What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Amazing video of RV nose gear collapse shot with GoPro

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone know whether this RV6-A was a tip - up or sliding canopy? I am also interested in knowing, as Bob asked, what kind of seat belts were in use. I am saddened and surprised by the injuries suffered by the pilot and his daughter. Thanks.
The excessive speed when it flipped is likely to have contributed to the serious injuries. The aircraft flipped quickly and would have banged down hard putting a high load on the seat belts and possibly deforming the roll bar. I suspect either style of roll bar would not remain intact under the forces imposed in a high speed flip such as this?
Fin
9A
 
The Nose gear would not have failed if it had been held off the runway until the elevator ran out of authority. The approach was way to fast, and the nose gear was allowed down too soon.

We have 2 or 3 prop strike/firewall/nose gear damaged 172's at our flying club every year. All on paved runways and all due to improper pilot technique as mentioned above. Haven't had any flip as yet, only bruised egos and empty wallets. Gotta use the proper technique whether it is nose gear or tailwheel. Both can bite.
 
Holy cr@p!!! Keep that nose wheel off the ground and don?t bounce. Says the **** poor pilot to the concerned passenger.

Sorry to those affected. Wow.
 
I'll chime in with the BIG lesson my CFI taught me in 2015 during my insurance-required transition training (thanks, Jarhead):

EVERY takeoff and landing in my -7A is a soft field event, even on pavement.

For takeoff, get the nose off ASAP and keep it off.

Keep the nose up on landing as long as the elevator will allow, then SET the nose down: Don't let it fall.

The nose strut exists solely and specifically to hold the nose up when the elevator can't.
 
Keep the Nosegear Up

RV7toGo. That?s not a great record. Here on the home drome at KSZP, they train with 150s, 152s, 172s. I honestly can?t remember the last time someone collapsed or bent a nosegear. My CFI wife teaches at the local flight school and they stress that the nosewheel is not a landing gear, but a steering gear. I guess on an RV it?s more correct to say the nosewheel is to keep the prop off the ground when the elevator can?t, just like someone stated above. I trained on 150s at KSBA and my instructor would only allow me to land with the steering wheel all the way back. That said, I see local solo students, and planes from other airports landing flat-footed now and then. But still, the dampened shock struts of the Cessna and Piper aircraft let them by with it, even after a bounce or two. Bottom line, I?m not so sure that all current instructors understand why or how to protect that vulnerable front wheel.
 
Deleted: Vendor Bashing.

Given the total number of A-model kits sold and flying, it's hardly a stigma.

Why even fly?

Like every other successful model of every aircraft, we learn the strengths and weaknesses, learn how to fly them, and press on as pilots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know the video was of an RV-6A but the flip over at the end is an example of why I cringe when I see an RV-3 or RV-4 without the roll bar. Deleting it saves weight and time but the consequences if the airplane flips over can be bad. Remember Charlie Hillard in his Sea Fury flipping over a taxi speed.
 
No reason for that. Just as a taildragger needs a certain finesse and technique to land properly and safely, nosewheels deserve the same. No, they are not as robust as a Cessna, and I think that is what leads to some inattention to the delicateness of them.

I do all my taxiing with the stick in my lap, including takeoff and landing (depending on winds of course). I apply throttle and let the nose come off and adjust pitch to keep it there. My landings the nose touches when there's not enough speed to keep it off the ground.

This is exactly correct. As a tailwheel guy and CFI (RV and otherwise) now flying an RV-14A, I don?t claim that tailwheel pilots are superior to nosewheel pilots, but it?s clear to me that they?re taught to stress different techniques. Whereas the tailwheel pilot is accustomed to a nose-high attitude on landing, as he flares for a 3-pointer or tail-low wheel landing, the nosewheel pilot tends to land much flatter, even when he believes that he?s holding the nose up. To me, that?s a failure of instruction, both initially and during subsequent BFRs.

