What's new
Van's Air Force

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

OK, it's time to fix the A's...

As only a prospective builder I don't expect or desire a weighty opinion, but wouldn't it be interesting instead to discuss appropriate mods for those that wanted beefier nosegear?

I mean, most builders want all kinds of other fancy stuff, adding weight, drag and dollar, which Vans also is not supplying.

Has anyone ever built a nosegear with suspension or steering? Has anyone ever done the math on what it would take to equip an -A with such? Are the aftermarketeers reading this, coffee machine brewing furiously while the CAD app is booting? :)

It's a homebuilt plane, if you want a feature the easiest way to do something is to do it yourself. It would be really interesting to see some drafts on 1) a custom made, beefier, perhaps oil suspended nosegear or 2) clamping on 2nd hand, perhaps salvaged nosegear from a Piper, Cessna or other factory plane.

Critiquing this desire with a sigh and a dismissing wave towards weight-, drag- or dollar penalty is a bit of a cop out if the honest desire is already there. Everyone knows that is obvious. If you are looking for a particular reward the proper question is "what exactly does it take?, not "when will someone else do it?" :)

A steerable nosegear with oil suspension has to be very desirable amongst those who doubt their -A decision (and counts a lot towards my opinion in favour of a TD). Apart from the obivous compromises, I'm wondering how far you could deviate from the standard wheel position (both up/down and fwd/aft) and still be within reason, as a straight tube down to the gear might sit further aft and a suspension system might benefit from an attitude slightly nose high compared to current stance. Routing the linkage is of course another issue, which seems to me as great fun for all the desktop aeronautical engineers.

Lessee some drawings!
 
The nosegear seemed pretty forgiving to me

Regarding. . . "Bottom line for me is that the "A" gear is not forgiving of any "oops". "

I can tell you I've hit my 6A nosewheel (with the original fork) pretty darned hard. Hard enough to fully compress the tire and destroy the bottom front of the wheel pant. A subsequent magnaflux analysis revealed no damage.

As a result I'm more careful in my technique and more confident of the gear.

John Allen
 
This might help!!


Larger tires to roll over holes. rabbits, etc! Also shown, but hard to see is the beefed up nose gear structure. Might be able to do a little river skiing!!
I can imagine this model being popular with the bush crowd, the TRV-7A.
 
05S and nose rollers

Martin Sutter said:
Consider this: Mike Seager has given several thousand hours of RV training with a good portion of that in "old Blue", the factory RV6A. He has operated that airplane in and out of Vernonia, the less than smooth grass strip he is based on for many years. I am sure some of his new students are rusty when they show up but when they are done they know how to land a tricycle RV.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
Click to expand...

The EAA105 chapter had it's meeting at Vernonia (05S) last Thursday. I watched several A's land there. One even landed long enough to hit the swale down toward the west end of the strip. He was probably at about 10mph, and I heard a good clank from the gear, unless he was wearing a helmet and it hit the canopy. :p No problem with the nose wheel or fairing was observed, btw.

Seems to me the recent flip at croft farm was due in large part to operating without a nose fairing, and with the old nose fork as well. That square chunk of metal looks a lot like a miniature dozer blade, and probably hooks up with the ground really well if given half a chance. After some thought about this problem, I wouldn't land on a grass strip without a reinforced nose fairing.

I think Walt's mod to the nose fairing is the obvious thing to do, and should provide a fair bit of extra safety. One could take this idea and amplify it by extending the nose fairing some extra inches, curving it upwards even more, and making sure it has real good structural attachment to the nose fork. We're making a ski here. I'm sure it would cost a few knots and add some weight, tanstaafl.

Regarding Mike Seager, I think it was mentioned that he has over 9000 hrs in RVs! :eek:

Ted Johns
RV7 plans preview
 
The Grumman nose gear attaches to a horizontal torque tube that is fastened to the fuselage at each side just behind the firewall. They have been known to break the welds between the torque tube and the fuselage brackets when abused, so most Grumman pilots are very careful with their nose gears....

Paul
 
OH MY,,,,,,,long thread but with good feedback

This posting/thread might top the "LOP" one or the one I posted many months ago about myself looking for any Ladies in the RV group http://www.vansairforce.com/communi...ighlight=single......
BTW I'm still looking for her. If this thread tops 4,931 hits, it will exceed my off the wall post: "I'm Looking for Her" :p

Just had to throw some humor into this thread as I feel a few folks are getting testy with each other and this is supposed to be a forum to share ideas and thoughts, good or bad. Just want everyone to think Safety as that is the most important factor. Everyone has there opinions and that's what forums are about to share there opinions and thoughts.

