My Vans RV conundrum.

unsafervguy said:
all that video shows is poor landing skills. in everyone of those the nosewheel is on the ground in less than three seconds after touch down.
Click to expand...
Be as big a fanboy as you like, but Van's didn't invent a fix for a nonexistent problem.
 
steingar said:
Be as big a fanboy as you like, but Van's didn't invent a fix for a nonexistent problem.
Click to expand...

What fix are you referring to? The main issue with nosegear shimmy is unround, unbalanced tires and improperly set breakout force on the nosegear.

As far as main wheel shimmy goes, the same is true, minus the breakout force. Get round tires, keep 'em inflated, and shimmy isn't a problem in my experience (says a guy who's airplane used to have shimmy, but a change of tire brands and increased pressure eliminated the problem.)
 
Free-castering nose wheels do occasionally have shimmy problems, but they aren't limited to Van's aircraft. Worst shimmy ever was in my Diamond DA-20 trainer.
 
TCABM said:
Ok.

Sounds like the plane you own now isn’t what you want, for a lot of reasons. Could you sell it today and join a club with different types of aircraft?
Click to expand...

I was a member of a flying club for about 13 years prior to buying. As weird as this sounds given the crazy amount of money I spend just to keep my very own airplane in a hangar just for me, I actually really like airplane ownership (except maybe at annual time!) and having a hangar. I try to never say never, but I doubt I will ever go back to renting. No desire to do that. Likely I'd quit flying at this point if that were my only choice.

Great suggestion though, it's a great idea for many people. Just not me at this point.
 
steingar said:
Be as big a fanboy as you like, but Van's didn't invent a fix for a nonexistent problem.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Van's has redesigned or fixed the nose gear on their 6A, 7A, 8A, or 9A models. I do wish the nose gear was huskier, but I haven't had any issues with it (knock on wood) in the 100 hrs I have flown my RV-9A.
I did have some shimmy problems with the Tiger I owned. ​
One of the more well known RV-9A owners on the Van's air force site, recently wrote that he has nearly 3000 hrs on his 9A and has flown it all over the U.S., Canada, Russia, etc. into lots of unpaved airstrips under all types of weather conditions, all with stock, unmodified Van's nose gear components. At his last condition inspection, I believe his comment was that all the parts were a bit worn but still very serviceable.

I definitely am careful to keep unnecessary weight off of the nose gear, but I do that in any tricycle aircraft I fly.
 
kyleb said:
I'm not aware of the tales of woe, and I've been in the RV community for almost 25 years. RV groundloop accidents seem to be few and far between compared to many other types. The RV's have low CG's, a relatively wide gear stance, and excellent control authority. Doesn't mean you can't groundloop one, but it is harder than most tailwheel types. As to the nosegear thing, treat it properly and you won't have any trouble. Abuse it and it might bite you.

But what I hear you saying is that you're not comfortable with the gear design on the RV's. If that's the case, you shouldn't buy one. Honestly, it would take you a long time to recoup the cost of switching from the Mooney to the RV if your only savings are operational costs. If you value better handling, better performance, and better visibility, and can tolerate a reduced payload, the RV is the ticket.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that I'm uncomfortable with the RV's gear as I really don't know enough about it from the real world. All I know is what I read, mostly on the Vans forum. I'll put it this way, it gives me concern and I need to know more, hence this thread. I'd like to know how big of a problem it really is. Is it- you really have to screw up bad for there to be a problem, or is it if you're not 100% on your game you have problem? How much margin for error is there?
 
Skyrys62 said:
I'm wondering (really) if it's any more or any less than how big of a problem gear up landings are in retracts.
Click to expand...

In terms of frequency of occurrence, they may be similar, but a gear up is just a lapse of memory, or the result of distraction, but after watching the above attached video of the shimmy, suggests there is more to the story and that the margin of error upon landing is narrower than most tricycle gear airplanes. Those landings look OK to me.

If one has to wheelie the airplane down the runway like an airshow pilot to prevent failure, what does this say about the design? Also, how in the world do you ever do a short field landing?
 
Yeah, frequency was my thought.

As I plane shop, I try to find every reason to get an RV.
Also trying to find every reason not to get one lol.
Pretty exhausting process of doing the same on several planes.

I've been in a 172 that felt like it was coming apart due to shimmy. Also the DA40 I've been flying has had some. A pull back on the stick helps with it... didn't help on the 172 at all.
They fixed it finally a few weeks ago. I definitely found myself doing the soft field take offs/landings a lot until they did.

