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

Number of thread pages in this one...

I noticed this thread got really long this morning compared to yesterday when I first posted in "this thread". DR pushed several threads together to make this "new thread" have all the related posts in one big thread.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN.
RV-9A - - N2PZ
Built in a rented townhouse garage.
 
Actually Jerry, Rosie did it (one of the moderators). He emailed me about it later, tater.

Kirk out ;).
 
I'll give you A drivers some professional advice on how not to end up on your back on a rough field- hit hard and fast, this folds the nose gear leg under in one swift movement. The RV will just slid along on the cowling. If you are lucky like me, you just get the prop, the gear legs and fairings. ;) :rolleyes:

If you are going slowly, the leg just straightens out and turns into a nice pole vault device. Up and over! :(

Seriously, anyone who thinks their good pilot technique makes them immune to this affliction on grass strips has simply been fortunate so far...

The right hole at the wrong time at that's it.

If your touchdown is fast and nose low or you brake hard, you are just asking for it though. As usual, good decision making can prevent many types of accidents.
 
Post take from UK RV site;

"Following the RV7 G-CDRM turn over accident I have had some discussion
with Francis (Donaldson, PFA chief engineer) on nose wheels. He has also spoken at length to Vans who have indicated that it is inappropriate to fly nose wheel aircraft without spats - especially on Grass. This applies to both old and new forks, and of course the spat is the same for both"
 
shiney said:
Post take from UK RV site;

"Following the RV7 G-CDRM turn over accident I have had some discussion
with Francis (Donaldson, PFA chief engineer) on nose wheels. He has also spoken at length to Vans who have indicated that it is inappropriate to fly nose wheel aircraft without spats - especially on Grass. This applies to both old and new forks, and of course the spat is the same for both"

Why is that exactly?
 
Not really sure, the thinking is that the pants act as a kind of skid. I can't say if it will or won't, but if what has been said here is true , is this known to "A" flyers ?
 
shiney said:
Things often get lost in the translation, for us English, Pants = ****! :)


Shiney

England and America ... 2 countries divided by a common language
either Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw [both have been credited]...

:D

John
 
The wheel pant "spat" covers the very blocky-blunt profile of the fork with a rounded contour that will help reduce the chances of the fork digging in and aggravating the situation. The pant is pretty tough in itself and will improve your chances should you encounter a botched landing or surface irregularity that could cause the gear to flex to the point that a dig in might occurr. Reinforcement, as some have done, doesn't hurt either. In effect, the front cap on the pant becomes a skid. Best not to test this theory, though. Possibly the accident in the UK may not have occurred if the plane had been equipped with the pant.

Roberta
 
Has anyone heard why he did not have the nose gear wheel pant on? Did he already gave a NLG issue? All the forum traffic and no one has answered the most basic questions? Whay was the wheel pant off?
 
robertahegy said:
The wheel pant "spat" covers the very blocky-blunt profile of the fork with a rounded contour that will help reduce the chances of the fork digging in and aggravating the situation. The pant is pretty tough in itself and will improve your chances should you encounter a botched landing or surface irregularity that could cause the gear to flex to the point that a dig in might occurr. Reinforcement, as some have done, doesn't hurt either. In effect, the front cap on the pant becomes a skid. Best not to test this theory, though. Possibly the accident in the UK may not have occurred if the plane had been equipped with the pant.
Roberta
Thanks for the explanation. I find that interesting - I've seen a friend of mine remove the pants from his -6 before going to a backcountry strip so that the pants wouldn't get damaged. I didn't realize that they served any purpose beyond asthetics and aerodynamics.

I'm starting to wonder why nobody has re-designed the nose wheel fork similarly to the way Bell redesigned the tailwheel fork. It seems like if the fork was at a different angle digging in might be less of a problem.
 
Assoicated Photo

open.file
 
Details matter

morlino said:
Thanks for the explanation. I find that interesting - I've seen a friend of mine remove the pants from his -6 before going to a backcountry strip so that the pants wouldn't get damaged. I didn't realize that they served any purpose beyond asthetics and aerodynamics.

