What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV tipple over update from UK

koda2 said:
As the builder of '96 (older) -6A, the photographs of the 7A tipping over are distressing. I could not find the video but here is what I see from the 4 photos.
The a/c is a later RV-7A which should have the upgraded nose gear leg and looks like it has the later nose fork.
A number of factors show that it was traveling at a very low groundspeed, i.e. multiple reference points in the photos, the way the props are bent, the proximity of the initial prop strike in the sod and final resting point, the fact that at the second photo both occupants have already braced themselves for impact, and that the impact vectors are almost completely vertical, being absorbed mostly by the dome of the canopy, which appears to have broken, and the roll bar, which did not fail, and which forced the longerons and fuselage skin to crumple. Furthermore, there is no apparent subsequent disturbed ground and the rudder position has not changed, which it should have, after impacting if the plane had slid. Also the primary point of failure appears to be the nose gear leg at a point just above the fork since it is bent a full 90 degrees aft, but the rest is not visible. So, my best guess is, the aircraft was taxiing at a relatively slow speed, was arrested by the sudden stoppage of the nose gear, and flipped over.
Click to expand...
The photos are very high quality but the sequence has too many gaps in it to adequately make determinations on cause. The video posted on YouTube is indeed more revealing in terms of sequence but the poor quality does not lend itself for examining much detail.

In looking at both the photos and the video I would say that contrary to koda2's postulation, the video shows the aircraft to be traveling at a very high rate of speed at the moment of flip over. My estimate is approximately 40 mph. The video does not reveal whether it was landing or taking off but it was at the arrival/departure end of the runway moving at this high rate of speed. Because of this I would speculate from watching the video that it was landing and on roll out.

If one looks closely at the video there is a point just before the flip over when the nose dips downward drastically. I believe this was the point of the nose gear contacting the ground and the start of the failure. The quality of the video is too poor to see any detail at that point but the sequence does suggest that there was an instantaneous contact of the nose gear to the ground and an instant later the flip over occurs. It would be very helpful to have a higher quality video to examine and to have eyewitnesses report on this. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to have the pilot report but until any of these occur we are just speculating a great deal on limited information.

I am glad the occupants are safe. I hope they can recover from this incident and can continue to enjoy flying again in the future.

Live long and prosper!
 
LOOK AT INSURANCE.....

the_other_dougreeves said:
I am interested in a A model because of the simplicity of landing it and lower insurance. The nosegear certainly seems to be a weak point.
Click to expand...
As insurance companies pay off on things like this, insurance rates on the A's will go up!!!!!.... :(
 
Steve A said:
In the first photo, isn't the nose wheel fairing the white object under the right wing. I view this accident as landing with too much forward pitch and slamming the front wheel into the ground, causing the nose wheel fairing to fly off. That is what is shown on the first photo, I think.
Click to expand...

Nope. The white thing appears to be a runway edge marker... it's way too big and bulky to be a wheel fairing.

Man, you guys gotta stop looking at the pics and making assumptions as to what happened. How can you tell that there was "too much forward pitch" (whatever that is) and the nose wheel slammed down? Read the photographer's caption to the left side of the pic; "Towards the end of the landing run...", meaning he was probably traveling fairly slowly. The fact that he has full up elevator means nothing as to how he landed... it looks like proper technique, holding full aft stick on a grass strip. To me, that first pic looks perfectly normal; a -7A rolling out on the grass with full up elevator. What's to assume from that?
 
RVbySDI said:
If one looks closely at the video there is a point just before the flip over when the nose dips downward drastically. I believe this was the point of the nose gear contacting the ground and the start of the failure.
Click to expand...
Yep, definitely. But!! Notice that right before that first nose dip, the tail dips dramatically. The way I see it...

- nosewheel hit a bump
- tail dipped dramatically, nosewheel came off the ground
- nosewheel came back down, fork started digging in
- nosewheel/fork dragged for several feet
- nosewheel pogo'd, plane flipped

In my eyes/mind, this definitely started because the nosewheel came OFF the ground.

Stick back, full up elevator, huh? Is that really the prescription for every landing? I know it's easy to say that. What if the nosewheel had been slightly more loaded when it hit that rut? Maybe this wouldn't have happened.