Everyone fly SAFE and the main thing is to be able to come home to family and friends after every flight. :)
 
Last edited:
prkaye said:
I haven't gotten that far in my build, so I have no opinions about this particular matter, but based on the length of this thread I would bet there would be a market for such a third-party upgrade. Based on what I've read, I would at least seriously consider purchasing such an upgrade if one became available.
Click to expand...

I have the solution for a "more robust" third party nose gear for the various RV lines! :D Perhaps you've seen this gear at Oshkosh.

Might have a small performance hit, but I can guarantee, that pot holes, gopher holes, and killer rabbits will not faze these babies!

The builder is local, and his hangar is surrounded by plenty of nose draggin RV's to get specs from. Perhaps a new partnership in the nose wheel upgrade industry is awaiting. Stay tuned to this thread for news updates! :p

L.Adamson --- RV6A



http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7134/2536reducedbz2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9168/dsc02534reducedbb1.jpg
 
If there was an easy fix to this "problem", Van (or some other enterprising, bright guy) would have put a solution on the market a long time ago. The existing design acts a bit like a pole vault pole, if it digs in. If you want a design that doesn't dig in, you need to go to a much larger nose wheel, and probably a trailing link design or a design with a vertical strut. But, either of these designs needs an attachment above the nose wheel. There is no structure in that area, so you would need a very large and heavy cantilever structure coming forward from the firewall. This would almost certainly interfere with the commonly sold exhaust systems, cowling, and possibly airbox. The redesigned nose gear would be heavier, so this could cause CG problems. The new nose gear may very well impose higher loads on the engine mount attachments, so the fuselage structure might need a redesign to handle the increased loads. The whole thing would be quite a bit heavier, and light weight is one of the things that gives RVs the performance and handling that have attracted us to the aircraft in the first place.

An effective "fix" to the nose gear "problem" would require a very substantial design effort, and would reduce the performance of the aircraft.

My advice is to recognize that the nose gear is a bit less stout that the one on some other aircraft, and fly the aircraft accordingly. If one wants to use strips of questionable quality, or if one is not prepared to fly the aircraft in accordance with its inherent limitations, then perhaps this is not the right aircraft to be building.

And even if you take all the recommended precautions, understand that sometimes it just isn't your day. You could hit a gopher hole, or a suicidal rabbit might run in front of you, etc. Life isn't always fair. I can't think of a popular light aircraft that hasn't had a good number of landing accidents.
 
Kevin Horton said:
...The new nose gear may very well impose higher loads on the engine mount attachments, so the fuselage structure might need a redesign to handle the increased loads. The whole thing would be quite a bit heavier, and light weight is one of the things that gives RVs the performance and handling that have attracted us to the aircraft in the first place.

An effective "fix" to the nose gear "problem" would require a very substantial design effort, and would reduce the performance of the aircraft.

My advice is to recognize that the nose gear is a bit less stout that the one on some other aircraft, and fly the aircraft accordingly. If one wants to use strips of questionable quality, or if one is not prepared to fly the aircraft in accordance with its inherent limitations, then perhaps this is not the right aircraft to be building.

And even if you take all the recommended precautions, understand that sometimes it just isn't your day. You could hit a gopher hole, or a suicidal rabbit might run in front of you, etc. Life isn't always fair. I can't think of a popular light aircraft that hasn't had a good number of landing accidents.
Click to expand...
Well said sir.

I keep thinking of Cessna 182s. That is a fine and heavy duty airplane but anyone who has ever shopped for them knows about the nose gear problems.

I don't have numbers but it is certainly my impression that the majority of 182s of any age have had a bent firewall. In the case of the 182 that is where the nose gear is mounted and that is the weak point and maybe fixing a firewall is cheaper than repairing propellers and engines, but it is not cheap. I do recognize that being on your back in an RV is also worse than taking a hit on resell value.

It is easy to avoid this problem on the 182, don't land on the nose gear. Just that simple! The same philosophy would avoid many RVA problems also. The landings don't need to be good, they just need to be on the main gear. That is not to say that things will never happen anyway but things will always happen, no matter how careful you are.
 
duuuuuuh?

Hey, I kinda liked that graphite wrap idea somebody mentioned.
Wonder if that would firm that little twig up some?

I can certainly see both points of view on this subject. That said, I tend to agree that Van's position is a bit dogmatic. I love RV's and hope to own one at some point. My Archer is such a dog by comparison (don't tell her I said so!) Nonetheless, this nosegear thing seems to be far and away the biggest issue with the airplane - maybe the only one of any real substance. Maybe there really is no suitable compromise. I don't know. But I see no harm in exploring the issue here (I'm sure Van's guys read this stuff). Maybe there is some engineering improvement to be achieved.

S-tones
 
s_tones said:
Hey, I kinda liked that graphite wrap idea somebody mentioned.
Wonder if that would firm that little twig up some?
Click to expand...