This is a common trick if you are driving a Cessna. I feel it's the wrong thing to do on your rv_A, however. That poor fellow that flipped over at croft farm probably receives little satisfaction from thinking "yeah, but my nose wheel fairing is still perfect".

There are probably a few nose fairings out there that are so tight to the tire, and so poorly attached, that upon hitting the ground they will move back and jam the tire. Oh well, lots of ways to get it wrong.

Ted Johns
RV-7 Plans Preview
 
New fork

robertahegy said:
The new fork Van's is now supplying does have a better angle and may provide better clearance.

Roberta
Hi Roberta

Do you know when they started supplying the new fork ?

I would like to know which type I have lurking in my loft :eek:

Thanks
 
petehowell said:
That strip got a Europa, too - not as bad, tho.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1173904/M/

Hmmm...........last time I looked a Europa doesn't have a nosewheel!
The pic appears to be a monowheel as you can clearly see the tailwheel.

So, there you go, landing technique....landing technique....landing technique.

I've been to numerous grass strips in my journeys in my 6A. I land on grass the same way I do on paved runways. Hold the nose off as long as I can until it won't stay up any longer. You slam it down like a new student in a Cessna 152 and it just might bite you where it hurts.

Just my quarters worth! Y'all be safe out there!
 
mrreddick said:
Hmmm...........last time I looked a Europa doesn't have a nosewheel!
The pic appears to be a monowheel as you can clearly see the tailwheel.

The Europa came out with a nosewheel version also, but this is the monowheel-version as you've pointed out.

L.Adamson
 
Monowheel slides on belly

My only point(badly made) was this plane had a gear issue at the same field. The caption says it ended up sliding on its belly, not the monowheel. Much better than pole vaulting.......
 
flydjd said:
Hi Roberta

Do you know when they started supplying the new fork ?

I would like to know which type I have lurking in my loft :eek:

Thanks


I am not sure of the exact date. However, there have been several pictures posted that show the difference between the two (for example, see "RV Tip (tipple) over" thread; post #437). Also, I checked and I have the new design (not surprising since I just received my finishing kit). The part number is WD630-1. I assume the -1 indicates the new design.
 
Look at it.

apatti said:
I am not sure of the exact date. However, there have been several pictures posted that show the difference between the two (for example, see "RV Tip (tipple) over" thread; post #437). Also, I checked and I have the new design (not surprising since I just received my finishing kit). The part number is WD630-1. I assume the -1 indicates the new design.
If it is the new design it will have a two holes on each side to lighten it. One just forward of the axle hole and one on the gear leg mount block.

Kent
 
WD 630 1

kentb said:
If it is the new design it will have a two holes on each side to lighten it. One just forward of the axle hole and one on the gear leg mount block.

Kent
Tony and Kent, thanks for your replies....that means the newer version should look just like this :-
my.php
[/URL][/IMG]

(if I have inserted the picture properly ! )
 
petehowell said:
My only point(badly made) was this plane had a gear issue at the same field. The caption says it ended up sliding on its belly, not the monowheel. Much better than pole vaulting.......

You can blame me for any confusion, I was the photographer in question for that one. :)

I deliberately did not want to mention speculation in the caption as I am not interested in finger-pointing. I work in quality-control and am therefore well aware of how unexpected situations and small details can develop to create big outcomes. Never has a truer statement been made than 'There but for the grace of God go I'. However, as you are all sensible pilots, I know you will be able to read and understand what I am about to write in the spirit of safer flying, despite any factual errors I might make (please be kind to a non-flyer).

Regarding the Europa incident, the aircraft had previously executed a go around - the gear and flaps were definitely extended at this point. I did not see the second approach but heard a thump and a pop and turned to see the aircraft sliding gently along the grass. I took the photo as the aircraft stopped. Response from the staff and other nearby pilots was fast and looked very professional - well done everyone! The strip was closed for several minutes while the aircraft was cleared and the strip was 'line-walked' to ensure no debris remained. The only visible damage was broken proptips, which had struck the ground during the incident.

