RV tip over (flip upside down)

[L.Adamson]

As a low time (250 hr) nosegear-only, spamcan-only pilot who is/was just about to pull the trigger on an RV-9A build before Christmas, this issue has given me "cause to pause,"

I had noticed well before this thread that there are a lot of pictures of upside down A's. I'm sure it could all be pilot error, but I'm a pilot and I make errors.

I wish Vans would take some sound engineering steps to add some margin to the design, if only to allow for error-prone nosegear-only spamcan pilots like me to feel good about building a 9A.

Dave

Somehow, every "A" model, that I've known around here for the last 12 years or so, is still upright; and there is a bunch in my area. In fact, the RV (on the ground roll)accidents that I personally know of, were taildraggers.

This thread is getting blown way out of porportion. It's like reading the NTSB reports daily, and assuming all airplanes will eventially have an accident.

Don't worry about the 9A. I flew one last year, and it's about as easy to land as it gets.

L.Adamson RV6A

 

[GyroRon]

To those of you who have flown both the Tail Wheel and Nose Wheel RV models, is there that much difference in the two planes as far and ground handling goes?

 

[Steve]

Item: The nose gear in the ubiquitous Cessna 182 is attached directly to the firewall. Cessna sells many replacement C-182 firewalls and boot cowl skins because of botched landings directly attributed to pilot technique (PIO, dropped in from 5 ft., wheelbarrow landings, etc.). Over the preceeding 40+ years, Cessan has revised the design of the MAIN gear a time or two (lengthed, widened, different material) in an effort to reduce landing mishaps. As all pilots transitioning into the 182 are taught, 1) the plane is very nose heavy so close to full up trim may be needed, 2) land as slow as conditions permit, 3) holding full up elevator.

Steve

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Rental fleet & other nose gear designs

Item: The nose gear in the ubiquitous Cessna 182 is attached directly to the firewall. Cessna sells many replacement C-182 firewalls and boot cowl skins because of botched landings directly attributed to pilot technique (PIO, dropped in from 5 ft., wheelbarrow landings, etc.). Steve

Steve very good point. When I was a CFI at a large school/club, we had about 35-40 airplanes, most Cessna from 152-172/rg-182/rg-t210-340. The rest where Mooney or Piper (Seneca II). I can tell you I would check the firewall very well during pre-flight. I instruct my students and pilots I checked out to look for signs of hard landing. I saw the aftermath on occasion. The few times a firewall was buckled, the pilot would always fess up, except once the guy parked it, tied it down and told no one. On occasion over a 3-year period I saw one or two Cessnas in the maintenance hanger on jacks, with a bent firewall coming off. This gets into pilot error, but from a structural standpoint it is relevant.

Nose gears and their support structure can only be so strong. Even an Airbus Jetblue made the news with nose gear issues recently. Mooneys are known for prop strikes due to POI and low prop clearance. With Cessna's the firewall buckles. With RV's the gear leg folds and seems to be related in part due to (may be a little) pilot skill/technique and in part to catching the nose wheel or bottom of the gear leg on an uneven surface.

THE ULTIMATE NOSE GEAR
This reminds me of my friend with a 50's something Piper Tri Pacer, the first GA tri-gear plane sold. Being an engineer he researched the history and found pictures of how they "sized" the nose gear. Since nose gear's on small planes was a new thing, they where forging their way, making it up as they went along. He found pictures of an Early model being tested by being pulled across a plowed field 90 degrees to the furrows with a tractor. Look at a tri-pacer nose gear. The support looks like bridgework. Look at the size of the tire. Look at the fork, which is traditional, going vertical. They (over) built the tri-pacer to take some serious punishment. The tri-pacer is of course so homely it is cute.

RV NOSE GEAR
Clearly the spring steel gear of the RV is clever and works. The short stout Cessna nose gear is made of a steel Oleo (gas/oil) strut bolted to a large fitting attached to the firewall. Clearly the latter is stronger. Would a Cessna gear work on a RV. Well for sure it would be aerodynamically draggy and heavy. The moral of the comparison is accept the limitations and operate accordingly.

NEW AND IMPROVED
I think the stock RV design is an acceptable solution. I also think is could be improved, however some who fly's off of hard surface or improved soft runways (they know) may prefer to keep it as is. I also think a bigger tire (and wheel fairing) and some kind of anti-dig skid on the front of the wheel fork pivot would reduce the tendency to catch on uneven soft surfaces. A larger change is stiffer (bigger) heavier gear leg with less taper and more "meat" through the end/mid section of the strut. All the damaged nose gear pictures show a bend at mid section. However the thin end allows the wheel fork pivot to rotate down (as Van described in the RVator).

TOO FLXIBLE AT THE END?
As the nose wheel is pushed up the front of the gear leg at the wheel fork/pivot goes down. The "load path" is offset or eccentric. On a Cessna the wheel axial and strut are in line. Any offset in the load path makes secondary bending moments. This bending moment at the end of the RV gear leg is what causes the end of the gear leg to be driven down, reducing clearnace to surface objects. A stiff gear will ride harder. Also in the event of a hard landing the damage may travel from the gear leg to the firewall, like a Cessna (probably not).

