What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Rv's and unimproved Strips

Danield

I'm New Here
Maybe some of you can give me a little bit of insight. I'm looking at building an RV10 and am curious about how well these aircraft deal with unimproved airfields. I am interested in going in and out of a fairly short, kind of rough field. I suppose that it would be wise to take off the wheel farings for this type of thing, but has anyone done this. Also, this strip lies at an elevation of about 4500 feet, so if anyone has experience taking off from these types of elevations, i would be interested in hearing what kind of takeoff and landing distances you encountered. I realize there aren't that many 10's out there, so any input from other RV'ers would be much appreciated as well. Thanks a lot.
 
RV-10 on the rough stuff

As you say RV-10 is a rare bird so far, but I can comment on flying on rough fields. First RVs have pretty tough gear and OK prop clearance. My comment is how rough is rough. You always will be at higher risk of aircraft damage and have less "margins" off of un-improved strips. Many time rough fields is combined with short, obstacles and sometimes high altitude to-boot. Many RVs are flown out of rough strips and the RV-10 should be comparable. Check the post about RVs flipping over on rough fields, especially "A" models. The incidents tend to be related to off-field emergency landings or bad landings. I think pilot skill will be one of the biggest factors in what you can get away with landing on.

Prop Clearance. All RV-10s will be nose draggers for now. I might get a little grief but nose gear airplanes are universally thought to be not quite as good on soft ground. Tail draggers get better prop ground clearance. Also nose gears can dig in, with CG pitching forward, more weight is shifted on the nose, aggravating any digging. This is over come by keeping the weight off the nose by loading and keeping the plane light, having a positive angle of attach stance on the gear and if possible use large diameter wheels & tires.

I am not a fan of 3 blade props, but they do give more tip to ground clearance. However many 3 blade props are composite. If I was planning a steady diet of rough strip flying, I would like a metal prop. It is easy to blend small dent or nick. I also think they are tougher. A composite prop may need major repair, removal and shipping to a repair center (Germany) if damaged.

Weight on nose gear, the lighter the better. In fact the lighter you keep it the better. Pilot technique is real important. Stick way back.

I think fairings are fine but should be installed higher up and with lots of clearance. Also some internal baffles to keep dirt out of the inside of the fairings would be a good idea. I believe the RV-10 comes with larger tires than other RVs? I would consider installing the largest tires you can on the rims supplied or see if the axles will support larger wheels (rims). The problem is the axle doesn?t support larger rims on the other models of RV.

Good luck George
 
Hmmm,
I do a bit of this stuff and I might be able to shine some light on this subject.

Lately, I have been operating a highly modified STOL C-182 in and out of short, rough strips. I have also been flying an RV-4 out of a grass strip into fairly short and rough grass strips.

One of the first things we did on the 182 was to remove the wheel fairings which pack up with mud and other debris really quickly. We also installed BushMaster landing gear which consists of bigger wheels/tires along with a beefed up nosegear.

One of the weak spots of any tricycle geared aircraft is the firewall where the nosegear mounts. This is the achilles heel of the nosegear. (Is that a warped pun??) On the Cessna, it is not uncommon for the firewall to distort from excessive shock loads from the nosewheel. That is why the tailwheel aircraft is so popular in the bush. The taildragger has strong, stiff maingear and skookum tailgear. Oh, and big tires to help with the shock loads and reduced rolling resistance over rough ground.

The 182 that I fly has a canard mounted on the nose that provides lift from the prop wash to keep the nosewheel light. It has fowler type flaps with gap seals, and wing fences to prevent spanwise flow, and altered leading edge profiles for increased camber. Oh Yeah! and vortex generators on the top of the wing, the bottom of the horizontal stab and the sides of the vertical stab. One more thing, the engine has been beefed up to 260 HP with fuel injection.

All these things except the added HP reduce the stall speed and that reduces the loads on the gear and airframe. Probably, the RV-10 was not designed to do what we do with this 182, or what any 180/185 can do. RVs are not designed to be bush planes although they can be operated in and out of grass strips all the time.

Let's say that you decide to beef up the axles and wheels for your purposes and you remove the wheel pants also. (Those big new tires won't fit anyway) Right away you will find paint damage and perhaps denting of the flaps during landing and takeoff. Flying the RV-4 into grass strips with the wheel pants ON has given us paint damage and denting of the flaps. Think what they would look like with no wheel pants?? That is why you don't see many bush planes with low wings. In the bush, the high wing rules because the debris thrown from the tires does not impact the bottoms of the wings and flaps hard enough to cause damage.

Just the other day I was landing the "4" on a one-way strip with no go-around, uphill etc. I overflew the strip and noticed that the grass had been cut only along the centerline. I made my approach, which was out of sight of the strip and found myself looking down a 12 foot swath cut in the waist deep grass on short final! I figured that I could do it and since a go-around was not possible anyway, I touched down with the the wingtips threshing grass. The grass was actually bending over the wings and leaving stains on the top of the wings! Once again, the high winged airplane was made for these conditions, while the RV-4 was not.