I'm not encouraging anything. Just speculating that perhaps an unloaded nosewheel is NOT the best answer in all cases. A little load on it could alleviate some of the porpoising. If you're rolling out or taxiing on a surface that could "launch" your nosewheel, but you're slow enough that you don't have enough elevator authority to KEEP the nosewheel off and recover GENTLY, then I would actually argue that full back stick could contribute to an oscillation of a larger amplitude. Or at least would cause the nosewheel to come back down harder. I don't know. I just don't know what's right and wrong technique wise. I do know that what's right for scenario A may not be right for scenario B.

I don't know. I'm thinking maybe a quick reaction, coming in with power as soon as the nosewheel gets "launched" would help restore a bit of elevator authority. On takeoff this shouldn't be an issue. But on landing rollout, especially if you're braking, watch out!

Be careful out there. I think we can all agree that if the pilot had avoided that grass field that day, this wouldn't have happened.
 
Last edited:
lcnmrv8r said:
All this talk of the nosewheel has been hashed out how many times??

My concern was that of the canopy on the tip up. While both occupants were safe how about the integrity of the canopy? This is why I'll build the slider. I cannot get over NOT having that roll bar above my head in the tip ups.
Other thoughts??
Click to expand...
The tip-up does have a roll bar and it is closer to your head in the normal seating position. I don't know if that makes it any more or less safe.
 
dan said:
I think we can all agree that if the pilot had avoided that grass field that day, this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
This is a little disconcerting to me though. In my situation I cannot avoid grass fields (nor do I want to) because my RV will be based on a private grass strip. I personally am interested in hearing anything that is out there on modifications or whatever on these nose gear that will allow "safer" operation on grass strips, taxiways, etc.

One thing that I find very interesting is that Vans has already changed their original nose gear design on the RV12 from what I considered a fairly robust configuration that would work well on rough strips to one that copies this obviously weaker configuration of these current RV -A models. That original design for the RV12 looked like a much better design for the prospective use of the RV12 on unpaved runways. It was very different from what most in the RV community were used to but that does not mean it was not a perfectly good design. The design of the nose gear is definitely not an area of the RV where I think Vans "got it right"!

I am not in any way claiming to know something more than Richard VanGrusen or any of his staff engineers in the design principles of these nose gear but if an engineer continues to fall back on statements that "operator error" is the major contributor of these types of accidents and keep touting that the design is sound. Well, then I would say the engineer needs to go back to the drawing board to re-examine the design. If the inherent safety of a system is heavily reliant upon the high level of knowledge of the operator to make it safe then I would say the design is not inherently safe at all. It is becoming obvious that there is something beyond simple pilot error that is resulting in these types of failures.

Perhaps the original intent was for these aircraft to fly on smooth paved tarmacs only. If so, perhaps the fault should lie where it belongs. However, if the consumers need/want something more robust because they do indeed fly these aircraft from unpaved sites, how about a redesign that will look at something a little beefier to provide for those needs/wants? I for one will be more than willing to trade some speed, weight or both for ruggedness if that is what it will take to keep this from happening to me in the future.
 
If this kind of thing is still happening since the new gear leg has been deployed, Vans needs to do a systematic review of the RV incidents involving nose gear failures, and, unlike some of the alternative engine vendors, who supposedly have not been admitting their problems, publicly disclose what the findings are.
Click to expand...

Since I fly an RV-6 my dog is not really in this hunt on a personal level. However, I have many friends who fly -A planes and I certainly am concerned about their well-being.

I am confident this issue is undergoing systematic review at Vans and they have been forthcoming with fixes on their planes once a definitive solution has been determined. Unlike so many posters about the "nosegear problem", I have no answers or ideas as to how to totally eliminate this type of accident.

If not Vans, the FAA.
Click to expand...

No......NO!!!!! WE DO NOT WANT THE FAA INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER! This would open a Pandora's box that could end experimental aviation as we know it. If a builder is convinced the RV-A has deadly design flaws, then he should build a different aircraft. Our free market is capable of dealing with this situation without having the FAA legislating experimental aviation out of existence.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Our free market is capable of dealing with this situation without having the FAA legislating experimental aviation out of existence.
Click to expand...
AMEN to that! :eek:
 
HOW ABOUT THIS....