The aircraft was later seen properly up on it's monowheel, a possibly important point as we shall see.

I must stress that the following information is unconfirmed, possibly clubroom gossip, but it does fit the facts I observed myself.

At a later date I was talking to a fellow photographer who had spoken to 'someone' about the accident. The story was that following the go around, the gear was raised, but not lowered later, resulting in a landing on the belly. Apparently the flaps were not raised on the go-around, but the wheels were, so when the pilot performed his landing checks, flaps were down and wheel was also assumed down. Some peculiarity of the way the flaps and gear can be worked together was mentioned - perhaps a Europa owner out could clarify (I'm not a pilot!). The Europa monowheel does not retract fully, so presumably provides some protection for the aircraft in such a situation.

If the above information is true, it would appear that the strip surface was not to blame on this occasion. Cockpit workload on the approach must have been relatively high, with the pilot concentrating on an unexpected second approach to a short field with a very busy circuit (possibly unfamiliar to the pilot too?). Could the configuration of the aircraft at the time have caught the pilot out? As the aircraft was on it's monowheel later in the day, the gear could not have been broken, supporting the idea that either the gear was not down or not locked.

I've run out of time to discuss the RV incident which I also saw. I hope you find this information useful - if so, I'll talk about the RV incident another time. Or you can tell me to shut-up and keep my nose out of pilot's talk, I won't mind!

Best regards,

Jim Groom
 
I have a couple of observations that don't answer any questions but they might be relevant.

First is that Van lives on a grass strip and has flown off it almost daily for something like 30 years (admittedly in his RV4). I suspect that the very first RV-6A landed on that strip shortly after the first time it flew. Van's Aircraft used to fly all the factory demo flights from that strip and it's not a smooth flat strip by any stretch of the imagination. Van has just finished his personal RV-10 and I suspect that it will fly from that strip too. I think we all know the advantages of a nose wheel airplane, and the fact that the nose wheel is delicate. I think that if Van can do all his demo flights with many different pilots thousands and thousands of times off his rough grass strip that the A versions must be close to adequate. They are obviously not bullet proof. My sports car has to be the worse vehicle ever made for driving in the snow. It's one of the finest cars I've ever owned but there are things it can't do well, things sacrificed for what it is great at.

Take a look at the video again and watch the top of vertical stabilizer in relation to the horizon. I see a tremendous vertical travel up and down, over and over until the nose gear collapsed or dug in. I don't know if this was a function of the field condition or some kind of PIO. The aircraft speed looks far too fast for the rollout phase of landing for this plane.
I could blame the snow for finding myself upside down in a ditch in my Jaguar someday. I think we know where the blame would really belong.

I was sorry to see this damage to a great looking plane but glad that the landing at least met the definition of a good one (one you can walk away from).

Dave
 
Since I base and fly my RV-6A at a turf airfield, I have been following this thread with considerable interest.

The main issue seems to be what are the chances of digging an RV-XA nosewheel fork and the associated securing nut into the dirt during operations at a turf airfield and what can be done in terms of aircraft operation and/or aircraft modifications to prevent this.

The post mishap photo of the unfortunate RV-7A at Croft Farm looks to show some packed dirt on the leading edge of an essentially undamaged fork and wheel assembly.

The mishap sequence appears to be that the aircraft somehow encountered an obstruction that caused the nosewheel to drop down and/or rotate aft until the nut and lower edge of the fork contacted the earth and started "digging in". As another writer put it, this is similar to a pole vaulter planting his pole (= nose gear leg) into the box in the dirt below the crossbar and depending on his weight and momentum to cause maximum flex which can then be used to gain height. In the case of an RV-XA, this is equivalent to running the aircraft nose wheel into, say, a concrete curb at speed and bringing it to a sudden stop.

The engineering situation becomes that of a thin rod in compression - eventually, it folds in two at the middle as the stretch or compression limits of the material are reached. It is possible to make a stiffer (but heavier) nose gear leg that is strong enough not to fail in this manner but then the loads would be transferred into the motor mount instead which would also require beefing up to avoid failure, etc.