So, there are some things to think about when you consider the use of the RV-10 for "unimproved strips". My partner and I are hoping to operate our RV-8 for some similar types of useage, but we have already figured out that this type of use will have to be limited to the occaisional rather than the everyday. I think that once you have year(s) of work into your new RV that you will be reluctant to beat it up in the bush.

Cheers, Pete

PS. I will try to stick some pics in here later to show you the 182 and the strip.
 
RV-10 vs C-182

vanlle2000 said:
I prefer the nose wheel airplanes for out of the way places because I can see where I am taxiing.
If we are talking RV-10 than any taidragger vs. nosedragger debate is moot, there is no taildragger RV-10 and none is planned.

I agree no model of RV is a real hardcore bush planes but they do OK on prepared dirt or gravel strips.

"A" model RV nose gears are nothing like a C-182. The RV nose gear is very flexible, both aft and side to side. Add the free castoring wheel of smaller diameter I would say apples and oranges. A C-182 by comparison has a much stronger and more stable nose gear. However in favor or the RV-10 is the power to weight ratio. If you are at light weight you can get to flying speed faster and put the weight on the wings and reduce the ground roll. So weight is another issue. The lighter the better.

Visibility in a RV-taildragger is very good if you have a cushion that puts you higher.

The fact is nose wheels do offer many advantages, but builders tend to accept the Pros of one configuration while justifing the Cons. Whether tipup/slider or taidragger/nosedragger, you have to take the good with the bad. There are many tri-gear bush planes, but they tend to have very large tires and very heavy duty struts. All in all, the "A" model RV's tend to do OK on dirt with aft CG and aft stick so the weight is off the nose wheel. As long as the "drag" load or rolling resistance on the uneven soft surface is not too great you are OK.

Regarding RV nose gears, many "A" models have flipped in soft unprepared fields, usually after a forced landing. I understand the RV-10 nose gear is stronger and uses a larger tire, which is all-good. Also the RV-10 does appear to sit higher. However the trailing castor makes the first thing going down the runway the front end of the castor fork, which is subject to hanging up on obstacles and holes, in other words, low ground clearance to solid gear parts that don't roll. Second is the physics. The CG on a nosedragger is forward of the main gear. When the nose gear drops into a hole you rotate about the main gear and you get "rotational inertia" which drives the gear down. Add the fact Van's nose gear is canted forward like a "poll vault" and is long, bent into a "S" and unstable. As the deflection increases (aft or side) the bending loads will increase. At a certain point the defection and load can increase to failure. In other words the greater the deflection, the greater the load, the more unstable the gear. None of this applies to a C-182.

The tail dragger is thought to be superior to the nose gear for soft fields, period. There is the obvious, the prop is out of the dirt further. Before you write that tail draggers can flip, I'll beat you to it; They can flip. However the main gear tires are bigger, the main gear legs stiffer and more stable and it has greater ground clearance than the nose gear. (Granted the wheel fairing is a source of hang-ups.) Therefore they will stand much larger obstacles and rolling resistance with out hanging up. If you dont' brake, use full aft stick the flip factor should be less with the tail dragger.

Cheers George
 
Last edited:
skis and floats

If we are talking RV-10 than any taildragger vs. nosedragger debate is moot, there is no taildragger RV-10 and none is planned.
Is there any chance an rv-10 tailwheel will be offered? Has Van ruled that out for sure?

Other than tri-gear and the inherent disadvantages of a low wing, at least performance wise, it appears the rv-10 is in a very good operating range (slightly better) than some of the bush plane work horses of the north - Cessna 180, 185, and 206 for example. These planes don't operate in the real rough strips anyway because they don't have the STOL of the super-cub, although the 180/185 is known to operate out of gravel bars measuring 500 ft in length.

Admittedly, the rv-10 won't make a good serious off airport platform, but if there was a tailwheel version, what about the other missions of the bush plane - the use of skis and floats? Wouldn't the -10 lend itself reasonably well for these missions with the markedly good takeoff and landing performance?

Again, I'm sure there is good reason that the high-wing's own the bush to adequately clear tall grass, stumps, deep snows, high drifts, etc. but if you are doing it more for recreation and not for heavy bush business, I would be curious if we don't see some skis and floats on 10's in the future, maybe on mine!

aj
 
ajay said:
Is there any chance an rv-10 tailwheel will be offered? Has Van ruled that out for sure?

Van's has announced there will not be a tailwheel version of the -10.

The -9 probably convinced him not to produce a TW -10 as something like 1% of the -9's sold have TW's the remaining 99% are Tricycles.

These are experimental aircraft and I'm sure you could stiffen the tailcone and slide the -7 or -8 main gear under the forward fuselage and ...
 