What we need is "THE REST OF THE STORY" This 7A might have been nose heavy. 360, c/s big alt. big starter etc. The flaps were still full down. That will load the nose more. Looking at the video, at that speed with the flaps retracted and full aft stick in my 6A, (320 f/p) the nose wheel would have been about a foot off of the grass. If he was on the brakes, the nose was loaded even more. No matter what, It's still a shame.....
 
Idle power and 10 knots is a condition where the position of the elevator has almost zero effect on nosewheel loading. It just makes you feel good.

Holding the nosewheel off the ground as long as possible reduces your chances of hitting a hole but if you hit a fairly big one, it doesn't matter, the gear will fold up. I agree with Dan, letting it down gently while you still have some elevator authority left is better than holding full aft stick and letting it slam down and going boing, boing.

Grummans have lots of cracked nose pants from grass operation and gopher holes but the bigger tire generally means it will be able to roll out without leg damage. BTW, Grummans have the same sort of shimmy problems that A models have if preload is not adjusted correctly. Ask me how I know!

The RV10 has a nice setup with a thick, stiff, tubular leg and rubber donut springs like a Mooney, plus a big tire. I'd have no qualms about operating my -10 off reasonable grass strips.

Undoubtedly a bigger tire using a revised fork design and internal skid would help eliminate many of these failures. I see a good aftermarket opportunity here for someone. If I wasn't so busy...

One thing that hasn't helped the situation is all the O-360 planes with heavy C/S props and heavy auto engines, loaded up with heavy panels. I doubt if any planes built today are anywhere near the nosewheel weight of Van's 6A prototype.

The leg itself isn't so bad, you just can't expect it to take loads like this.

I'm still a big fan of castoring nosewheels for tight turning and low maintenance and they work fine on pavement.
 
Last edited:
While everyone is postulating about how to "fix" the RV nose gear, why don't we actually wait and see how the new fork works? My understanding is that there has not yet been a failure with the new design.

The fact is that no nose gear can take the entire weight of the airplane -- it's going to fail. When the nose gear digs in and the weight of the entire airplane shifts onto the gear it's going to fail. The #1 thing that needs to be fixed is digging in -- which the new nose gear fork helps remedy. So let's see how it goes.

Is anyone aware of a failure of the new design?
 
I Modified my NLG to the new style

I do fly off grass sometimes and at most fly-ins taxi across grass to parking. IMO this was at least an improvement from the previous fork design but I would still like to see a redesigned stronger leg/larger wheel etc. I modified my fairing to take advantage of the increased clearance from the new fork. I also change the tire every year and keep it at 35-40psi.

NLG1.gif


NLG3.gif


NLG2.gif
 
As a builder of a 9A I am very curious too. I have watched the video a hundred times. All I see is the plane is on the ground rolling out, then the nose pitches up and then back down quickly. It looks like the pilot pulled the nose off and then shoved it back down. I sure wish there was a better quality video of the accident. I don't know if he had enough speed to do that but he looked a little fast.
 
rv9aviator said:
As a builder of a 9A I am very curious too. I have watched the video a hundred times. All I see is the plane is on the ground rolling out, then the nose pitches up and then back down quickly. It looks like the pilot pulled the nose off and then shoved it back down. I sure wish there was a better quality video of the accident. I don't know if he had enough speed to do that but he looked a little fast.
Click to expand...

Where is this video? Can someone repost the link? The previous one doesn't seem to work.
 
Just finished looking at the picture series and the video. Since I'm building an A I am riveted to this issue. The first picture tells a lot (I think). If you look closely at the ground it's fairly uneven and it looks to me like there are some fairly significant but small hills and valleys that the front wheel is passing through. Leading me to think that the runway perhaps was being over used by whatever event was going on. Was there an event going on? Looking at the video over and over I see an oscillation fairly early in the roll and passes somewhat out of view behind a parked aircraft as it comes out from behind and back into view it looks like it begins another fairly abrupt oscillation of long frequency and once full weight is reapplied to the wheel the system collapses and the gear (or some part of it digs into the ground and the flip over begins. That's how it looks to me.
 