The Cessna gear looks (and probably is) more solid, but just like the RV, sometimes you wonder what they can take.
Even the tailwheels can be scary as far as shaking. Seems like a lot less damage to worry about though if it gives out.

 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
In terms of frequency of occurrence, they may be similar, but a gear up is just a lapse of memory, or the result of distraction, but after watching the above attached video of the shimmy, suggests there is more to the story and that the margin of error upon landing is narrower than most tricycle gear airplanes. Those landings look OK to me.

If one has to wheelie the airplane down the runway like an airshow pilot to prevent failure, what does this say about the design? Also, how in the world do you ever do a short field landing?
Click to expand...

It's clear that a Van's aircraft is not for you, or your wife. I suggest you keep the Mooney or buy something else.

People typically don't post about the millions of successful landings in trike-gear RVs. ;)
 
Coat hanger nosewheels without steering is just a design compromise in order to get something else, simplicity and less drag in this case (biggest contribution to gear drag is the nose, not the mains). The strut gear in the nose OTOH is much stronger and most also offer steering which saves on brakes; but they're a lot more draggy. It's all compromises, no need to get professionally umbraged about it.
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's all compromises
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Yet, I believe part of the frustration might be, that there isn't much of an option to compromise with on the RV. I'm sure some of us would give up a few knots for a substantially stronger nose gear in the RV. Even if there's millions of successful landings, the extra piece of mind would be worth it to a lot of RV owners I bet.

A few knots I said....not 40 or 50, which shouldn't be the case for just beefier nose gear.
Heck I hear it's only 15-20 difference between 172 vs. 172RG including all 3 wheels. Surely not adding anything but a little beef to one of them would be that significant.
The anti-splat is really the only thing I've seen as an option, but it's been hard to find out how effective it actually is (at least for me) other than the sales videos.

But as mentioned, it's those speed numbers that really sell some makes/models, plus it keeps the purchase cost down.
Options would be nice though.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm just the luckiest son of a gun to ever have a nose gear failure on landing in an RV-6A. As you can see, the canopy is intact. As were the Pilot and Passenger. The wooden prop did't fare to well, but it looks nice in my living room and the 3-blade Catto that replaced it is a huge improvement.

So, the statement that "RV's always flip" is not correct.

(And the new gear leg has the anti-splat stiffener and skid plate)

Aftermath.jpg
 
Ravioli, if you don't mind saying, what where the particulars of the nose gear failure? And what were the results of the engine tear-down after the prop strike? The wood/composite props are a lot kinder to the engine than metal ones in this scenario. So glad you didn't go over!
 
Ravioli said:
I guess I'm just the luckiest son of a gun to ever have a nose gear failure on landing in an RV-6A. As you can see, the canopy is intact. As were the Pilot and Passenger. The wooden prop did't fare to well, ...
Click to expand...

Possibly the wood prop saved you from flipping. It looks like it did a pretty good job of shattering and disintegrating. Maybe the metal props work like a lever, like a pole vault, or like a driveshaft with a broken U-joint that can flip a vehicle. Just pure speculation on my part.
 
Grum.Man said:
The RV's have a lot of merit but comfort isn't one of them. They are tight and most are sparse on interior. Compared to a certified airplane they do feel more fragile but are in fact every bit as strong. If you want more room you should look at the 8. The stall difference isn't that large between the two. You will likely get the best deal on a 9 as they are less desirable than the others.
Click to expand...

Well the 7/9 aren't really any tighter than most GA piston singles that use 4 cylinder engines. And the 14 is wider than most and that's the one I'd choose if cabin space is a concern if you can find one (or just go all in on an RV-10). Of course, we're comparing 2-seat cabins (RVs) to mainly 4-seaters so yeah, the RVs will always seem tight in comparison. As for spareness, that's highly variable--yes some are sparse, but in my experience just as many are very comfortably equipped. In any event, that's all builder preference and can easily be changed at any time, in either direction.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Ravioli, if you don't mind saying, what where the particulars of the nose gear failure? And what were the results of the engine tear-down after the prop strike? The wood/composite props are a lot kinder to the engine than metal ones in this scenario. So glad you didn't go over!
Click to expand...

