Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV tip over (flip upside down)
- Thread starter oldsfolks
- Start date
AlexPeterson
Well Known Member
Watch RV landings at the next flyin you are able to attend, particularly the A models. It will alarm you how many simply plop the mains on and let the nose crash down immediately afterwards. While watching, pay attention to the elevators during the landing and rollout. Obviously, proper technique will not eliminate all nose gear problems, but it certainly stacks the deck in your favor.
I want to emphasize also the dangers of an undulating strip - these planes have a short wheelbase and the gear are undamped or minimally damped. It is very easy to get into a porpoising fit, which can easily get amplified by PIO. If this happens, don't go back to that strip, period. ALL landings and takeoffs on grass should be soft field technique - full aft elevator until the nose comes off. This is not as easy in an RV as in a Cessna - it is easy to over rotate. Practice, practice. An earlier poster suggested doing touch and goes without letting the nose gear touch. This is an excellent practice, in addition to flying along at about 6 inches above the runway. There is no other way to practice flight in ground effect, save for the few seconds one gets during landing. What is your total time flying in close ground effect?
I keep the nose wheel inflated to 35 psi. This higher end pressure also reduces the well known problem of chewing a hole in the side of the innertube. I had one flat per year until going up in pressure. It obviously also gives more margin against the problem of the gear "digging in" when hitting a hole or whatever.
One final note related to the wabbit taking out an RV - I posted last year to another list that I shot a gopher right from the cockpit immediately upon engine shutdown at a grass strip I frequently fly into. Wow, what a firestorm that created. I guess those who thought that act was terrible didn't understand that they have to choose between plugging varmints or eating sod from the cockpit.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 726 hours
Maple Grove, MN
I want to emphasize also the dangers of an undulating strip - these planes have a short wheelbase and the gear are undamped or minimally damped. It is very easy to get into a porpoising fit, which can easily get amplified by PIO. If this happens, don't go back to that strip, period. ALL landings and takeoffs on grass should be soft field technique - full aft elevator until the nose comes off. This is not as easy in an RV as in a Cessna - it is easy to over rotate. Practice, practice. An earlier poster suggested doing touch and goes without letting the nose gear touch. This is an excellent practice, in addition to flying along at about 6 inches above the runway. There is no other way to practice flight in ground effect, save for the few seconds one gets during landing. What is your total time flying in close ground effect?
I keep the nose wheel inflated to 35 psi. This higher end pressure also reduces the well known problem of chewing a hole in the side of the innertube. I had one flat per year until going up in pressure. It obviously also gives more margin against the problem of the gear "digging in" when hitting a hole or whatever.
One final note related to the wabbit taking out an RV - I posted last year to another list that I shot a gopher right from the cockpit immediately upon engine shutdown at a grass strip I frequently fly into. Wow, what a firestorm that created. I guess those who thought that act was terrible didn't understand that they have to choose between plugging varmints or eating sod from the cockpit.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 726 hours
Maple Grove, MN
What are you packing?
One final note related to the wabbit taking out an RV - I posted last year to another list that I shot a gopher right from the cockpit immediately upon engine shutdown at a grass strip I frequently fly into. Wow, what a firestorm that created. I guess those who thought that act was terrible didn't understand that they have to choose between plugging varmints or eating sod from the cockpit.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 726 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Alex..........cool!! What are you packing in the cockpit?
I've been trying to diecide on my "weapon of choice" for the airplane. Don't think my .223 or.308 would be to good, but VERY effective . Maybe just a little .22
This could be an entirely new thread??
One final note related to the wabbit taking out an RV - I posted last year to another list that I shot a gopher right from the cockpit immediately upon engine shutdown at a grass strip I frequently fly into. Wow, what a firestorm that created. I guess those who thought that act was terrible didn't understand that they have to choose between plugging varmints or eating sod from the cockpit.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 726 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Alex..........cool!! What are you packing in the cockpit?
I've been trying to diecide on my "weapon of choice" for the airplane. Don't think my .223 or.308 would be to good, but VERY effective . Maybe just a little .22 This could be an entirely new thread??
Rabbit Kills RV... Grumman Kills Cow
A few years back a friend was landing his Grumman Cheetah at Goose Creek, a small strip about 20 miles from the site of the "rabbit incident". Just as he started to flare a cow ran from the woods directly into his path. He yanked the airplane off the ground striking the cow in the head (fatal) with the right main and the right flap. After clearing the cow the airplane was out of airspeed, leading to a big bounce and serious pogo. At this point he added power and departed. A few fly-bys confirmed that everything looked okay except the main wheel pant was askew. He was able to land the plane with no problems after the cow was drug from the middle of the runway.
Inspection showed damage to the right wheel pant and the right flap. NO DAMAGE TO THE NOSE GEAR. I find it interesting how a Grumman Cheetah which uses the same gear design as the "A" model RV's can literally kill a cow, bounce, then pogo and suffer no appreciable damage to the gear while a 2 or 3 pound cotton-tail can wipe out the gear on the RV.
There may not be anything "wrong" with the RV nose gear but there seems to be mounting evidence that it is marginal and certainly the weakest component on an otherwise fine airplane.
John R.
A few years back a friend was landing his Grumman Cheetah at Goose Creek, a small strip about 20 miles from the site of the "rabbit incident". Just as he started to flare a cow ran from the woods directly into his path. He yanked the airplane off the ground striking the cow in the head (fatal) with the right main and the right flap. After clearing the cow the airplane was out of airspeed, leading to a big bounce and serious pogo. At this point he added power and departed. A few fly-bys confirmed that everything looked okay except the main wheel pant was askew. He was able to land the plane with no problems after the cow was drug from the middle of the runway.
Inspection showed damage to the right wheel pant and the right flap. NO DAMAGE TO THE NOSE GEAR. I find it interesting how a Grumman Cheetah which uses the same gear design as the "A" model RV's can literally kill a cow, bounce, then pogo and suffer no appreciable damage to the gear while a 2 or 3 pound cotton-tail can wipe out the gear on the RV.
There may not be anything "wrong" with the RV nose gear but there seems to be mounting evidence that it is marginal and certainly the weakest component on an otherwise fine airplane.
John R.
Baja_Traveler
Well Known Member
Another Flip?
Not to get on the "All nosewheels are bad" thread, but someone had a very unhappy landing here yesterday after a hard landing. Made the front page of the local section in the paper. Here is a link to the story online: Plane Flips
No details other than whats there...
I guess what I read here is true - RV's are not built to learn in!
Not to get on the "All nosewheels are bad" thread, but someone had a very unhappy landing here yesterday after a hard landing. Made the front page of the local section in the paper. Here is a link to the story online: Plane Flips
No details other than whats there...
I guess what I read here is true - RV's are not built to learn in!
RJDickensheets
Member
Based upon the write up - are we to assume a student pilot was carrying a pax? The guy could have been Van himself for all we know.
