What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Loose Main Gear Legs

DonFromTX

Well Known Member
I can find nothing in the archives from others on this, but my friend doing an annual found his MLG had been working loose enough to nearly cut the brake line in two against the fuse skin. Apparently the slop also allowed the movement enough to wrinkle the fuse skin as well. One more thing to check, loose MLG attachment bolts! Has anyone else had this happen?
 
yes I found on my first annual that my left main was a little loose.You could see where the gear leg had came in contact with the brake line. Only one way to find out and that is get the weight off of them grab on and wiggle up and down and forward and aft.

I just tighten up the bolts and they where OK on the following annual.They go in a little hard at the time of construction so I believe I did not have the bolt pulled in good even tough the proper value torque was used.


124BJ First Customer Built RV12 to Fly 366 hours

Brad Stiefvater
Salem SD
 
Here are a couple of photos of the damage, kinda hard to determine just what happened first.
210lp1g.jpg
[/IMG]
k9b8er.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
I see here a good candidate to add on the pre-flight check list! (even with the wings on, the kink in the brake line is visible).
 
good candidate for a post-flight check as well if you have a hard landing. another transition training issue...these cannot be crash-landed like a Bonanza. they are in fact designed for very short, soft landings at very slow speeds.
 
My friends's airplane had the same type of wrinkled skin damage damage. It was not noticeable until the wings were removed for the annual inspection. I did not look at the brake line. My friend admitted to making a hard landing.
Perhaps the aircraft in the above picture was also involved in a hard landing.
Joe Gores
 
good candidate for a post-flight check as well if you have a hard landing. another transition training issue...these cannot be crash-landed like a Bonanza. they are in fact designed for very short, soft landings at very slow speeds.

I agree with Peter.
This looks like it was cause by more than just gear leg hardware getting loose.
N412RV has been used a lot for transition training, and has suffered many bad landings as a result. No looseness has been detected in the gear legs.
 
I have had the privilege to view a couple of "hard landing" damages, but they were HORIZONTAL creases above the gear, not vertical and behind it, and you could see contact between the gear leg and the fuselage skin directly above the leg. Notice there is no indication of a force from above, only from the front, like hitting a big pothole or very, very harsh braking. It also buckled the floor beneath the fuel tank, proving that the end of the the heavy channel actually deflected rearward (in case the view of the fuse side did not already convince one of that). Of importance here, there was no single incident that the owner is aware of that did the damage, and it was of course only slightly visible directly above the wing. A noise when using brakes (from the loose bolts) was the only clue that something was amiss.
I am thinking a doubler piece on the damaged area may be of some help there?
 
I posted long ago while I was building the fuselage about the perceived design weakness in this area before any incidents had been realized. Not being an "aeronautical" engineer, I assumed the weakness was designed in this area to arrest damage to the passenger compartment in a crash environment. I would be hesitant about increasing the structural integrity in this area as the impact absorbtion will move to the next weakest area.
Appreciate the heads up and will monitor the bolting issue after the bird is in the air.
 
The baggage floor was also pushed up in the aircraft that flew into the runway (crashed) without flaring. The heavy center channel rotated (top forward) due to the horizontal force of the landing gear being pushed aft. This is the accident that led to the service notice to reinforce the fuel tank to prevent it being pulled apart.
Maybe a hard landing that would not normally cause damage, if combined with loose landing gear bolts, would indeed cause damage. If the landing gear is offset to the rear instead of being directly under the center channel, the landing forces will tend to rotate the center channel because of the wheels being too far aft at touchdown.
Joe Gores
 
Hard for me to believe the ny-loc bolts were loose if originally torqued to the specification. Looks like a simple case of a VERY hard landing. The gear and u-channel WILL flex as shown.
 
Last edited:
Hard for me to believe the ny-loc bolts were loose if originally torqued to the specification. Looks like a simple case of a VERY hard landing.

Agreed.