This is a different loading case than the early Vans nose gear leg AD addressed. If a large vertical load in placed on the nose gear (think hard landing) then the nose gear will get pushed up roughly towards the prop spinner. This creates a bending load in the gear leg which is at a maximum where it enters the nose gear leg socket on the motor mount. Apparently some early gear legs had manufacturing or installation caused weaknesses there that the AD called attention to and recommended replacement.of the gear leg with an improved component.

An important defence mechanism against this sort of mishap would appear to be the nose gear pant or fairing in that it covers the blunt side of the nose gear fork and could/should cause the nose gear assembly to ride up and over a pothole or rut in the turf. The Croft mishap RV-7A was apparently being operated without the nose gear pant installed which may well have been a factor in an otherwise innocuous landing.

A bigger nose wheel might help but the trailing arm fork design would still present a blunt surface which would not be any more likely to ride up and up a rut unless some sort of surface such as a skid or fairing extended in from of the fork assembly.

I have occasionally operated my -6A on packed snow (this comes with living in Winnipeg in the winter) and my experience is that the nose wheel sinks in and then the underside of the fairing contacts the snow and then slides along keeping the nose wheel from sinking in deeper. My assumption is that a similar action would occur on soft earth or sand, etc.

So a primary protection against the "nose gear dig-in" sort of accident would appear to be the presence of a strong enough and properly shaped nose gear fairing.

Any thoughts from other RV-XA operators??
 
Jim in the 'Peg said:
...
So a primary protection against the "nose gear dig-in" sort of accident would appear to be the presence of a strong enough and properly shaped nose gear fairing.

Any thoughts from other RV-XA operators??

That's the conclusion that a few of us have reached. I designed a reinforced nose cone skid plate made of epoxy/flox, and there is an alternative approach using a steel "kneecap" over the fork. I have managed to test mine by hitting a pothole.

There has been hundreds of messages on this topic. Most of them are opinions about piloting skill versus nose gear design. To my knowledge, I'm (ahem) the only one who has actually tested a skid plate design... although your snow story from Winterpeg provides good feedback on the theory.

Do a search on "skid plate" to get the details.
 
vlittle said:
So, the objective scientific data exists:
Required reading for a -A drivers, I think.

Vern

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Photos.pdf
A credible study of the -A nose gear situation and the pictures are convincing.

The so called "new" nose gear fork apparently offers an extra 1" of ground clearance which cannot hurt.

Another option would appear to be some sort of steel weldment bolted to the nose gear fork that would extend below the nose gear leg nut then upwards in a smooth, spoon-like shape. The idea would be to cover the blunt edge of the fork with something that would slide up and over the dirt if the nose wheel dropped into a rut or something. The right shape would remain concealed within the nose wheel fairing.

There is some evidence in the report that suggests the relatively light fiberglass fairing can deform enough to allow the nose gear fork to dig in so something more substantial may be needed.

Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A, RV-3
 
Hi Jim.

There has been a lot of discussion (search for "skid plate") and you'll see two designs: A steel "knee cap" and my fiberglass/flox design that reinforces the nose cone, protects the nut and transfers the load upward (rather than backward).

I've tested mine (oops).

Vern
 
Observations on the Croft Farm incident.

I hope this post on my observations and thoughts on the event will be of some use. Hopefully it will help confirm or refute some suggestions already made and add to the knowledge of what can be done to minimise or prevent this incidents in future.

Observations, background and what we witnessed.
======================================

Croft Farm is a small, well looked after, unlicensed farm strip in the heart of Worcestershire (UK). In fact it is Worcestershires largest active 'airfield' as the county is very poorly served for aviation needs. The link should give you an overhead satellite view of the strip. If not, it's a mile or so west of the village of Defford, just south of the old RAF airfield (disused for flying), now a comms base.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UT...pn=0.005617,0.014462&t=k&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1

An annual fly-in was in progress, an event which has become increasingly popular with both flyers and public over the last few years. The weather was warm, sunny and with little or no wind. The ground in the public walking areas was firm and the grass was not wet. The strip itself appeared recently mowed and looked in good condition (as viewed from the public areas). Plenty of aircraft had taken off or landed at the strip that day without incident.