Kahuna
Moderatoring
Baja_Traveler said:
So you read an article, and conclude that the rv is not a plane to learn in?
Thats silly.
I would not recommend reading the FAA reports on all the 152 recks over the years, else you conclude other models of planes are also not for learning.
Learning is relative.
mark manda
Well Known Member
someone somewhere said he came in hot, no flaps bounced three times and that was that.... heresay though.
aadamson
Well Known Member
Airplane info
Here is the accident listing
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/M_0328_N.txt
And here is the registration info
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=428BC
Here is the accident listing
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/M_0328_N.txt
And here is the registration info
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=428BC
RVs are more difficult to land than a C-150/152
The only real difficulty in basic "learning to fly" is learning to land. An RV is much more difficult to land consistently well and is less forgiving of abuse and poor technique than a Cessna 150/152. Even landed well, there are some special features of a tri-gear RV, such as the violent oscillation that accompanies low breakout force, that will make an experienced pilot think it is coming apart. One can technically learn to fly in an RV but it is far from optimized for that purpose. No one ever learned to fly without making a single bad landing and a bad landing is a serious event in a tri-gear RV. If it starts to porpose something is very likely to be damaged. I agree with the observation that an RV is not a good plane to learn to fly in because its compromises are made in favor of performance and assume more than entry level skill to accommodate them. Oh well, Blah, blah, blah, we have had this discussion over and over in this forum and we will never reach a consensus.
Bob Axsom
The only real difficulty in basic "learning to fly" is learning to land. An RV is much more difficult to land consistently well and is less forgiving of abuse and poor technique than a Cessna 150/152. Even landed well, there are some special features of a tri-gear RV, such as the violent oscillation that accompanies low breakout force, that will make an experienced pilot think it is coming apart. One can technically learn to fly in an RV but it is far from optimized for that purpose. No one ever learned to fly without making a single bad landing and a bad landing is a serious event in a tri-gear RV. If it starts to porpose something is very likely to be damaged. I agree with the observation that an RV is not a good plane to learn to fly in because its compromises are made in favor of performance and assume more than entry level skill to accommodate them. Oh well, Blah, blah, blah, we have had this discussion over and over in this forum and we will never reach a consensus.
Bob Axsom
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Well it is true
Also, I would also say as a former CFI (still have my CFI/CFII and MEI tickets) I would have an easier time teaching a student pilot in a C-152 because? envelope says, it is slower. Not impossible but it could take more time to get to solo and check ride. Could, because not every student is the same.
Now to make your point the Air force, Navy takes Zero time pilots for a ride in a jet on day one. Not that it is better. I also fly jets, and actually they are easier to fly, to be frank, and they have much stronger gear than any GA plane. Those hot jet jocks make crap landings too. It is just the planes are build like brick outhouses. With 12,000 hours, most in large jets now, I say I have had "firm one" on one or two occasions. It happens.
As far as RV-"A" flips, experienced pilots and less experience pilots have flipped. To point to just the pilot or criticize taildraggers as "they flip too" is counter productive. I think everything we know has been said. Build it properly (faining clearance), maintain it (air pressure and damper) and airmanship (keep the gear in the air as long as possible or min weight on it). There does seem to be a soft field risk factor, meaning flip risk is greater on soft fields.
Cheers George
Kahuna it is not difficulty to fly but it is robustness. As a former structures engineer (landing gear of all things) I can make an educated guess that the C-152 is more durable and tolerant of landing abuse than RV's. Not that the RV is weak but just not as OVER built. I know a guy who dropped his RV-6 in once and bent the mains. A simple (expensive and time consuming) gear leg change fixed it. So having a gear that bends is good in a way. It acts as a "fuse" of buffer from further airframe damage. The C-152 can wrinkle the firewall if you stuff it in on the nose, but it takes a real boner. I or none of my students ever bent a one (thankfully), but I recall seeing one or more of the schools C152 in for a firewall change over a several year period, at least two occasions.Kahuna said:
Also, I would also say as a former CFI (still have my CFI/CFII and MEI tickets) I would have an easier time teaching a student pilot in a C-152 because? envelope says, it is slower. Not impossible but it could take more time to get to solo and check ride. Could, because not every student is the same.
Now to make your point the Air force, Navy takes Zero time pilots for a ride in a jet on day one. Not that it is better. I also fly jets, and actually they are easier to fly, to be frank, and they have much stronger gear than any GA plane. Those hot jet jocks make crap landings too. It is just the planes are build like brick outhouses. With 12,000 hours, most in large jets now, I say I have had "firm one" on one or two occasions. It happens.
As far as RV-"A" flips, experienced pilots and less experience pilots have flipped. To point to just the pilot or criticize taildraggers as "they flip too" is counter productive. I think everything we know has been said. Build it properly (faining clearance), maintain it (air pressure and damper) and airmanship (keep the gear in the air as long as possible or min weight on it). There does seem to be a soft field risk factor, meaning flip risk is greater on soft fields.
Cheers George
Last edited:
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Cheap
Bob, your posting was spot-on in every regard. I would just like to add that Vans compromises are not just made in favour of performance...they are also made in favour of cheapness. Many people regard the RV kits as very good value for money and probably they are...but the fact remains that many of the components supplied may not be up to a reasonable aviation standard. I refer to the fuel caps, the fuel selector, the brake lines, the static system...it goes on and on. When their tyres wear out not many builders replace them with the brand Vans supplies..they get a decent set.
I'm not overly critical of Vans philisophy to "go cheap" because those of us who want quality can generally go outside of the kit and buy parts. For instance if you're not happy with the standard Vans fuel selector you can buy the Andair selector that Vans also stocks. Same with the fuel caps. Same with the static system.
However we can not go outside of the kit for a more sophisticated nose gear and the question must be asked: How much of the design of the nose gear complies with Vans philosophy of "going cheap". Put it this way: it would be hard to come up with a cheaper design nose gear than the current one. Perhaps in the final analysis the current nose gear is an over simplification of a relatively complex structural requirement...and for that reason it cannot be expected to provide what might be considered as a reasonable degree of structural redundancy.
If I closely monitor my tyre pressures; if I increase all my tyre to fairing distances; if I get my break-out forces just right; if I put a stake through the forks to stop the spacers spinning; if I get the axle torque spot-on; if I stick to known high quality landing surfaces; and if I make constantly classic landings....all will be well other builders assure me. Personally I'd rather pay more money and have a more sophisticated system that provides for a greater margin of error. I suspect many others might feel the same.
Bob Axsom said:
Bob, your posting was spot-on in every regard. I would just like to add that Vans compromises are not just made in favour of performance...they are also made in favour of cheapness. Many people regard the RV kits as very good value for money and probably they are...but the fact remains that many of the components supplied may not be up to a reasonable aviation standard. I refer to the fuel caps, the fuel selector, the brake lines, the static system...it goes on and on. When their tyres wear out not many builders replace them with the brand Vans supplies..they get a decent set.
