What's new
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)

L.Adamson said:
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... :D

L.Adamson RV6A
Click to expand...

Don't tease! :D
Let's see some pictures!!

Thomas
-8 wings
 
TShort said:
Thanks!
That is COOL! I like the radial engine, too. The man has good taste :D .

Thomas
-8 wings
Click to expand...

I'd forgot about the radial.....

It actually goes with the bi-plane built in the same hangar, but sure makes the modified RV look tough! :)
 
New fairing

When Van changed the RV7A nose wheel design last year he raked up the forks to improve the ground clearance of the forks and the castor nut. It was a logical improvement and in doing so Van followed the design of virtually every other free castoring nosewheel. I have absoutely no doubt he did so out of concern for the number of RV(A) nose gear failures and in direct response to the feedback on the email groups. The change is highly unlikely to have any adverse effect and will almost certainly improve the safety of the nosewheel to some degree.

However I question whether it makes sense to increase the ground clearance of the nut but not increase the ground clearance of the fairing. As George Jetpilot has rightly pointed out the Vans design is dynamically unstable. This is not a criticism of the design but simply a valid structural comment. For example helicopters are dynamically unstable in flight (take your hand off the cyclic and they will not fly a straight line). This is not a criticism of helicopters but a valid comment on the genre.

Being dynamically unstable it follows that any friction induced at the nosewheel exacerbates the structural disadvantage and therefore greatly increases the propensity for failure. This includes friction created by the fairing bottoming out. The problem is that when the fairing bottoms the increased load on the gear leg causes it to bend and for the fork mechanism to "nose over". This then results in the fairing digging in further and therefore more friction etc etc.

I would suggest that Van should redesign the fairing to follow the line of the forks. This would provide greater ground clearance initially, and in the event of the forks nosing over for any reason (tire grab, loose mud, long grass etc etc) it would still provide a clearance margin. I've attached a rendering of the proposal. It's rough but you'll catch the drift.

There's nothing structural to lose from this proposal that I can see and possibly a fair bit to gain. It might cost a knot or so in top speed but I bet most RVA builders would be happy to trade a knot for a greatly increased margin of landing safety. And there'd be no dollar cost implication.

Van might like to offer the raked nose fairing as an option and let builders decide for themselves. If he doesn't I'm betting it could prove to be a very very popular third party supply option.

my.php
 
flipped plane

Bob, not to belabor the point as you have, but you seem to have much insight into what Van did or did not do design wise. I did not get any of your insight when I talked to them today. Where are you getting your information as to why the design was changed. Is this direct from Van himself? If not call them they are a wonderful resource if information.

Second have you done a search as to how many Cherokee's and Cessna's have had a colapsed nose gear? When you do will you reply to this email.

Lastly Please tell us all Exactly what type of aircraft you fly now.
Tad Sargent RV7A
 
Grumman Tiger gear comparison

N162RV said:
How do the Grumman Tigers and the like fair in this regard? The seem very similar in design.
Click to expand...

No similarity in the main gear design. The Grumman American Tigers used fiberglass main gear legs each made of 90 layers of fiberglass laid up in a crosswoven pattern. I worked at Grumman American (Savannah) from 1976 to 1979. We never had a main gear failure. The things are impossible to break. Worst you can do is fracture a layer or two. As an example, we had one pilot who landed so hard that the mains flexed up into the wings and made nice wheel wells for themselves. After inspection the gear was certified as airworthy-no damage and put back in service. Not the same could be said for the wing skins.

The nose gear used a design that looks like Van's. I am a tailwheel pilot so I haven't looked at it closely. I know that the Tiger and its siblings used a similar single piece, steel tube that ended in a forged nosegear piece that free castered. The only problem I ever heard with the nose gear when I was at GA was that one pilot managed to literally break the forging. Of course he sued GA. So, we had a team of flight test engineers go out and deliberately try to break a nosegear including landing nosegear first, PIO, and the whole gamut. They couldn't do it. To this day nobody knows how the operator managed to break that gear. I guess it helps if you're not an engineer.