STABILITY?
RV trikes have a long flexible nose gear leg. Also with it slanted forward it has stability issues. As it deflects, especially sideways the loads increase as deflections increase, which promotes more deflection, which increases load (stress). At some point a small increase in load results in an infinity larger deflection. In other words you are pushing the wheel across the ground vs. pulling the gear along the ground. Think of a nose gear leg that is slated back from the direction of travel. These are self correcting in that as the wheel gets "out of line" with the supprt it wants to return in trail. This is OK but you have to design the gear for deflection and not strength. I think the reason we feel some anxiety, we can't do anything about it. It is not like we can use just beef it up with a thick aluminum doubler and add more large rivets. The gear is a very highly engineered part that builders can not modify or fabricate themselves. (As noted by RV6ejguy the free castoring swivel nose wheel does not add to the side stability of the gear leg because it FREE to swivel. Ground irregularity or other side forces can act on it, causing the nose wheel to track or drift left or right. As the wheel goes to the side it deflects the gear leg to the side, while the aircraft goes straight. Additional side or drag load can cause further deflection of the gear leg. The best way to reduce the castor effect is a large brake out force that keeps the tire going straight, but than turning would be difficult. In most planes the nose wheel is connected to steering linkage, which stabilizes it and keeps it from BEING turned.)

LIMITATIONS
Can pilot skill overcome the limitation of any design. Is the limitation too restrictive or acceptable. Note, limitation is NOT a bad word, it only means that there is a limit and all structure has it. Is it safe to operate on soft-fields? I think the answer is yes, BUT extra care obviously must be taken on soft surfaces. One of the biggest issues is KNOWING the surface. Many of the issues where found on fields that the pilot never had been on. Was it the fields fault of the pilots? Proper maintenance is critical. Proper installation is critical. The margin in pilot technique and skill is narrower on soft fields. In other words soft field operations are less tolerant to deviation from ideal on any plane. However the average pilot can operate safely on smooth grass and dirt fields. For example Mooneys CAN not operate on soft fields due to prop tip clearnace. I know because I had to fly out and pick up renters who dinged the prop while taxing on soft ground. It happened TWICE to differnt pilots. Just be careful.

George

 

[N520TX]

Reklaw

I disagree with the "400+ other aircraft having no problems". I personally witnessed 3 taildraggers ground loop on rollout while landing 02 just where the dip starts while the gear was doing quite a dance over the turf. One ground loop resulted in the impact with a parked aircraft on the east side.

In my opinion and experience however is that the RV gear behaved very springy on this runway - and others with non-so-smooth surfaces. It felt as if there was a harmonic in the location of the ruts and rollout speeds. As for my landing, I approached, flared and touched down just as I normally do at home home field (grass for 20 yrs, but paved 2 mths ago) ... and soon found myself in a porpise situation. For this reason, I stand by my statement that I am not flying the RV back in here - I wish that wasn't the case, because I otherwise throughly enjoyed and appreciate the effort to put this on.

 

[rv6ejguy]

STABILITY?
RV trikes have a long flexible nose gear leg. Also with it slanted forward it has stability issues. As it deflects, especially sideways the loads increase as deflections increase, which promotes more deflection, which increases load (stress). At some point a small increase in load results in an infinity larger deflection. In other words you are pushing the wheel across the ground vs. pulling the gear along the ground. Think of a nose gear leg that is slated back from the direction of travel. These are self correcting in that as the wheel gets "out of line" with the supprt it wants to return in trail. This is OK but you have to design the gear for deflection and not strength.


George

I've examined a few of these failures on 6As. George has the failure mode down pretty well. All I've seen have involved sideways bending 6-18 inches up the leg from the top of the fork. The higher the impact, the more bending occurs until the leg folds around itself like a pretzel with the tire coming to rest flat against the cowling bottom in severe cases. The ones I've seen are from wheel barrow landings (no prop strike on this one by about a 1/2 inch) to a forced landing in a rough plowed field. You can't expect the gear leg to take these conditions. In the last case, the retaining bolt sheared and the leg went right through the firewall, coming to rest against the battery. The mount was ok. The main gear legs were also bent and the bolts severely distorted and almost sheared. Note that the main gear leg tops in a 6A are aimed at your calves! The main gear mounts were also undamaged as was the airframe other than the firewall.

There have been 2 recent low speed taxiing failures on smooth grass reportedly and these are more worrisome indicating possible improper heat treating. As discussed previously, it does not help that many RVs have the big engine and a heavy C/S prop out in front whereas the prototype 6A was much lighter on the nose gear.

I do think that the nose gear on the A models is a bit on the light side however as George says if you are aware of this and treat it accordingly, it should be reliable on hard surfaces and is probably ok on smooth grass or dirt/ gravel strips. Flying onto grass can always bite you unexpectectly even at your home strip if Mr. Gopher has been digging since you were gone. Certainly if you hit a pretty small hole even at low speed in an A model, this can bend the gear leg. If you accept that possibility fine. For me, I never land or taxi my 6A on grass period. I hit quite a small hole in a Grumman one day at 3 knots and there was an almightly thump which scared the crap outta me.

Van's could add another pound of material to make that leg stiffer and I'd fit one in a flash if it was offered. I like the design on the -10 leg a lot better and would have no qualms about operating this aircraft on rougher fields.