I'm not overly critical of Vans philisophy to "go cheap" because those of us who want quality can generally go outside of the kit and buy parts. For instance if you're not happy with the standard Vans fuel selector you can buy the Andair selector that Vans also stocks. Same with the fuel caps. Same with the static system.
However we can not go outside of the kit for a more sophisticated nose gear and the question must be asked: How much of the design of the nose gear complies with Vans philosophy of "going cheap". Put it this way: it would be hard to come up with a cheaper design nose gear than the current one. Perhaps in the final analysis the current nose gear is an over simplification of a relatively complex structural requirement...and for that reason it cannot be expected to provide what might be considered as a reasonable degree of structural redundancy.
If I closely monitor my tyre pressures; if I increase all my tyre to fairing distances; if I get my break-out forces just right; if I put a stake through the forks to stop the spacers spinning; if I get the axle torque spot-on; if I stick to known high quality landing surfaces; and if I make constantly classic landings....all will be well other builders assure me. Personally I'd rather pay more money and have a more sophisticated system that provides for a greater margin of error. I suspect many others might feel the same.
pmercier
Well Known Member
not cheap but value.
Bob, I've hear that argument before, in the form of a better car. Can you improve the brakes, handling or safety of a car? Certainly but at what cost. I have to admit that I'm satisfied with the cars I've had, are they perfect? Far from it, in fact you can find fault in any car or plane or any vehicle. Everything is a compromise including the RV. But like my cars I plan on staying within the limits set by the design. I learned to fly in a C152 and notwithstanding the hardier gear setup, I always performed a soft field approach/landing simply because is made things easier all around on me and the plane. I equate cheap with low cost and poor value. Vans provides good value in their products. If I wanted to buy a 50,000.00 kit I would but the RV's fly wonderfully with great performance and at a price that no one can touch. From my perspective not cheap but perhaps the best value on the market.
(I don't want to sound like an add, just enthusiatic).
Bob, I've hear that argument before, in the form of a better car. Can you improve the brakes, handling or safety of a car? Certainly but at what cost. I have to admit that I'm satisfied with the cars I've had, are they perfect? Far from it, in fact you can find fault in any car or plane or any vehicle. Everything is a compromise including the RV. But like my cars I plan on staying within the limits set by the design. I learned to fly in a C152 and notwithstanding the hardier gear setup, I always performed a soft field approach/landing simply because is made things easier all around on me and the plane. I equate cheap with low cost and poor value. Vans provides good value in their products. If I wanted to buy a 50,000.00 kit I would but the RV's fly wonderfully with great performance and at a price that no one can touch. From my perspective not cheap but perhaps the best value on the market.
(I don't want to sound like an add, just enthusiatic).
Heavier Gear...
The Grumman's use what appears to be a very similar design, but the gear leg, attaching hardware, and nosewheel yoke are much beefier. I have seen failed Grumman nose gear, but never one that folded under.
Paul
(20+ year Grumman owner...)
N162RV said:
The Grumman's use what appears to be a very similar design, but the gear leg, attaching hardware, and nosewheel yoke are much beefier. I have seen failed Grumman nose gear, but never one that folded under.
Paul
(20+ year Grumman owner...)
Last edited:
rvpilot
Well Known Member
Cheap design?
I realize that there are some folks that have had some real problems, but there are also a lot of us out there who have really abused our nose draggers and not had any problems at all! Let's hear from some more of them! Where's your nose dragger been??
Bill Waters
Dang, I'm glad I didn't realize it was that much trouble to maintain my nose gear while I had the -6A! I'd have never gone into that 1000' pasture strip so many times. I'd been a lot more concerned all those times I botched my landings and banged that cheap nose gear! I wonder how many hours it's good for taking that much abuse?? How bout it Kahana, how many hours you have on the -A model of yours? I'm sure you had the break out torque just right, spacers pinned, and always landed on high quality landing surfaces!
I realize that there are some folks that have had some real problems, but there are also a lot of us out there who have really abused our nose draggers and not had any problems at all! Let's hear from some more of them! Where's your nose dragger been??
Bill Waters
freegespeed
Active Member
heard from eye witness
A friend of mine from my A&P program works at MYF, and he actually saw the crash in San Diego. His description was that the RV was comming in hot, bounced and then pitched way up, and then it nosed in straight down.
That sounds like a stall after a bounced landing to me, and not a nose gear collapse due to driving it on hard, or just the gear giving out because its weak.
I have a 6A so obviously I'm interested in accidents related to my type of plane, but I'll tell you this VAF folks, this plane is a pretty docile to land. I can't see all these recent landing accidents being any more then pilot ineptitude.
My friend also was the first person to get to the plane after it crashed and he said he just saw minor cuts and bruises so that's a blessing.
Just thought I'd add some insight.
A friend of mine from my A&P program works at MYF, and he actually saw the crash in San Diego. His description was that the RV was comming in hot, bounced and then pitched way up, and then it nosed in straight down.
That sounds like a stall after a bounced landing to me, and not a nose gear collapse due to driving it on hard, or just the gear giving out because its weak.
I have a 6A so obviously I'm interested in accidents related to my type of plane, but I'll tell you this VAF folks, this plane is a pretty docile to land. I can't see all these recent landing accidents being any more then pilot ineptitude.
My friend also was the first person to get to the plane after it crashed and he said he just saw minor cuts and bruises so that's a blessing.
Just thought I'd add some insight.
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
A model not abused
Check the photos at this link. Hopefully no one will get the idea that the A model is a bush plane, IT ISN'T. All of these locations had good non-paved surfaces, or I wouldn't have landed there. There has been some nosewheel-bashing by a few of the "Walmart-shopping-cart-wheel-draggers" (hereafter referred to as WSCWD ), most of it has been lighthearted but some of it has been poisonously bitter--no doubt an expression of anguish that they built the wrong airplane.
Seriously now, it is the responsibility of the PIC to judiciously choose which surface to land on. Choose wisely.
Bill,rvpilot said:
Check the photos at this link. Hopefully no one will get the idea that the A model is a bush plane, IT ISN'T. All of these locations had good non-paved surfaces, or I wouldn't have landed there. There has been some nosewheel-bashing by a few of the "Walmart-shopping-cart-wheel-draggers" (hereafter referred to as WSCWD
), most of it has been lighthearted but some of it has been poisonously bitter--no doubt an expression of anguish that they built the wrong airplane. Seriously now, it is the responsibility of the PIC to judiciously choose which surface to land on. Choose wisely.
kevinh
Well Known Member
rvpilot said:
This is probably the best unpaved strip anywhere, but I've flown my A into NV desert. Some ruts in the soil, but I did twenty or so landings there. I do believe the nose gear could be stronger, so I was very careful to make each landing a true soft-field.
PS: I will probably be changing to the new nose leg next annual.
