....in that the leg is stiff but hinged at the firewall and 4 rubber doughnuts provide the spring. Seems that the idea could fairly easily be adapted to the two seaters.
Best,
...
The current gear leg is a solid cross-section. It requires a machined/ground OD profile, forming and heat treating. If the functions of movement and structure were separated, perhaps a larger cross-section formed tube could be used as the leg, sized so the section modulus would be greater without a weight penalty, or even a reduction in weight. It seems like it would be less expensive to form a constant cross-section tube as opposed to machining/grinding the taper profile. Obviously there would be some added complexity at the firewall end of the leg that would also add some weight and expense.
....
A good friend of mine teaches never land full flaps, it just doesn't makes sense. 10 or 20 degrees ist just fine, if you need more, than jou are allready in a risky enviroment ( short or/and soft field ) anyway. What's all that drag at 40 degrees for, and the pitching forvard force it provoques ?Yup. ;-)
Some folks even retract the flaps to give the tail more authority after landing... It allows them to hold the nose up longer into the rollout... Works great.
I personally find it unlikely that so many RV pilots have forgotten good soft field techniques.
More than a few RV pilots are careless with their short field technique. I go to quite a few fly-ins and whether on pavement or grass, see plenty of RV's where the nosewheel is plopped right down immediately after the mains touch and little or no up elevator is applied. No, it isn't a majority, but it is a surprising number.
I'm sure this has been a contributing factor in some nosegear failures - one lax moment can cost you. However, it is my belief that the nose gear should be more forgiving of less than optimal pilot technique.
More than a few RV pilots are careless with their short field technique. I go to quite a few fly-ins and whether on pavement or grass, see plenty of RV's where the nosewheel is plopped right down immediately after the mains touch and little or no up elevator is applied. No, it isn't a majority, but it is a surprising number.
I'm sure this has been a contributing factor in some nosegear failures - one lax moment can cost you. However, it is my belief that the nose gear should be more forgiving of less than optimal pilot technique.
I'm with you Pierre. The RV10 leg is a far better option. Much heavier aircraft and none of them have ended up on their back sunning themselves
If there was an option provided from Van's to fit that on my RV6A count me in.
Anything less than full flaps in my -6 and you can't three-point it. You'll one-point it on the tailwheel before the mains come down. Ideally, I land full flap, and wheel it on. The full flaps reduce the load on my brakes, and shorten the rollout.A good friend of mine teaches never land full flaps, it just doesn't makes sense. 10 or 20 degrees ist just fine, if you need more, than jou are allready in a risky enviroment ( short or/and soft field ) anyway. What's all that drag at 40 degrees for, and the pitching forvard force it provoques ?
Anything less than full flaps in my -6 and you can't three-point it. You'll one-point it on the tailwheel before the mains come down. Ideally, I land full flap, and wheel it on. The full flaps reduce the load on my brakes, and shorten the rollout.
When you come in for landing you have to flare to the same attitude and hold it, letting the plane settle in on three points. If you try to do a full stick flare the tail will hit first then the mains will drop and bounce you back into the air.
Uh, It looks like Frank is talking about taildraggers, while you (and the rest of this thread) are thinking 3 point attitude in a nosegear. Might explain the confusion.Is that true for the RV-6,7A's? In the -10 I can do a full stick flare with any flap setting and the tail will not hit.
Anything less than full flaps in my -6 and you can't three-point it. You'll one-point it on the tailwheel before the mains come down. Ideally, I land full flap, and wheel it on. The full flaps reduce the load on my brakes, and shorten the rollout.
t a good thing to hold up the nose wheel as long as possible but if your landing on a short grass strip you want to get on the brakes as soon as possible the nose whell comes down as soon as you apply brakes at any speed
By far the best solution is an oleo gear.
Works well as you can see in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lO3nAB5Zz8&feature=related
Redesigning the existing rod is just shifting the deck chairs around on the titanic. Someone suggested the 152 unit; good idea, the aeroplane weight is in the ball park. Surely a non-certified copy of that is the way to go and won't cost too much. The 152 unit mounts on the engine mount, so there is a good basis for reverse engineering, as opposed to the 172 unit which is mounted on the firewall.
A bonus will be that it is steerable.
Once that's sorted out, we can then move onto the mains and come up with a better system there too.
Cheers,
Andrew.
Oleo stut failed after torture, but aircraft didn't "flip".
It's been said before by many, and I completely agree. A larger nose wheel would be a huge improvement in the design, and less expensive than a re-do of the nose gear. It would minimize the effects of surface imperfections and raise the "nut" even further off the ground. This may also require larger main wheels, but that's been done by others as well.
When I look at that YouTube vid of the nosewheel on the grass, I can easily visualize a larger nose wheel riding more smoothly over the surface.
My $0.02
I did a brief search and did not find any mention of 8A's experiencing this kind of nose gear failure. Does anyone know of any? I realize there are far fewer 8A's than 6A's or 7A's flying but am curious because the 8A can be very nose heavy depending on the load.
If you read this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf
It sounds like every A model has been involved.
Having said that, there might be a reason why we don't hear about 8A nose overs as much. Looking at the 3-view drawings on Van's website gives me the impression that the 8A has a slightly greater distance between the nose wheel and mains than the 7A. It looks like about 8", but it would be interesting to measure. A nose wheel farther away from the CG might reduce some of the loading.
Looking at Van's published weight on nose wheel chart seems to confirm this. For the same weight and CG location, an 8A has about a 7% lower nose wheel weight when compared to a 7A. Perhaps the combination of slightly lower static and dynamic loading is significant?
Paige
If you read this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf
It sounds like every A model has been involved.
Paige
Which reiterates what I have thought all along: the leg itself is strong enough, but the fork needs to be redesigned such that it would be virtually impossible for it to make contact. If the fork is redesigned to make it similar in construction to one of the aftermarket tailwheels, machining of the leg would be necessary to mate the fork to it. It would also make the leg easier to make since a bend would no longer be required.
Do any of you that have gone over have the Matco front axle installed, or something similar?
It is possible that this is the solution and we don't enough samples to know.
The real problem is, it will take an upset but with this axle to know it doesn't work.
As a first step I am suggesting we all write a heart felt letter to Van himself about the need to revisit the nose gear problem..."
STAY OFF OF GRASS/TURF RUNWAYS.