BTW: Other than the RV-8, the Tiger is about the sweetest flying airplane I ever piloted. Many happy memories associated with that airplane.

Chris
 
Grumman Gear Leg

Chris,

From my memory, You CAN break the Grumman (Tiger, Cheetah, Traveler, Yankee, etc...) nose gear, but not where folks think! The quite stout gear leg mates into a torque tube assembly in the fuselage, with a tube that runs across the front of the fuselage and is fastened into brakets bolted to each side of the fuse structure. What breaks are these attach points, allowing the tube to rotate in the fittings. This then allows the nose gear itself to swing up and down.

As a long-time Grumman driver (as I know many others are here!), I got used to bouncing the nose up and down occasionally, listening for a tell-tale "click" which would give away a broken torque tube. Not common, but not unknown!

I lovedmy big-engined Yankee, but after flying the -8, there's no goign back! :D

Paul
 
Pictures

So, for those of us that haven't seen the new "A" nose gear design... Can someone post some pictures of the two (old and new) for comparison. I'm very curious of how the looks changed...

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Fairing

Just thought I'd post a thumbnail print of the fairing I referred to in my post #49. You will note that the fairing angles up at the front to follow the line of the new inclined RV7A forks. Increases ground clearance when the nose gear "noses over" under load.

my.php
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Excellent

Thanks for the pictures... That helped a bunch. Those changes should help a bunch as well. It looked like on the strut that the primary change was shortening the attachpoint for the forks. May take a bit of the "twist" tendency out of the design.

Then the big change in the forks, that moves the pivot, for the tailing fork, up higher and should provide more ground clearance ahead of the tire.

Did they make any changes to the wheel fairing?

I'd love to see a picture of the two styles *on* the airplane without the wheelpant and fairing. Maybe there are two builders on the gear that could take side pictures. No need for anyone to disassemble their to get it... If we could get a relative perspective of the two from the side just to see what the design changes do in real life.

One things for sure, if I were an "A" driver, I'd most certainly update to this new design, it *has* to be better than the old one unless they used less quality components, which I highly doubt.

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
aadamson said:
Did they may any changes to the wheel fairing?
Click to expand...

No they didn't. And to be honest this is something that they should address because they are not taking full advantage of the increased nut/fork clearance. Dick Vangrunsven's personal response to me on this issue is quoted verbatim as follows:

"Regarding your concern about the revised RV nose wheel fork, that
of the issue that while the nose gear axel is shortened and thus
provide more ground clearance, the nose wheel fairing itself
remains a close to the runway surface as before. We do not
consider this a problem because; if the nose gear flexes enough
that the fairing contacts the runway surface, it will not tend to dig in
as would the axle stub. Thus, the component we feel most likely
to cause a problem, the axle stub, has greater ground clearance."

My argument to Van is that any contact of the fairing with the ground will increase the rolling resistance of the nosewheel and thus increase the forces on the gear leg. This in turn will cause the gear leg to bend and the fork mechanism to "nose over" thus driving the front of the fairing further into the ground and subsequently placing further additional load on the gear leg....and so on and so on, until the nut clearance reaches zero....and bingo you're suddenly pole vaulting the plane.

The other problem with not increasing the fairing clearance is that as the fibreglass shell bottoms out it risks being damaged and distorted thus pushing the fairing back onto the tyre, which will once again increase rolling resistance...etc etc. You just don't want anything causing a severe braking action on that front wheel !!!

So that was the reason I produced the rendering of my proposed fairing which rakes upwards following the new front forks and sent it to Van. See post #54. It's only a rough schematic to show a basic principle. Anyone with an engineering background will see that there is no possible structural downside to the proposal and that there must be some degree of structural advantage. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might cost a knot or two of top speed. From a purely personal point of view I'd be more than happy to trade a knot or two for an increased nosewheel safety margin. And as I've said before I think many others would too.
 
Mighty interesting

Hmm, well, that paragraph from Dick, certainly cleared a couple of things up. a) they were concerned that the fork could dig in... Yup, that'd get ya. b) he doesn't seem to appreciate your concerns and I totally agree. If that fairing hits, it will crack, break, move to cause more interference and then you are on the run-away freight train.

