What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Service Bulletins 19-08-26 and 16-05-23 Published - Nose gear leg and fork

greghughespdx

Well Known Member
Advertiser
Service Bulletins 19-08-26 and 16-05-23 Published: Nose gear leg and fork replacement

Van's has published two RV-12 Service Bulletins to the Van's Safety and Service Information section of our web site.

Parts related to these service bulletins are available to order. Prices listed are effective as of the date of this posting. Note that it is the policy of Van's Aircraft to price parts associated with service bulletins at the lowest possible cost to the buyer.

SB 19-08-26: WD-1201 Nose Gear Replacement

This is a new service bulletin, which is being released along with new parts and related tools that can be ordered from Van’s. You can access and read the Service Bulletin here.

Explanation: On one RV-12 aircraft, in use at a flight school and flying for about 1700 training hours at the time of the incident, the nose gear leg cracked and failed near the top of the leg. This is the only instance of this failure we have seen. Van’s conducted an analysis and determined it was best to release an updated version of the nose gear leg and make it available for installation on existing aircraft, which is the purpose of this kit.

The service bulletin directs the owner to replace the nose gear leg at or before the aircraft's next annual inspection. Note that no affected gear legs have been shipped by Van’s since June 10, 2019. The part number on the affected gear leg is WD-1201, and the updated leg is part number WD-1201-1. A version of the WD-1201-1 that is manufactured specifically for retrofit on aircraft that already have a gear leg installed is included in the kits, details of which are listed below.

Kits and Tools: There are two retrofit kits available, one for the RV-12 and another for the RV-12iS, as well as three long drill bits that can be ordered from Van’s. Note that the bits can be ordered individually or as a set of three (and when ordered as a set, the cost is lower). Details are in the service bulletin document for those who wish to procure their tools elsewhere.

SB 19-08-26 $350.00 (for original RV-12)
SB 19-08-26iS $350.00 (for the RV-12iS)
TOOL-00040 $20.00
TOOL-00041 $21.50
TOOL-00042 $23.00
TOOL-00038 $58.00 (All three of the above tools as a set)

NOTE: If you have not yet completed the steps to install your original-style gear leg on a RV-12 build in progress, please call us to acquire the new gear leg. You will not need the retrofit kit in that case. If you have already drilled and attached the gear leg to the firewall, you will need to use the retrofit kit listed above.

You may use this link to order these items from the Van's online store. Please provide your RV-12/12iS kit serial number when you place your order, as we need to assign the parts to a specific kit/aircraft when ordered.​

SB 16-05-23: WD-1230 Nose Fork Cracks

This is an updated and re-released service bulletin, which was originally published in 2016. Only the update to make replacement mandatory and the requirement to periodically inspect on a more-frequent basis have changed. The two kits associated with this service bulletin have been available for some time to purchase and install, and have not changed. You can access and read the updated Service Bulletin here.

Explanation: A replacement for the WD-1230 nose fork was released a few years ago because it was found the fork was cracking in some cases. Unfortunately, people either have not been inspecting as required or have not been detecting cracks while inspecting the fork and as a result, a small number of nose gear forks have cracked and failed (broken). This new SB release makes it mandatory to replace the original-style RV-12 nose gear fork, where the original version of the bulletin allowed for periodic inspection. Owners are directed to replace the nose gear fork at or before their next annual condition inspection and to inspect every 25 hours until replaced.

Kits:

12 NOSE FORK CONVERSION $325.00
12 NOSE WHL FAIRING CONVERSION $75.00

You may use this link to order these items from the Van's online store. Please provide your RV-12/12iS kit serial number when you place your order, as we need to assign the parts to a specific kit/aircraft when ordered.​
 
Last edited:
I would like to see a photo of the new gear leg to understand why the engine has to be more or less unhooked and lifted to replace the nose gear leg.