The chief takeaway is this: treat the nosewheel solely as a taxi-assist wheel. If you?re not at taxi speed (or very nearly so), it shouldn?t be on the ground. Every takeoff and, especially, landing should be treated as soft field. Get the nose off early on the takeoff roll and hold it off on landing until it comes down on its own from loss of elevator effectiveness as speed decays.

That said, and despite having the improved nose gear on my -14A, I still intend to remain strictly on paved surfaces with it. Should I build a third RV, I plan to return to the tailwheel camp.
 
Brodhead Wisconsin flying

a vans rv6a Made a beautiful landing nose wheel off the ground slowed up and then flipped over on on grass . bob Hoover said never fly the A model just saying.
 
I know the 10's and 14's have a redesigned nose-gear, and it's now on the 7,8 and 9.

Do the 12's have this problem?
 
One thing I realized whilst watching and reading the different vids and reports available, is the propensity of the -A series to flip on their back once the nose gear is damaged, instead of just sliding ahead like most other trigear aicraft do.
Example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sgPXFE114g

I guess we all know that the -A has to be handled with care, but I for one couldn?t garantee to always make that perfect touchdown, specially when flying in blustery conditions? if you can good for you, if not, good luck!
 
a vans rv6a Made a beautiful landing nose wheel off the ground slowed up and then flipped over on on grass . bob Hoover said never fly the A model just saying.

Threads like this in general, and daft comments like this in particular, are examples of why I don’t find much value in the general discussion area here.
 
Last edited:
Consider forced landings

I?ll tell you what this video says to me. It says that if you have a nosegear RV you?d better be right on top of your firewall forward maintenance...because you do not want that engine to quit...it?s your heart pacemaker.

In an off-field forced landing the surface conditions, the wind direction, and the speed of the approach are all likely to be less than optimum. And then there?s the pressure degrading the pilot?s skills. In those conditions it is unlikely that you will do a landing any better than Ian Smith?s landing.

So the video tells me that your chances of pulling off an off-field forced landing without collapsing the nosegear and flipping over are not good. I think the accident reports on VansAirforce over many years confirms that.
 
Last edited:
Don't want to get into the 'A' vs TD but a few notes on the 'A' model that have been discussed before but may bear repeating.

I've seen a number of 6A's with the old fork, crappy nose wheel/fairing etc., these are critical components on the 'A models just like proper mntc. of the tailwheel to prevent ground loops. (I'd be curious to know which components the accident aircraft had).

To stack the deck in your favor my suggestions are:
1) replace the POS original nose wheel assy with a quality wheel/bearing/solid axle setup.
2) make sure you have the new style fork installed.
3) maintain air pressure in the nose tire, I run 45-50psi and chk regularly
4) I have the nose brace installed, maybe it will help and probably doesn't hurt except for the small weight penalty.

IMG_5777a-L.jpg


Notice how high I cut my front fairing, I also filled the lower portion of the fairing under the nut so that if the fairing does drag the fairing will act as a 'skid'. The bottom of the front fairing is very close to the axel, about as high as I could go. Also note how high the tire sits with proper air pressure.

IMG_5789a-L.jpg
 
Last edited:
This brings up an interesting question, do the taildraggers suffer more ground loops than tricycles flip-over?

The flip-overs get all the press but I rarely hear about ground loops and I'm sure they happen. I suspect the insurance companies might have statistics on this because if the A's were such a risk, they would have higher initial insurance rates.

As a tailwheel guy, part of my calculus was that a ground loop might be slightly more likely, but the consequences wouldn?t be as serious. I?d rather end up with an insurance claim for bent metal after a ground loop, than be upside down trying to figure out a way to egress the airplane with serious injuries.

That said, misuse of the brakes can put the taildraggers on their back...but knock on wood I haven?t seen many instances of that in the RV series.

You?ll get no knock from me on the A models. They?re fantastic airplanes and we each need to pick which configuration best meets out needs. Whichever you choose, we need to understand the limitations and do our best to guard the airframe from damage, be it from lost directional control in the tailwheel, or nosewheel abuse in the nosedragger.