In the "old days" before fiberglass fairings; it was the norm to install wooden stiffners and wrap with glass. And it's still an option to put wood underneath the pre-made glass fairings.
 
The dreaded -A

s tones, I have over 1100 hours on my 6A and have not flippled it once. Only two non-pavement landings one of which was grass.
 
Maybe we can fix the rabbit problem...

I don't know about gopher holes, but there seems to be an existing solution for the wildlife problem. Perhaps it could be scaled down somewhat for the A-model nosegear fairing.

 
me me me I did

s_tones said:
Hey, I kinda liked that graphite wrap idea somebody mentioned.
Wonder if that would firm that little twig up some?

S-tones
Click to expand...
Yea I said it. L.Adamson has the same idea with wood and glass above. It's a thought. Again not for strength but "stability".

I notice signs bargaining, denial or justification. I like the data on other nose gear planes and lets face it, TG's and Trikes are not stable.

Three wheels is not a great stable design overall. They don't make three wheel recreational tail bikes (RV's the other kind) any more, they are all 4 wheel. Why? Three is unstable.

When was the last time you saw a three legged kitchen or utility stool at Target or WalMart, except for some rinky dink sport or camping seat. The geometry (wheel base) and CG (all over the nose) are a challenge on a little plane. Even big jets bounce, ground loop and flip over. It happens. When I say CG I moment of inertia, the engine is big and heavy and it hangs over the front wheel, not good from a stability stand point. However its a plane not a car or recreational tail bike.

Bottom line what is going on with the "A" model RV is kind of unique and pointing at Tail Draggers or other Trikes may make us feel better, but it's not the answer. I think the immediate answer is an operational compromise and training (knowledge). SLOW taxi speed is defense #1 IMHO, followed by all the other good things to do, faring clearance, air pressure, new fork and so on. Gear leg mods and skid plates may not be a bad idea and give a little more margin.


An old story - The flight school / club I taught at long ago had Mooney's. We had so many prop strikes with those Mooney's it was not funny (thank God none mine or my students). Either it was landing PIO or taxing on soft field that bit the prop tips. A popular destination people liked to go had grass parking. One or two of our Mooney's dinged prop tips in that soft taxi area. I'd go in there my self for fun, and saw other Mooney's not from our club parked there, with bent prop tips. It happened more than once. Lesson, Mooney's should not taxi (or land/takeoff) on soft uneven fields. I'm not saying RV-A's should avoid soft fields of course, but just be careful. Even though there have been incidents on hard or paved surfaces, SOFT seems to be a common risk factor.
 
Last edited:
Ag airplanes too!

gmcjetpilot said:
. . I'm not saying RV-A's should avoid soft fields of course, but just be careful. Even though there have been incidents on hard or paved surfaces, SOFT seems to be a common risk factor.
Click to expand...

Landing gear on airplanes are necessary nuisances. Even the Air Tractor manual chastises some pilots for flying off rough pastures. Leland Snow, designer/owner of Air Tractor asks them to look under their F-150 or Chevy truck suspensions and how much tougher they are designed. Yet many Air Tractor drivers subject their landing gears to holes they wouldn't drive their trucks through at 75 MPH! Is there a parallel in the RV world?

Regards,
Pierre
 
looking for previous thread on A collapses

I've been following the nosewheel robustness issue for quite some time and was searching for a previous thread that documented (with pictures) other failures.

I've searched several different ways and haven't located a previously viewed long thread on nosewheel collapses. Was this "mother of all nosewheel" thread removed/moderated for some reason? If so, why?

Stan
 
mother of all nosegear threads moved to "never ending debate" section

The "missing" thread I was trying to locate appears to have been moved to the "never ending debate" section under "nosewheel vs tailwheel" and it's been renamed "RV tipple over!".

Personally I don't think this is the appropriate location for the thread since it's not a tailwheel vs nosewheel thread.. it's more about those that are interested in A model nosegear design.

Stan
 
Old v New nosegear

justinmg said:
The flips I have heard about have involved the old nosegear. I have not heard of any with the new nosegear.
Click to expand...

Hi all,

I have seen this mentioned before - can someone CONFIRM which model/s this statement refers to and WHEN was the change made ?

Thanks from a sloooow QB'er who wants confirmation as to which nosegear I have hiding in the loft............. :eek:
 
AJ is still looking.

rv969wf said:
BTW I'm still looking for her. If this thread tops 4,931 hits, it will exceed my off the wall post: "I'm Looking for Her" :p
Click to expand...
But you didn't specify what your preference is in her. Do you want a "tail dragger" or a "nose dragger". :rolleyes:

Kent
 
Either

kentb said:
But you didn't specify what your preference is in her. Do you want a "tail dragger" or a "nose dragger". :rolleyes:

Kent
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'd take either one just as long as she's strong, doesn't break or tip over.... :) did I just say that? Humor ok. lol
 
Nose wheel failure

Not sure if this was posted earlier or not. The following occurred in the UK on what appears to be grass on 6/11/07.

open.file
 
I've read that the RV-8A gear is of a different design than the other models. Does this nosegear issue apply equally to -8A-s? Thanks.