Walt,
I know pictures are worth a thousand words, and all that, but since I am not at the stage to be working on my nose gear yet, can you give some description of what your pictures are showing as far as your mods go? What is the before and after mod changes that you made? Did you make specific modifications yourself or did you just utilize the new fork? It does look like you have several inches of clearance. What is the contributing factor for this?

On a general note does anyone know if we can place larger tires/wheels on these nose gear? What would be involved in any modifications if doing so? Is mounting larger tires on the existing gear possible?
 
Nice nosewheel fairing

Walt, after seeing the beautiful paint job on your nosewheel, we need to see the rest of the aircraft!
 
RVbySDI said:
Walt,
I know pictures are worth a thousand words, and all that, but since I am not at the stage to be working on my nose gear yet, can you give some description of what your pictures are showing as far as your mods go? What is the before and after mod changes that you made? Did you make specific modifications yourself or did you just utilize the new fork? It does look like you have several inches of clearance. What is the contributing factor for this?
Click to expand...

After removing the leg and having 1" cut off to accomodate the newly designed fork I then cut the fairing up 1" and glassed in in flat on the bottom. This way I took full advantage of the new fork and increased clearance it provides. From a normal angle looking at the NLG you can not really see much difference but I gained a full inch or clearance from the original 2" clearance. May not seem like much but every little bit helps!

Here's a pic of the rest of the plane compliments of Doug:

8.jpg
 
Ok, here's something else to consider. Wind.

You're on your landing rollout, rolling along at say 25 mph groundspeed. You have the stick full back, and the nosewheel is just barely rolling on the ground. You don't have enough elevator authority to lift the nosewheel off, but you're kinda on that hairy edge.

The wind picks up a bit momentarily. Your nosewheel now comes off the ground. Maybe you react by relaxing back pressure, maybe not. Wind dies down, nose comes back down...maybe harder than you wanted it to.

Ok, show of hands, how many people have had that happen before? (My hand is raised...I used to fly nosewheels.)
 
dan said:
Ok, here's something else to consider. Wind.

You're on your landing rollout, rolling along at say 25 mph groundspeed. You have the stick full back, and the nosewheel is just barely rolling on the ground. You don't have enough elevator authority to lift the nosewheel off, but you're kinda on that hairy edge.

The wind picks up a bit momentarily. Your nosewheel now comes off the ground. Maybe you react by relaxing back pressure, maybe not. Wind dies down, nose comes back down...maybe harder than you wanted it to.

Ok, show of hands, how many people have had that happen before? (My hand is raised...I used to fly nosewheels.)
Click to expand...

One of the posters on the PPRUNE list said they just had a runway change.....

I don't think these technique issues are of consequence though, because we have heard of at least three low speed taxi problems that had the same issue.
 
Flipping VANS

I completed my -9A in April '05 and sold it that autumn. It was clear to me that the aircraft was not a grass strip aeroplane, and I think my views have been more than confirmed. I never damaged the fairing, but it was clear the nosegear was an accident waiting to happen on grass. (My -9A was almost exactly the same as VANS demonstrator in terms of CofG and gross.)

Several people have sugested that for that sort of flying a Maul or Supercub is better, and for rough grass strips of course they are. The problem is that VANS do not sell it that way. If you read their blurb it now sais " Its short field performance permits it to easily use all the ?fun? airports around." I took the time/money to fly to Oregon and talk about my mission and my strip. VANS was adamant that a nosewheel -9A was the plane for the job. When I completed it it clearly was not, except when the strip was baked hard by the sun. (Not a usual situation in the UK!)

It easily copes with short runways, but not with grass surfaces ALL the time. In terms of distance it could equal my Supercub on landing distance and beat it on takeoff.

While I am in the UK, I have not flown into the grass strip where the accident happened this weekend. I have no reason to believe it is other than a normal (for the UK and much of the world) grass strip. The video shows the plane rolling perhaps quite fast, but then planes sometimes do. I can see nothing unreasonable on the part of the pilot. My experience was that except on concrete you just could not keep the nose up long enough because of the rolling resistance combined with the long main gear legs.