I will say that tailwheel pilots seem more likely to go around than their nosewheel counterparts, but that could just be a false perception on my part.
 
I have a RV6A and love it but when I fly into a turf, dirt, or sketchy asphalt strip I would much rather be in a tailwheel that’s for sure.
 
Last edited:
I read this whole thread intending to chime in on some things that seemed to be missing or spread out among the other discussions... then got to Walt's post. If you have or are building an -A model, that's a must read.

Critically, no one should be flying an early -A model RV around without having complied with Van's SB 07-11-09. I didn't see in the video or reports whether that was a factor there, but for avoiding nose wheel collapses that's the very first thing.
 
Living on the edge

interestingly, some of them -A can take quite some beating without breaking, as seen in this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJP674OiJQ0

Scroll to 5:10 for the landing phase...

Yep, scary. Completely flat take-off, completely flat landing. No attempt whatsoever to hold the nose off the ground. And on a grass strip. This is not what Mike Seagar taught me. The pilot in this video is living right on the edge.
 
Last edited:
Interesting

Yep, scary. Completely flat take-off, completely flat landing. No attempt whatsoever to hold the nose off the ground. And on a grass strip. This is not what Mike Seagar taught me. The pilot in this video is living right on the edge.
I thought the same thing, but it is interesting that he/she didn't seem to have any problems - that nosewheel behaved exactly as one would expect - with very little back-forth motion. Perhaps that strip was much smoother and firmer than it looked, or there was something about that nosewheel setup ...
 
New gear design

My transition instructor also taught to lift the nose wheel early and to hold it off as long as possible, and to taxi with the stick fully back.

However, some of these -A flipover accidents have been at low taxi speeds, so the flexible spring rod design does appear to have some vulnerabilities. Even the mains can be seen to oscillate back and forth quite a bit on a grass or gravel surface.

The new design nose gear, which uses a rubber damper, rather than a spring, will hopefully provide some extra lattitude to help reduce this type of accident. It is an extra $3,500 which to me seems like a good investment if it will help to avoid a flip and broken neck, or worse.
 
Keep the nose up on landing as long as the elevator will allow, then SET the nose down: Don't let it fall.

My experience has been, if you keep the nose up on landing as long as the elevator will allow, and don't "set" it down, but you DO let it fall: (a) it comes down at around 25 - 28 knots in a -9A, and (b) it seems to come down from a very small distance above the ground (it feels like just a few inches, although admittedly, I've never witnessed it from the outside).

When you set the nosewheel down, are you actually applying forward movement on the stick?

3) maintain air pressure in the nose tire, I run 45-50psi and chk regularly

I believe Vans service letter says keep nose tire pressure between 25 and 35 psi.

That is what I recall reading as well. The disparity between the Van's 25 - 35 PSI, and Walt's 45 - 50 PSI recommendation is interesting.

If I recall correctly, the -6A that Mike Seager uses is 30+ years old, has 20,000+ hours, has been used to train pilots essentially since day 1, has literally thousands of landings on the grass runway in Vernonia, Oregon, no nosewheel reinforcement, and the original nose landing gear. Yet, it has never had the nose gear fold. Clearly, it's not always the recipient of the best pilot technique, given the training that it sees. Yet, the nose has not folded. So, what's the difference between that airplane, and all these others that have folded?
 
If I recall correctly, the -6A that Mike Seager uses is 30+ years old, has 20,000+ hours, has been used to train pilots essentially since day 1, has literally thousands of landings on the grass runway in Vernonia, Oregon, no nosewheel reinforcement, and the original nose landing gear. Yet, it has never had the nose gear fold. Clearly, it's not always the recipient of the best pilot technique, given the training that it sees. Yet, the nose has not folded. So, what's the difference between that airplane, and all these others that have folded?

The landings are all ON SPEED. This is the difference. If you?re not at the appropriate speed, don?t continue the landing.

