here and the evidence isn't adding up.

I'm going to suggest another possibility. Based on examination of the photos and some other information I was provided, I believe this was a result of a bounced landing and pilot induced oscillation, (PIO).

Picture a bounced landing with nose gear contact and left yaw. This matches the scrape marks. Based on the apparent severity of the scratches, this did not occur at a low speed.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but for those who do, I do not think there is anything to hunt for. Simply use proper RV landing techniques for nose gear models and you will likely not have any problems.

I know from a couple of back line emails that others agree.
 
I have suggested there is more to the story. There is to much information missing and Barry and Gil have been very quiet on the requests for further information. If the additional information could be provided this matter could most likely be put to bed. The fact that the new nose gears have been working great is another factor. Another factor is a low time RV pilot with unknown training in the airframe. Again, I'm trying to bring out facts here and the evidence isn't adding up.

I'm going to suggest another possibility. Based on examination of the photos and some other information I was provided, I believe this was a result of a bounced landing and pilot induced oscillation, (PIO).

Picture a bounced landing with nose gear contact and left yaw. This matches the scrape marks. Based on the apparent severity of the scratches, this did not occur at a low speed.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but for those who do, I do not think there is anything to hunt for. Simply use proper RV landing techniques for nose gear models and you will likely not have any problems.

I know from a couple of back line emails that others agree.

What sort of pilot technique would prevent this:



This was an RV10's nose wheel - thankfully it didn't flip over. The tire simply locked up on the landing rollout, first flight. No PIO, the landing is on video tape. While technique is perhaps a player in some incidences, the evidence suggests some sort of problem outside of the pilot's control. Much is written on this forum about bearing and axle design.
 
Confused

Alex,

I think there is some confusion. This is the one from Tucson. I don't think it was a 10 gear but was the new fork.

If it was, do really believe 1/4" lip could cause it.
 
landing gear strength

I too feel there is room for improvement with the nose gear/ tire size on the RVA's. They should be able to withstand common mistakes and imperfect runway conditions 99% of the time. Look how robust a nose wheel could be, not to mention the dumb thing these guys are trying to do with an airplane. I thought we were done with this barnstorming stuff a half century ago. If this were attempted with an RV, there would NO chance of not totalling the airplane or worse. Learn from the mistakes of others...:)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HcURmi2wS7o

Bevan
RV7(A?)
 
Possible factor

At 50 hours in gusts with a crosswind, the nose gear shimmied on my 9A. I had not checked the breakout torque of the fork since just before the first flight. Resetting the torque fixed the problem. Up until that moment, there had been no hint of a problem and I think the gusts and crosswind in part triggered the shimmy.

The subject airplane had the new fork and I am guessing 60 hours on the fork. Gil, do you know the hours on the new fork? Checking the torque is easy to overlook.

Is it possible that lateral and vertical loading were introduced as the nose gear crossed the lip at the edge of the runway intersection and that started the shimmy (side to side vs fore and aft)? It may have taken only one or two cycles to start the bending process.

Regardless, for those of us who have replaced the fork, don't forget to periodically check the breakout of the fork and retorque. I would recommend starting at 10-15 hour intervals and expand until the brass bushing settles down.
 
Last edited:
64 TT

......
The subject airplane had the new fork and I am guessing 60 hours on the fork. Gil, do you know the hours on the new fork? Checking the torque is easy to overlook.
.......

John... the part did have 64 hours total time..... Barry will have to tell us if it was re-torqued in that time...
 
NONE!

What sort of pilot technique would prevent this:



This was an RV10's nose wheel - thankfully it didn't flip over. The tire simply locked up on the landing rollout, first flight. No PIO, the landing is on video tape. While technique is perhaps a player in some incidences, the evidence suggests some sort of problem outside of the pilot's control. Much is written on this forum about bearing and axle design.