Not sure how anyone can look at those pictures and say it was loose fasteners. Real easy to blame the fasteners for pilot error. Mine have never been loose, no one I have talked to have had loose landing gear bolts. Anyone with a hard landing in an LSA should rethink their flying skills. We are seeing a lot of "pilots" get into LSA with the mind set they are small planes and they can handle them no matter what. They take skill, finesse, and a light touch to land. We must stop saying; " The RV12 is easy to fly", and instead say; "The RV12 is easy to fly for experienced and current pilots of LSA aircraft. "

It is cheaper to get transition training than buying replacement parts and repainting. Get transition training for ANY aircraft model.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing rough field operations could cause that type of damage and the pilot might not even be aware that it happened.
 
If my memory still serves me, I had torqued these bolts to the specs but when I decided to check because they just didn't look right, I could get my fingernail under the head of a couple of them. Since they are close tolerance bolts, I took a large punch and hammer and tapped them down till they were solid against the channel. After doing this was able to get several turns more on the nuts before torqing them. I have the plane on saw horses doing my annual and the gear legs are still solid as a rock.
 
I loosened up my main gear today and tried to wiggle it around. Even with several turns loose on the threads, fwd to rear movement was negligible. When loose enough, you could move the gear up and down, but not fore and aft. It seems obvious to me that the rearward force was sufficient to deflect the channel - a LOT, to bend the side skin as well as the floor under the tank, and connect the brake line with the edge. With that much deflection, I would wonder if it returned to its original shape (time for a straightedge test). The tank "fix" had not been installed, so the frangible bolts did not have a test this time.
With the length of the leg, it would seem that there would have been more of a twisting action than seems evident.
Agreed.

Not sure how anyone can look at those pictures and say it was loose fasteners. Real easy to blame the fasteners for pilot error. Mine have never been loose, no one I have talked to have had loose landing gear bolts. Anyone with a hard landing in an LSA should rethink their flying skills. We are seeing a lot of "pilots" get into LSA with the mind set they are small planes and they can handle them no matter what. They take skill, finesse, and a light touch to land. We must stop saying; " The RV12 is easy to fly", and instead say; "The RV12 is easy to fly for experienced and current pilots of LSA aircraft. "

It is cheaper to get transition training than buying replacement parts and repainting. Get transition training for ANY aircraft model.
 
The long arm and weight/inertia of the tail continuing downward during a hard landing could possibly cause skin deformation as pictured without the center channel moving any. Would be interested in a pic of the belly in the center channel area.
 
That is an excellent point Larry that I had not considered. For whatever reason, there appears to be no damage whatsoever on the left main area.
 
This is my second attempt to reply to this thread. The first attempt did not show up on this thread and I feel this is important. The pictures shown on Dons thread are my RV12 Viking with 110 hours since new in Aug 2011.. This damage happened after touch down. ( Don't need transitional training). I was doing a practice short field landing on concrete. After all wheels were on the ground I applied pressure on breaks in a attempt to stop before first exit. As I did this the plane did a slight shift to the left. I immediately released breaks and continued on. I knew I had a problem immediately because of the oil canning noise on the right side when I moved the stick. I have hundreds of landings with my RV12 Viking as well as 500 landings with my RV9A. The nut on the bolts wasn't loose but you could turn the bolt. I think they should be re-torqued after ? so many hours of filght. Landing speed at the time I applied brakes was under 60 MPH. The plane may not be built for this type of practice. I have been practicing slow landings and quick stops in the event of a off field landing. Most of my friends with RV's land hot and long. I pulled the tank and repaired the damage and will be discussing this with Vans this week..

Ron Russ
RV12 Viking
 
Keep us updated.

I would like to know their response. There does seem to be more damaged fuselages in the -12 than any other RV. I would have a hard time believing that you can't land and lock up the brakes, and have a little side to side movement without damaging the aircraft.
Do we think the -12 is more delicate than a 40 year old C-152?
 
I would like to know their response. There does seem to be more damaged fuselages in the -12 than any other RV. I would have a hard time believing that you can't land and lock up the brakes, and have a little side to side movement without damaging the aircraft.
Do we think the -12 is more delicate than a 40 year old C-152?

Absolutely.
 
Its happen before and will happen again!