-Andy
 
I believe Vans service letter says keep nose tire pressure between 25 and 35 psi.

I believe the SL ref you are referring to from Van's is how to help with nose gear shimmy:

"The following is a list of suggestions that may help minimize nose gear vibration.
1.The NOSE wheel tire pressure should be between 25-35psi. Less is better as it increases the tire drag, which will help damp any shimmy. The MAIN tires should be inflated to between 25 and 35 PSI and be equally pressurized. The balance of the wheel/ tire assemblies is important as well – all of them!"

With a good wheel/tire assy you should not have shimmy, if you have to lower the pressure to 25 to eliminate shimmy I suggest you look deeper for the issue.

From another of Van' SL's about the nose gear/leg fork issue is the following statement:

"History has shown that ensuring correct tire pressure, providing adequate wheel fairing to tire clearance, correct axle nut torque, and exercising proper pilot technique through pilot proficiency training are the best way to prevent any problem with the nose gear".

I have no issues with nose wheel vibration, to help insure that the nose wheel pressure never drops below 35-40 (my personal minimum), airing it to 45-50 allows about 2 months between pres checks.

Increasing nose tire drag with low air pressure or bearing drag, will result in an increased tendency for the nose wheel to tuck under during a botched landing.

PS: I also run my mains at 45
 
Last edited:
I was referring to letter dated November 9, 2007 which dealt primarily with nose gear weights and landing loads. I assumed the tire pressure mentioned in that letter also was in dealing with the loads. I did?t see anything mentioning shimmy. It may be worth investigating further.
 
Increasing nose tire drag with low air pressure or bearing drag, will result in an increased tendency for the nose wheel to tuck under during a botched landing.

It seems to a pretty common for there to be misunderstanding with some of the terminology used when describing things related to the nose wheel so here is a little clarification.

The reason lower nose wheel tire pressure reduces the tendency of shimmy isn't because it is increasing the rolling resistance (though that probably has some influence). It is because it is increasing the contact footprint of the tire on the ground/runway.
If you use a high tire pressure, the tire doesn't compress very much and there is very little contact area of the tire on the ground. In a severe case the contact area might only be 1" wide (laterally). This provides very little scrubbing resistance on the ground. I.E., there is much lower resistance to it pivoting in the yaw axis, so it will be much more susceptible to shimmy.

There is a balance point regarding having enough pressure for the amount of weight on the nose wheel but not having too much, and Walt is correct that getting the nose pressure too low can reduce the safety margin from a failed nose gear, but arbitrarily pumping the tire up to a high pressure can induce serious problems as well.
Also, proper pressure is not going to be the same for every A model RV, because they have different engine / prop combinations, and other variables which cause differences in C.G. (that is why the tire pressure range mentioned in the SB is so wide).
Aircraft loading is a factor as well.

A lot of nose tire pressure, a lower than ideal nose fork breakout friction, and an aft C.G. landing are the perfect storm for having a severe nose wheel shimmy event.

All of the factory 2 seat A model RV's have had the nominal nose pressure established visually with the airplane parked on a smooth level surface.
The pressure is adjust until there is about 1/2" of contact area of tire lifted off the ground surface on each side. This leaves a generous footprint of the tire in contact with the ground

-Side bar- The shimmy I am talking about here is the lateral pivoting movement of the nose fork in a resonant manner.
The forum is full of conversations with people taking about nose wheel shimmy where they were actually talking about the fore/aft shimmy that the leg can make in certain situations. usually caused by excessive drag in the nose wheel bearings/seals, and out of round tire, and out of balance wheel assembly, or a combination of any number of these.
The conversations often diverge into people giving advice for one when the question was actually about the other. Adding to the problem is that because there are two different actions where the same term is often used, a person sometimes doesn't seem to be sure what problem they even have..... all they know is someone saw them land and said they had a nose gear shimmy.

