What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-4A?

BruceMe

Well Known Member
I've heard rumors this exists... if anyone has pictures, I'd love to see them as I'm building one from a salvage fuse.

Thanks,

-Bruce
 
I recall reading an article about some guy who modified his -4 into a -4A but IIRC, this was pre-internet days (Yes, I am that old). I just did a search, which I'm sure you did as well, but couldn't find a picture of it.
 
I keep trying to picture a -4a, but it's not going well. Might have actually induced a cringe. Why take an easy landing, beautiful ship and flip the wheel around?!

Nay-saying aside, I'd read that build blog with interest and encouragement.
 
first time i hear about a -4A... But i guess you know about the -4RG?
there are definitely some oddities out there, to the point that van's denies to use the RV model name...
 
rv4 a

this was done once, i will try to find the copy of plan that i order from the designer. from what i recall, the person use the main landing gear at the main spar location and then he made a nosewheel

i will let you know we i can get my hand on it:)
 
rv4 a

this was done once, i will try to find the copy of plan that i order from the designer. from what i recall, the person use the main landing gear at the main spar location and then he made a nosewheel

i will let you know we i can get my hand on it:)
 
Bruce,

Maybe this RV-3AA? picture will be helpful (if the link works)
Xe3MOY9.jpg
 
Why? If you wheel-land the -4 what's the difference? The prop will still clear.

True, but if I had the short gear on my RV4 with my 72? prop, I would be very close to the ground on a wheel landing. Couldn?t land in tall grass, possibility.
 
The RV-3 nosedragger in the picture in post #10 isn't an RV-3a. The RV-3a is a taildragger with some wing mods due to some failures. There is no RV-3 nose wheel-equipped that Van's has advertised or sold, as far as I know.

This one must have been something that a builder did on their own.

The RV-3B is a newer version of the RV-3 with wings that are structurally similar to an RV-8, kind of. They have wing tanks and spars with machined caps.

Dave
RV-3B, now on the canopy
 
My neighbor had a -4 that was equipped with a nosewheel. The builder made it as a TD, but later added the Grove mains and a nose gear socket so his wife could fly it. It spent a good amount of time around so cal as an "A model", but my neighbor purchased it and converted it back to a TD. He sold it and as such and it's still flying today. Incidentally, this is also the same -4 that was set up as an open cockpit. You simply popped off the canopy and installed the dual windshield cowl in its place. It flew great as an "A model" and horrible as an open cockpit.
 
Bruce,

Maybe this RV-3AA? picture will be helpful (if the link works)
Xe3MOY9.jpg

That's awesome thanks, I looked up the N-Number and it's still regsitered. I'll try to find the owner... If anyone knows Robert Baggett of Greenbrier, TN. Let him know I'd like to talk.

Thanks!
 
How to trike...

I'm using an RV-7A gear-set. A couple of things stands out about this conversion. The main gear are flat, like the RV-8 and they're mounted pretty far aft. There's no good hard-points there, so he probably had to make one. The RV-6A+ use the main spar and rake the gear back similar to the RV-3,4&6. The nose wheel looks like it's off an RV-*A, but a bit smaller... cut down?

I plan to take the 7A hardware and bolt it to the spar similarly. It is likely the bolt patterns won't match (very different spar configuration) I will weld the holes over and re-drill to match my spar.

On the nose... I'm a lot less certain here. The RV-8A mount uses a 5&6th point down low. It's actually below the fuselage in a false bottom used to create the cowl exit. I think I will try to duplicate this but the space in that area is extra tight with engine exhaust, so this may be quite tricky. Hence... I'd like to see someone else's setup, esp the bottom firewall area.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Trust me I get it... this isn't your thing. But I'm sick of not knowing what I'm taxiing into for "ascetics". My ego is actually big enough to fly with the little wheel in front too.
 
Trust me I get it... this isn't your thing. But I'm sick of not knowing what I'm taxiing into for "ascetics". My ego is actually big enough to fly with the little wheel in front too.

It's OK Bruce. Just build what you want, as long as it is exactly what I want too. ;)

Good luck with the conversion. Please post the mods you had to go through and how you made them.
 
Go watch the video that has just been posted of an rv nose gear folding on landing leaving the pilot a quadriplegic and explain to me why a nose wheel is better. Because I just don?t understand. A tw pilot will instinctively keep the stick back and limit braking to prevent a noseover where as trike gear pilots hammer the brakes and force the nose strut into buckling (on RVs) time and time again.

Then there is drag, weight, more fwd cg and it is $&#@ ugly. Oh and in a crosswind you have to drag the brakes while taxiing because the 3rd wheel is not steerable. Other than that it?s a great idea. :eek:
 
rv4-a plan from 1995

I saw one years ago (1995 or so) at DWH, dont know what every happened to it

Hello i found the plan for the RV4 A conversion from 1995. The owner was Herschel D Wilson. I recall to have seen an article in the kitplane magasine in 1995. I will scan the plan and if any one is interested, just send me a personal message. plan for free!:rolleyes:

when i discuss with Mr Wilson , he explain that he cant land is 4 without any fear so he decide to convert to nose wheel. He meention that it perform very well after(no stomach cramp at landing).
 
Trust me I get it... this isn't your thing. But I'm sick of not knowing what I'm taxiing into for "ascetics". My ego is actually big enough to fly with the little wheel in front too.

Flew a handful of other fours besides my own...never had trouble seeing the taxiway. I sometimes S turn out of habit, but it's not truly necessary. I'm 5-foot-10 on a good day.
 
RV-4A

I have four pictures of N4386L at Jackson-Westover, CA airport on May 17, 1998 at the one and only "RV Rendevous" that was held there. I still have the commemorative t-shirt. There is a picture of this RV-4 on Jetphotos dated October 7, 2007 with the tail wheel again. None of my pictures are close up detail shots. I also remember a RV-4 with a nose wheel in one of the magazines years ago.


Hey, my 404th post..and it's in the RV-4 section!
 
Last edited:
Go watch the video that has just been posted of an rv nose gear folding on landing leaving the pilot a quadriplegic and explain to me why a nose wheel is better.

That's a very sad thing to watch. There is no reason a perfectly acceptable landing like that should ever turn into a bad accident. Every model of RV has its pluses and minuses, but the way that nose gear can catch and collapse is a catastrophic accident waiting to happen. Rather than breaking off and departing the airplane, it turns into a plow, digs in, and the airplane flips, making the event much worse than it could be. I understand Van's now has a much-improved design available.
 
Ya gotta ask...why?

Bruce,

Maybe this RV-3AA? picture will be helpful (if the link works)
Xe3MOY9.jpg

Bruce,
Many years ago I attended the Oshkosh 25th anniversary of the RV (97') in my then new RV4. I got to visit with Van in the RV parking area, a place he used to frequent during fly-ins. One of the questions I asked him was:
"Why build nose-dragger (arguably uglier) versions of perfectly good flying designs"?
His answer was categorically simple and to the point.
"Sales".

Yup, got the point...:)
V/R
Smokey
 
and that's how Van got drawn into doing side by sides, and -As of the -6/-7/-8/-14...

I haven't looked at the vansometer recently but I expect the nosewheel versions have outsold the tailwheel versions on all the side-by-side aircraft at least.

Van did it the right way... Start by building what you want (the -1, -3, -4) and then build what the public asks for (-6, -6A, etc.). I don't think anyone doubted that the market would love the A models. I think it was a surprise that the -6 quickly surpassed the -4 in sales.
 
Back
Top