Yes the RV12 is more delicate than a C152! Ive been parked right next to a C140 and there is a big difference. We have talked about this in other threads. The RV12 is a cross between a glider and a C152. Before we go off and make to many assumptions remember this is only one or two airplanes out of 180 flying. This has been seen in other airplanes even C152. Ever spend any time hanging around a flight school? This stuff happens all the time. ;)
 
Knowing now whose plane this is, if Ron says that there have been no hard landings in his plane, then there have been NO hard landings in his plane. Eliminating that factor from the analysis then one may surmise that
the bolting was loose as stated and during normal after landing braking was applied the gear never moved or moved slow enough that there was not enough impact after reaching the end of gear rearward/twisting travel to cause damage. However, this time with greatly increased braking, the gear moved rapidly rearward/twisting until reaching the end of the loose bolt travel, as small as the movement may appear, would possibly generate 4-5 times the normal loading of the area at the instant rearward/twisting travel impacted the end of bolt free play.
I already had my bolts heads torque sealed on the inside of the main gear channel for routine pre flight inspection but wonder now if the bolts would even move enough to crack the seal as tight as the assembly went together.
As Harold mentioned, I too recall that I experienced need to drive the bolt heads with a punch so proper torque values could be achieved.
 
I would like to know their response. There does seem to be more damaged fuselages in the -12 than any other RV.......

Scott, where do those stats come from? What other fuselage damage has occurred besides this one and the "hard landing" case?
 
I am personally aware of two others John, admittedly very hard landings, gear seemed to deflect upwards, contacted the edge of the skin and wrinkled the fuselage skin directly above the gear leg, mostly hidden by the wing, on both sides. One was with an instructor doing a BFR, CFI instructed the pilot to slip it, thought they were too high and fast. Owner did it against his better judgement, landed very hard. These were discussed on VAF at the time, should be in the archives yet.
 
Might try NAS Bolts.

Anyone using tapered pins instead of AN bolts?

NAS are stronger than AN bolts and closer tolerance.

The taper bolt would probably work well, but only if the NAS bolt does not fit snugly. Once you go to a taper bolt and ream the structure, and that does not work well you may need more expensive replacement parts.

I am hoping for your success:)
 
I think its important to learn from what Russ said this morning. He said; when all wheels were on the ground (mains & nose?), he applied brakes (how much pressure?) in an attempt to make a turn off (turning and braking?). While I have flown many nose wheel planes and done all of this, I have always landed this aircraft with the nose wheel (castering) in the air and didn't brake until I practically needed to stop. I can't fault Russ for practicing a short field landing. I can thank him for telling me what might happen if I overdo it. I will certainly check my bolts...easy enough and will certainly keep my short field landings to steep, slow, (mine stalls full flaps at 38 kts!) soft touchdowns with two wheels on the ground and no braking until necessary.
 
Scott, where do those stats come from? What other fuselage damage has occurred besides this one and the "hard landing" case?

My internal statistical computer of course.:D
I have read three more cases just like this where the skin gets wrinkled on the side fuselage after a hard landing. Now, I actually know of three others on the RV-10 that caused damage because of hard landings but these were very hard landings as I was told. One was so hard it broke the engine mounts, cracked the top fuselage and broke the wheel pants.
I am really not too worried and assume the landings are in this category except this case. My thought was this, I have made some hard landings in a C-152 while I was training. If I had that same landing in the RV-12 would it damage it?

I will definitely check the bolts. I can see how a lose gear could cause this damage. Thanks for pointing it out.
Looking forward to Oshkosh.
 
Loose bolts?