Bottom line.... if you feel something that is pretty violent when the nose wheel first touches down.... it is nose fork rotational shimmy that you are dealing with. It should be fixed before the next flight or you could cause some serious damage.
 
My experience has been, if you keep the nose up on landing as long as the elevator will allow, and don't "set" it down, but you DO let it fall: (a) it comes down at around 25 - 28 knots in a -9A, and (b) it seems to come down from a very small distance above the ground (it feels like just a few inches, although admittedly, I've never witnessed it from the outside).

When you set the nosewheel down, are you actually applying forward movement on the stick?

Actually, quite the opposite. I'm increasing back pressure at the moment the nose starts to move downward. Up to that point, I hold a fairly constant back-stick input (but not full aft stick) to hold the nose tire a few inches above the pavement. When the nose starts to drop, I increase back stick to control the nose drop. Tough to explain, but like so many other things in piloting (crosswind landings, for example), it comes with feel and practice.

Bottom line: I treat every takeoff and landing like a soft-field event. The only difference for takeoffs is that I usually use zero flaps off of pavement but 1/4 flaps off grass.
 
Would love to see some video of the new nose gear with a fast flat landing of soft field..... I am sure it will not fold. The "folding mechanism" of the original design I think is well understood at this point.

Personally in my opinion I don't consider the A-models suitable for soft fields. Of course if the "soft field" is firm, flat, grass or dirt, landing with nose gear held off to lowest possible speed during roll out, it should not be an issue. For the record I also don't consider Mooney's suitable for soft field.
 
Would love to see some video of the new nose gear with a fast flat landing of soft field..... I am sure it will not fold. The "folding mechanism" of the original design I think is well understood at this point.


Probably looks the same as a 10 or 14.

Anybody have a video of a 10 or 14?
 
I have no issues with nose wheel vibration, to help insure that the nose wheel pressure never drops below 35-40 (my personal minimum), airing it to 45-50 allows about 2 months between pres checks.

Increasing nose tire drag with low air pressure or bearing drag, will result in an increased tendency for the nose wheel to tuck under during a botched landing.

PS: I also run my mains at 45

RVs can have greatly varying loads on the nose wheel depending on their empty weight and how they are constructed. It’s all to do with weight and balance. An IO360 200 hp engine and CS prop may put a much higher load on the nosegear than say an O-320 with a fixed pitch prop. And the higher the load the higher will be the required tire pressure to avoid excessive tire deformation.

Additionally, small radius of curvature tires (generally smaller tires) require a higher pressure to resist load deformations than larger radius of curvature tires (generally larger tires). That’s a principle of pneumatic structures.

So I don’t think there is any one-size-fits-all tire pressure for an RV. However I do believe that many RV owners have their nose tires (and probably their mains too) under inflated. I run my nose tire at 42 psi and don’t like to see it drop below 35 so I’m close to Walt on this one. My tendency over 5 years of flying my RV7A has been to increase my tire pressure over the years and I have never had a nose wheel shimmy (but I do have a modified nose wheel bearing which I highly recommend).
 
Last edited:
Two things spring to mind when I watch this video.

Firstly, the initial main wheel landing generates quite a strong pitching rotation which appears to add load to the nose wheel when it first touches - is this exacerbated by brake drag for some reason?

Secondly, what material are the gear legs made from? I know that 4140 and 4340 steels can have some wild variation in yield strength depending on heat treatment condition and source. It might account for some of the variability in people's outcomes.
 
On Landings: I have had a few less than ideal landings with my 6A. The airport I fly out of gets some really bad rotors from the trees when there is a crosswind from the east. We will all have a bad landing at some point, the key in the A models is to keep it on the mains. If you bounce, either go around, or keep the nose up and let it settle, don't try to push it back down.

I have also come in to fast, in that event (assuming I have the runway), I just hold it in ground effect until the airplane settles down on the mains.

On the nose wheel/tires: I run all my tires at 45-50 PSI. I did modify my nose wheel to use seal ball bearings, the drag on the taper bearings was awful, they need to go for sure.