With reference to the map link above aircraft were using runway 10 (from left to right). My father-in-law and I had recently moved positions, setting up just to the right of the 'indent' where the facilities are. This is about two-thirds of the way down the strip in the direction of use. I had just left this spot, heading to the right of the map, to get photos of aircraft parked in the static. G-CDRM was briefly seen passing directly past me between two parked aircraft - I noted it appeared to be travelling faster than other landing aircraft at this point of the strip. A few seconds before, back at our 'base camp' my father-in-law had made exactly the same observation. We later estimated the speed to be about 30-40 mph, for whatever such guesses are worth. Neither of us saw the approach or touchdown. The aircraft was then lost to my view briefly behind a parked aircraft before reappearing and tipping right over like in the youtube video. Other pilots rushed to the scene immediately and lifted up one side allowing the occupants out. Good and fast work everyone. After the rescue everyone moved back (as one! Honestly, it was if everyone had been training for the incident). At the time the crowd did not know what exactly had happened to the occupants, which was very uncomfortable. There was concern over why everyone had moved away from the aircraft and no-one had been seen getting out - people were fearing the worst. Of course, the occupants were out and everyone then moved back for safety.

I've attached a photo of the aircraft upside down on the strip. The damaged nosewheel and grass in intakes is evident. The actual nosegear appears intact, the break occuring in the fork area.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1242940/L/

I estimated that the actual area of the accident is quite far down the strip as the accident occured past me and I had walked away from where we had setup our stuff. Maybe halfway between the 'indent' and the right-hand end of the strip. There did appear to be space to slow down safely however.

In the video, you can see the aircraft travelling still relatively quickly at this point. The video also shows a quick dip before the flip.

Thoughts
=======

a. The aircraft was moving faster than others at the same point in the landing. Did the aircraft make a late touchdown or bounce? Was a rapid slowdown then found to be necessary? These could have put extra strain on the nosegear, especially on a grass strip. Perhaps the aircraft was simply travelling quicker to vacate the runway for following aircraft? The strip was busy at the time. Whether or not speed was actually a contributory factor in the accident occuring in the first place, it does have an impact on what happens next - that energy has to go somewhere. Incidentally, I am not suggesting that the pilot was at any time travelling at an excessive speed, just that it was higher than other aircraft we had seen at the same point of the field.

b. The dip in the video. Almost certainly linked to what happens next. Could it be the nosewheel entering a pothole? We don't have gophers. I guess rabbits could dig a hole, but I don't recall ever seeing them or their droppings at Croft Farm. It is a grass strip, so the surface is uneven compared to tarmac. I don't think the strip surface is any different than other grass strips, but you'd really have to have some input from those who have flown there. I have witnessed some bouncy take-offs here before:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0871385/L/

but generally aircraft have not seemed to be in difficulty with the conditions.

Is the dip not a pothole incident, but the recording of the nosewheel actually breaking? I suspect so, especially as the flip occurs immediately after this point. Photos of the aircraft afterwards show the nosewheel actually hanging on the strut.


After reading your comments on these forums and accident reports elsewhere, I believe the nosegear on the 7a is susceptible to breakage under certain conditions. While this is true of any nosegear, the conditions under which the Van's will break appear less forgiving than most. After breakage, this leaves the nosewheel as a forward pointing stick, which will stick in the ground and flip the aircraft if the speed is high enough, just like an olympic pole-vaulter.

I guess the UK AAIB is investigating this incident, so I'm sure we will see a full and accurate report in time - their reports really are of a high standard.

Fortunately, although they happen, these incidents are still far from commonplace.

I'm not a pilot so can't really offer advice, but the other responses here give some good thoughts. When on grass strips, take extra care generally, check the strip condition beforehand if you can, keep high-speed ground travel to a minimum and check the nose gear for any cracks etc. Consider suitable mods to the gear for improving the situation should the worse happen - even spats may help.

The RV's have rapidly become one of my favourite light aircraft to photograph - sleek and sporty - so I hope you keep building and flying them!