Why do I write this (again)? Because I feel that anyone considering a -9A (I have no 6A or 7A experience and am not sure the -7A uses such long main gear legs as the -9A?) should be aware that they must stick to hard runways to be safe. It would seem the -7A exhibits the same problem.

And yes, I have owned a Maule and a -9a, lots of sailplanes, have a Supercub and am building a -4. Perhaps 5% total of my flying is off hard runways and 10% total with a nosewheel.
 
First, gotta say that I love the paint job, Walt. Wow.

I like the vertical clearance you have on the nosewheel. If that's "enhanced" clearance, I don't want to think about the original!

I suspect that the increased vertical clearance and good side clearance on the wheel will help. However, I think that some sort of a skid plate on the nose gear would really help the NG from digging in and flipping the airplane "pole vault" style. If the NG collapsed, I think you're better off with it skidding than digging in. That's a much more benign failure mode, at least to me.
 
Steve Sampson said:
Why do I write this (again)? Because I feel that anyone considering a -9A (I have no 6A or 7A experience and am not sure the -7A uses such long main gear legs as the -9A?) should be aware that they must stick to hard runways to be safe. It would seem the -7A exhibits the same problem.
Click to expand...

And what about RV9A owners who are based, and been flying off grass strips for several years now?

I know one who maintains an extensive web site of flying activities, and I have not seen a worried mention about takeoffs or landings at his grass strip.
 
Walt said:
After removing the leg and having 1" cut off to accomodate the newly designed fork I then cut the fairing up 1" and glassed in in flat on the bottom. This way I took full advantage of the new fork and increased clearance it provides. From a normal angle looking at the NLG you can not really see much difference but I gained a full inch or clearance from the original 2" clearance. May not seem like much but every little bit helps!

Here's a pic of the rest of the plane compliments of Doug:

8.jpg
Click to expand...
I think I am beginning to see the picture in my mind of your mods. Since I have not started yet I am a little fuzzy but I am sure when I start work on it I will begin to see.

Oh, yeah, by the way. THAT IS A BEAUTIFUL PAINT JOB!!! In fact, I do believe your plane is the one I showed my wife a year or so ago. She said that is the paint scheme she wants for our RV9A. Painting is such a long way in the distance I am not quite ready to commit to a scheme but I know she would be very happy to have our plane turn out that good.

If you are in the Dallas area you are not too far from us. If you ever get a hankering (for all you northerners out there, that is a southern term) to fly up north from your location. I would love to have my wife look at your bird in person. We have a 3000' lighted grass strip straight north of Dallas. As the RV flies it is about 45 minutes to an hour from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. We would love to invite you up and take you out for the best steak dinner I guarantee you have every eaten. Actually that invite goes for anyone interested in doing so from down "Dallas way" (or anywhere for that matter).
 
Finally got the video to work and I agree that there is more speed in the landing roll than the still pictures would indicate and with the comments about the pitch ups. However, the still pix show the nose gear apparently intact until just before it finally tips. Enough speculation. Hopefully the facts will come out.
Can someone explain more about if or how the new nose fork design can be implemented on a 6A? Is the thicker gear leg compatible with the newer fork? Any data to show that the new design actually is better? I know my nose gear fork is the original issue.
Dave A.
-6A
 
Vans responsibility for design!

Hello fellow builders/flyers,

Although I am building an RV9A, I have been flying C152's and 172's so far, never had the chance to fly an RV9 yet. I do not know how many times I "hit the pavement nosewheel first", or "bounced", made a "misjudgement", had to "step on the brakes", or landed on a perfectly good looking grass trip that turned out to be a "bumpy old field, full of potholes", etc. etc.. OK, I am a student (some 250 hrs PIC, so far) and need to improve my technique, but anybody thinking that every landing he makes is a perfect landing is only kidding himself until, he is hitting, bouncing, misjudging or bumping and..........flips!!

I must have driven more than 1.000.000 km in many cars over the last 28 years. I still take a corner to quick sometimes, make a misjudgement sometimes, have to step on the brakes because I am distracted sometimes, etc. etc. sometimes, sometimes. There has always been some margin and safety in the design of the car and......... everything turned out right in the end!