There must be some new metal that conflicts with existing stuff; the one on my original RV-12 was pretty much just bolted on with 13 AN bolts and from my memory should be a simple replacement..

Are there any photos of the new gear leg that would clarify this for me ?
 
I would like to see a photo of the new gear leg to understand why the engine has to be more or less unhooked and lifted to replace the nose gear leg.

There must be some new metal that conflicts with existing stuff; the one on my original RV-12 was pretty much just bolted on with 13 AN bolts and from my memory should be a simple replacement..

Are there any photos of the new gear leg that would clarify this for me ?

The reason you'll need to unattached the lower engine mount bolts and lift away is that both the existing and new gear legs have a flange at the top which is "sandwiched" between the engine mount/isolators and the firewall. The lower engine mount bolts pass through all of these. You will need to remove those bolts in order to remove the existing gear leg, then back-drill matching holes in the new gear leg's flange from the cockpit side of the firewall. You "lift away" the engine mount to remove the elastomers and insert a temporary wood spacer to allow the required drilling. This is covered in greater detail in the SB text, of course.

When you originally installed the existing nose gear leg, there were full-size holes already in the leg's flange, and pilot holes in the firewall. The original gear leg was used as a drill guide. Now that you already have full-size holes in your firewall, the best method to ensure the new flange is properly drilled to match is to use the firewall holes and tools per the SB to match-drill the new gear leg flange.

Hope that helps. Here are photos of the retrofittable gear leg. Note that the two holes in the upper bracket/flange where the engine mount bolts will be located are not yet drilled - the installer completes that task via the match-drilling steps.

IMG_3220.jpeg
IMG_3222.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It would be nice to "see" where the "location that is not visually inspectable" is on the failed existing part...
 
Thanks for the photos....I am at home and don't have the plans at hand, and had forgot about the "upper" part that gets squeezed at the engine mount, had vaguely recalled only the part that bolts to the bottom of the fuselage.

Thanks that cleared me up
 
It would be nice to "see" where the "location that is not visually inspectable" is on the failed existing part...

It’s pretty difficult to show you a non-inspectable location. :)

That said, the crack occurred inside the nose gear leg tube, at the welded point where it meets lower flange/attach plate. The crack location is not visible from above or below, as it is blocked from view by the weld and flange/attach plate. Therefore, the first time one would actually be able to see the crack from the exterior would be after failure.
 
Last edited:
Was the fatigue crack initiated by the weld? How is the new leg different to the old one in that area? How many landings had the training aircraft done in those 1700 hours?
 
Are the VA-268 and VA-269 drill bushings part of the SB-19-08-26 nose leg delivery or to be purchased extra?
 
It?s pretty difficult to show you a non-inspectable location. :)

That said, the crack occurred inside the nose gear leg tube, at the welded point where it meets lower flange/attach plate. The crack location is not visible from above or below, as it is blocked from view by the weld and flange/attach plate. Therefore, the first time one would actually be able to see the crack from the exterior would be after failure.

Any photos of the failed part?
 
Was the fatigue crack initiated by the weld? How is the new leg different to the old one in that area? How many landings had the training aircraft done in those 1700 hours?

Good questions. It's unknown how many landings were performed in that airplane, but it is used for primary flight training and had accumulated 1700 hours of flight time as an active trainer - so we do know that it had been subjected to a lot of student landings.

The crack occurred in an area of high stress concentration located approximately at the location of the weld (actually just under it). Analysis showed that the weld itself did not cause the crack to form. Rather, repeated significant forces on the gear leg initiated a crack in the high stress concentration zone. That crack then propagated around the circumference of the tube. The weld's heat-affected area in the assembly could potentially contribute to the material cracking, but we did not determine that to be a primary cause. We also made some general changes to the weldment assembly which reduced the focus of any stress concentration.