Likewise I've seen a number of tail dragger RVs suffer bent legs and prop strikes from hard landings and especially ground loops. Bad piloting caused these ones of course but TW RVs can nose over on soft ground too.

 

[grover]

nose gear inspection

Does anyone know how many hours were on the incident aircraft? Has anyone with a high time aircraft performed any NDT or similar inspection to their nose gear? Does anyone know what constitutes "high time" on an RV? As previous posts have suggested, it would be intereting to gather relevant data of the "fleet" of flying RVs, not unlike many Part 25 manufacturers do, for trend analysis. This could enhance safety as well as maintainability.

james kleen
savannah
-8X wings

 

[rv6ejguy]

Fatigue/ high time does not seem to be a factor in most of the failures other than some of the ones operated off grass for most of their lives which prompted a warning from Van's a few years back.

There is no real maintenance to perform on the nose gear other than checking for breakout force to prevent shimmy. This should be metioned as a possible cause to leg failure as this can be REALLY severe in an A model if it happens. I've had it twice and you are SURE that the leg is gonna fold on you. Very scary. Moral- check the breakout force often. It is important.

The failures seem to involve:

1. Hitting a hole or soft spot and having the lower front of the fork dig in. Obviously this becomes a poor skid and imparts very high bending forces to the leg. Not much of a cure for this mode other than not running on grass.

2. A fork shimmy or leg harmonic is set up creating increasingly high sideways deflections until the leg yields.

I agree it would be enlightening to get more facts and photos on bent legs.

 

[CraigH@KRPH]

For example Mooneys CAN not operate on soft fields due to prop tip clearnace.

That being said, there were at least 3 Mooneys at Reklaw who seemed to make it in/out just fine.

 

[FrankK90989]

A comparison

A month ago a friend and glastar builder looked over my 9A project, he observed that his front gear leg was a lot like mine but noticeably more robust.
after hearing of all the bent gears I would rather my gear be just a bit more robust.
Frank 90989
wiring

 

[L.Adamson]

As discussed previously, it does not help that many RVs have the big engine and a heavy C/S prop out in front whereas the prototype 6A was much lighter on the nose gear.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously, but the RV6A nosegear legs were all updated to a new version that could take a lot more beating about five years ago. I got a replacement myself.

L.Adamson

 

[DanH]

Reklaw

After reading all these posts, I'm surprised to see that nobody mentioned the slope of the runway in the accident area. The RV-7A got into trouble after he had passed the crest in the runway and started down into the Big Dip. (For those not familiar, I'll try to post a photo later.) It is easy to imagine a pilot passing over the runway crest, getting his first look down into The Dip, thinking "Oh, s...", and toeing the brakes. Combine significant brake use, a downhill slope, a runway divot, and perhaps low nose tire pressure, and bingo, you hook the fork and over she goes.

Reklaw's primary entertainment is watching the landings and departures. General skill levels are low. Very few trigear pilots practiced any kind of soft field proceedure at Flying M (maybe one in ten), even after seeing the flipped RV7A. It was an endless parade of flat landings and flat departures, nose wheels flailing madly and elevators in trail.

Dan

 

[DanH]

Reklaw

Two photos. The first is a photo of the landing area used by the subject RV-7A. This is looking down Runway 02 from a point in front of the big hangar. FWIW, there is 400 feet or more of runway to the left rear of the photographer. Look close at a point beyond the runway crest in the distance and you can see the tail of the RV sticking straight up. It is standing on its nose as the crowd turns it back upright.

The next photo is a view from the far end of the runway, taken near the threshold of Runway 20. You can see how much the runway runs downhill after the crest, then back uphill again to a point near the photographer. In this photo there is a blurry airplane partway down the hill (to the right of the dust cloud), about where the RV-7A came to rest.

Does this look like a good place to be on the brakes with a nosegear RV?

Dan

 

[jcoloccia]

If anyone is interested, here's a note from Vans regarding nose draggers.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/letters/nosegear.pdf

Jet Blue....now THOSE guys have some tough nose gears on their airplanes. Still, a 737 is no RV.

 

[DanH]

Reklaw

Whoops.....had to figure out the photo upload system for this forum. Hope it works this time.

Dan

 

[Captain Avgas]

Another "A" flips in Oz

This is a scan of a newspaper photo (Herald Sun) showing an RV7A with a nose gear collapse. The accident happened last weekend Saturday October 29. 2005, at Tyabb airport in Victoria, Australia. Apparently the aircraft ran off the end of the bitumen runway and onto grass whereupon the nose gear failed and the plane tipped over trapping the occupants inside. There are only literally a handful of RV7As flying in Australia (maybe 6 or 7) and this is the second nose gear failure. Not a pretty statistic. I'm personally concerned that if this continues there might be doubts about long term access to insurance.

Incidentally who closed the previous thread on nose collapses, and why. Are we being censored.

Post away group. I don't think I can take the beating, Rosie

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Thanks

Bob Barrow: Incidentally who closed the previous thread on nose collapses, and why. Are we being censored?

Rosie: Post away group. I don't think I can take the beating, Rosie

Thanks Rosie

I think this thread has mostly been productive, but in no way meant to bash Van's as a few stated. I know we are all die-hard fans of Van's designs.