I tried to send you a PM... unable.
 
edo2000 said:
I don't believe Van's has redesigned or fixed the nose gear on their 6A, 7A, 8A, or 9A models. I do wish the nose gear was huskier, but I haven't had any issues with it (knock on wood) in the 100 hrs I have flown my RV-9A.
I did have some shimmy problems with the Tiger I owned. ​
One of the more well known RV-9A owners on the Van's air force site, recently wrote that he has nearly 3000 hrs on his 9A and has flown it all over the U.S., Canada, Russia, etc. into lots of unpaved airstrips under all types of weather conditions, all with stock, unmodified Van's nose gear components. At his last condition inspection, I believe his comment was that all the parts were a bit worn but still very serviceable.

I definitely am careful to keep unnecessary weight off of the nose gear, but I do that in any tricycle aircraft I fly.
Click to expand...


Well maybe no longer! Here is the landing accident about the famous Russian RV-9A builder and pilot. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=202266
 
pilotrick said:
Well maybe no longer! Here is the landing accident about the famous Russian RV-9A builder and pilot. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=202266
Click to expand...
Well, that's not good. I didn't read through all of the links, but it doesn't sound like he had issues with the nose gear in this incident. "Abandoned airport, runway overrun, minor damage." Stuff like that happens, if you want to operate on unimproved airfields. I know that I had one or two dings over the years landing on beaches and sandbars in AK.
 
Last edited:
unsafervguy said:
all that video shows is poor landing skills. in everyone of those the nosewheel is on the ground in less than three seconds after touch down.
Click to expand...

Perhaps ... and is every landing perfect for you? Have videos of tail dragger main gear with shimmy also, so it isn't a nose gear only issue.

In my previous Tiger, nose shimmy is controlled with a pull and not a torque value of 20-22 lbs on the main, but it would progressively get worse the further from annual you were. That isn't me in the video, as my flight reviews always included a comment about riding the mains awfully long (to avoid shimmy) and long roll outs (I don't use brakes unless I'm at a short runway or need to exit for close following traffic).
 
danhagan said:
Perhaps ... and is every landing perfect for you? Have videos of tail dragger main gear with shimmy also, so it isn't a nose gear only issue.

In my previous Tiger, nose shimmy is controlled with a pull and not a torque value of 20-22 lbs on the main, but it would progressively get worse the further from annual you were. That isn't me in the video, as my flight reviews always included a comment about riding the mains awfully long (to avoid shimmy) and long roll outs (I don't use brakes unless I'm at a short runway or need to exit for close following traffic).
Click to expand...

no, not every landing is perfect for me, but when flying a tri gear I ALWAS hold the nose off as long as it will stay up, even in the bus. my RV-4 has a shimmy, at a certain taxi speed when the tires pressure is to low, otherwise, it never shimmies on landing.
 
Almost every nosegear collapse on the RV series is due to pilot error. I do transition training and fly with a lot of guys in their RVs and almost every one of them flies 10-20 kts too fast down final and try to force it on. If flown properly you can touch down on the mains right at stall and hold the nosewheel off through half of the roll out and then keeping the stick back there is very little weight on the nosewheel. I would venture to say that most of the guys giving a negative opinion have never flown a RV of any kind. The RVs are the best combination of performance, handling characteristics and construction in the homebuilt world.
 
yakdriver said:
Almost every nosegear collapse on the RV series is due to pilot error. I do transition training and fly with a lot of guys in their RVs and almost every one of them flies 10-20 kts too fast down final and try to force it on. If flown properly you can touch down on the mains right at stall and hold the nosewheel off through half of the roll out and then keeping the stick back there is very little weight on the nosewheel. I would venture to say that most of the guys giving a negative opinion have never flown a RV of any kind. The RVs are the best combination of performance, handling characteristics and construction in the homebuilt world.
Click to expand...

Too fast on final is a common Mooney problem too. Some people are just terrified of a stall I guess, but if you keep an eye on airspeed you eliminate float and can actually land pretty short. Mooney pilots have been known to try to force the plane on the runway too and in this case it often ends up in a prop strike on the third bounce.

Questions about the RV landing- Is it typically done by pulling the throttle to idle before touchdown, or do you keep some power in to keep the nose off? I've been told that an RV is a great short field airplane, but if not dropping the nose until nearly all the speed has bled off is the way to land an RV, how do you do a short field landing? It sounds like a lot of wasted runway where you could be braking and stoping sooner. The above posted video of the nose shimmy has been criticized as being poor piloting technique. Does anybody have videos of what they consider proper RV/A landing technique? Any videos of RV/A short field landings they like?
 