Are the fairings one piece or two? I've seen some that split in the middle in a cross section fashion. Would it be possible to just change one half to get the desired result?

It's really not too hard to pull a mold from an existing piece of glass. Course in this case, it might be easier to take some foam sand it to desired shape and then use some coarse weave glass and remake it with some fine weave on the outside to make finishing easier.... Course, if you are going to do it, do it in Carbon it will weight 40% less and be 40% stronger. Does anyone make a set of "pressure recover" pants for it that might already have a mold and could modify the mold slightly?

UPDATE:
I just went doing a little surfing, prehaps they guy could modify you a "front half" that would work...
http://www.fairings-etc.com/gear leg, wheel pant, nose gear.htm
 
Last edited:
Because I like beating a dead horse!

While at SnF I took notice of the nose wheel on the EuroFox. The EuroFox seems to be the latest rendition of the KitFox but I?m not sure so don?t flame me.

The tri-gear KitFox had a nose wheel very much like the RV-xA whereas the EuroFox seems to have a redesigned nose wheel. If you look close at the 2nd picture you will notice the bolt sticking out of the top of the wheel pants. It looks like they may have used a modified tail wheel.

Makes me wonder if this set up wouldn?t solve the nose dragger issue for good.
 
N941WR said:
The tri-gear KitFox had a nose wheel very much like the RV-xA whereas the EuroFox seems to have a redesigned nose wheel. If you look close at the 2nd picture you will notice the bolt sticking out of the top of the wheel pants. It looks like they may have used a modified tail wheel.

Makes me wonder if this set up wouldn?t solve the nose dragger issue for good.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering for months about the possibility of having the fork essentially be vertical and attaching to the gear leg above the tire vs. having it at a relatively horizontal angle and attaching to the leg in front of the tire. Is there an engineering reason that this isn't done? I know there are plenty of planes with a vertical setup, so why not modify the front gear of the RV to do this? I'm completely naive in regards to engineering, so I'm genuinely just curious whether it could easily be done, or if it changes the forces applied to the leg so much that it would be even more dangerous.
 
". .having the fork essentially be vertical and attaching to the gear leg above the tire vs. having it at a relatively horizontal angle and attaching to the leg in front of the tire".


Ive been thinking the same thing for my 9a.

I believe the reason Van placed the front wheel back on the firewall angled forward is due to the design of the Lycoming motor mounts (all support is at the rear of the engine, close to the firewall. There is nothing strong enough in the area under or forward of the engine. Any structure there will only duplicate existing structure and add "unneeded" weight given that the current design works most of the time.

I have to weld up a motor cradle for the rotary engine anyway; the front strut can probably be supported by the triangulated frame under the engine; the frame attaches to the firewall strong points. The motor itself will help to strengthen the wheel support. My biggest negative at this point is that the wheel strut bisects the the cooling intake duct if I use the "flying tiger" intake design I prefer.
 
Mike-

It sounds like you're talking about completely moving where the leg attaches to the firewall/engine mount. Why not just leave everything else as is and just mess with how the leg attaches to the fork? I'm sure there is some engineering that would have to be done because it changes the point in space over which the engine's weight rests, but it seems like it would be easier to deal with that than changing everything else on the firewall end. Personally, I think it's worth pursuing.
 
Castoring design

skelrad said:
I've been wondering for months about the possibility of having the fork essentially be vertical and attaching to the gear leg above the tire vs. having it at a relatively horizontal angle and attaching to the leg in front of the tire. Is there an engineering reason that this isn't done? I know there are plenty of planes with a vertical setup, so why not modify the front gear of the RV to do this? I'm completely naive in regards to engineering, so I'm genuinely just curious whether it could easily be done, or if it changes the forces applied to the leg so much that it would be even more dangerous.
Click to expand...


The free castoring design (a la Vans) is predicated on the azimuth swivel mechanism being some distance forward of the wheel axle. If this were not the case then the wheel would not follow in the direction of the plane during surface movement. It's the shopping trolley principle.