The new gear leg is significantly different than the original one, in that it is double-walled and incorporates a second tube that is located/sleeved inside the external tube. You can see one of four round "rosette" welds in the first photo posted above. Those welds join the internal tube and external tube at a point well above and below the area of highest stress concentration. The additional tube and total thickness, and other modifications to the assembly, results in the load stresses being spread over a much larger area. in addition, the internal tube is unaffected by welding at that high stress concentration location. It is a substantially strong assembly.
 
Hate to pile on with the questions, Greg, but your description of the upgrades incorporated prompts me to ask the weigh difference between the old and new assemblies.
 
Hate to pile on with the questions, Greg, but your description of the upgrades incorporated prompts me to ask the weigh difference between the old and new assemblies.

No problem, Bob - That's what I'm here for! In return, I'll pile on with some nerd-level detail. :)

There is no significant/meaningful difference in weight - the new leg assembly weighs 0.65 pounds more than the original design (6.52 lbs new vs 5.87 lbs original). Note that AC 43-13-1B Chapter 10 explains that any weight change of less than one pound is considered negligible (for aircraft in our class). When the second tube was added, there was also material removed from the original-design gear leg (specifically, a welded vertical flange that ran between the two mounting brackets/plates with four lightening holes in it, which was removed as part of the steps taken to reduce stress concentration, and because in our analysis it was found not to be adding structural value).
 
Last edited:
Just curious, Greg, but is this update in any way related to the plane and the flight school that was looking for a new engine mount too, located in MD, that had some hard landings by a student and cracked the engine mount too, needing a new one, as no one else would touch welding up the old one and guaranteeing it, so you scrounged a new engine mount up for them, to get their school plane back in service?

Or is this a separate incident /plane?


Sort of wondering out loud, even with the really long drill bits, how access is going to be from the cockpit side to oil and drill through that new plate down there. I'm not the shortest guy around at 6' 5" or as flexible in the back as I once was, might have to hire a strong, small man to get in there to get 'er done.

Are the E-AB build guys with different engines and motor mounts going to get to have the same fun and games as the E-LSA crowd?
 
Last edited:
So to be clear this is the only RV12 that this has happened to,not one more anywhere but a 1700 hr flight school RV12.??
Thanks.
 
The leg replacement SB lists applicable serial number as 12080 and previous. Mine is 120402. Is there a typo in the SB? Should it be 120080 or 120800?
 
Just curious, Greg, but is this update in any way related to the plane and the flight school that was looking for a new engine mount too, located in MD, that had some hard landings by a student and cracked the engine mount too, needing a new one, as no one else would touch welding up the old one and guaranteeing it, so you scrounged a new engine mount up for them, to get their school plane back in service?

Or is this a separate incident /plane?

Sort of wondering out loud, even with the really long drill bits, how access is going to be from the cockpit side to oil and drill through that new plate down there. I'm not the shortest guy around at 6' 5" or as flexible in the back as I once was, might have to hire a strong, small man to get in there to get 'er done.

Are the E-AB build guys with different engines and motor mounts going to get to have the same fun and games as the E-LSA crowd?

The 1700 hour airplane is not the same airplane you?re referring to.

Regardless of motor mount and engine the gear leg is the gear leg so this applies equally.

I can?t speak to your particular ability to reach the firewall to drill of course, but I don?t think you?ll have too much trouble.
 
Odd that there is no photos available of the failed part. When Sensenich prop hub failed they supplied photos...

We don?t have photos available that we can share of every issue. When we do, we tend to share them. Sorry we can?t help in this case.
 
So to be clear this is the only RV12 that this has happened to,not one more anywhere but a 1700 hr flight school RV12.??
Thanks.

Correct. This incident prompted us to perform a finite element analysis of the gear leg and we determined in the interest of safety based on the results that the proper course of action was to change the design and issue the service bulletin. We recognize the inconvenience, and do not take it lightly.
 
NDI

There surely must be a NDI inspection available like Eddy current inspection, or Fluorescent Penetrant inspection.
 