So what I understand from these posts and many more on this forum: there seems to be no margin at all in the design of the A-type! It looks like every, even minor, pilot error will cause the "A" to flip! And remember, after 1.000 hrs, or 10.000 hrs, or even more, nobody is perfect!

Do you remember the Mercedes "A"-type? Somewhere in Norway (or was it Sweden?) somebody flipped a car when avoiding a Moose and the whole world was on its behind legs, because the Mercedes "A" was thought to be unsafe! 95% of the world does not even have any Moose!, but still, Mercedes changed the design to make sure that could not happen again. After dozens of "A"-type Vans-aircraft have flipped, Vans does not even show any interest and does the whole thing off as "poor pilot technique". To me that is the ostrich sticking its head in the sand! (sorry about the "A"-similarity, totally unintended). There is always going to be "poor pilot technique" at some stage.

I have ordered my finish kit and as soon as it arrives I am going to look into what is needed to redesign to allow the installation of a larger nosewheel, give more ground clearance and what can be done to dampen the nosegear. To me that is what is (at least) necessary to give me some more margin. That is if Vans have not done something about it by then! (which I doubt, given the history)

Sorry about it, this is my first "negative" post , but its to trivial to just let it go by.

Regards, PilotTonny
 
Impromptu NTSB Survey

Just did a real quick search of all RV-6A accidents on the NTSB site and it was kind of sobering. Like I said, I did it real quick so I could be off here a little. Maybe even a lot.
56 accidents, 22 of which mention nose wheel collapse.
Of the ones with nose gear collapse mentioned,
19 certified after 2000
3 certified before 2000
Could not tell by the N number when the kit was bought, just certified.
There were others with collapse but they were the result of off airport landings, fuel starvation etc. The ones mentioned here were generally soft /grass field landings. Anyone know if Van is keeping any records on this.
The original Van's video of "OLD BLUE" on that grass strip of Van's is what sold me on the A in the first place. I"m really thinking technique is everything.
I'm sure a person could take the nose gear of a C-150 pretty easy if he wasn't careful.
 
I once used these excuses for deciding to build an "A" model:

1. Easier to land.
2. Insurance is less
3. At the time the cost was less.

Now all of these excuses are reversed or negated.
With all the rules and technique involved one could argue that they are not easier to land. Insurance has risen up to equal with the taildraggers. Won't be long with these flips occuring, the "A" insurance will cost more soon. The taildragger kit is now almost 1K cheaper.

Guess that is why I am glad that when I finally ordered my fuse that I circled "7".
 
After dozens of "A"-type Vans-aircraft have flipped, Vans does not even show any interest and does the whole thing off as "poor pilot technique". To me that is the ostrich sticking its head in the sand! (sorry about the "A"-similarity, totally unintended).
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like a Vans cheerleader (I have no desire to be a Vans' apologist) it is imperative to reply to some of the comments being made during this most recent string of posts about the -A models.

Why do you state Vans "doesn't show any interest" in the design of the nosegear? If there was indeed no interest, there would have been no redesign of both of the gear leg and fork. If there was no interest in safety, there would have been no recall of defective gear legs several years ago. On the contrary, their history suggest that a high corporate priority is placed on design enhancement.

If I was to speculate about this matter, it would be along the lines that Vans hasn't decided how to modify the gear and still have an aircraft that looks, flies, performs and assembles like an RV. If there was an easy and obvious answer, the mods probably would have been issued long ago (or been a part of the original design).

I'm not intent on carrying Vans' water, just think we need to be careful about making hasty and unfounded statements about a company's ethics especially when prospective and current builders often consider everything they read on internet forums as aviation gospel.

Done. :)
 
Brantel said:
3. At the time the cost was less.

The taildragger kit is now almost 1K cheaper.

Guess that is why I am glad that when I finally ordered my fuse that I circled "7".
Click to expand...
I don't think the tri-gear kit was ever less than the tail dragger kit. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
 
L.Adamson said:
And what about RV9A owners who are based, and been flying off grass strips for several years now?