THIS WAS A PARTS AND INSTALLATION PROBLEM.....
see post
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=231999&postcount=176
 
Last edited:
Anyone agree? YUP, me. The pilot of the 9A.

With all do respect, there is a piece(s) of the puzzle missing here. Anyone agree?

We need more information in order for the pictures to match the event. If it happened as described, this event would be a very unique occurrence. I'm sure many with nose gears have hit more significant bumps, holes etc...without issue.

So please provide more information.

Darwin, I welcome your questions and those from others. I have posted my phone number and email address and welcome all questions. "We" should feel free to call me after 8am MST at 520-797-0265.

1) How much flying time do you have? 241 hours
2) If low time, what were you flying before this? 99% of the time prior to the 64 hours in the RV was in a Cessna 150.
3) RV Training? Type? Hours? Where? 2 hrs transition in Payson with Dan Anderson in his RV7A. Dan issued my BFR and told me "I had become one with the airplane" after only 30 minutes of flying. The reason I did well was the many hours I devoted to learning to land an RV using a Cessna 150.

The task calls for "driving" the airplane to the runway versus a full stall. I usually brought along a passenger in the 150 who would spot my distance to the ground and call it out. In that manner I learned how to adjust for the difference in the 9A. Chet (my build partner & good friend) and I used to tease people that he'd hang out the door with a ruler to measure the distance between the C150 and the ground. The point is, we spent lots of time learning to land the RV before it flew. We were either building the 9 or flying the 150. Since completion, I've flown with three other instructors.

4) Actual flight time in your plane as PIC? (I saw 64 hours but did you fly it all?) Yes, I flew all 64 wonderful hours. I also did first flight at Ryan field. Not only did we build the airplane but the engine was a new $20k Superior kit, and we built that with tender loving care too. Every bolt was torqued sealed to indicate completion and torque. There are yellow blobs of torque seal all over the airplane.

5) Number of landings? 129 in total. 14 landings with Dan in his 7A, 115 in my 9A after Dan for a total of 129.

6) Any hard landings that could have weakened the structure? (be honest)

I have been honest, Darwin, despite some of the unfortunate accusations and stupid comments I've received since I posted my email address, phone number, and invited input. If the goal is to identify what went wrong, rather than vilify the pilot & play public prosecutor as several have done, honesty is the only way we'll get there.

None of my landings should have weakened the structure. I recall only one landing into AVQ when I landed at stall speed 48kts. The last 6 inches were less than gradual but that occurred several months ago. There have been many flights and landings since then.

Quite literally, I can perform repeated touch and goes with the front wheel never touching the ground. It's an art I greatly enjoy and have done many of these graceful procedures. I credit the masterful use of footwork to my love of swing dancing. Balancing the nose of the airplane in the air in turbulent air while making radio calls, dumping flaps, and adjusting speed & trim has been a very rewarding experience. I marvel at the excitation one achieves from that level of accomplishment which only deepens the depression attached to damaging such a fine piece of equipment.

I don't break things, I fix them.