Last edited:
this is an issue for potential Vans customers
This is my first post to VAF Forums but I've been a lurker for years. I've dreamt of building a plane before I had any desire to fly one (the first couple years I figured a RANS S-7 would be my starting point but have graduated to focusing on the VANS RV-7 since 2003. Finally last year I figured that I should start actually flying and am now at 80 hours.. I'm enjoying it greatly and I'm hooked!
The nosewheel collapse issue is a big deal for me (and probably many other lurkers and dreamers out there that haven't yet 'pulled the trigger' past buying the compressor and building the EAA table.)
I'm a new pilot so I still have a lot to learn (and understand If I'm lucky I'll never stop learning), I fly out of a small field with many tree obstructions (0A7) that can make for interesting wind eddys at times. I *think* I have a good feel for landing and have receieved many compliments on my soft field execution... with that said... I have set the nose down harder than I've wished in a 152 and a DA-20. I want a plane that has the ability to take a unexpected gust when waiting for the plane to settle. As a pilot I can control the great majority of the factors but not all of them.
I'm concerned about the A model and the growing history of collapses, especially posts within the Forums of owner/builders that have defended the nosegear to later return and post their experience with a collapse.
I understand there are many A models out there flying that haven't experienced a collapse, I'm thankful and hope they never do... but I'm a cautious person and understand that *stuff happens* and I don't want to be thinking about the nosegear on my A model every time I come into an airfield with less than perfect conditions. I'm not sure Van's company response/address of the nosegear issue sets well with potential customers.
This topic and this thread is NOT a nosewheel vs tailwheel debate... but for me personally it is turning into a decision between the two since I want to build a RV. I'd prefer solid tri gear but am torn with the current offerings.
I really wish Van's or a 3rd party would design a stronger solution even if it requires me to stay light up front with the engine and prop selection.
This Forum is an invaluable resource as are all the knowledgeable and kind people that contribute, Thank You All.
Stan Smith
- getting closer to a kit purchase
This is my first post to VAF Forums but I've been a lurker for years. I've dreamt of building a plane before I had any desire to fly one (the first couple years I figured a RANS S-7 would be my starting point but have graduated to focusing on the VANS RV-7 since 2003. Finally last year I figured that I should start actually flying and am now at 80 hours.. I'm enjoying it greatly and I'm hooked!
The nosewheel collapse issue is a big deal for me (and probably many other lurkers and dreamers out there that haven't yet 'pulled the trigger' past buying the compressor and building the EAA table.)
I'm a new pilot so I still have a lot to learn (and understand If I'm lucky I'll never stop learning), I fly out of a small field with many tree obstructions (0A7) that can make for interesting wind eddys at times. I *think* I have a good feel for landing and have receieved many compliments on my soft field execution... with that said... I have set the nose down harder than I've wished in a 152 and a DA-20. I want a plane that has the ability to take a unexpected gust when waiting for the plane to settle. As a pilot I can control the great majority of the factors but not all of them.
I'm concerned about the A model and the growing history of collapses, especially posts within the Forums of owner/builders that have defended the nosegear to later return and post their experience with a collapse.
I understand there are many A models out there flying that haven't experienced a collapse, I'm thankful and hope they never do... but I'm a cautious person and understand that *stuff happens* and I don't want to be thinking about the nosegear on my A model every time I come into an airfield with less than perfect conditions. I'm not sure Van's company response/address of the nosegear issue sets well with potential customers.
This topic and this thread is NOT a nosewheel vs tailwheel debate... but for me personally it is turning into a decision between the two since I want to build a RV. I'd prefer solid tri gear but am torn with the current offerings.
I really wish Van's or a 3rd party would design a stronger solution even if it requires me to stay light up front with the engine and prop selection.
This Forum is an invaluable resource as are all the knowledgeable and kind people that contribute, Thank You All.
Stan Smith
- getting closer to a kit purchase
designerX said:
I think there are two issues at work here:
1) Van's gear does not take the abuse that a typical GA aircraft will take. This isn't a big deal...the plane's designed to be light, fast and effecient. There's gotta be a tradeoff SOMEWHERE.
2) The failure mode when the front gear incurs damage is flipping. This is where some work can be done.
If you're going to have a nose gear that has the potential to bend and get caught up on all sorts of stuff on the ground, it would be prudent to also design some sort of breakaway feature where the gear will simply break instead of digging in. Okay, you have a prop strike, but that's better than a prop strike, wing damage, tail damage and possibly being trapped. Maybe the plane would just get caught up on the cowl and flip anyway....who knows?
All in all, it doesn't seem like that big of a problem. For every -A model that flip over, there appears to be a corresponding story of someone running out of gas or augering in somewhere, so it can't be THAT common. I happen to be building a tail dragger. This is because most of my hours are in a TD, and that's my comfort zone. I totally wouldn't hesitate to build an -A, and in fact when we were considering the RV-8, the -A model seemed to have some real advantages.
Don't let this stupid thing scare you off. It could certainly be better, but that's not the point....it's not bad to begin with.
nosedraggers
After a few hunderd hours in slow taildraggers the presumably unavoidable,"thems that have and thems that will". caught up with me and I parked a perfectly good Cessna 120 in a ditch. The 6a was already close to flying and after an absence of two years i jumped in with my brother who advised land it just like the 120. I never forget getting slow and nose high,no runway in sight and hearing the rudder horn and tail hook scrape. My bro chuckled and commented that it wasnt a virgin anymore. I was kind of upset but flew with a couple other 6a guys at the time and their approach was more to my liking. I began adapting. I have just under a hundred hours on the 6a and am still adapting my approach and landing speeds to daily conditions. I like to land on the mains. The most common thing heard about trikes is they are down and locked.On the other hand there are thems that have and thems that will. I miss my taildragger so maybe another day. I certainly wouldnt shy away from a trike even if they dont look as good.
flower child 13kn
After a few hunderd hours in slow taildraggers the presumably unavoidable,"thems that have and thems that will". caught up with me and I parked a perfectly good Cessna 120 in a ditch. The 6a was already close to flying and after an absence of two years i jumped in with my brother who advised land it just like the 120. I never forget getting slow and nose high,no runway in sight and hearing the rudder horn and tail hook scrape. My bro chuckled and commented that it wasnt a virgin anymore. I was kind of upset but flew with a couple other 6a guys at the time and their approach was more to my liking. I began adapting. I have just under a hundred hours on the 6a and am still adapting my approach and landing speeds to daily conditions. I like to land on the mains. The most common thing heard about trikes is they are down and locked.On the other hand there are thems that have and thems that will. I miss my taildragger so maybe another day. I certainly wouldnt shy away from a trike even if they dont look as good.