Best regards,

Jim
 
I forgot to mention, if the occupants of this aircraft read this, I hope you are both ok - you gave us all quite a scare!

Regards,

Jim
 
painless said:
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.

Realizing the plane in the video is a 7A... Here is a little about the 9A and using breaking during landing.


One of the neatest things about the 9A is the size of the horizontal stab and the authority of the elevator. Mike Seeger made a point of teaching braking while rolling out with the nosewheel off of the ground. With the nose pitched up pretty high and rolling on the mains you can practically lock up the brakes and the elevator will keep the nose up! On a typical landing I'll stall and the mains will touch down with the nose well up in the air. While rolling out the feet are slid up onto the brake pedals and gentle braking is applied. As the speed comes down to around 20 or so mph I'll ease the nose down and just before it contacts the ground ease the stick back again as if trying to lift it back up. There is not enough energy left to do this, but with the nosewheel close to the ground it seems to use up every last bit of elevator authority and the nosewheel softly kisses the ground. Sometimes it is hard to tell when the nose actually touches down. All of this happening with or without brakes applied. If brakes are being used the duration of the stick fore and aft gyrations to work the nose simply happens a little bit faster.

I recently gave a ride to a new builder with a fairly new license in his wallet. We talked about the nosegear and how it is more a less a taxi device, not a landing gear. He had some concerns about this topic so we did some landings to show off that babying the nose still allows takeoff and landings that are shocking after flying production airplanes. On one we came in white over white on the VASI and about 800' high at around 1 mile out. He simply couldn't believe that we could land at the airport from where we were. Prop forward, full flaps, left aileron, right rudder, and down we went. Flare, touchdown, rollout with the wheelie going which he liked, gentle brakes and the nose softly down. Well before the nose is down we hear "94W exit at Bravo and hold short of 31 right." Having seen that the 9A can come in high and drop from the heavens at a high rate and still land very soft and use 400 feet of runway or less he was giggling! This is one of the reasons that learning to fly the 9A from somebody with 9 experience isn't a bad idea. I'm reading that Mike S. is no longer giving instruction in the factory 9a which is a shame. While the 6A and 7A will get you ready for the 9a it won't demonstrate this ability which could be more or less unique to the 9's.

Getting back to the technique for setting the nosewheel down on landings I now mentally rate my landings by the feel when the nose makes contact with the ground. I notice that my wife will say "Good One" by the feel when the mains hit, but I don't think good one until the nose settles in. For what it's worth I don't always get those words "Good One" from her. If it is a clunker she isn't shy about teasing me a bit.

Also note, everything above works for me on grass too.

Best,
 
Last edited:
RV Approach Speeds

Forgive me, I'm a -9A driver, but the UK report shows that the pilot was on approach, with 3 'stages' of flaps selected, at 80kts.

Isn't that over 90mph - on final? I know I have a different wing, but my short final approach speed is more like 65kts, and I wouldn't have thought that the 7A would be so significantly different.

What do US 7A pilots use as their final approach speed?

Allan
 
Forgive me, I'm a -9A driver, but the UK report shows that the pilot was on approach, with 3 'stages' of flaps selected, at 80kts.

Isn't that over 90mph - on final? I know I have a different wing, but my short final approach speed is more like 65kts, and I wouldn't have thought that the 7A would be so significantly different.

What do US 7A pilots use as their final approach speed?
There can be significant differences between aircraft in IAS at the same actual aircraft speed, as instrument errors and static source position errors may vary from aircraft to aircraft. This makes it difficult to compare indicated airspeed values from one aircraft to those from another.
 
Forgive me, I'm a -9A driver, but the UK report shows that the pilot was on approach, with 3 'stages' of flaps selected, at 80kts.

Isn't that over 90mph - on final? I know I have a different wing, but my short final approach speed is more like 65kts, and I wouldn't have thought that the 7A would be so significantly different.

What do US 7A pilots use as their final approach speed?