Shimmy: A good chunk of my Phase 1 was flown without nose fairing (hadn't finished it yet), I had no shimmy of any kind at any speed. As soon as I added the fairing, I got a shimmy at high taxi speeds. I think the extra mass aft of the axle is a significant contributor to nose shimmy. Adding some weight to the nose of the pant may help.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking what design 'might' help to ileviate this obvious weak design. I've seen a 6A fitted with the wood anti-splat device, the plane was wrecked when it flipped, the two occupants lucky to escape! The bent leg simply molded itself around the anti-splat device!
It occurred to me that when any stationary wheel hits a fast moving surface under it Newstons 3rd law comes in to play, what if that reaction could be reduced? I know some Bizjets have spin up nose wheels thru bleed air for gravel operations but another winning effect is that the wheel doesn't grab the surface causing a fwd pitching moment. Be interesting to see directed airflow over the nose wheel of an A model to cause it to spin with a camera mounted much like the accident A/C here to see the nose leg reaction at touchdown? Just thinking out loud is all:)
 
I hope it never happens to me...

I have been based on this grass strip over 4 years and have been to many other grass strips. I did not build the plane but I think I have the newer nose gear on my 7A and a sealed bearing nose wheel. Matco i think? I try to treat every takeoff and landing as a softfield/shortfield, not matter what surface I am on. I run 45lbs in my nose wheel. I keep the nose wheel off for takeoff and landing as long as possible. Looking at the video, it does not seem like biggest prang it in I have seen. I think it should have rolled right through it all with no issues. I think the nose wheel bound up... I think a solid, smooth rolling nose wheel is a big part of it.... I pray this never happens to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrB2bhTmGxs
 
I'm coming into this conversation late, so sorry if I missed something. Can someone explain what the wheel bearings have to do with nose gear folding or nose wheel shimmy? I just don't see the problem with angular bearings so long as the preload is properly adjusted.
 
I'm coming into this conversation late, so sorry if I missed something. Can someone explain what the wheel bearings have to do with nose gear folding or nose wheel shimmy? I just don't see the problem with angular bearings so long as the preload is properly adjusted.

See this thread. Your question is specifically answered there, along with a lot of other important info. Imagine locking up the nosewheel on landing or rollout...
 
I find it much easier to judge the sink rate etc from a camera fixed to ground reference than for a camera attached to the airplane. To me it looked like there was a sudden rise in the runway after first contact and the airplane landed flat,which would indicate that it was well above stall speed. But from that perspective it is hard to tell. That could be an illusion. The touchdown attitude should have been more nose high. A nose low high speed contact with the nose strut would most likely break it.

These nose wheels seem like they are designed to handle taxi loads and not much else. There have been so many that have folded. To have such a horrible injury is heart breaking for everyone.
 
Placebo effect

My first question is did the RV have installed the Antisplat nose gear bracket? I ask this because two summers ago coming back from Oshkosh I landed with an extreme aft cg and bounced mains to nose excessively (porpoise) and did an immediate go around. I then repeated the porpoise/go around experience several times until application of full forward nose down trim. This helped enough to offset the worse effects of an aft cg condition. (I wrote up my experience and lessons learned in VAF at the time).

Later on I checked my nose gear and discovered significant scrapping on the bottom forward section of the fairing; which I strongly suspect was caused by that landing. I state this as a testament to the value of the Antisplat nose gear bracket.

Ian Smith’s RV6A did not have an Anti-splat device installed. This question has been asked several times on this thread presumably because there are people who believe the device may have made a difference in this accident.

My own personal opinion is that in this case the device would have made no difference. To be honest, and I do have an Anti-Splat on my nosegear, I am not convinced that the device actually works. I suspect it’s main benefit is just the placebo effect...it probably doesn’t do anything but people feel better anyway.