flower child 13kn
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
More soft fields
Indian Creek, Idaho
Stanley, Idaho
somewhere in North Dakota
rvpilot said:
Indian Creek, Idaho
Stanley, Idaho
somewhere in North Dakota
Last edited:
GO/NO GO Examples for My RV-6A
Rebel's Bluff, MO - Grass similar to Gaston's only better - fly into both with no hesitation:
[/URL][/IMG]
Hotel Serenidad, Mulege, Mexico - flew the red/silver/black Archer II in there several times but would be hesitant to fly the RV-6a in there because I don't want to abuse it:
[/URL][/IMG]
Meling Ranch in the hills inland of San Quintin, Mexico - dirt - soft in spots - significant upslope - one way in and one way out - Flew the Archer in but no way would I fly the RV-6A in there unless it was an emergency. (That groove in the middle is from an Arrow nose wheel)
[/URL][/IMG]
Bob Axsom
Rebel's Bluff, MO - Grass similar to Gaston's only better - fly into both with no hesitation:
Hotel Serenidad, Mulege, Mexico - flew the red/silver/black Archer II in there several times but would be hesitant to fly the RV-6a in there because I don't want to abuse it:
Meling Ranch in the hills inland of San Quintin, Mexico - dirt - soft in spots - significant upslope - one way in and one way out - Flew the Archer in but no way would I fly the RV-6A in there unless it was an emergency. (That groove in the middle is from an Arrow nose wheel)
Bob Axsom
Last edited:
tadsargent
Well Known Member
flipped plane
This one subject get's under my skin. First off I have a 7A and I am new to flying it, about 55 hours. I have a few hundred hours total time all in tri-gear airplanes. I have listened to many discussions on flipped aircraft and the one question I have in the back of my mind while someone is relaying a story is, what was your airspeed over the numbers? Go back to basic training. What did your instructor tell you about maintaining proper airspeeds on final. I use 80mph with full flaps only and I let the speed bleed off to 75mph just before the numbers. Stop the sink rate above the runway and maintain directional control with the RUDDERS. If you are hovering 1-2 feet above the runway should "the wind just left me hanging" happen to you, let it. The airframe can take it. Does any of this primary training information sound familiar.
An RV is NOT any more easy or difficuly to land than a Piper Cherokee. Either airplane will not take a hard landing without breaking something these are not jetfighters with trailing link gear. I would agree that an RV needs a little more FINESSE to land properly, but to say there is a design problem is crazy. The problem is pilot error.
I would build another RV in a heartbeat and yes only a tri-gear. Stop bashing MY Tri-gear RV and get some lessons from someone who makes good landings and this madness will end.
Sorry for the length
Tad Sargent
N130TS RV7A
This one subject get's under my skin. First off I have a 7A and I am new to flying it, about 55 hours. I have a few hundred hours total time all in tri-gear airplanes. I have listened to many discussions on flipped aircraft and the one question I have in the back of my mind while someone is relaying a story is, what was your airspeed over the numbers? Go back to basic training. What did your instructor tell you about maintaining proper airspeeds on final. I use 80mph with full flaps only and I let the speed bleed off to 75mph just before the numbers. Stop the sink rate above the runway and maintain directional control with the RUDDERS. If you are hovering 1-2 feet above the runway should "the wind just left me hanging" happen to you, let it. The airframe can take it. Does any of this primary training information sound familiar.
An RV is NOT any more easy or difficuly to land than a Piper Cherokee. Either airplane will not take a hard landing without breaking something these are not jetfighters with trailing link gear. I would agree that an RV needs a little more FINESSE to land properly, but to say there is a design problem is crazy. The problem is pilot error.
I would build another RV in a heartbeat and yes only a tri-gear. Stop bashing MY Tri-gear RV and get some lessons from someone who makes good landings and this madness will end.
Sorry for the length
Tad Sargent
N130TS RV7A
rv
I once had my nose wheel come loose on landing and experience alot of vibration, so I did a touch and go. All I did was a soft field landing and kept the weight off the nose wheel. This is something you learn when getting your license? At least in Canada, maybe everyone should learn to fly from Canadien instructors way less accidents then.
Scott
I once had my nose wheel come loose on landing and experience alot of vibration, so I did a touch and go. All I did was a soft field landing and kept the weight off the nose wheel. This is something you learn when getting your license? At least in Canada, maybe everyone should learn to fly from Canadien instructors way less accidents then.
Scott
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
tadsargent said:
I beg to differ, but the landing gear on a Piper Cherokee is an order of magnitude more robust than any tricycle RV. It is ludicrous to compare the two. If you put an RV(A) into a typical ab initio flying school the landing gear would be lucky to last a month.
Incidentally many low cost ultralights have trailing link landing gear, including the Tecnam, the Sky Arrow and the Jabiru. On the other hand not too many sophisticated planes have cantilevered non-steerable free-castoring nose-wheel designs similar to the RV.
It is interesting that you consider that every RV(A) that has suffered nose gear failure did so because of pilot error....even the one's that happened during taxiing and take-off.
It is also interesting that you obviously have more confidence in the original RV7A nose gear than did Dick VanGrunsven who opted to change the design last year. Maybe you know something that Van doesn't.
aadamson
Well Known Member
Ah, now ya went and did it.
Tad,
Ya know, I got blasted the last time I chimed in on this topic... so I *was* going to lay low, but you just pryed me out.
Have you heard of the "glass house syndrome"....in jest, but please.... Don't for one minute believe that this is *just* a training issue. That would be like running around with your hair on fire saying "I can't smell any smoke".
Let's just look at some basic facts.
- in "on airport" landings, this seems to be only an "A" problem (the non-A's may ground loop, but probably don't end up on their tops as a result)
- when an "A" flips, it "mangles" the nose gear - probably "looks like a pretzel" is appropriate
- This seems to happen more on "grass, dirt, and rough landing surfaces"
- experience doesn't *seem* to matter
- The design when subjected to "side loads" is not optimal (there are just too many angles that present compound loading with one another)
- while I haven't seen the *new* design, the trailing fork nose bracket sets very low to the terrain, somewhere around center axle to a little higher
- the combination of debris, low tire pressure, preloads and breakout forces not being *exactly* correct and checked and maintained that way, *may* contribute to this problem
With all the above, just play the RISK CONSULTANT. It's not hard to determine the risk, the areas to stay away from and the likely hood of having a problem based upon that RISK. But if you decide this doesn't apply to you and you fly an "A" model, the RISK is still there, you just elect to ignore it. That certainly doesn't mean it diminished or went away.
tadsargent said:
Tad,
Ya know, I got blasted the last time I chimed in on this topic... so I *was* going to lay low, but you just pryed me out.
Have you heard of the "glass house syndrome"....in jest, but please.... Don't for one minute believe that this is *just* a training issue. That would be like running around with your hair on fire saying "I can't smell any smoke".
Let's just look at some basic facts.
