Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:11 AM - Re: Nosewheel collapse another view (Richard Jones)
2. 09:43 AM - Richard bad landing (jc@INFONET.COM.BR)
3. 09:51 AM - Re: Richard bad landing (Neilekins@aol.com)
4. 09:52 AM - Re: Richard bad landing (Neilekins@aol.com)
5. 10:36 AM - Shimming required? (Merems)
6. 11:00 AM - Re: Shimming required? (Mike Hoover)
7. 12:30 PM - Nose Gear Collapse (Ron Murray)
8. 05:51 PM - Re: Richard bad landing (Charlie England)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nosewheel collapse another view |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard Jones" <esnj@granbury.com>
This is the voice of experience speaking. On landing number 17 on a hard
surface runway and no previous bad landings, I managed to partially retract
the nose gear on my 9A. Damage was relatively minor: the gear leg, the
front piece on the wheel fairing, the gear leg fairing, and of course the
prop. The outer 2" of the prop required refurbishing and 1/2" was removed
from each end. The engine was not stopped by the ground contact (I thought
about going around but with 3000' of runway left, I stopped the engine and
made another landing) and fortunately there was no damage to the crankshaft.
The root cause of the gear leg failure was a bad landing. I was warned by a
local RV expert before my first flight to land slow and keep the nose wheel
up until the mains are down, other wise I would likely damage the nose gear.
So here I was with 4100' feet of runway ahead and some big white numbers on
the approach end (the ones that we are supposed to hit, right) and about 70
knots of air speed and no wind (70 knots of ground speed!). I put it on the
numbers and after the unusual noise I became airborne again. In the next
1000' (I had plenty of airspeed to keep flying), I decided to kill the
engine and land. A guy, who was in his yard on the airport, walked up to
the nose down airplane to help me push it back to the hanger and he
commented that he thought that I was going "a little fast".
If the nose gear leg had not bent, if it had been stronger, then the engine
mount and fire wall may have been damaged. A much bigger problem. I think
that Van's has designed a very good airplane and if we who fly them can
treat them right, they will serve us well.
Dick Jones 90062
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merems" <merems@cox.net>
Subject: RV9-List: Nosewheel collapse another view
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Merems" <merems@cox.net>
>
> Gents,
>
> I too am building an RV-7A and have been following the discussions about
> the recent nosewheel collapse. I am concerned about this situation as
> many of you are.
>
> I have talked with Ken Krueger (Van's engineering), who I have a
> tremendous respect for, about some of these recent accidents. I am
> certain Van's Aircraft takes this situation very seriously. However if
> you step back and ask yourself are there a few RV'As out there that have
> had the highest number of landings to date, where would you find them?
> What kind of landing have they seen? Grass or paved runways? My best
> guess is these are the RV-7A and RV-9A prototypes at Van's Aircraft. Who
> flies these? Van's staff. Where have they landed? Grass or pavement?
> Both. Have they taxied on grass? Yes. Have they botched a few landing?
> I would think so. Now I would bet these two aircraft have 10 times or
> more the numbers of landing then any another RV's out there and their nose
> gears haven't collapsed.
>
> I am not saying there isn't a issue, I am just giving you another view to
> understand possibly why Van's Aircraft appears to have "no comment" when
> it comes to this issue.
>
> In all the postings about this issue, no one has mentioned the possibility
> of improper heat treating of the gear leg. If I recall this was an issue
> sometime ago with some main gear legs on RV's. This might be the root
> cause. This can be easily determined by sending the nose gear leg off to
> any qualified machine shop who can perform a hardness test on the leg.
> This will help determine if the gear was heat treated properly.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Richard bad landing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: jc@infonet.com.br
Thanks Richard:
For your courage to tell us about your bad landing.
Now, Ive got only 3 landings in my -9a.
Still looking for the best approach speed.
The first landing, with a lot of strong emotion, after 1030 hs bulding it, Ive
put down
half flaps and trimmed the -9A to 70 kt on a long final. The climb is something
about -
300 to -400 fpm. Ive flared above the numbers and waited for the stall. It tooks
a long
time to arrive, may be 300 feet. Put it down on the mains and at this time I decided
not
to cut the stick control, the sticks lenght is appropriate. To maintain the nose
high
without power, Ive put something like 20 pounds on top of stick.
The second one Ive trimmed it to 60 kt. The stall occours at 42 kt and something
100
feet after flare.
The third one Ive tried to approach with 60 kt, trimmed it to 55 kt in a short
final,
but due to 10 to 17 kts gust cross winds, Ive aborted the landing and tried another
one.
The last was unventfull 60 kt approach and flare.
What about your numbers?