7) How was the final landing? Smooth, bounced? Runway 23 felt rough to me. I had just applied the brakes when all h?ll broke loose. Know that the front wheel is balanced and was inflated to 25lbs. No wheel pants, I was waiting for the final fairing from Bob at Fairings-ETC before completing the wheel pants. Several posts said that the fairing might have saved the day by serving as a skid plate. It should be reinforced internally so that it has "more life to give".
8) Speed of touch down? To the best of my recollection, I established 48 x 1.3 plus a gust factor. It was a very windy day. We had just fueled at IPL so there was still lots of fuel but the wife is skinny and we had very little luggage.
9) Speed at time of contact? If "contact" means when the nose gear bent over, I cannot be certain. It would be a guess and that doesn't help.
10) Stick position at time of contact? Had just allowed nose to settle to the runway so I could apply brakes.
11) Throttle position at time of contact? Idle. The plane has (more appropriately HAD) a cruise prop so idle is required much earlier.
12) Pictures of the runway landed on? I don't have any but given the ridiculous post that claimed bumps were less than 1/4 inch I intend to go back to San Diego soon. 1/4 inch is not measurable, walking off the runway I saw lots of gaps in the pavement that were a lot larger than 1/4 inch. 28R is in good condition. 23 (the runway I landed on) looked pretty bad to me, pockmarked with voids in the blacktop. Folks at the local FBO call it "the old runway". Overestimating the condition of the runway probably makes some people feel superior which means this won't happen to them. It's also fun to bash the pilot. If that makes people feel safe, have at it, I say.
13) Pictures of lip on intersecting runway? I don't have any but intend to get some. As you can imagine, the last two weeks have been pretty intense. By the end of the second day the airplane was disassembled in the hangar the friendly people at MYF provided me. On the third day it was loaded on my car trailer and we drove into the night. The first time I finally relaxed was at the border patrol between CA & AZ at 1am. Everyone else was thoroughly checked, but when they saw two old men with an airplane in tow, they waived us right thru. What a hoot!
14) Pictures of scrapes and gouge marks on runway after event? After Linda and I climbed out and saw thousands of hours of work turned to trash, I was obviously upset & very angry. I climbed back in and called the tower to apologize for closing the airport & "screwing up your runway". The female controller was expert and helpful. I got out again, looked back, and recall my scrape to be approx 50+/- feet. I managed to keep the airplane in the middle of the runway with directional braking (my special thanks to the instructor who repeatedly prepared me after one of his brakes on his airplane failed).

To the best of my recollection, it occurred at the point where I passed over 28R and continued onto 23. As the gear continued to gradually curl under the airplane, the downward view of the runway was increasingly alarming. I suspect the strong Sensenich prop kept the airplane upright & the minimal curl to only one blade further confirms the low rpm.

15) Measurements of lip to first harmful event? (first gouge or scrap?) N/A.

Feel free to ask any other questions. I've been forthright with details because this should never happen to anyone else (nor me). I am in the process of repairing and intend to fly it AFTER wheel pants and other remedial "improvements" are performed. The front gear is being tested for hardness by professional mechanical engineers. The fact that we (this old man and a volunteer) were able to bend the gear back into a more vertical position with a pipe wrench and an extension, has raised more than a few eyebrows.

See next post for more details.

Barry
Tucson
 
I have not seen an -a model up close so maybe this is a dumb question/suggestion but: how hard would it be to add a second leg from behind the primary that conects to the bottom of the primary. This leg could be like a small motorcycle fork leg with internal damping. This would decrease the fork action (shimmy) we've seen in the videos by damping the forward and aft motions but also at the end of the designed travel would prevent the fork from going back any further or under as in the -9a accident that started this discussion.

Ought not to add much drag or weight. Just need a hinged mounting plate so it can pivot slightly at the firewall/fuse mount and at the bottom of the primary leg you could either use a clap or weld on an attachment to the original leg.

Shouldn't have to be too strong as the primary leg almost always works:rolleyes: without aid. Maybe only strong enough to provide a hundred pounds of forward support would be enough to keep these accidents from happening.

Just wondering out loud:D

cheers and good luck with the a's
 
Clearing the air

Barry,

First, there was never any attempt to discredit you and if it came off that way I apologize. The questions asked are those that would be asked during any official investigation had someone gotten hurt. The focus would start on the pilot and the questioned I asked would have been part of that. Sorry if it sounds personal, but that is the way it works.

Second, from an accident investigation standpoint, the other questions regarding the actual event would have been asked with photos and measurements taken.

I'm very sorry this happened. I hate to see anyone have a problem, especially one that will probably keep you from flying. That is a lot of work to get a flying plane.

This was a very strange event and is completely inconsistent with other nose gear failures. As a result, more information is needed to seek a possible cause and affect. This may never be resolved.

Put the plane back together and get back in the saddle. Your wife will come around.
 
Back
Top