I?ve been thinking about this particular incident over the last couple of days and thought I?d put out a few ideas for comment. I have had access to two RVs that were damaged in the landing gear area, an RV8 and an RV12. My RV8 hit a car on takeoff and effectively removed the gear legs from the aircraft, a few years back, and I just finished rebuilding an RV12 that was substantially damaged in a hard landing. Both landing gear are very similar, in that they are flat metal legs held to the plane with three bolts and a saddle assembly. My observations are:
-The bolts that attach the gear are very strong and in the case of the RV8, the bolt heads actually broke off rather than bend the bolt or the nuts pulled right off of the threads. There was very little bending involved.
-On the RV12, all bolts and gear legs were intact with no damage. The center section was twisted some in a couple of spots, but that?s all.
-The fuselage skin and ribs on the RV12 seems to be the weakest part of the structure in that area. On the damaged RV12, the center section rotated about 30 degrees and the fuselage structure gave way. There?s no comparison between the thick center section and the surrounding structure behind it.
-The damaged RV12 landing gear was still firmly attached to the center section and I was able to remove the nuts and bolts to separate the center section and gear legs.
So, what could have caused the wrinkle behind the gear and to the brake line? My guess is, since the rear fuselage cone and tail assembly is on a rather long arm behind the gear, it creates a lot of momentum if you are on a steep approach. Abruptly pulling up on the runway and actually touching down likely caused the rear fuselage to deflect downward, causing the wrinkles and contacting the brake line. Adding a lot of braking power just at or after that instant probably added to the overall force on that area where the fuselage joins the center section. (Strictly my opinion.)
At a minimum, I would recommend that the owner remove the center inspection panel in the baggage compartment and inspect the baggage compartment ribs for compression where they attach to the center channel. You may also be able to inspect through the access panels under the plane. In the damaged RV12, all of these ribs were damaged, obviously much worse than this one would be. There could possibly be some wrinkling of the bottom fuselage skins as well. I suppose that the side skins could deflect downward without doing other damage, but I'd check anyway. I would be interested to hear what the final decision is as to what happened and why.
I doubt that the gear legs actually moved aft enough to touch the fuselage skin, even if the bolts were loose. If they did, there would be evidence of it on the channel and the bolts themselves. There would be marks likely on the channel and the bolts would be bent. They would have to have been really loose!
Having flown the RV12 for several hours, I noticed how light the plane really is. There is no comparison to a Cessna 150. The RV12 is not a trainer, it is a sport ELSA. In my opinion, it was not built to be a trainer but was purposefully built to be light, agile, fairly powerful for its size and specifically an LSA for sport type flying. Although it will likely stand up to typical use, I don?t think it will stand up to a lot of rough use without some type of damage, like we are seeing here. Additionally, the change to a different engine, in some cases where they are built as EAB planes, can contribute to this problem since it is probably added weight and power, which puts additional stress on the airframe. (Again, strictly my opinion.)
Personally, I really like the RV12 and I think it is a wonderful flying airplane if flown within the envelope for which it was designed. In fact, I find myself flying it more than my RV8 since it is that much fun, so I hope we can find out what really happened here.
The above are only my personal observations set out for your review and I hope they help.
 
video of undercarriage when braking.

I know I'm late in this, and this might not even be relevent at this stage.

But a nice video under the thread title 'Playing hookey' has been posted. At the beginning you see the take off from under the mainplane, allowing the opportunity to see the main undercarriage movement when braking, they move a bit more than I would've thought. It is a nice vid though.
 