- in "on airport" landings, this seems to be only an "A" problem (the non-A's may ground loop, but probably don't end up on their tops as a result)
- when an "A" flips, it "mangles" the nose gear - probably "looks like a pretzel" is appropriate
- This seems to happen more on "grass, dirt, and rough landing surfaces"
- experience doesn't *seem* to matter
- The design when subjected to "side loads" is not optimal (there are just too many angles that present compound loading with one another)
- while I haven't seen the *new* design, the trailing fork nose bracket sets very low to the terrain, somewhere around center axle to a little higher
- the combination of debris, low tire pressure, preloads and breakout forces not being *exactly* correct and checked and maintained that way, *may* contribute to this problem
With all the above, just play the RISK CONSULTANT. It's not hard to determine the risk, the areas to stay away from and the likely hood of having a problem based upon that RISK. But if you decide this doesn't apply to you and you fly an "A" model, the RISK is still there, you just elect to ignore it. That certainly doesn't mean it diminished or went away.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
No bashing just genuine concern
The long spring gear angled FORWARD, like a pole vaulters poll is "dynamically unstable" (1) if the deflections become too great. Simply if SOMETHING ( ) gets it started bending back or to the side, that process tends to continue if the load applied remains. In fact as it bends the load increases, as the deflections increase, thus by definition its unstable, ie as it deflects, no further load is needed to increase the deflection. Look at the pictures.
(1) For this to happen you need lots of load to get it started, something like jammed fairing, soft ground and enough energy to get it deflected to the side and back. There have been "events" that happened which did not result in bent gear or a flip, only fairing damage. The key is keep the nose up till slow, or get it up early on t/o roll. I don't want to scare people.
Any comparison to a Cessna nose gear or tail dragger RV-6/7 is useless after a certain point. In the Cessna case, the geometry and structure are totally differnt. The Grumman and several experimental's have used this design with success. So the design is sound but every design has limitations.
However ALL planes can end up on their back, including a large jet liner. In the case of a tail dragger, well they are designed to flip over (attempted at humor). I have one and you can put it on its nose in the run-up area standing still if you push the stick forward, so thou without sin.............. However the Trike has to stand on its own 3 feet so to speak. Comparisons to other planes is useless, the RV nose gear is unique.
I agree that its not a panic, it is a limitation and proper pilot technique, maintenance (air pressure/damper) and installation (fairing clearance, new folk), should solve 99% of the problems experienced in the past. BTW if you do bounce, GO AROUND. Also of course and may be most important is airmanship, hold the nose off. One "theory" is heavy empty weights and forward CG's contributes. I think there is something there, but if it is, it's a small contributing factor. The roll the CG played in past flips is unknown.
No bashing my friend just caution, intelligent debate. When this came up a little over a year ago (a perceived trend) things where all over. Now we have much better info and understanding. It is not a bash fest, it is what it is. To ignore it or pretend its as stout as any bush plane is a river in Egypt, The De-Nile.
Just be careful. There may have been bashing and hysteria in the past but everyone has calmed down. A lot of good info has been gleaned from discussions, but agree with you that it's old news. Stuff happens.
One idea to "improve" the nose gear is add a "structural" leg damper, like some do with the mains. IN FACT add integral gear leg dampers on all 3 corners. Do you see many RV-8A's flipping? The whole "gear system" would benefit from stout gear leg stiffeners. (Hard wood stringers fiberglassed to the gear legs). May be it would not help but it could not hurt.
George RV-4/RV-7/B757 (big trike)
Tad I get your point of view and understand you don't want to hear negative things, but I have to agree with aadamson. Just be realistic.tadsargent said:
The long spring gear angled FORWARD, like a pole vaulters poll is "dynamically unstable" (1) if the deflections become too great. Simply if SOMETHING (
) gets it started bending back or to the side, that process tends to continue if the load applied remains. In fact as it bends the load increases, as the deflections increase, thus by definition its unstable, ie as it deflects, no further load is needed to increase the deflection. Look at the pictures. (1) For this to happen you need lots of load to get it started, something like jammed fairing, soft ground and enough energy to get it deflected to the side and back. There have been "events" that happened which did not result in bent gear or a flip, only fairing damage. The key is keep the nose up till slow, or get it up early on t/o roll. I don't want to scare people.
Any comparison to a Cessna nose gear or tail dragger RV-6/7 is useless after a certain point. In the Cessna case, the geometry and structure are totally differnt. The Grumman and several experimental's have used this design with success. So the design is sound but every design has limitations.
However ALL planes can end up on their back, including a large jet liner. In the case of a tail dragger, well they are designed to flip over
(attempted at humor). I have one and you can put it on its nose in the run-up area standing still if you push the stick forward, so thou without sin.............. However the Trike has to stand on its own 3 feet so to speak. Comparisons to other planes is useless, the RV nose gear is unique.I agree that its not a panic, it is a limitation and proper pilot technique, maintenance (air pressure/damper) and installation (fairing clearance, new folk), should solve 99% of the problems experienced in the past. BTW if you do bounce, GO AROUND. Also of course and may be most important is airmanship, hold the nose off. One "theory" is heavy empty weights and forward CG's contributes. I think there is something there, but if it is, it's a small contributing factor. The roll the CG played in past flips is unknown.
No bashing my friend just caution, intelligent debate. When this came up a little over a year ago (a perceived trend) things where all over. Now we have much better info and understanding. It is not a bash fest, it is what it is. To ignore it or pretend its as stout as any bush plane is a river in Egypt, The De-Nile.
Just be careful. There may have been bashing and hysteria in the past but everyone has calmed down. A lot of good info has been gleaned from discussions, but agree with you that it's old news. Stuff happens.
One idea to "improve" the nose gear is add a "structural" leg damper, like some do with the mains. IN FACT add integral gear leg dampers on all 3 corners. Do you see many RV-8A's flipping? The whole "gear system" would benefit from stout gear leg stiffeners. (Hard wood stringers fiberglassed to the gear legs). May be it would not help but it could not hurt.
George RV-4/RV-7/B757 (big trike)
Last edited:
fodrv7
Well Known Member
Attitude
With all this diatribe over nosewheels, it is apparent that the "Another One Flips' type posts have a lot of low time guys are getting twitchy about landing their Nosewheelers. Eh! Bob?
If you read Vans on "Landing an RV" he makes the point that you should have the aircraft in the "3 point" attitude for the touch down; whether it's a tailwheeler or a nose wheeler.
In my -7 that means only JUST being able to see over the nose, and that's the PICTURE YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR. I also means the thing has nearly stopped flying. Which is what you want. ALL the speed has been washed off in the hold off.
If under these circumstances you happen to be 2 or 3' off the ground, the landing won't be pretty, but nothing will even look like breaking.
If on the other hand, you contact the ground before the speed has washed off and you inherit a good bounce, just firewall it. You cannot stop an RV flying once the throttle is firewalled. Forget the embarrasment. I have gone around from a bounce in plenty of machines; Though not the B777. Sorry George. Firewall it you will immediately be in a brisk climb with time to think. Come back again off a good stable approach and concentrate on HOLDING IT OFF UNTIL THE SPEED WASHES OFF.
I didn't fly the B727 but my mates who did said that "You had never finished with the engines until you had finished with the wings".
Well with an RV you shouldn't be using the wheels until you have finished with the wings.
With all this diatribe over nosewheels, it is apparent that the "Another One Flips' type posts have a lot of low time guys are getting twitchy about landing their Nosewheelers. Eh! Bob?