However not talking about an issue will not make it go away. In fact a key to aviation safety is critcal thought and knowlege. In the airlines we call it CRM, cockpit resource management. In this case knowledge is power.

This is pilot-to-pilot, builder-to-builder honest discourse I think is important in my opinion.

Thank you again for unlocking the thread. Sorry you took a beating. There was only one post from an individual that stated "we" are bashing Van. I am sorry he feels that way, nothing could be farther from the truth. The incidents are REAL and it is fair to ask why? There is no better place to discuss it than here.

Regards George RV-4, RV-7

 

[rv7 2003]

I have enjoyed the bashing in this thread. Makes for some fun reading.
Seriously though, maybe Vans Aircraft could reply on this nose gear issue and shine some real light on the facts. Im sure this has been discussed at length behind their doors.

 

[arffguy]

Jet Blue....now THOSE guys have some tough nose gears on their airplanes. Still, a 737 is no RV.

Off topic-------but---------Jet Blue flies Airbus A-320's not 737's. A Chevy is not a Ford.

Also, I wonder how many of these airplanes had the wheelpants on versus no wheelpants. Or did someone bring this up already and I missed it?

 

[Bob Axsom]

As a low time (250 hr) nosegear-only, spamcan-only pilot who is/was just about to pull the trigger on an RV-9A build before Christmas, this issue has given me "cause to pause,"

I had noticed well before this thread that there are a lot of pictures of upside down A's. I'm sure it could all be pilot error, but I'm a pilot and I make errors.

I wish Vans would take some sound engineering steps to add some margin to the design, if only to allow for error-prone nosegear-only spamcan pilots like me to feel good about building a 9A.

Dave

Dave you are probably right to be concerned about your exposure and stick with oleo struts and alignment sissors, etc. Putting the nose gear on for cross wind landing ease, convenient ground taxi attitude while minimizing drag is achieved with the design as is and that is the way I want mine. There is a greater need to land on the mains and hold the nose off than with the aircraft you are used to. I have mine with the older nose gear strut and it works just fine as long as the caster breakout force is properly maintained at around 23 lbs. The first time I landed after the breakout force had gone down (it happens quickly the first time as the parts settle in) I thought I had blown the tire - the vibration if you are not torqued up to design specs is severe. It is a check and maintain item and you will feel the nibble of vibration as the retorque need reveals itself later in the life of your "A". I believe increasing your landing skill and paying attention to the caster breakout force is a small price to pay to get such a high performance airplane but it does take time to land consistently and maintain the airplane with respect for its needs. Refering to an airplane, any airplane as a "Spam Can" reflects a certain attitude of disrespect for airplanes in general and if the reflection is valid you are probably going to be vulnerable to a lot of things in the long process of building an airplane and flying it. I personally think you would be better off the get some more flying time and wait for the RV-12 to come out because you will probably be a better pilot and it will be more tolerant to technique. By that time you may decide you can land without mistakes and want to opt for the higher performance but less tolerant of poor technique compromise in design. One thing you will never have the opportunity to do is to buy my airplane from me. I never cease to marvel at its beauty and its performance. It has never flown without every fairing in place and the only thing I lust for is more power.

Bob Axsom

 

[mark manda]

I'm a quick builder but I've heard this term for awhile, is this what they mean by-- "Flipping the canoe" ?

 

[Captain Avgas]

An overview (long)

In my many years of subscribing to various RV email groups I don't think I have seen any topic generate as much continued interest as the RVA nosegear issue. Many potential builders and many others committed to building, or already flying, nose gear RVs are perplexed and concerned by the ongoing reports of failures.

Many people have feared that the Vans design contains some intrinsic defect or that the failures are due to faulty parts. I doubt that this is the general case. I think that it is more to do with compromises as GMCjetpilot has previously pointed out.

There are many types of nose wheel designs including the free castoring (non steerable) type favoured by Vans. There are also oleo strut designs, trailing link designs, and many others, and a myriad of variations on all of these. However I think it would be fair comment to say that of all these designs the free castoring version is the least robust. In conjuction with a very small wheel the free castoring design is particularly vulnerable to poor surfaces and poor pilotage. This is due in part to the fact that the free castoring design, with its long cantilevered gear rod has very little resistance to lateral (sideways) forces and to torsional effect (twisting). And these 2 forces acting together are very conducive to a resultant buckling of the rod.

However the clearance between the nose gear fairing and the ground on an RV7A is only approximately 2 inches. This is a very, very small clearance and on soft soil, or an undulating surface, or on long grass (etc) the fairing can bottom out. Heavy braking will of course accentuate the situation. This will result in extreme rolling resistance bringing the lateral forces and twisting into play and may result in complete failure of the gear.

Why then has Vans opted for this system. There are probably three reasons: one, a little weight savings, two, a little less drag, and three, a lot of cost savings (I doubt that it would be possible to design a cheaper nose gear system than the RV7A). This follows Vans commercially successful design philosophy of producing aircraft with relatively high performance specifications combined with a low kit cost.