Having the fork vertical requires that the nose gear has an incorporated steering mechanism connected to the pedals. More sophisticated, more expensive, and probably heavier.

The Vans nosewheel design lacks any real margin of structural redundancy but in fairness to Vans this may be in part due to the generic nature of Vans kits whereby everyone is trying to cram a different model of Lycoming into their plane (remember the joke about Lycoming never having built two engines the same). It must be easier for a manufacturer who only has one engine, and one engine mounting, to come up with a more sophisticated nose wheel design.
 
Bob Barrow said:
The free castoring design (a la Vans) is predicated on the azimuth swivel mechanism being some distance forward of the wheel axle. If this were not the case then the wheel would not follow in the direction of the plane during surface movement. It's the shopping trolley principle.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh. That makes perfect sense. Thanks.
 
Bob Barrow said:
The free castoring design (a la Vans) is predicated on the azimuth swivel mechanism being some distance forward of the wheel axle. If this were not the case then the wheel would not follow in the direction of the plane during surface movement. It's the shopping trolley principle.

Having the fork vertical requires that the nose gear has an incorporated steering mechanism connected to the pedals. More sophisticated, more expensive, and probably heavier.
Click to expand...
True, but on the EuroFox the azimuth swivel mechanism is forward of the wheel axle, just as it is on these tail wheels. Think of what happens when you push one of these tail draggers backwards and you get the idea.
 
Oh no, another one :(

Just found this in todays accident data...

********************************************************************************
** Report created 4/12/2006 Record 1 **
********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 339DL Make/Model: EXP Description: RV-9A
Date: 04/10/2006 Time: 1800

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Minor

LOCATION
City: VENICE State: FL Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT ON LANDING, BENT NOSE GEAR, VENICE, FL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA

Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: TAMPA, FL (SO35) Entry date: 04/12/2006

Looks like another "A" had nose gear troubles? Anyone know any more?

Picture under N number http://www.eaachapter.com/rv9a/flying/flyingRV9_2.htm
 
Last edited:
Precisely how does the nosegear fail? Do they tend to fail the same way (i.e.) same area of the gear? What is it made of? What are its dimensions? And could somebody tell me where a good close up picture of the gear, preferably a pic of an intact one and a pic of a failed one.

I know a mech engineering Phd. specializing in materials. I would like to run it by him. Maybe nothing will come of it, but maybe something will.
 
Ward Johnson said:
Precisely how does the nosegear fail? Do they tend to fail the same way (i.e.) same area of the gear? What is it made of? What are its dimensions? And could somebody tell me where a good close up picture of the gear, preferably a pic of an intact one and a pic of a failed one.

I know a mech engineering Phd. specializing in materials. I would like to run it by him. Maybe nothing will come of it, but maybe something will.
Click to expand...

Over the years, the RV nose legs and wheel attachment
assemblies have gone through numerous changes, as well as structural testing and refinement in materials for strength. It isn't as though someone just drew it on paper & built the thing.

About six years ago, a new and improved gear leg replaced the original on my 6A. There have been changes to the newer models such as the 7 & 9.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
Over the years, the RV nose legs and wheel attachment
assemblies have gone through numerous changes, as well as structural testing and refinement in materials for strength. It isn't as though someone just drew it on paper & built the thing.

About six years ago, a new and improved gear leg replaced the original on my 6A. There have been changes to the newer models such as the 7 & 9.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Yeah, after I posted that I realized how silly it was. Sure, I am the first to think of something like that.
 
skid plate tested

Those of you who have monitored this thread may recall the fiberglass skid plate design I published for A models.

I mentioned at the time that the only way I know if it works is if I grind the bottom of my nose cone without collapsing the gear.

Well.... I know now that it works (at least to some extent). Both a hangar mate and I went through the same pothole in the circa WWII taxiway at our home airport (CZBB). He wrecked the nose fairing on his Cassut, and I ground mine less severely.