I?ve been thinking about this particular incident over the last couple of days and thought I?d put out a few ideas for comment. I have had access to two RVs that were damaged in the landing gear area, an RV8 and an RV12. My RV8 hit a car on takeoff and effectively removed the gear legs from the aircraft, a few years back, and I just finished rebuilding an RV12 that was substantially damaged in a hard landing. Both landing gear are very similar, in that they are flat metal legs held to the plane with three bolts and a saddle assembly. My observations are:
-The bolts that attach the gear are very strong and in the case of the RV8, the bolt heads actually broke off rather than bend the bolt or the nuts pulled right off of the threads. There was very little bending involved.
-On the RV12, all bolts and gear legs were intact with no damage. The center section was twisted some in a couple of spots, but that?s all.
-The fuselage skin and ribs on the RV12 seems to be the weakest part of the structure in that area. On the damaged RV12, the center section rotated about 30 degrees and the fuselage structure gave way. There?s no comparison between the thick center section and the surrounding structure behind it.
-The damaged RV12 landing gear was still firmly attached to the center section and I was able to remove the nuts and bolts to separate the center section and gear legs.
So, what could have caused the wrinkle behind the gear and to the brake line? My guess is, since the rear fuselage cone and tail assembly is on a rather long arm behind the gear, it creates a lot of momentum if you are on a steep approach. Abruptly pulling up on the runway and actually touching down likely caused the rear fuselage to deflect downward, causing the wrinkles and contacting the brake line. Adding a lot of braking power just at or after that instant probably added to the overall force on that area where the fuselage joins the center section. (Strictly my opinion.)
At a minimum, I would recommend that the owner remove the center inspection panel in the baggage compartment and inspect the baggage compartment ribs for compression where they attach to the center channel. You may also be able to inspect through the access panels under the plane. In the damaged RV12, all of these ribs were damaged, obviously much worse than this one would be. There could possibly be some wrinkling of the bottom fuselage skins as well. I suppose that the side skins could deflect downward without doing other damage, but I'd check anyway. I would be interested to hear what the final decision is as to what happened and why.
I doubt that the gear legs actually moved aft enough to touch the fuselage skin, even if the bolts were loose. If they did, there would be evidence of it on the channel and the bolts themselves. There would be marks likely on the channel and the bolts would be bent. They would have to have been really loose!
Having flown the RV12 for several hours, I noticed how light the plane really is. There is no comparison to a Cessna 150. The RV12 is not a trainer, it is a sport ELSA. In my opinion, it was not built to be a trainer but was purposefully built to be light, agile, fairly powerful for its size and specifically an LSA for sport type flying. Although it will likely stand up to typical use, I don?t think it will stand up to a lot of rough use without some type of damage, like we are seeing here. Additionally, the change to a different engine, in some cases where they are built as EAB planes, can contribute to this problem since it is probably added weight and power, which puts additional stress on the airframe. (Again, strictly my opinion.)
Personally, I really like the RV12 and I think it is a wonderful flying airplane if flown within the envelope for which it was designed. In fact, I find myself flying it more than my RV8 since it is that much fun, so I hope we can find out what really happened here.
The above are only my personal observations set out for your review and I hope they help.
Very interesting. Maybe there is a way to tell just how much force our RV12's have been subjected to with a hard landing. The "G" meter in the Dynon 180 retains the Maximum "G" force recorded until it is reset
 
I know I'm late in this, and this might not even be relevent at this stage.

But a nice video under the thread title 'Playing hookey' has been posted. At the beginning you see the take off from under the mainplane, allowing the opportunity to see the main undercarriage movement when braking, they move a bit more than I would've thought. It is a nice vid though.

Actually, it isn't relevant... Primarily because the airplane in the video has round rod style gear legs like what are traditional for all RV's except for the RV-8 and RV-12, which have flat profile legs.
A round rod leg is able to bend/flex in any direction (for & aft, up & down, etc.)
A flat gear leg can primarily bend in only one direction (up & down)
 
Actually, it isn't relevant... Primarily because the airplane in the video has round rod style gear legs like what are traditional for all RV's except for the RV-8 and RV-12, which have flat profile legs.
A round rod leg is able to bend/flex in any direction (for & aft, up & down, etc.)
A flat gear leg can primarily bend in only one direction (up & down)

Ah! Different undercarraiges, I didn't realise. I shall go into the corner and take my ignorance with me:eek:
 
Still a Problem

Although there are those who wish this topic would go away, the fact is that there are problems with the landing gear attachment. Here is a new take on the problem, this destruction of the main channel is hidden from view by the wire loom covering the front bolt. This is the second one like this I am personally aware of, and certainly warrants a closer check of the area. Any input by others would be appreciated.
2e1a8ae.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Gearbox damage photo (cracked channel)

uuuuh.....Houston, we have a problem here. I've talked to several people about this, and it's pretty obvious there's something bad going on here. I've also talked to Van's, and they're (understandably) in denial. I hope they're actually looking at this behind the scenes, but the official word seems to be that they're not.
I wonder if the Cessna 162 crumples up in a hard landing.
 
Don
Assuming this is the forward Bolt

This looks like a Tension failure, the hole in the flange is not allowing the load to be transferred to the vertical flange.
Note: the design of the U-1202B spacer it is attempting to handle the compression load to the outside of the hole ( that solved half the problem).