Last edited:
What does ?at or before the next annual condition inspection? really mean? I just finished my first annual inspection, my aircraft has 40 hours on it. Can I wait until the next annual?
 
What does ?at or before the next annual condition inspection? really mean? I just finished my first annual inspection, my aircraft has 40 hours on it. Can I wait until the next annual?

Yes, you can wait. Your inspection was completed before the announcement, but the modifications will be due before or at your next annual inspection in Dec or Jan 2021.

It's the people who have not completed their inspections before month end of Jan and today's announcement, as well as everyone else with an annual inspection any time this year, from 1-28-20 on. Unless there is a short grace period I am not aware of.
 
What does ?at or before the next annual condition inspection? really mean? I just finished my first annual inspection, my aircraft has 40 hours on it. Can I wait until the next annual?

Yes.

Plus a few more words for the forum.
 
Thanks Greg. And thanks to Van?s for managing the configuration so thoroughly. Not a better kit manufacturer on the planet.
 
This is not my day...

I recieved my finish kit in May. New style nose legs where shiped in june - just one month later. Seven months later there is the news, that I have to bring my brand new unused part to the junk yard. I wonder if there is any warranty.
 
Does Van's have new nose gear in stock to cover large quantity of orders from hundreds of flying legacy 12's?
 
It would seem simple for an owner to drill some holes and slip a short pipe inside the original leg and weld a bit thru the holes. I wonder why we did not get a simple fix like that?
 
Greg;

Is the installation procedure any different if this new nose gear leg is the original installation rather than being a retro fit (i.e. I haven?t installed the original nose gear leg yet)?

Thanks.

Brett
Columbus Indiana
Working on the canopy fiberglass
 
Yes, I think so. If you install a nose gear leg for the first time, you do the match drilling from the front side. If you install a retrofit you drill from inside the cockpit and therefor need the extra long drill 12" bits.


I also wonder how many people are affected by this... must be close to 1000.
 
Does Van's have new nose gear in stock to cover large quantity of orders from hundreds of flying legacy 12's?

We have a significant number in stock now and more on the way. We anticipate that in most cases people will order these so they can have them for their annual condition inspection.
 
if you land hard enough you can break any nose gear. 1700 hrs as a trainer is a lota abuse. i would think this sb is not because of a broken gear on a trainer but rather of the results of an in depth analysis of the area that failed. can we get an idea of how much margin is built into the original gear?
 
It would seem simple for an owner to drill some holes and slip a short pipe inside the original leg and weld a bit thru the holes. I wonder why we did not get a simple fix like that?

The leg is curved where the doubled pipe is used, so it's not possible to simply slip in a piece of pipe. We certainly considered similar ideas but they were not workable, especially for the typical builder. Requiring an RV-12 owner to execute complex fabrication and welding tasks is not what we would classify as "simple." And, as already mentioned we made other changes to the leg assembly. If there was a simple fix to the existing gear leg available that would meet safety needs, we certainly would have gone that route. It's our wish and goal to keep the changes to a minimum (We fly these airplanes, too!) balanced with the need to address any potential safety issues and provide whatever related information we can, so people can understand the "why" aspect of things.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how the 12 nose gear differs from 6, 7, 8, 9 A-models? I know there is an aftermarket stiffener Anti-Splat-Aero (not a real pretty name) for some of those models where the nose gear buckles under in off-field landing on soft terrain.

I just wonder how much similarity there is where the tube (straight or S shape) meets the lower mounting flange?
 
SB 19-08-26

I have been wondering about this since I first read it yesterday. I wonder if the nose gear leg on the 12 is significantly lighter, weaker, than the nose gear on other RV's? Have there been cracks in the nose gear legs of other RV-s? I also wonder how much abuse an RV-12 used by a flight school for 1700 hours had? I am not an airplane designer, and not an engineer. I was a professional pilot and a flight instructor. I have taught many students to fly. When I first looked at the RV-12 and then flew it, I told my son the landing gear was not made for student pilots. Don't get me wrong. The RV-12 is a wonderful airplane, it flies like a dream, and I love the aircraft. But I personally would not train a student to land in an RV-12.