I know one who maintains an extensive web site of flying activities, and I have not seen a worried mention about takeoffs or landings at his grass strip.
Click to expand...

Mr Adamson (you seem a bit short of a first name.) My suggestion is either, i) keep the grass rock hard, or ii) keep working at it. Sooner or later it may get you.

As someone else said, the stats make sober reading. I am sure none of the pilots who have flipped over were expecting to do that on that particular day either.

Cheap insurance for anyone who has not made the 'A' decision yet would be build a taildragger, or keep off the grass. Sorry to bang on about this but I feel really bad for the pilots who suddenly destroy their pride and joy without warning because of a weakness in the design. Pilottonny said it right.
 
koda2 said:
The a/c is a later RV-7A which should have the upgraded nose gear leg and looks like it has the later nose fork.
RV-6A
Click to expand...
(message # 49)

Hard to tell, but it looks more like the older fork to me.

Fin9A
 
Why was "A-tipple over" thread closed ?

After only one day and many, many, posts the "A- Tipple over" thread was closed. By who? and why? To me it looked like a good discussion about a serious safety issue! I was hoping it would result in a practical solution, rather than: "practice-your-landings-and-keep-your-fingers-crossed-every-time-you-touch-down-(and-taxi)" I did not see any swearing, bashing or anything like that in this thread. It may have been that some people (myself included), have expressed that Vans should chime in and maybe even improve the design, but that should not be a reason to close the discussion, is it?

Anyway, Doug, let us know!

Regards, PilotTonny



 
This is for pilottony. This is the -A tipple thread pushed to the top again. Not closed. Just no posts recently.
 
After seeing the video, is it possible that brakes were being applied too hard? That would cause the nose to pitch down and put more weight on the nosewheel even tho full up elevator was being applied. Add that to the uneven surface that might have been soft as well and it could be a factor in the flip.
 
Yes, Yes, Jeff great idea. If he saw the end of the strip rushing up at him, he could have panicked and applied the brakes with the nose off the ground.
This would cause the nosewheel to bounce like it does.

However, we can't ignore all the evidence of issues at slow taxi speeds too. This nosegear is not built for grass. I hope the Egg guys are listenening. That H-6 is really going to load up that nosegear on grass.
 
"Closed" not unfindable!

Yukon, it did say "Thread closed", where you wil normally see post reply. After klicking on it, a box came up, saying: "Sorry, this thread is closed"

OK, I saw it was re-opened now,..... strange!?

Regards, PilotTonny.
 
There are quite a few administrators on this board who can close and/or re-open a thread. Obviously someone decided that the thread should not have been closed.
 
I didn't close it, but I did re-open it.

I saw that it was closed when I woke up this morning and researched. One of the many moderators might have thought the exchanges were getting too personal. I deleted two replies that IMO crossed the line and re-opened the thread.

No hidden agenda, just trying to run a good ship (rules). These TW vs. NW vs. Tip-Up vs Slider vs Lycosaurus vs Auto-fuel vs. primer vs. etc. threads seem to be spring-loaded for conflict, so we (I expecially) try to make sure everything remains civil.

Good debate here and I always encourage talk of safety.

Best always,
Doug
 
Last edited:
Jamie said:
There are quite a few administrators on this board who can close and/or re-open a thread. Obviously someone decided that the thread should not have been closed.
Click to expand...

edit: nevermind
Doug R explained it.

L.Adamson
 
Mel said:
I don't think the tri-gear kit was ever less than the tail dragger kit. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

What I meant to say was that the cost thru the fuselage used to be cheaper by about $500 for the 7A now it is $630 more than the 7. Overall the A is more and always has been I guess. The thing is, when you are paying for these things a dime at a time, getting to the fuse as cheap as possible was my priority at the time.
 
Time to chime in on RV-9A vs. -7A, et. al.