It is not for me to advise Vans on how to "improve" their nose gear design, nor am I capable of doing so. However from my point of view (and I stress that it is only my personal point of view) I would gladly give up 5 knots and pay a reasonable premium for a trailing link design that would enable me to land on unmade surfaces with a higher degree of confidence that the nose gear would not fail. And I suspect that many others might feel the same. In the end it may be in Vans interests to provide an option for those who feel as I do. After all Vans already provides a number of options including engine sizes, canopy variations, tricycle vs taildragger etc. This would enable nosewheel builders to choose their own compromise.

Having said this I must report that at the recent annual Wagga Airshow run by the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (a great show by the way) I took the time to inspect the nose gear fairings on a good number of RVAs. Many of them had fairing to tyre clearances considerably less than that recommended by Vans (1/4" at sides, 1/2" at rear). Many of them had chunks out of the fibreglass where the tyre had come into contact with the fairing. Some had clearances so small that it was almost impossible to measure them (less than 1/16"). Many builders have obviously tightened up the clearances in the hope of gaining an extra 1/2 knot...this is crazy. I have now decided on my plane to have *minimum* clearances of 1/2" at the sides and 3/4" at the front and back. I also intend to increase the ground to fairing clearance. I think that is all that I can do at this stage. I'll also be very circumspect about where I land.

Vans latest modification to the RV7A nosegear design was to cant the castor arm upwards to increase the distance from the front of the arm to the ground by an additional 1". I am not sure that this will mean much if the fairing bottoms out first.

 

[IowaRV9Dreamer]

Thanks for the good info Bob

Bob, thank you for the excellent info on the breakout force and vibrfation issues. As for the rest of your email, I do appreciate and value your opinions.

Refering to an airplane, any airplane as a "Spam Can" reflects a certain attitude of disrespect for airplanes in general and if the reflection is valid you are probably going to be vulnerable to a lot of things in the long process of building an airplane and flying it. I personally think you would be better off the get some more flying time and wait for the RV-12 to come out because you will probably be a better pilot and it will be more tolerant to technique. By that time you may decide you can land without mistakes and want to opt for the higher performance but less tolerant of poor technique compromise in design. One thing you will never have the opportunity to do is to buy my airplane from me. I never cease to marvel at its beauty and its performance. It has never flown without every fairing in place and the only thing I lust for is more power.

Bob Axsom

I chose the term "spamcan" not out of disrespect, but out of convenience, rather than listing the aircraft I fly (Cessna X, Piper Y, Beech Z). Your advice about getting more training, waiting for the RV-12, becoming a better pilot, deciding that I can land wihout mistakes, etc. is well taken. I will certainly consider it.

I will also consider the many private responses I have received that tend to be much more encouraging, emphasizing transiton training, etc.

As for the opportunity to buy your airplane - I guess we must have a misunderstanding, since that certainly wasn't what I was going for in my original post!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Official word

I have enjoyed the bashing in this thread. Makes for some fun reading. Seriously though, maybe Vans Aircraft could reply on this nose gear issue and shine some real light on the facts. I am sure this has been discussed at length behind their doors.

They (van's) has replyed in word and action. Do you get the RVator? Here is a scan of the article and a must read if you are flying a RV-A.

Van's is very aware and has addressed it, with the below technical article and this service letter: Vans service letter .



Now what action did they take? Well they made a small but clever (in my opinion) design change with a simple modification of existing nose gear leg and a new castor fork, which gives a little more ground clearance as addressed in the service letter, March 2005.

If you want Van to make some omission forget it. They have stated that they have several 1000 landings on and off grass with no problem and they feel there is no need for major changes at this time, but they are gathering more data and service history. I know they inspected one of the failed gears for correct heat treat, which was confirmed. Van is in a wait and see mode.

Just for grins, look at Zenair. I am not trying to be flip, but if you want STOL and a 85 mph cruise than: Zenair

I agree with Bob Borrow's excellent write up. I think genuine concern, no panic, with just positive productive conversation like this is in order.

Just for fun this is what the new Van's Bush-Master might look like. The one on the right is the High speed version. George

 

[redbeardmark]

questions

Why will Van's never succeed in making a trike that cannot be flipped?
It is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Why have so many RV trikes NOT flipped in spite of landing on unimproved strips all over the world?
Because of: proper construction during assembly, proper maintenance, and proper landing technique(transition training-transition training-transition training).

Why are so many RV pilots who do not own trikes "concerned" about the alleged flipping tendency of the trikes?
Hmmm.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Inquiring minds

Why are so many RV pilots who do not own trikes "concerned" about the alleged flipping tendency of the trikes?
Hmmm.

Well we are all RV'ers. We have friends who fly RV trikes and last some are just interested in aircraft design and operations. For me I have a few CFI tickets in my wallet and give RV transition training from time to time and frankly I want to know everything I can about it. Hummmm
George

 

[DGlaeser]

Flipping the canoe

I'm a quick builder but I've heard this term for awhile, is this what they mean by-- "Flipping the canoe" ?

No - that is when the fuselage shell - built upside down - is flipped over to start working on the inside. As a quick-builder, you started with the 'canoe'

Dennis Glaeser
7A wings - future canoe flipper (just ordered my fuselage yesterday)

 

[Mike S]

Test ride

When My wife and I tood the test ride at Vans, the pilot landed on the mains, and held it off the nose for the entire rollout until he had to turn off the runway.