Allan

Allan, it's a bit fast, but not terribly so. It's what I use in my -8. 90 mph on final and 80 over the numbers touching down at about 75. My buddy uses 90 in his -6 as well. It helps give you time in the flare with the short wing when you have full flaps and the CS prop. You can do 80 mph in my -8, but you better keep the power in and any slower than that the sink rate makes it difficult to grease it on. You have a lot more wing than the short winged versions. And Dan is correct, there is much difference in IAS so hard to compare. For example, mine stalls at 64mph full dirty or 72 mph clean. Van's claims 51 and 58 mph for example. I'll never see those numbers.

And no, in my laziness I have never calibrated the ASI down that low, so no idea how off it is.
 
Approach and Landing Speeds

This is not a completely conventional approach but I think it has the virtue of being A) scientific and B) less prone to airspeed indicator error. Examples are for my -7A and for a -9/9A it will be a lot lower, per Van's.

We know that landings should be made near the stall speed, especially in a tail dragger. We also know that a good approach speed can be approximated as 1.3 times the stall speed. We also know that a good approach can be made at the minimum sink speed or a steeper approach by going a little slower. Two of these speeds can be determined by airplane behavior and the dial indication then noted. Example: Stall 51, Approach 66. Van's says the 7A stalls at 58 mph = 50.4 kts at gross wt.

Find the indicated stall speed in landing configuration, power off, but do it at altitude. We have all, or should have, done this. For those of us with Angle-of-Attack indicators, that's even better than airspeed. The usual caveats apply about density altitude and load.

Find the indicated minimum sink speed by gradually slowing down and making very, very small adjustments in throttle while holding altitude. Minimum sink speed is where the minimum power is required to hold altitude. Again, an AOA is better, but the airspeed indicator is OK. Additional benefit: your best glide is 1.32 x your minimum sink. Further additional benefit: for FP, note the RPM and for CS, note the MAP & RPM or for either, if you have it, note the % power indicated. This helps transition to final approach speed.

My minimum sink speed is at an indicated 75-77 kts. Yours will likely be different because the airplane is a little different and the measuring system - airspeed indicator - is probably a lot different. My best final approach in reasonable winds is no faster than indicated 70 kts. My good short field approach can be easily made at 65 kts and power-on, back of the power curve landings can be made even slower. At cruising speeds, my airspeed indicator is reading high by about 4 kts. This suggests my true speeds on approach may actually be a little lower. My 70 I-kts is probably within 1-2 kts consistent with Van's numbers and conventional technique

Of interest: minimum sink speed, for my airplane, varies only 2-3 kts at maximum between with and without fairings; it's realy built into the wing and the parasite drag does not affect it much. I think this suggests that all -7A's will behave this way at the same actual speed within very small margins of difference and that indicated airspeed differences will be greater.

So what I'm saying is that you can pin this stuff down and it won't matter what kind of airspeed indicator you are using and it can be both inaccurate and even in exotic units and it will still work for this purpose.

IMHO, faster approaches are going to mean longer landings, more chance of PIO, long times in ground effect, worn brakes, etc. If you are not going slowly enough, you can't get the nose up without gaining altitude and if you can't get the nose up, then your -A model is going to put the nosewheel down too hard or risk jamming it into a hole. But heck, I'm not an instructor; reasonable people may differ.

Lastly, I would suggest that if your indicated airspeed is grossly different at points where the airplane's behavior is known (Van's) and relatively un-changeable (because a given airfoil will stall at a given AOA every time) then you should probably think about fixing the airspeed indication problem. If not, then how do you know where your flaps can be deployed safely or what your real manuvering speed is?
 
Last edited:
To "A" or not to "A"... that is the tip over question....

I finally read all the way through this and various other threads on this subject and feel much more enlightened AND concerned about the premise of my -9A and tip-up canopy choice.

It's really clear that operating on a non-paved surface in the "A" models has a narrow design operating tolerance window, outside of which is a c**p shoot of variables that all the stars will align to keep you on all three legs. This is one of those cases where the "odds" may be low, but the consequences are terrible, like loss of the airplane and possible life.