The outcome was that the skid plate stopped the nose cone from collapsing and causing the fork to dig in. I don't know for sure what would have happened without the skid plate, but the evidence was pretty convincing... the pattern of grinding on the nose cone was limited to the area aft of the skid plate.

Others may ask why I was in the pothole in the first place, but the fact is you can't see and avoid everything. FYI the pothole has since been filled.

FMI skid plate

Vern Little '9A
 
Vern's skid plate concept

Nice illustrations of your skid plate Vern.... good post! Thanks for the link.

I have done the same on my -7A with a small variation to your concept. I sandwiched a sheet of .063 AL between the nose fairing front cone skin and the flox epoxy plug to provide a bit more impact force dispersion of any sharp projections in a hole. I don't have pics of it but it is roughly 3"X4".
 
I believe Terry is right on the money on every count. I'm no metallurgist or mechanical engineer but it seems to me that more work remains to evolve the nosegear structure on these RV's to where it needs to be. Whether that's a re-design of the gear leg profile, a change in metallurgy (would this be addressed by someone manufacturing a titanium design???), or a complete clean sheet change of nose gear assembly design...this issue needs to be critically analyzed. To simply imply that one needs to fly more carefully doesn't mitigate the underlying risks that are present. This does not appear to be a case where a taildragger pilot groundlooped because he let the plane get ahead of him...this appears to be a weakness SOMEWHERE in the design. To say we are going to trade safety for a slim (read aerodynamic, "lightweight") nose gear assembly does not cut it.
 
Pics

Vern, do you have pics of the damaged fairing/skid plate or pics of the hole? Thanks, John.
 
John C said:
Vern, do you have pics of the damaged fairing/skid plate or pics of the hole? Thanks, John.
Click to expand...

Sorry John, no pics. I fixed the damaged fairing and painted it already. As for the hole, it's been patched by the airport owner.

The damage was triangular in shape, about 3" at the base (aft edge) and 1.5" in height, with the apex where the skid plate started. It took off the paint and a bit of the glass, so it wasn't a serious grind.

The hole was about 3" deep x 3' long by 1' wide. Actually there were several holes which have all been patched. I can take some photos of them as they are now and post them.


vern
 
This won't really be of any help to anyone, but I thought I post a couple of pics of what I consider a very good nosewheel design, with a very good shock system. It's our Diamond DA40 and DA20. They both share similar nosewheel designs, and in my opinion only, Vans could apply something like this, and put an end to some of these mishaps...

main.php


main.php


main.php


main.php


Just something to look at and think about... :rolleyes:
 
...also have a look at the rv10. I think its design is even nicer. Conceivably a similar concept to the 10 could be shoehorned into a 7 or 9.

Danny
 
Last edited:
Oversimplification

The problem with the Vans RV6A, RV7A, RV8A and RV9A nosegear is that the design is an over-simplification of a complex structural requirement.

There is no way that a bent rod fixed at one end and pointing forward with a swivelling wheel at the other end is ever going to perform well. It may be light, it may be cheap....but it will not have a high margin of structural redundancy and provide reasonable shock absoption at the same time. From a structural point of view it's a catch 22 situation....a more slender gear rod acts like a better spring and therefore provides superior shock aborption....but a thicker rod will have more resistance to buckling.

But in the strictest sense the RV nose gear does not really have shock absorption at all. It has a spring action (the flexing of the gear rod) but no shock absorber to dampen the loads. Watch a nose gear RV land on a semi rough surface...the front wheel bounces all over the place. So in the end the Vans nose gear is not particularly good from a structural point of view...or from a shock absorption point of view.

This is in contrast to the conventional GA oleo strut which has a pneumatic (air) telescopic piston that acts like a spring and is combined with hydraulic (oil) dampening to reduce bounce.

Any aircraft can be considered as a large number of different design decisions flying in formation. And in any aircraft some of those design decisions will be better than others. In the case of the two-seat RV aircraft the nose gear was not one of the better design decisions. Perhaps it could be argued that it was a more suitable design in earlier models which generally had smaller engines, timber props, and lower gross weight.
 