This is not a very good place to put a sacrificial part.

Note:This could happen on a fast landing with the brakes dragging.

My View


Although there are those who wish this topic would go away, the fact is that there are problems with the landing gear attachment. Here is a new take on the problem, this destruction of the main channel is hidden from view by the wire loom covering the front bolt. This is the second one like this I am personally aware of, and certainly warrants a closer check of the area. Any input by others would be appreciated.
2e1a8ae.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
It is my opinion that the cracks are the result of MANY landings with the brakes on, or over rough terrain, it was fatigue that caused the cracks. I don't think one rough landing could do that at all. It is obvious that the cutout in the channel was not one of the best ideas on the 12.
 
You can't state it was fatigue unless you cut out the cracked areas and send them off to the met lab for fracture face inspection and analysis.

P.S. In my 43 landings this week, I gave the ole gear a purty good work-out...... Never saw any wrinkles (maybe I didn't look hard enough....)

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
Well in all fairness, some others that found the damage, found out only during a condition inspection when the wings were removed. The cracking of the aluminum channel was totally hidden by the wire loom, and found by accident when removing the loom in preparation to reinforcing the fuselage sides.
 
Well in all fairness, some others that found the damage, found out only during a condition inspection when the wings were removed. The cracking of the aluminum channel was totally hidden by the wire loom, and found by accident when removing the loom in preparation to reinforcing the fuselage sides.

Others have found the "I" channel cracked?
 
This is the second one like this I am personally aware of, and certainly warrants a closer check of the area. Any input by others would be appreciated.

Don, is this the same aircraft that had the side skin damage you discussed at the start of this thread? And when you say `second one', do you mean the second one with this type of fracture in the channel, or the second one with some kind of damage associated with the landing gear?
 
Only one other with the cracked center channel that I positively know of and have photos. Others have had the side skins wrinkled badly. Since the channel cracking is not visible without moving the wire loom, there could be some hidden ones, since the above cracks were not noticed for some time after the wrinkled fuse skins..

Others have found the "I" channel cracked?
 
Don, this is an important topic and really needs to be treated with better precision and with less chance of confusion than these posts are providing. Let's be very clear, correct me if I am wrong. Let's say:
N1111111 is the plane that had such a bad landing that it spawned the fuel tank modification service bulletin.
N2222222 is a plane that you know about and is the plane with the wrinkled side skins just aft of the gear leg fuselage exit that was posted recently. That plane did NOT have these center section cracks that you have just posted above, is that correct??????
N3333333 is the plane with the cracks that you just posted. Did this plane also have wrinkled skins behind the gear legs?????
N4444444 is some "other" plane you know about with cracks????
Is there an N5555555????

PLEASE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY, in a way that we can discuss with precision, which planes have which symptoms. because this method of just referring to some number of indeterminate "others" is really not serving the cause of safety improvement.
Thank, Bill
 
Don, my centre channel does not have the two small holes that appear in the photo you posted. I assume these were drilled after the cracks were found to stop them from propogating any further?
 
Sure Bill, let me clarify. I am only aware of TWO with channel cracks as shown in the recent photo (since it was previously unknown, totally hidden by the wire loom, and therefore not commonly inspected, there MIGHT be more, since there are others with wrinkled skin)
First of all, N111111 is a completely separate category, I cannot put it in this category at all.
N2222222 and N333333 are in fact the SAME plane. The wrinkles were noted and fixed, THEN the cracks in the channel were noticed.
N44444 is another 12 with similar cracks in the center channel, also had wrinkles in the fuselage skin.
There are some other wrinkled ones, one is discussed earlier in this thread, and one I personally inspected in Grand Prairie Texas, and another that I am trying to recall the pictures and N number from a computer crash. At the time it seemed to simply be damage from a hard landing, if my memory serves me correctly, there were a total of seven wrinkled side skin cases that I knew of. At the time I was not so concerned, since it SEEMED that the landing gear simply deflected upwards enough to wrinkle the skin directly above the gear leg, and a "cure" seemed to be to remove a bit of material from the fuse skin directly above the leg.
I am aware of at least two conversations about this with Vans, with no definitive answer for the problem.
It is easy to dismiss this as pilot error, but when you are experiencing this high of damage percentage of the fleet, we either need to educate the pilots better, or fix the weakness. Other similar planes have ham fisted pilots also, but with not this much damage.
My point in reviving this thread was to encourage conversation about it. Several of us are working on a plan to strengthen this area to limit damage.