JC - Aracaju - Brasil
#90997
Flying
http://websites.expercraft.com/jcmm
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Richard bad landing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Neilekins@aol.com
I can tell you the #s I used. About 75 knots approach speed. Just bring it
down to the run way and hold it off until it settles down on the ground
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Richard bad landing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Neilekins@aol.com
my builder # is 90939 neilsplane .com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shimming required? |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Merems" <merems@cox.net>
Gents,
Have any other builders needed to shim about 0.063" (1/16") between the F-724 (Aft
Fuselage Bulkhead) bottom flange and the F-623 (Corner Rib). To refresh some
of your memory this is the F-623 is bottom corner rib that extends to the
side of the baggage bay to the side skins. This is the rib that get notched for
the flap pushrod and also get trimmed for the step tube to clear. The F-724
is the vertical bulkhead in the baggage bay. It appears that without shimming
the side skins will not line up properly with the bottom skin and corner rib
flange.
Attached is a image from the plan set.
Any thoughts?
Paul
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shimming required? |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" <mikehoover@sc.rr.com>
Paul,
Didn't get the attachment, but did you trimmed the aft end of the 623 corner
rib so that it will clear the flange of the 706 bulkhead?
Mike
SC
90709 fuse
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Merems
Subject: RV9-List: Shimming required?
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Merems" <merems@cox.net>
Gents,
Have any other builders needed to shim about 0.063" (1/16") between the
F-724 (Aft Fuselage Bulkhead) bottom flange and the F-623 (Corner Rib). To
refresh some of your memory this is the F-623 is bottom corner rib that
extends to the side of the baggage bay to the side skins. This is the rib
that get notched for the flap pushrod and also get trimmed for the step tube
to clear. The F-724 is the vertical bulkhead in the baggage bay. It
appears that without shimming the side skins will not line up properly with
the bottom skin and corner rib flange.
Attached is a image from the plan set.
Any thoughts?
Paul
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nose Gear Collapse |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Ron Murray" <Ronald_P_Murray@msn.com>
OK it's true confession time. I had a nose gear collapse on my RV-9A with a little
over 20 hours on it a little over a month ago. At first I was so frustrated
with the situation that I did not want to talk about it. But we went to Oshkosh
and talked to Van's, Aero Sport Power, and Sensenich about the incident.
We are now on the road to recovery having sent our brand new engine back to
Aero Sport Power for tear down and inspection, ordered a new gear leg and associated
parts and placed an order for a new prop. Here's what happened.
On Friday, July 8th, 2005 at around 10:30 AM, the aircraft was cleared
to land on a 6400 X 150' newly repaved runway and landed normally. During
the roll out, the control stick was held in the aft position holding the nose
wheel off the ground as the airplane slowed down. At about 35 knots, a gust
of wind picked up the airplane about a foot off the runway. The control stick
was held in the aft position waiting for the aircraft to settle back to the runway.
However, the nose wheel contacted the runway first, resulting in a couple
of porpoises. After the second porpoises the nose gear collapsed and bent
90 degrees rearward destroying the front of the nose gear fairing, and scraping
the nose gear fork on the front edge. The tire and wheel assembly was not
damaged and appears to be OK. Other than the nose gear, the fuselage sustained
no damage.
As a result of the above, the prop contacted the ground bending the prop tips about
5 inches rearward. The airplane remained on the pavement during the entire
incident. The engine did not stop and was shut down normally. No other damage
to the airplane has been discovered and no injuries were incurred.
The wings were removed and the airplane was placed on a trailer, and returned to
its home base.
What are the lessons to be learned? For one, be aware of the fact that the nose
gear is fragile and should be treated that way. As one person at Oshkosh told
me, "the nose gear is to be used only to keep the nose off the ground when
the airplane is parked." Maybe over stated, but worth considering.
More food for thought,
Ron Murray
90291
N937RK
Lake Norman Airpark, NC
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Richard bad landing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Neilekins@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Neilekins@aol.com
>
>I can tell you the #s I used. About 75 knots approach speed. Just bring it
>down to the run way and hold it off until it settles down on the ground
>
Apparently we've uncovered Van's 1st deception in performance numbers.
It would seem that the -9's stall speed has been grossly understated in
the literature. :-) Seriously, what are your -9's showing at stall, both
indicated & gps readings compared on a nice calm morning? I fly final in
my -4 at 75 *mph* & it still floats a bit.
Do they stall up around 55-60 kts indicated? That would indicate a
significant low-speed pitot-static error. Not a big deal as long as
everything is flown by indicated speeds & the asi is placarded to show
it. On the other hand, if they stall in the mid 40's indicated as Van
claims, 75 kts could be a reasonable low cruise speed. It would be very
hard to land a nosewheel aircraft that much above stall.
Charlie
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|