-John

Ralph Kramden said:
Or at least it is time to fix mine. I am disturbed by all the problems that seem to result from the nosegear on our aircraft. What can I do to fix these problems? I would rebuild my 7A QB (presently working on the empennage) with conventional gear if I could but I don't think that is an option, is it?

I don't intend to try landing on any turf runways. Has anyone done a significant redesign of the nosegear for RV-7As?

--Ralph
Click to expand...
 
boomer said:
I've read that the RV-8A gear is of a different design than the other models. Does this nosegear issue apply equally to -8A-s? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm going to present a little nose leg background history, since I've been around these things for a while.

Back about 10 years ago, Van's Aircraft came to the conclusion that the standard issue RV6A nose leg was not robust enough to stand up to repeated abuse.

They designed a test "torture" wheel, that was 2-3' in diameter (don't remember exactly) that had an offset axle like an oblong cam.

Spinning at a high rate of speed, this torture wheel would constantly slam against the gear leg, fork and wheel combination.

The original nose gear legs failed rather quickly. But the redesigned legs stood up well to this repeated bang, slamming torture test!

At that point Van's issued a service bulletin, where we could send our old leg back, and get a new replacement for about $130. They had to use the old one, to match drill the retaining bolt to the new one.

From what I've seen, the production nose legs from that point, certainly seem to stand up to abuse also. I don't believe Van's would manufacture legs for the 7's, 8's, & 9's that wouldn't stand up to the same scrutiny of the redesigned 6A legs.

It appears that most flip accidents are a result of "pole vaulting", and not weak or breaking gear legs. If some get "bent" in the accident process, then that's easily understandable.

Van's also supplied a skinnier nose wheel pant, that has higher ground clearence than the newer pressure recovery pants. Van's has stated that the old type are better for rough surface runways, as you can see in their web store brochure; but you loose a few knots if using the "old" type pants.

I suppose that's just a decision one has to make. Use the old (if you can get them), or have the sleeker "faster", newer stuff; and watch those grass landings! :D

L.Adamson
 
question

Question from someone who is nowhere near that stage of building...

How much time/work is involved in removing the wheel pants? here's my thinking... i decide to fly to a soft field one day, and just remove the pants before I go. Maybe toss them in the baggage area, and if I'm parking my plane for show at a fly-in, just re-attach the pants on the ground and remove them again before take-off?

...Or are these not field-removable parts? Could we invent a mod for some kind of quick-release pants" ?
 
Phil, it would be a lot of work.

You have to remove the front wheel to remove the back half of the pant. :( This means that you would need to carry a torque wrench with you and a way to get the front up off the ground (about 100 lbs of lead on the horizontal spar will tip my plane up. The rear wheel fairings are easier to remove and replace.
Now my recommendation, don't. :eek: The front fairing acts like a skid of the front wheel starts to tuck under.

Kent
 
I wasn't thinking of the removable wheel pants to solve the (percieved of real) problem with the nosegear, but more just to protect the pants themselves from damage when landing on rougher fields. Apparently the new pants have very little clearance from the wheel. Does this seem like a mod that would be possible to invent?
 
Sam James pants different

kentb said:
You have to remove the front wheel to remove the back half of the pant. ...
Kent
Click to expand...
On my Sam James front wheel fairing, it can be removed with just a screwdriver, front only or both.
 
Maybe if you are worried about grass stains..

prkaye said:
I wasn't thinking of the removable wheel pants to solve the (percieved of real) problem with the nosegear, but more just to protect the pants themselves from damage when landing on rougher fields. Apparently the new pants have very little clearance from the wheel. Does this seem like a mod that would be possible to invent?
Click to expand...
Make up some slip covers that would cover the paint. Then remove them when you wanted to show off the plane.

H Evan, the stock nose fairing (Vans) rivets to brackets. One of those brackets has the axle bolt going through it. I guess that instead of using rivets, it wouldn't be hard to use screws instead. In fact that would be a very easy mod.
I still don't see the need to be taking them on and off.

Kent
 
There is a newer style nose wheel fairing from Vans that is easily removable by unscrewing the nose cap and then undoing two allen screws. The fairing attaches to the mounting structure with screws rather than rivets and appears to be more robust. I presume this would be the current version that Vans is now selling.

Fin 9A

Edit: I have this new style fairing attached to the new style nose fork on my 9A. I am not sure if the newer fairing can be mounted on the older style fork :confused:
Second Edit: I don't think the actual fairing is any different. It is just the mounting hardware that has changed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top