If you are going to fly a 10 out of rough strips then remove the wheel pants and beat leg fairings and accept the 17 kt reduction to cruise speed. Also put 600-6 tires on the mains instead of the 15-600-6 low profile tires it normally uses. I am not fond of 3 bladed props but I might consider one for that kind of flying for more prop clearance.
 
You may want to wait till late July and see what the RV 15 looks like ! We know it’s a high wing craft , and it will cost a lot of cake , but that’s about it !!
 
Back country

I bought my -10 from a guy that liked back country flying. He used 600x6 mains and adapted the wheel pants accordingly. I am based on a grass field in Florida that is often soft in summer and have never had trouble.

I am attaching a picture of my -10 at Sulphur Creek, ID. (ID74). The takeoff from this gravel runway was at 8500’ DA with two souls and 1/2 fuel. I estimate my ground roll was 1300’.

PM your email if you want a video of that takeoff and one at Leadville, CO at 11,000’ DA.
 
Another photo showing large mains.

The high tail on the -10 is a blessing on gravel.
 

Attachments

  • 17CA2C85-F12F-4839-8C8E-022816548362.jpeg
    17CA2C85-F12F-4839-8C8E-022816548362.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 251
We were at Sulphur Creek, Stanley, Johnson Creek and Smiley Creek in our RV7 with 5:00 x 5 wheels and pants. Sulphur Creek was the only one that we had any concerns about; as there were piles of 6"boulders stacked up, here and there, in the area where we needed to park.

One trick I've learned, is to apply only a small amount of power until the plane is going 20 miles per hour; then smoothly apply full power. This technique minimizes the prop picking up pebbles and small rocks!
 
Last edited:
Sulphur Is Closed

Guys, Sulphur Creek Ranch is closed to all this 2022 season. They are recovering from a 2021 fire that left only a fringe of green trees around the property. All else is charcoal. Obviously, the pictures are from some pre-fire year. Cherise them.

600 x 6 is the usual mains on a 172. No tire/wheel worries, but fairings will take a beating. I've help push 6s and 7s out of the soft earth off the runway, plus some larger rocks will chock your mains and ding the pants. The dinky tail wheels aren't much better than skids.

John Siebold
Boise, ID
 
I flew my RV9A into several ID back country strips last June without cracking any of my wheel pants. We set up base camp at Johnson creek and each morning flew out to a different strip. I was lucky out there, I guess. Since returning back to my grass strip in Tennessee, I have cracked my nose wheel pant a few times. :>(
 
RV-7A on Turf

I've been flying my 7A off my own ranch strip for a while now. The strip is not well groomed (certainly not a fairway!) and I've taken off and landed many times when grass was pretty tall (4" or more). The RV did great. If I land from the north (XS95 on sectional, 1800' long near sea level) over 50' trees, it's bit unnerving but I'm comfortable doing so. Hopefully you can see the video link.

https://www.facebook.com/mark.t.muller/videos/806493620754351

I also fly in and out of KAEJ in central Colorado (south of Leadville) quite often. While you will notice a difference at 8000' elevation, the 180hp RV7A does great... just make sure you lean it. I've done a bunch of mountain flying in this area btw.
 
Too Bad Sulphur Creek

Guys, Sulphur Creek Ranch is closed to all this 2022 season. They are recovering from a 2021 fire that left only a fringe of green trees around the property. All else is charcoal. Obviously, the pictures are from some pre-fire year. Cherise them.

600 x 6 is the usual mains on a 172. No tire/wheel worries, but fairings will take a beating. I've help push 6s and 7s out of the soft earth off the runway, plus some larger rocks will chock your mains and ding the pants. The dinky tail wheels aren't much better than skids.

John Siebold
Boise, ID

That is not good news, I had not heard that. What an awesome spot they have. We flew our RV-10 there in 2020 for one of the best breakfasts and views in Idaho. It is probably the most concerning strip I have flown to with large rocks emerging from the runway but had no problems.
Can't wait to fly the backcountry this year.
 
Guys, Sulphur Creek Ranch is closed to all this 2022 season. They are recovering from a 2021 fire that left only a fringe of green trees around the property. All else is charcoal. Obviously, the pictures are from some pre-fire year. Cherise them.

600 x 6 is the usual mains on a 172. No tire/wheel worries, but fairings will take a beating. I've help push 6s and 7s out of the soft earth off the runway, plus some larger rocks will chock your mains and ding the pants. The dinky tail wheels aren't much better than skids.

John Siebold
Boise, ID


Very sorry to hear this, here is a pic of greener days, 2020.
 

Attachments

  • E6B759B8-AB4F-487F-BA86-D515D5CD861E.jpg
    E6B759B8-AB4F-487F-BA86-D515D5CD861E.jpg
    494 KB · Views: 133
Back
Top