Last edited:
nose gear

Sorry, I didn't want to start another debate over the design merits of Van's nose gear. I just wanted to confirm that my design for a skid plate functioned to some degree.

I do expect Van's to offer some kind of redesigned nose strut that can be retrofitted to current RV's, but it won't be soon. There is a lot of engineering to be done, and 'obvious' fixes can have have unintended consequences.

The RV-12 will use a more conventional nose strut. The engineering work done for that design may kick-start an effort to upgrade the other models.

It may be counter-intuitive, but it makes sense to taxi faster and carry enough power to lighten the nose gear with full up elevator (aka soft-field technique). My mistake was to think that paved runways and taxiways were smooth.

Vern
 
vlittle said:
Sorry, I didn't want to start another debate over the design merits of Van's nose gear. I just wanted to confirm that my design for a skid plate functioned to some degree.

I do expect Van's to offer some kind of redesigned nose strut that can be retrofitted to current RV's, but it won't be soon. There is a lot of engineering to be done, and 'obvious' fixes can have have unintended consequences.
Vern
Click to expand...

Your feedback is appreciated Vern. All information helps. Personally I feel that Vans first immediate step should be to redesign the nose wheel fairing to take advantage of the extra inch in clearance provided by the new sloped forks which he has been providing for almost a year now. May I ask what sense it makes to increase clearance of the swivel nut but not increase clearance of the fairing. To me it makes more sense to take steps to avoid the fairing bottoming out than to beef it up.

But I guess we have two different situations here. You presumably have the old style forks. I have the new style forks.....but the old style fairing!!!!
 
Looks like there is a good opportunity for someone to design an improved nose gear that will work with the Van's engine mount with little or no modification. Surprised there isn't one out there already. Especially with people designing better mouse traps all the time to go along with RV's. Tilt-up slider conversion, DRDT-2, Bell tailwheel fok, .....

I looked into it a while back but decided to take a different route to end my nose wheel woes. It consists of off the self Van's parts.
 
N916K said:
Looks like there is a good opportunity for someone to design an improved nose gear that will work with the Van's engine mount with little or no modification. Surprised there isn't one out there already. Especially with people designing better mouse traps all the time to go along with RV's. Tilt-up slider conversion, DRDT-2, Bell tailwheel fok, .....

I looked into it a while back but decided to take a different route to end my nose wheel woes. It consists of off the self Van's parts.
Click to expand...


I'd hate to be the one redesigning the nose gear... can you imagine the costs of testing, and the product liability? I think it's Van's job to do this.

I can't quite reconcile Van's mandatory SB for the fuel tank pick-ups (one accident) and the lack of a much better nose gear design (multiple accidents). I can only surmise that they are working on it and will have a fix (or confirm the existing one) for us before some lawyer or insurance company forces them to act.

Perhaps the new fork/strut with the displaced nut is the fix, but it does not address the collapsing nose cone issue, which is what my skid plate does. I can imagine an old fork/strut with my skidplate being better than the new fork/strut without a skid plate. For those with the new fork/strut, please consider modifying the nose cone or building some type of skid plate to reinforce it.

We should be 'encouraging' Van's to keep improving things, because they are just as motivated as we are to improve. I'm hosting a builder's seminar at a local fly-in next month. I'll warn Gus to come prepared to discuss this issue.

Vern
 
I recently updated my "old" NLG fork for the newer model by shortening the leg and replacing the fork. As a part of that mod I figured it would do no good if I didn't increase the ground clearance of the fairing so I cut the bottom of the fairing front and back and then glassed in a piece straight across. It looks good and increased the clearance by at least 3/4 inch or more. I feel a lot better now when taxing across rough terrain which is inevitable. I have declined on a few occasions though to go to a fly-in because of a grass field and will continue to limit my exposure by making sound decisions on where I land. Basically if I don't have a personal report of the field condition of a grass strip (preferably by a fellow RV'r) than I will not fly into it. No fly-in is worth it to me to take that kind of a chance with my baby that I have worked so hard on! I do soft field techniques on every take off and landing (except very high cross-winds) and keep the nose wheel off the ground at all times when possible (I practice T&G's doing this). I trust the gear is plenty strong and don't worry about at all, but I am diligent to treat it with respect.
 