So what I am wondering is if this change is really necessary for an RV-12 with a lot less hours and that has never been used or abused by students?

Please don't start attacking me. I am not advocating flying unsafe airplanes. I am asking what I think is a legitimate question and wanting to see the thoughts of others more experienced with RV-s than me, people who are trained in engineering, etc. I am wanting to learn.
 
if you land hard enough you can break any nose gear. 1700 hrs as a trainer is a lota abuse. i would think this sb is not because of a broken gear on a trainer but rather of the results of an in depth analysis of the area that failed. can we get an idea of how much margin is built into the original gear?

Okay, here we go. This took a while to type up. Note that the risk of providing detailed answers is that the process of answering new questions never ends. :) So, I won't be able to go into this much depth on every question (and I do need to get on to other fun things here!) but this is a good one to try to explain, I think. Especially if it helps our customers understand a bit more about why we do what we do.

You'd be correct in your assumption about the decision being analysis-based and more specifically not based on the one instance of a cracked/broken gear leg. At the risk of boring folks, I'll try to explain in greater depth here, but know that this is a layman's explanation so please bear with me.

The original gear leg has an area of high stress concentration, as described earlier, which under high loads results in a fatigue issue at the point of high stress concentration. When the original gear leg was designed, we did not have the modern Finite Element Analysis (FEA) computer analysis tools that we have and use today. The issue relates to stress loads that reach the point at which the material in the high stress concentration zone will begin to yield and then fatigue. We conducted drop tests on the original RV-12 gear leg when it was new, and it passed those static tests of course. But what we could not test at the time was the fatigue characteristics over time of the part.

This, in fact, has been a "problem" in aviation and aircraft design since the beginning. Static tests are relatively easy to execute - in this case, you drop the airplane on its gear and observe what happens. If the gear ends up out of shape, you know you have a static strength issue. What you cannot see in static testing is "inside" the material and what happens to the material over time after one or more high/overloads and infinite typical-use load cycle scenarios. That's where FEA software tools and experts (both of which we are now quite lucky to have at Van's) come into play. Van's had no indication that the original RV-12 gear leg may have fatigue issue until that event occurred. The event was surprising to us given the design, and therefore prompted us to perform an in-depth analysis using our FEA tools.

The results of that FEA study identified a stress concentration in the gear leg assembly, located approximately at the lower attachment plate/flange. In this location, several gear leg components come together: The tube, the lower attachment bracket/flange, and another flange that is attached vertically to the tube between the two attachment brackets/flanges. In addition, all of these components are welded to each other. The FEA tools allow our engineers to run reliable analyses that take into account all of the specific geometry, materials, and loading conditions. That analysis determined that with a significant load on the original design, the stress in the leg at the stress concentration exceeds the material yield stress and the fatigue life is significantly reduced. The subsequent remaining lifespan for any given gear leg cannot be determined due to the many variables involved: variation in welding, previous load levels and the number of load cycles.

So, what does this mean? If you do a static drop test of the original gear (which we did many times of course), it will pass. But similar impacts may - depending on a combination of factors - reduce the strength of the leg at the point of high stress concentration. Subsequent loads and load cycles from use of the gear are likely to progressively fatigue the material at the point of high stress concentration. That's why we redesigned the leg. The new leg was thoroughly analyzed during design, and we have confirmed the new design alleviates the stress concentration issue that clearly exists in the original leg.

We cannot predict the loads that will be applied to a given gear leg nor the length of time after an initial event it might take for a crack to form due to the variables I have just mentioned. What we do know is that the stress concentration exists and can become a problem in certain unpredictable/unplannable scenarios and that the new gear leg does not have that same issue.