A lot of people misunderstand the way that the Anti-Splat nose brace is designed to work. Firstly, under normal operating conditions the brace is not acting as a brace at all. People who have installed the device will remember that there is a gap between the “support cups” of the device and the nose gear leg. Under normal operating conditions the nose gear is free to flex (and therefore to oscillate wildly). According to the Anti-Splat designer the device is only intended to come into contact with (and brace) the nose leg once the nose leg has yielded and thus fully and permanently deformed (transitioned from elastic to plastic deformation).

In your case above you had an incident and noticed scraping on the bottom of your nose wheel fairing. You felt intuitively that the Anti-Splat device must have saved your bacon. But maybe not. In your case you should have removed the gear leg fairing and inspected the gear leg. If the Anti-Splat device had actually braced the gear leg there would have been obvious witness marks on the powder coating. Of course in that event you could assume that the nose gear had permanently yielded and that replacement would be required.

Your experience is not unique. I had a friend who did a very bad bounced landing in his RV last year and was totally convinced that his Anti-Splat brace had saved the day. He went on and on about it until I suggested we whip off his nose leg fairing and inspect the nose leg. Sure enough, not the slightest sign of any contact between the brace and the nose leg. The powder coating was untouched. Not the smallest scratch. As I said....placebo effect.
 
Last edited:
There have been so many that have folded.
And yet there have been orders of magnitude more that *haven't* folded. I've been watching this movie for 20 years and i'm still not convinced we have identified all the things that could cause a nosewheel to fail, but with the number of nosewheels flying, it still seems to be a tiny number of accidents in the grand scheme of things.
 
...My own personal opinion is that in this case the device would have made no difference. To be honest, and I do have an Anti-Splat on my nosegear, I am not convinced that the device actually works. I suspect it?s main benefit is just the placebo effect...it probably doesn?t do anything but people feel better anyway....
I share this opinion. It seems to me to be too small of a support to provide the reinforcement it claims.
 
What bites into the dirt?

So what happens after the nose gear collapses? What bites into the terrain and causes the plane to nose over? Is there a cheap, no-drag mod that would result in skidding on the nose rather than a flipping?
 
IMO, The end of the nose strut where the big nut is catches the ground and then the strut bends backwards and folds under digging in hard. The principle mass inertia is well above the gear, and the airplane flips over the nose strut which is acting like an arresting hook. Anti Splat has a nose skid for under the nut, but that isn?t going to do much on turf. Need a bigger tire on the nose to reduce the risk. Even if one lands perfectly, if the small nose tire finds a hole on roll out it won?t be pretty. Someone on this list had a slo mo flip over on final rollout when the nose wheel hit a hole in a paved runway. Even a bigger tire will do the same thing if the hole or rut is big enough.

The same happens to other airplanes, just bigger tires are more tolerant of smaller holes and the Cessnas and Pipers the main difference flip over wise, is that the nose strut breaks off, and doesn?t act like an anchor to stop the airplane causing it to flip over.
 
I
The same happens to other airplanes, just bigger tires are more tolerant of smaller holes and the Cessnas and Pipers the main difference flip over wise, is that the nose strut breaks off, and doesn?t act like an anchor to stop the airplane causing it to flip over.
+1. Take a walk around the airport with a flashlight and mirror, and look at the firewalls of 182's. You will see a substantial number (I have *heard* 50%) that have an after-market X shaped repair to their firewall - from a nose first landing.
<rant> IMHO we have managed to raise an entire generation (maybe two or three) that does not know how to land an airplane. Go to the airport and watch. How many land with the nose too high? Almost none. How many land with the nose lower than optimum? Almost everyone. Airspeed well above stall, nose barely off the ground, when the mains make contact. And a few "landings" are nose wheel first. A few months ago I watched a guy (I won't call him a pilot) in a multi-million dollar Pilatus bounce after landing nose first. (He barely salvaged the second landing). Now add in a smaller than normal nose wheel, and anything other than smooth hard paved runways, and there's a recipe for disaster. <end rant>.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top