Walt said:
I recently updated my "old" NLG fork for the newer model by shortening the leg and replacing the fork. As a part of that mod I figured it would do no good if I didn't increase the ground clearance of the fairing so I cut the bottom of the fairing front and back and then glassed in a piece straight across. It looks good and increased the clearance by at least 3/4 inch or more.
Click to expand...

Would it be possible for you to post a photo of your modified fairing. I'd love to see it and probably others would also.
 
6/7A Flips-Nigerian AF

Based on the experience of the Nigerian AF operating 60 RV-6A's for years in a flight training environment we should be able to see what the actual accident rate from nosewheel issues is. Anyone got contacts with the Nigerian AF operation?

Another question: what about the 8A/9A accident rates? Any data?

From the Vans Aircraft site: The Nigerian project was started by a company in Nigeria to provide a primary military trainer for the Nigerian Military Air Force, and helped establish an industrial base in the country. After an exhaustive search, the RV-6A was chosen as the aircraft best suited to their needs.

The program included establishing a manufacturing organization within Nigeria, utilizing local labor. A total of 60 aircraft were built and delivered to the Nigerian Air Force as trainers. The RV-6A was modified to include extensive electronics, and other minor aerodynamic changes to suit Nigerian flying conditions.

The original contract was for 60 kits to be delivered over a period of time to Nigeria, for assembly. These kits were delivered, assembled and delivered to the Nigerian Air Force, and are currently the military's primary trainers.
 
Nose Wheel Collapse

Hi gang!

I've heard rumors of the nose wheel collapsing on some RV's. What are the facts (if any) to these rumors? Anyone out there had one collapse? I actualy had a pilot tell me that the nose wheel on the (his) RV is really only good for parking.

What's the skinny?
 
I had a friend who called Vans about this and the tech help person stated to him that the nosewheel was for taxi purposes only and not to be used as landing gear. By this I'm sure that they meant don't touch down on it first or bounce on it if the landing is bad. There have been failures, how many? Some have resulted in fatalities because of rollover if you read accident reports. Vans has redesigned the nose gear rod awhile back and recently a new nosewheel fork and different gear rod have appeared on the market. From this I believe you can determine there is something about the nosegear and make a conclusion yourself.
 
nose wheel pains

I have a 6A that is based at 8y6, Mn. Although there is a 1700' paved area for operations, it is only a paver width accross. I think those paving machines are 12 feet wide. The total length of the 18 36 strip is 3000 feet. Most of the time I can land on the pavement, but on a gusty crosswind day I use what ever is needed for a sucessfull outcome. I have had to repair the nose pant 4 times do to ruts on the taxi areas {dirt} and have just replaced the brackets on the pant because of cracking caused by the bumps on the sand and crack grass unpaved portion of the runway. When ever I must land on the grass,dirt, clump of weeds,etc, part of the strip, I hold the nose high off the ground until it will no longer stay airborn. The nose gear is quite strong for normal use, but I try for a main gear rollout all of the time. I would suggest that you try the same.
jDale
 
Robert:

I hope what Tonny was trying to say, in a constructive vein, is to use the search tab at the top of the forum screen and type in nosegear, for example. There you will find all the posts that dealt with that particular subject. If you don't find your answer there, by all means post a question. After all, that is what the forums are here for.


Regards,
 
Re: nosewheel

If it were not for questions, this forum would be worthless....

Sometimes to refresh old questions or comments invites new ideas or worthwhile info. Also, to slam a new guy gives the wrong impression of this forum IMHO.

Brantel
RV7A Emp Done Wing On Order
 
Not much margin at all.

Those who are interested in the nose gear collapse discussion will find that the following new posting on the Matronics RV site is well worth reading. Dan Hopper claims that his RV7A nose gear recently collapsed (causing big damage) when his fairing bottomed out. As he says: "When it starts ploughing it is not coming back up".

http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse/rv-list/0190.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top