I am finally here, albeit a bit late in the postings. I am the guy L. Adamson mentioned with the RV-9A flying from a grass strip near Chattanooga, TN. Yes, it is usually baked pretty hard due to the recent drought in this area. I landed on it last year coming back from Denver with plenty of fuel aboard, solo, just after it rained, and at sunset. This view looking south on the 2,500' of runway was taken on the morning of May 20, 2007.
DSCS0046.JPG


This second photo was taken June 10, 2005 before I started flying from the grass strip. This is about 1,600 feet from the north end looking north, but not near the south end.
DSCM0094.JPG


I have had only ONE mishap at another grass field EARLY in my phase 1 testing when I dropped in on the mains, bounced the nose wheel, and executed a go-around instead of a botched landing. I had the wheel fairings trimmed too close to the tire and it "grabbed" the fairing during the bounce putting cracks on both sides aft of the tire. The best place to read about that is on my original web page entry at this link: http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a139.htm#June19 It appears that I have the new nose wheel yoke as seen in this photo taken on June 6, 2005.
DSCM0052.JPG


One last thing to offer: RV-9/9A lands about 10 MPH slower than ALL the previous RVs. It was the first one with longer wings (28-ft. wing span) with the Roncz airfoil. The RV-10 also has the Roncz airfoil and a span of 31 feet and 9 inches.

My RV transition training was with Mike Seager in "Old Blue" N666RV on June 2 & 3, 2005. I have been flying my RV-9A just the way Mike instructed. My hangar mate tells me I fly it like a tail dragger pilot. I just noticed looking at this photo that the rudder on this RV-6A is the newer style rudder with a counterweight installed.
DSCM0042.JPG


I watched the video several times from the UK of the RV-7A going over. He landed too fast and jumped on the brakes at least two times. He probably panicked and just happen to hit a rough spot at the same time he was putting too much load on the nose gear with the heavy braking. I wonder if he had an O-360 up front? That heavier engine and a constant speed prop up front would really load up the nose wheel.

Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A - - N2PZ
ECI O-320-D1A, CS Hartzell prop from Van's
Heavy panel, 235 pounds of pilot.
Hobbs = 233.0 hours
Second conditional inspection just completed.
 
I, too, also transitioned with Mike in "Old Blue". His little grass strip in Vernonia was just like home, except for the hills around it. He taught me well on the finer points of landing an RV#A. To say the "A" models are unsuited for grass is simply not true. Mishandle any airplane and you're in deep doodoo. Mishaps can happen, and do. That's why good transition training and practicing what we are taught is so important to our safety and the safety of our passengers and spectators.

Great looking GRASS STRIP, Jerry!!! :)

Roberta

This is how you touch down:

grass1ff5.jpg



And this is how you roll out:

grass2gp5.jpg
 
Last edited:
n2prise said:
I watched the video several times from the UK of the RV-7A going over. He landed too fast and jumped on the brakes at least two times. He probably panicked and just happen to hit a rough spot at the same time he was putting too much load on the nose gear with the heavy braking.
Click to expand...
You obviously know that UK strip very well to be able to know where the nose would be rising and falling due to undulations in the strip. It would take a sharp eye to know that if the nose is falling in this location, it would be due to braking, but if it was falling in that location on the strip it would be due to an undulation in the strip.
 
Grass strips in the UK...

I have only been to ONE grass strip in the UK, back in October 1999. Stapleford has a paved strip and a grass runway. The grass strip was the one we used for takeoff in Piper fixed-gear airplane.

As for undulations, there are a few in the strip I fly from. I just make it a point to always be up on the main gear when I cross them on landing touch down from the south end of the field. My landing speed gets low enough to bring down the nose wheel by the time I reach the wind sock coming in from the south. The north end is the smoothest, and gets the most takeoffs toward the south.

If this drought will ever end, Wendell wants to put out more grass seed to help fill in the rough spots. We rode the full length of the field in his golf cart last night before sunset.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN.
 
Wow, this thread has got to be the most pages, in the 50's. So here is my add.

First I want to thank Jerry and Roberta for their input with pics. I believe that technique will keep you out of trouble. Next I think that a nose heavy airplane can also get you in trouble. I don't think the 360 or the constant speed is the problem so much as proper CG. What is a factor that changes your CG the most in the A. Fuel. So make sure you have proper CG when the tanks are full. Don't assume that a nose heavy airplane is a safer flying airplane, cus you need to land it also. Fact, nose heavy, hard to keep the nose off the ground on landing.

Fly safe, and have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top