I chose the -9A on the premise I could safely operate from grass strips. While many do and get away with it, in my opinion, too many have not. I think there are things to be done to improve the odds of such operation. Vern Little's nose bowl reinforcement is a great start, which I will do on my -9A, and/or a new fork design for the existing struts that will allow the use of a 500X5 tire.

But an off field landing in an "A" model.... it looks like the odds are very high for a pole vault event.

As for me.... I'll stay off the grass until I'm REALLY comfortable in the plane, then I'll do what I can to hedge my bets. I'm already feeling a bit cheated from the operations that I was looking forward to in the airplane......
 
I chose the -9A on the premise I could safely operate from grass strips. While many do and get away with it, in my opinion, too many have not. But an off field landing in an "A" model.... it looks like the odds are very high for a pole vault event.

For some, operating "A" models from grass strips, is a way of life; year after year. Roberta (RV7A) & Jerry (RV9A), who both frequent this forum, are good examples. These pilots both have grass strips as there home bases.

As to off field landings and an RV; good luck, as numerous taildraggers have flipped too! RV's aren't exactly tundra tires with no wheel pants airplanes. Once the mud, weeds, or both, hits the wheel pants, then over she goes! :D

There have been two taildragger flips close to home, that I know of. Actually, make it three. The third was just last year, but it might have been an inadvertant locking of the brakes before landing. It departed the runway, hit the soft stuff, and flipped.

L.Adamson --RV6A
 
Forgive me, I'm a -9A driver, but the UK report shows that the pilot was on approach, with 3 'stages' of flaps selected, at 80kts.

Isn't that over 90mph - on final? I know I have a different wing, but my short final approach speed is more like 65kts, and I wouldn't have thought that the 7A would be so significantly different.

What do US 7A pilots use as their final approach speed?

Allan

70 KIAS works for me solo, 75 with a passenger, half flaps. Stall is about 51 with flaps, 56 clean.
 
I've found this whole discussion extremely helpful because to be forewarned is to be forearmed. I've read through the 2005 NTSB report mentioned above.... VERY interesting... and yes, should be required reading for all "A" drivers.
 
I finally read all the way through this and various other threads on this subject and feel much more enlightened AND concerned about the premise of my -9A and tip-up canopy choice.

It's really clear that operating on a non-paved surface in the "A" models has a narrow design operating tolerance window, outside of which is a c**p shoot of variables that all the stars will align to keep you on all three legs. This is one of those cases where the "odds" may be low, but the consequences are terrible, like loss of the airplane and possible life.

I chose the -9A on the premise I could safely operate from grass strips. While many do and get away with it, in my opinion, too many have not. I think there are things to be done to improve the odds of such operation. Vern Little's nose bowl reinforcement is a great start, which I will do on my -9A, and/or a new fork design for the existing struts that will allow the use of a 500X5 tire.

But an off field landing in an "A" model.... it looks like the odds are very high for a pole vault event.

As for me.... I'll stay off the grass until I'm REALLY comfortable in the plane, then I'll do what I can to hedge my bets. I'm already feeling a bit cheated from the operations that I was looking forward to in the airplane......

Mike,
I had exactly the same misgivings as you about my choice of the 9A. I operate my 9A off my short grass farm airstrip. I have done some less than perfect landings and 1/3 of my strip is still under construction and has quite a bumpy surface. The aircraft has handled this with no problems. The more I fly the more impressed I am with the design and strength of the nose wheel system. I keep the tire pressure between 35 and 40 psi. I have the new nose fork and have modified the nose wheel pant to increase the ground clearance under the strut/nut and have incorporated Vern Little?s ideas. IMHO, these changes have allowed me to operate safety on fairly ordinary grass airstrips. Like you I thought that a 500 x 5 tire was the solution. Now, even if this option was available, I doubt if I would change to the larger tire.
Don?t feel cheated. Use the newer style fork etc and you will quickly feel comfortable with the grass strip abilities of your 9A.

Fin 9A
 
That's reassuring, thanks for the words of encouragement to all us type "A's" :cool:.

But I do think that operating the "A" models on "unimproved" surfaces give true meaning to the old saying, "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect".
 
Back
Top