Don, this is an important topic and really needs to be treated with better precision and with less chance of confusion than these posts are providing. Let's be very clear, correct me if I am wrong. Let's say:
N1111111 is the plane that had such a bad landing that it spawned the fuel tank modification service bulletin.
N2222222 is a plane that you know about and is the plane with the wrinkled side skins just aft of the gear leg fuselage exit that was posted recently. That plane did NOT have these center section cracks that you have just posted above, is that correct??????
N3333333 is the plane with the cracks that you just posted. Did this plane also have wrinkled skins behind the gear legs?????
N4444444 is some "other" plane you know about with cracks????
Is there an N5555555????

PLEASE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY, in a way that we can discuss with precision, which planes have which symptoms. because this method of just referring to some number of indeterminate "others" is really not serving the cause of safety improvement.
Thank, Bill
 
I have not confirmed with the owner why the two holes were drilled, but it does appear to be a stop-drill effort, those holes are not in the furnished channel.
Don, my centre channel does not have the two small holes that appear in the photo you posted. I assume these were drilled after the cracks were found to stop them from propogating any further?
 
It is important to the 12 community to document these with better precision and specifics and photos. I am not doubting Don but This requires something more rigorous than thinking a number is about 7 but not having specifics. An undocumented concern is detrimental to the community and does not advance a better understanding of the problem and it's solution. I suggest that there be no more speculation without hard facts. If those with the problem do not want to be identified precisely, fine. But the must be some way to ensure the information is accurate and without duplication or overlap. Posting a photo is a good thing - but this photo does nothing but beg way too many questions. Don, I would respectfully request that you get the information in order or even better, provide a contact list to one of the very experienced and respected RVers in this forum for fuller data consolidation. You guys know who you are - put modesty aside - volunteers???
 
It is important to the 12 community to document these with better precision and specifics and photos. I am not doubting Don but This requires something more rigorous than thinking a number is about 7 but not having specifics. An undocumented concern is detrimental to the community and does not advance a better understanding of the problem and it's solution. I suggest that there be no more speculation without hard facts. If those with the problem do not want to be identified precisely, fine. But the must be some way to ensure the information is accurate and without duplication or overlap. Posting a photo is a good thing - but this photo does nothing but beg way too many questions. Don, I would respectfully request that you get the information in order or even better, provide a contact list to one of the very experienced and respected RVers in this forum for fuller data consolidation. You guys know who you are - put modesty aside - volunteers???

Agree 100%.

Why don't we just use the owner's name? If there is damage to the plane why don't these owner come forward to describe the damage, the hard landings, pilot habits, ect.

With all due respect to Don I just cannot imagine this to be a real problem when so many -12s (mine included, 275 hours) have not had any issues at all. John Bender has been flying his all over the midwest , pushing 500 hours. The Van's demo plane has been beat pretty hard, Mitch's new blue must have 1,000 hours on it by now and of lots of stiff landings.

I would love to down the Dynon and see the "G" loads the planes with wrinkled skins are seeing when landing.
 
Last edited:
How original, if you don't like the message - discredit the messenger!
I have not been judgmental about this, my plea was ONLY if you look back, to encourage others with such info to share it. Two of the wrinkled skin planes were informing me in confidence, and did not want their plane number or themselves identified for their own reasons. I will honor that. In one case the owner was going to sell his plane, and felt that such information would decrease its value. I have no dog in the fight, in fact making the information public will only serve to reduce the value of my own 12. I love education, for instance notice the title of this thread is loose mlg legs, that was the first impression of the cause from others.
In the interest of safety, the photo was posted so that others might glance at that area once in a while, since it CAN crack in that well hidden area, and has on at LEAST two cases with a fairly small number of flying RV12s.
 
Back
Top