I initally thought he was just showing off, but now I am starting to wonder if it was done for the benefit of the nose gear???????????

Mike

 

[rv6ejguy]

When My wife and I tood the test ride at Vans, the pilot landed on the mains, and held it off the nose for the entire rollout until he had to turn off the runway.

I initally thought he was just showing off, but now I am starting to wonder if it was done for the benefit of the nose gear???????????

Mike

This is how I land my 6A every time. Why hammer on the nose gear any more than you need to? Getting a 6A to touch down in the proper attitude is important to avoid the dreaded wheelbarrow landing. The 6A has quite a tail low stance on the ramp where the 7A and 8A are much more level sitting. Be aware of this if you are used to the landing attitudes of other aircraft. The nose has to be pretty high on the 6A on touchdown. I've seen a couple who did not get this right and had to replace the nose leg.

I'm actually looking out the side of the windshield on mine in the final part of the flair because I can't see anything out the front except sky.

 

[Rosie]

When My wife and I tood the test ride at Vans, the pilot landed on the mains, and held it off the nose for the entire rollout until he had to turn off the runway.

I initally thought he was just showing off, but now I am starting to wonder if it was done for the benefit of the nose gear???????????

Mike

For those of us who took our pilot training in the Grumman series aircraft, this was SOP, something I use to this day (unless traffic is close behind).

This also saves on the wear of my brake pads which I typically get 300-400hrs of use. The nosewheel tires have been lasting ~800hrs as a result of holding off as long as possible.

F-117 pilots (and maybe others) use this technique of keeping the nosewheel off the ground on landing, called aero-braking.

For those really wanting to hone their -A landing skills, go out and practice touch and go's withOUT touching down the nosewheel.

Many thanks to my instructor Howard Long for my super transition training Rosie

 

[cobra]

Just curious,
Ive seen Vans suggestions to hold the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible. Probably a stupid question by a newbe, but is there a danger of damaging the empanage section while landing nose high with an "A" model? Would a tailskid/wheel (training wheel...) be worth considering?

 

[redbeardmark]

possible tail damage

It is possible to bang the tail if you really crank the nose up there. The idea is to have a controlled landing, not a controlled crash. Touch down on the mains (gently) with the nose off the ground enough to clear bumps but not so far that the tail scrapes planet earth. As the nose starts to drop, back on the stick even more so as to slow it down so it just gently kisses the dirt.

It really isn't that difficult... if you get transition training.

Mark is absolutely correct, perfectly stated. Check out this video, shot at Santa Monica (SMO) by Dan Checkoway Rosie

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Just curious,
Ive seen Vans suggestions to hold the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible. Probably a stupid question by a newbe, but is there a danger of damaging the empanage section while landing nose high with an "A" model? Would a tailskid/wheel (training wheel...) be worth considering?

I would think the tiedown ring would serve that purpose, wouldn't it?

 

[jcoloccia]

I would think the tiedown ring would serve that purpose, wouldn't it?

LOL. Have you ever looked at the rear tie down on a 182? Typically flat as a pancake on the bottom.

 

[Captain Avgas]

Fools and flips

Why will Van's never succeed in making a trike that cannot be flipped?
It is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Why have so many RV trikes NOT flipped in spite of landing on unimproved strips all over the world?
Because of: proper construction during assembly, proper maintenance, and proper landing technique (transition training-transition training-transition training).

It may not be constructive to suggest that only fools will flip an RVA. The free-castoring nosewheel is known to be the least robust design approach. Together with a small wheel, full fairing, and a short coupled aircraft, the ingredients are all there for potential tip-overs. Even good pilots have bad days and with the RVAs the safety margin on the nose gear is obviously narrow. It's part of the price you pay for high performance at modest power requirements.

Incidentally if you go back to my posting #90 on this thread you will find a photo of an RV7A that tipped over at Tyabb in Australia just last weekend. As it turns out the incident happened while the new owner was receiving transition training accompanied by a flight instructor.

The RVA free-castoring nosegear design is quite unforgiving.

 

[Rosie]

Old quote with a twist

"Flying any RV is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."

The original quote hangs in our home, Rosie

 

[Build9A]

Incidentally if you go back to my posting #90 on this thread you will find a photo of an RV7A that tipped over at Tyabb in Australia just last weekend. As it turns out the incident happened while the new owner was receiving transition training accompanied by a flight instructor.

Not sure the picture of the Australian flip over is just a nosewheel issue. "They ran off the end of the runway", also, there is a fence laying on the bottom side of the left wing..and the turf they ended up in looks like the areas where I used to look for my golf balls and usually couldn't find them, when I played....etc...... I think there is more to that story than a castering nosewheel... IMHO
Jack 9A (upright so far)

 

[rv9aviator]

Oh CRAP !!!

In the next two months I will be ready to order the fuselage kit for my 9-A?. After reading all the posts and sorting out what I feel are good and bad aspects of both types I have a question. I was planning on going the 9-A route because I don't want to take off only to dread having to land later. I have 500 hours in my 172 and about 20 hours in tail draggers. I have not had any misfortunes landing tail draggers so far but have avoided cross winds over 10 mph. The question is this: If you land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible then how is that any easier than wheel landing a tail dragger and keeping the tail up as long as possible to keep the rudder effective. Landing a nose wheel plane in a crosswind and holding the nose wheel off ain't that much fun when your trying to keep the upwind wing from lifting. Aside from the insurance being higher I love the looks of the tail dragger and am having second thoughts about my choice.