If you read Vans on "Landing an RV" he makes the point that you should have the aircraft in the "3 point" attitude for the touch down; whether it's a tailwheeler or a nose wheeler.
In my -7 that means only JUST being able to see over the nose, and that's the PICTURE YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR. I also means the thing has nearly stopped flying. Which is what you want. ALL the speed has been washed off in the hold off.
If under these circumstances you happen to be 2 or 3' off the ground, the landing won't be pretty, but nothing will even look like breaking.
If on the other hand, you contact the ground before the speed has washed off and you inherit a good bounce, just firewall it. You cannot stop an RV flying once the throttle is firewalled. Forget the embarrasment. I have gone around from a bounce in plenty of machines; Though not the B777. Sorry George. Firewall it you will immediately be in a brisk climb with time to think. Come back again off a good stable approach and concentrate on HOLDING IT OFF UNTIL THE SPEED WASHES OFF.
I didn't fly the B727 but my mates who did said that "You had never finished with the engines until you had finished with the wings".
Well with an RV you shouldn't be using the wheels until you have finished with the wings.
tadsargent
Well Known Member
It is interesting that you consider that every RV(A) that has suffered nose gear failure did so because of pilot error....even the one's that happened during taxiing and take-off.
It is also interesting that you obviously have more confidence in the original RV7A nose gear than did Dick VanGrunsven who opted to change the design last year. Maybe you know something that Van doesn't.[/QUOTE] From Bob Barrow
I Don't profess to know anything about how to design an aircraft, I do profess to have the knowledge of landing one.
Hey BOB what are you flying these days.
Tad Sargent
N130TS
RV7A
It is also interesting that you obviously have more confidence in the original RV7A nose gear than did Dick VanGrunsven who opted to change the design last year. Maybe you know something that Van doesn't.[/QUOTE] From Bob Barrow
I Don't profess to know anything about how to design an aircraft, I do profess to have the knowledge of landing one.
Hey BOB what are you flying these days.
Tad Sargent
N130TS
RV7A
Jamie
Well Known Member
Bob Barrow said:
Except the Cirrus, Diamond and Liberty aircraft. And don't forget that Tigers are still made with free castering nosewheels. You can argue about particular (potential) flaws with Van's design, but I don't think you can reasonably make a blanket statement about the free castering nosewheel being a bad design.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Best Bob post yet
(Click pic to make it grow)
What you doing in Mexico Bob? Hummmm; What is at Meling Ranch, looks pretty remote from that angle. Is that on the Baja, near the Pacific?
Yes sir, Pilot N Command. You have pointed to the fact you have to think before landing (judgment). I wounder if anyone would be willing to put "soft field" kit on their plane. Here is the phonied up picture I made for grins a while back, but imagine having the same nose gear, but with bigger tire. I show the optional Tripacer gear.Bob Axsom said:
(Click pic to make it grow)
What you doing in Mexico Bob? Hummmm; What is at Meling Ranch, looks pretty remote from that angle. Is that on the Baja, near the Pacific?
Last edited:
aadamson
Well Known Member
In fact
Not only that, but almost all the experiments nose draggers use free castoring nose gear. While that contributes, it's not the real problem. The problem is the upper attach point, being behind and above the lower castering point, and the wheel fork being low and trailing.
Here is the Legacy sissy wheel, it's also free castoring.
And the fixed gear version in fairing and wheel pant.
L.Adamson said:
Not only that, but almost all the experiments nose draggers use free castoring nose gear. While that contributes, it's not the real problem. The problem is the upper attach point, being behind and above the lower castering point, and the wheel fork being low and trailing.
Here is the Legacy sissy wheel, it's also free castoring.
And the fixed gear version in fairing and wheel pant.
Diamond was mentioned and I noticed while watching Wings to Adventure this week they showed a Diamond landing and the pilot held the nose off as long as he possibly could. I probably wouldn't have noticed this except for the threads I've read on the castoring nosewheels.
Jamie
Well Known Member
Alan:
The build is going pretty well (other than a small hidden crack in the canopy). Doh!
Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but look at this:
Cirrus SR22
Diamond DA-20 and DA-40
Liberty XL-2
All of these aircraft seem to incorporate the same or similar type of fork the tri-gear RVs use. The notable difference seems to be ground clearance, which last year's change at least partially addressed.
I think these pictures of nose gear setups are interesting and helpful in this discussion. If anyone knows of any others, please post them!
I'm in the camp of believing that there isn't anything *wrong* with Van's design, only that there is room for improvement (as there is with almost any mechanical design).
The build is going pretty well (other than a small hidden crack in the canopy). Doh!
Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but look at this:
Cirrus SR22
Diamond DA-20 and DA-40
Liberty XL-2
All of these aircraft seem to incorporate the same or similar type of fork the tri-gear RVs use. The notable difference seems to be ground clearance, which last year's change at least partially addressed.
I think these pictures of nose gear setups are interesting and helpful in this discussion. If anyone knows of any others, please post them!
I'm in the camp of believing that there isn't anything *wrong* with Van's design, only that there is room for improvement (as there is with almost any mechanical design).
N941WR
Legacy Member
Are RV's built to learn in? That is the question.
One thing that everyone seems to forget is the RV series of airplanes is not a trainer so comparing it to one is a mute point. These airplanes fly faster, have quicker control response, and are not certified in the Normal or Standard categories. If they were certified in those categories there would be a number of changes. Those changes would add weight and slow the plane down.
So if you want an airplane with a more robust nose wheel, BRS, or any other feature not currently available, either build it in or buy another plane. It is all about choice. My choice included the tail wheel version of the -9. Why a TW -9? For the same reason I selected the tip-up, it is what I wanted.
When it is finished my lovely wife hopes to take flying lessons in it, insurance premium allowing.
Which brings us back to the original comment:
Having flown a Stearman, it is a wonder that any of the instructors and aircraft in that high center of gravity, narrow geared, tail wheel, and no field of view ahead plane ever survived the war (or me for that matter). The Arm and Navy (and myself for that matter) had the right instructors who knew the planes they were teaching in.
One thing that everyone seems to forget is the RV series of airplanes is not a trainer so comparing it to one is a mute point. These airplanes fly faster, have quicker control response, and are not certified in the Normal or Standard categories. If they were certified in those categories there would be a number of changes. Those changes would add weight and slow the plane down.
So if you want an airplane with a more robust nose wheel, BRS, or any other feature not currently available, either build it in or buy another plane. It is all about choice. My choice included the tail wheel version of the -9. Why a TW -9? For the same reason I selected the tip-up, it is what I wanted.
When it is finished my lovely wife hopes to take flying lessons in it, insurance premium allowing.