For our RV9a I would pull the throttle to idle way out and float all the way in. touchdown on mains and was able to hold the nose off halfway to the hangar like evil kenivel getting the crowd fired up.
 
On a normal approach I would have the plane configured for downwind with half flaps and about 100mph. About 15"mp would give about 100. I would turn base when the threashhold is just behind my shoulder and I would close the throttle to idle and select full flap. I use 65-70mph on short final solo and 70-75mph with two up. If traffic permits I to a constant radius turn and roll out on final. Short field can be done with full flap and a little flatter approach with a touch of power. I can easily get down and stopped in less than 500 ft. I mostly three point the tailwheel and land on the mains and hold the nosewheel off on the trigear. Just like the Mooney if you carry too much speed in the RV it will float a bit. I would fly the Mooney pretty much the same way. I fly a close in downwind and mostly do power off base and final again if traffic permits. I do not do the 5 mile final bomber approaches that seem to be taught these days nor do I do the three degree glideslope drag it in under power.
 
FORANE said:
For our RV9a I would pull the throttle to idle way out and float all the way in. touchdown on mains and was able to hold the nose off halfway to the hangar like evil kenivel getting the crowd fired up.
Click to expand...

My experience is similar in the -9A. Chop & drop. I'm typically at 1200-1300 rpm on short final, and I'll pull it to idle when I'm about 15-20 ft off the deck.

My over the fence speed is in the 62-65 kt range, and try to touch down as close as possible to stall speed (Vso solo weight is 39 KIAS). Just try to not let it land!! Get down to 58-60 kts over the fence, and the sink rate gets noticeably more pronounced, but there's still plenty of energy for the flare. Elevator authority is great on these planes, with a ton of both throw and surface area, so it's quite easy to carry the nose for a loooong time if necessary.

Another thing, which is good practice with any small GA plane: Make any taxiing turns at walking speed.
 
FORANE said:
For our RV9a I would pull the throttle to idle way out and float all the way in. touchdown on mains and was able to hold the nose off halfway to the hangar like evil kenivel getting the crowd fired up.
Click to expand...

I was doing that in the Tiger as well. Just started tailwheel training and instinctively did that on short final in the Citabria and the results were less than spectacular:confused:;)
 
FORANE said:
For our RV9a I would pull the throttle to idle way out and float all the way in. touchdown on mains and was able to hold the nose off halfway to the hangar like evil kenivel getting the crowd fired up.
Click to expand...

Would you consider this a short field landing? If not, what would you do differently?
 
yakdriver said:
On a normal approach I would have the plane configured for downwind with half flaps and about 100mph. About 15"mp would give about 100. I would turn base when the threashhold is just behind my shoulder and I would close the throttle to idle and select full flap. I use 65-70mph on short final solo and 70-75mph with two up. If traffic permits I to a constant radius turn and roll out on final. Short field can be done with full flap and a little flatter approach with a touch of power. I can easily get down and stopped in less than 500 ft. I mostly three point the tailwheel and land on the mains and hold the nosewheel off on the trigear. Just like the Mooney if you carry too much speed in the RV it will float a bit. I would fly the Mooney pretty much the same way. I fly a close in downwind and mostly do power off base and final again if traffic permits. I do not do the 5 mile final bomber approaches that seem to be taught these days nor do I do the three degree glideslope drag it in under power.
Click to expand...

You basically described my typical Mooney landing except for when I put the flaps in and the speeds a little. The short final speed I shoot for is 73 mph and of course touchdown is much less. I cut the power to idle abeam the numbers and try to glide it in. I say try because sometimes I come up short and have to add power. Sometimes I come in high and have to slip. Sometimes I nail it. I shoot for a power off short field landing every time even though there is always loads of runway to use.

One can more consistently get nice greasers by leaving power in and cutting it to idle on short final as well as deploying flaps earlier, but this will leave one in the dirt in the case of an engine out. If the engine dies anywhere further than short final, you'll never make the threshold. Also this type of landing will use up more runway.
 
Dav8or said:
Would you consider this a short field landing? If not, what would you do differently?
Click to expand...
Every landing in the Rv9a was what I would consider short field. that sucker would stop in nothing it seemed. After your Mooney it will be impressive.
But, if I really needed to get stopped in under a football field length I would retract the flaps on touchdown at stall and pull back on the stick while braking hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top