PLEASE HELP!
Jim Wright RV-9? 90919 Arkansas

 

[Bob Axsom]

The Difference is Main LG placemant

With the forward placemant of the MLG on a tail dragger the leverage of the wind against the vertical stabilizer and rudder is greater (longer arm) and it is harder to hold and when you start loosing rudder authority with the decelerating airplane the nose does not come down planting the nose wheel to give you another source of stability.

Bob Axsom

 

[Build9A]

don't sweat it

having second thoughts about my choice.

PLEASE HELP!
Jim Wright RV-9? 90919 Arkansas

Jim: My 2Cents. I wouldn't put too much into anecdotal reports of nosewheel accidents. We could have just as much discussion and just as many posts on taildraggers. Lots of well known RV-A-ers on this list, at Vans, and friends of mine live and/or fly out of paved and grass strips all the time, even back country. Build it to specs, allow for adequate fairing clearance, correct tire pressure, good flying (landing) techniques and you will be fine with either model.

Jack RV9A flying (actually sitting in the paint shop UPRIGHT)

 

[alpinelakespilot2000]

In the next two months I will be ready to order the fuselage kit for my 9-A?. After reading all the posts and sorting out what I feel are good and bad aspects of both types I have a question. I was planning on going the 9-A route because I don't want to take off only to dread having to land later. I have 500 hours in my 172 and about 20 hours in tail draggers. I have not had any misfortunes landing tail draggers so far but have avoided cross winds over 10 mph. The question is this: If you land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible then how is that any easier than wheel landing a tail dragger and keeping the tail up as long as possible to keep the rudder effective. Landing a nose wheel plane in a crosswind and holding the nose wheel off ain't that much fun when your trying to keep the upwind wing from lifting. Aside from the insurance being higher I love the looks of the tail dragger and am having second thoughts about my choice.

PLEASE HELP!
Jim Wright RV-9? 90919 Arkansas

Follow your gut and what YOU want. I was in the same place as you about 3 months ago. I'm very comfortable with my decision made on that basis.

I agree that if you fly the 9A properly the nosewheel is probably not a big issue, though I had the same questions/concerns as you. If you fly a -9 properly, the tailwheel is very tame compared to many other tailwheel a/c and also not an issue. Good luck.

 

[jcoloccia]

In the next two months I will be ready to order the fuselage kit for my 9-A?. After reading all the posts and sorting out what I feel are good and bad aspects of both types I have a question. I was planning on going the 9-A route because I don't want to take off only to dread having to land later. I have 500 hours in my 172 and about 20 hours in tail draggers. I have not had any misfortunes landing tail draggers so far but have avoided cross winds over 10 mph. The question is this: If you land on the mains and hold the nose off as long as possible then how is that any easier than wheel landing a tail dragger and keeping the tail up as long as possible to keep the rudder effective. Landing a nose wheel plane in a crosswind and holding the nose wheel off ain't that much fun when your trying to keep the upwind wing from lifting. Aside from the insurance being higher I love the looks of the tail dragger and am having second thoughts about my choice.

PLEASE HELP!
Jim Wright RV-9? 90919 Arkansas

Diatribe #1:

Trikes are more forgiving of really sloppy technique. That's about it. A good landing in a trike is just as difficult as a good landing in a taildragger (or just as easy...depends on your point of view). Nosedraggers don't threaten you as much with ground loops if you plop it on the runway from 2 feet up going sideways.

I would just build which ever one appeals to you. If you want a Pitts Special, you don't buy a Cessna because you don't think you can land the Pitts. You buy the Pitts and get training. Either model (straight or the -A) is apparently going to require good landing technique and probably some training so it's a wash as far as that's concerned.

Diatribe #2:
In response to an earlier post: Trike OR taildragger, by the time all three wheels are on the ground, the yoke/stick/whatever is nearly as far back as it goes, the plane's done flying, and it's going as slow as I can get it before wheels start kissing mother earth. Despite the fact that hardly anyone I've flown with actually does this (Rosie excluded, of course...nice landing in the video ) isn't this pretty much SOP for just about every trike in GA?

 

[ship]

tempest in a teapot

PLEASE HELP!
Jim Wright RV-9? 90919 Arkansas

Jim: build what you want and become very proficient at soft/short field & slow flight. You will minimize -- but not eliminate-- the risk of nose-over. RV's are no worse than anything else out there.

start soapbox
This is all much ado about nothing. Trikes AND taildraggers from ALL manufacturers ALL flip under the right circumstances.

How many Cessnas, Cubs, Stearmans, Pipers, Mooneys, Ercoupes, etc. etc. have ended up on their backs since the dawn of powered flight???

Is Van's nose wheel 100% of the problem? No. Can it be improved? Probably not much. As mentioned in previous posts, it's a combination of design compromises, pilot skill and landing circumstances. No matter how much the design is changed, there will be nose-overs in RV's.