Which brings us back to the original comment:
The RV series of planes are not as forgiving as a Cessna or Cherokee but I?m sure any of the RV's will make a good trainer, with the right instructor.Baja_Traveler said:
Having flown a Stearman, it is a wonder that any of the instructors and aircraft in that high center of gravity, narrow geared, tail wheel, and no field of view ahead plane ever survived the war (or me for that matter). The Arm and Navy (and myself for that matter) had the right instructors who knew the planes they were teaching in.
For me that is not the question.
To me the point is not whether "RV's are built to learn in", the point is that the RV nosewheel strength is concerning to me w/the history of collapses (some of which while taxiing.)
I also don't think it helps defend the RV nosegear by bringing up examples of other aircraft that don't use the same implementation... sure they have castering nosewheels.. but the heft, angle, shock absorbing rubber grommets, etc make the difference... and I don't want to build a grumman tiger
So for me... since I will be a first time builder and will not have the confidence to stray from those that have come before me (and won't be attempting to design a stronger nosegear), I need to either go with the straight -7 (and start working on my tailwheel endorsement) or swallow what are perceived risks associated with the -7A nosegear.
How many soft field / rough field landings have some of you performed in your "higher time" A models?
Stan Smith
To me the point is not whether "RV's are built to learn in", the point is that the RV nosewheel strength is concerning to me w/the history of collapses (some of which while taxiing.)
I also don't think it helps defend the RV nosegear by bringing up examples of other aircraft that don't use the same implementation... sure they have castering nosewheels.. but the heft, angle, shock absorbing rubber grommets, etc make the difference... and I don't want to build a grumman tiger
So for me... since I will be a first time builder and will not have the confidence to stray from those that have come before me (and won't be attempting to design a stronger nosegear), I need to either go with the straight -7 (and start working on my tailwheel endorsement) or swallow what are perceived risks associated with the -7A nosegear.
How many soft field / rough field landings have some of you performed in your "higher time" A models?
Stan Smith
redbeardmark
Well Known Member
Thick skin
I'm a trike pilot and proud of it. The bashing won't stop because there are some sour grapes out there. Why? Because if there are two exactly identical RV's with the only difference being one is trike and the other is taildragger, the trike will have a higher resale and will sell much faster... and the insurance will be less. All of these non-RV-trike folks who are so "concerned" for us, well, that's just a smoke screen. You don't hear the taildragger crowd getting in an uproar about Van's tailwheel, even though an awful lot of them have changed to alternative, after-market tailwheels. The aftermarket tailwheels are probably nicer/better. But, the stock Van's tailwheel has worked just fine for a large number of builders/pilots. Maybe trike pilots should start calling Van's and snivel about the stock tailwheel--strictly out of our "concern" for our taildragger brethren.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with an after-market nosewheel--heck, there's enough hysteria whipped up that it would sell like hotcakes.
Don't let the "concern" of the WSCWD(Wallmart shopping cart wheel dragger) pilots get you down. You need thick skin when you're #1.
N598X 8AQB, 413hrs, numerous soft fields
Tad,tadsargent said:
I'm a trike pilot and proud of it. The bashing won't stop because there are some sour grapes out there. Why? Because if there are two exactly identical RV's with the only difference being one is trike and the other is taildragger, the trike will have a higher resale and will sell much faster... and the insurance will be less. All of these non-RV-trike folks who are so "concerned" for us, well, that's just a smoke screen. You don't hear the taildragger crowd getting in an uproar about Van's tailwheel, even though an awful lot of them have changed to alternative, after-market tailwheels. The aftermarket tailwheels are probably nicer/better. But, the stock Van's tailwheel has worked just fine for a large number of builders/pilots. Maybe trike pilots should start calling Van's and snivel about the stock tailwheel--strictly out of our "concern" for our taildragger brethren.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with an after-market nosewheel--heck, there's enough hysteria whipped up that it would sell like hotcakes.
Don't let the "concern" of the WSCWD(Wallmart shopping cart wheel dragger) pilots get you down. You need thick skin when you're #1.
N598X 8AQB, 413hrs, numerous soft fields
Jamie
Well Known Member
And what is your suggestion to help the situation?designerX said:
Comparing the Van's nose gear to other aircraft seems to me to be the fairest and simplest method to judge what designs work well and don't work well. I wasn't defending the nosegear design, only saying that the GEOMETRY of the Van's design is very close to the geometry used on other aircraft.
Oh yeah, the Cirrus and DA-40 are most decidedly not trainers.
Also, I'm only aware of one collapse that has occurred during taxi. I believe it was a 9A on a grass strip. Are there any others?
I'm also aware of the one involving the trike on a take-off roll that collapsed because the builder did not leave enough clearance between the tire and wheelpant and the pant apparantly created braking action on the nosewheel.
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
designerX said:
Stan--
I think you are asking (yourself) a very important question that is getting lost among the arguments of those who are sensitive about their nosewheels or tailwheels. Unlike one of the posters above, I don't think this debate (at least the substantive part of it) has anything to do with nosewheel or tailwheel envy.
I was exactly in your shoes last summer when deciding whether to go tailwheel or trigear. Many people on this list know how agonizing and difficult the decision was for me. I was definitely not against the tri-gear version (in fact, it was my first preference for insurance reasons), but I had read through the NTSB reports. Also, last summer there was a spate of nose-overs in a relatively brief period of time that led me to wonder if, every time I was on a soft or unimproved strip (which I plan to be on quite frequently), whether or not my nosewheel would tolerate a less than perfect landing. Ultiimately, like you guessed, I decided I didn't want to always have to be wondering that.
Keep in mind that Van's did slightly change the nosewheel design last spring. That may solve some of the problem.
Good luck with your decision, Stan. I've been there.
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
I thought about it long and hard too! I realized that if the strip is too rough for a 6A's nosewheel, then planes with tight fitting wheel pants, especially the newer ones with less ground clearence, have no business being there either. And this includes the tail draggers!
Let's be honest about this....
If rough strips are an excuse, then get an honest rough strip airplane such as a Cessna 185, Aviat Husky, Sportsman 2+2, with larger diameter tires, and avoid the wheelpants altogether.
In the meantime, I don't want to hear testimonials promoting a Van's taildragger with small diameter wheels, and low to the ground pressure recovery wheelpants, as some sort of "bush plane"!
FWIW, someone at our local airport, actually DID convert RV4 parts to a high wing taildragger. Would probably work great for getting into those rough strips without rocks hitting the flaps...
L.Adamson RV6A
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
L.Adamson said:Let's be honest about this....
If rough strips are an excuse, then get an honest rough strip airplane such as a Cessna 185, Aviat Husky, Sportsman 2+2, with larger diameter tires, and avoid the wheelpants altogether.
In the meantime, I don't want to hear testimonials promoting a Van's taildragger with small diameter wheels, and low to the ground pressure recovery wheelpants, as some sort of "bush plane"!
Agreed, RV's aren't bushplanes and definitely should not be considered such, but I don't see anyone arguing for this. There are a number of grass/hardpack strips here in the Northwest that a tailwheel RV could handle just fine without leaving me wondering each time I went into them.