Very light singles are predestined to flip onto their backs. We're landing 60-70mph....we weigh 1800lbs, we have high/forward c.g's combined with close-coupled landing gear and a BIG lawn dart up front.....and everyone wonders why we flip over?

The fact that most RV flips end in minor or no injuries is a testament to the robustness of Van's overall design.
end soapbox

 

[fodrv7]

Bush Pilots flying Nose wheelers

Ship is right.
Much ado about nothing.
But if you choose a Nose Wheel you just have to accept that they are more sensitive to soft ground that Tail draggers.
If draggers are as prone to 'inverting' as nosewheel aircraft, then why do the Bush Pilots in Alaska, New Guinea, Africa and the Australian Outback all fly tail draggers. Show me a nose-wheel crop Duster.

Pete.

 

[rv9aviator]

Thnaks, I feel better again. I thought I had gone through this a million times already and was certain about my choice. I'm back to the nose wheel again, mostly because of visibility over the nose on the ground, insurance costs and maybe a little easier to sell if I want to build a 10 later.

Thanks
Jim RV-9A 90919 Arkansas

 

[L.Adamson]

If draggers are as prone to 'inverting' as nosewheel aircraft, then why do the Bush Pilots in Alaska, New Guinea, Africa and the Australian Outback all fly tail draggers. Show me a nose-wheel crop Duster.

It's simple......

Who would want to carry an extra heavy & draggy "tundra" tire up front if it wasn't nessesary?

And why don't bush pilots normally fly "low wings"?

At our local airport, we just happen to have parts of an RV4 modified into highwing taildragger, and an enormous Helio modified with a turbine engine & what looks like truck tires on the nose. Was at Oshkosh with a few airhorns on the nose gear, in case someone here saw it.

L.Adamson RV6A (Prefers an Aviat Husky for the "bush")

 

[redbeardmark]

tie down ring

I would think the tiedown ring would serve that purpose, wouldn't it?

The tie down ring should protect your tail if you manage to get the nose that high at touchdown. You can push the tail down and see if the tie down ring contacts before the tail--if it doesn't, make an adjustment to the depth that the tie down ring is screwed in. Mine is locked in place with Loctite. Again, if the nose is that high, things are going wrong.

 

[redbeardmark]

I agree

It may not be constructive to suggest that only fools will flip an RVA. The free-castoring nosewheel is known to be the least robust design approach. Together with a small wheel, full fairing, and a short coupled aircraft, the ingredients are all there for potential tip-overs. Even good pilots have bad days and with the RVAs the safety margin on the nose gear is obviously narrow. It's part of the price you pay for high performance at modest power requirements.

Incidentally if you go back to my posting #90 on this thread you will find a photo of an RV7A that tipped over at Tyabb in Australia just last weekend. As it turns out the incident happened while the new owner was receiving transition training accompanied by a flight instructor.

The RVA free-castoring nosegear design is quite unforgiving.

It was my intention to "lighten things up a bit" on this thread. No offense is intended. Nosewheel bashing is an ancient and venerable sport. However, my concern is that when the bashing goes from being good-humored to not-so-good-humored, it might frighten off potential RVators.

Now, having said that, I will agree that the nosewheel on the RV trikes is unforgiving. As Rosie states in this post, so are RV's. The RV is high performance and "pilot limited" as stated in the construction manual. An RV will kill you deader than dead if you screw up, in the air or on/near the ground(all airplanes will). I also agree that everyone can have a bad day or even a bad moment that results in a crash. When this happens, do you attribute this to the pilot or to the aircraft? As more and more pilots take to the air in their RV's WITHOUT TRANSITION TRAINING, you will see more and more damaged aircraft.

The extrapolation or misinterpretation of my comment about making things foolproof is inaccurate. I am not maligning any pilot who has flipped his aircraft, RV or other types. The fact is that trikes will ALWAYS have flipover accidents, just as taildraggers will ALWAYS have ground loops.

I still think this thread belongs in the 'nosewheel vs taildragger' section. And, hey, you fence-sitters... pick a side and get with it.

 

[lawrence]

relevance

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow
Incidentally if you go back to my posting #90 on this thread you will find a photo of an RV7A that tipped over at Tyabb in Australia just last weekend. As it turns out the incident happened while the new owner was receiving transition training accompanied by a flight instructor.





Not sure the picture of the Australian flip over is just a nosewheel issue. "They ran off the end of the runway", also, there is a fence laying on the bottom side of the left wing..and the turf they ended up in looks like the areas where I used to look for my golf balls and usually couldn't find them, when I played....etc...... I think there is more to that story than a castering nosewheel... IMHO
Jack 9A (upright so far)
__________________
RV9A N489JE - Flying
Gainesville, Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so how is this australian a model incident related to this thread if he overran the runway?.

 

[jcoloccia]

I still think this thread belongs in the 'nosewheel vs taildragger' section. And, hey, you fence-sitters... pick a side and get with it.

I couldn't agree more. I would now like to change my position to:

I know this is going to sound horrible, but I just can't get rid of this feeling that the -A's somehow "deserve" to nose over because they're so ugly.


edit: I can't believe I even have to put this in here. This is meant to be lighthearted. If you read my earlier posts you'll see I was contemplating an 8A and have nothing against trikes.....except that they're ugly, of course