Our resulting decision was to inform owners of the need to replace the leg at or before the next annual inspection, given the fact although only one failure has occurred our analysis shows it can potentially happen in any RV-12 gear leg under certain load and operating conditions, which may occur in the real world. Our decision process cannot rely on the application of pilot technique to prevent the potential safety issue when we have identified in issue such as this one where we can predict a material failure will occur, and similarly we cannot absolutely guarantee that a perfect pilot (which we know does not actually exist) will never run into an unintended/unforeseeable overload scenario. Therefore we have made the part change and issued the service bulletin, based on the facts and those factors that are under our direct control.

I should also mention that when we need to take actions that impact our customers, such as releasing this SB, we work hard to keep the costs down as much as possible. We are making zero (and when you account for engineering analysis and redesign time, we are actually losing) money on these SB parts. Again, our goal is to promote safety, inform owners and make it as easy as possible to get fixes in the field when they are deemed necessary.

I have been wondering about this since I first read it yesterday. I wonder if the nose gear leg on the 12 is significantly lighter, weaker, than the nose gear on other RV's? Have there been cracks in the nose gear legs of other RV-s? I also wonder how much abuse an RV-12 used by a flight school for 1700 hours had? I am not an airplane designer, and not an engineer. I was a professional pilot and a flight instructor. I have taught many students to fly. When I first looked at the RV-12 and then flew it, I told my son the landing gear was not made for student pilots. Don't get me wrong. The RV-12 is a wonderful airplane, it flies like a dream, and I love the aircraft. But I personally would not train a student to land in an RV-12.

So what I am wondering is if this change is really necessary for an RV-12 with a lot less hours and that has never been used or abused by students?

Please don't start attacking me. I am not advocating flying unsafe airplanes. I am asking what I think is a legitimate question and wanting to see the thoughts of others more experienced with RV-s than me, people who are trained in engineering, etc. I am wanting to learn.

No one will (or should) attack ya. And hopefully the detailed info above helps answer some of your questions.

Many, many thousands of flight training hours have been performed in RV-12's. We've made incremental improvements over time to the airplane (and of course we released the RV-12iS with some substantial changes), but know that there are a significant number of aircraft that are used to train students daily.

The other RV models' nose gear legs are fundamentally different in their design, and this issue does not apply to them in any way.

As far as whether it's necessary to replace the gear leg assembly for any given RV-12 I have tried to explain above that the events that can cause the issue to develop are highly variable. It's not necessarily just the amount of (over)load placed on the gear, which is highly-focused in an area of mechanical stress concentration. Similarly, it's not just the number of duty/load cycles. And, these stresses and overloads cannot confidently be avoided. So, the actual impact and result is highly variable per aircraft. It's not possible for us to tell you it's ok if less than xx number of landings, or based on the type of runway used, or any of several other variables we could think up. What we did allow for is waiting to replace at the next annual condition inspection if you wish to do so.

Summary: The overall strength of the original gear leg is not the key issue, it's the concentrated area in the gear leg where the load is focused which results in a crack potentially forming. Once a high-load event has occurred that is significant enough to cause the stress-concentrated portion of the original leg material to yield, an occurrence that is possible based on our analysis, it's just a (highly variable) matter of load cycles before the gear is likely to eventually crack at the location we have described. How many cycles and how much load is required to reach that point will vary significantly. That's why we revised the part and released the service bulletin.
 
Last edited:
If you have not yet installed your gear leg

Is the installation procedure any different if this new nose gear leg is the original installation rather than being a retro fit (i.e. I haven’t installed the original nose gear leg yet)?

Yes, it is different. You should install the same gear leg version we are shipping with new finishing kits. It will have the holes already in it, which you then use to drill the holes in the firewall since you have not yet completed that step.

So, if you have your original gear leg that has not yet been installed, please call us and we can set up an order for just the new gear leg. You will not need the retrofit kit, since you are not retrofitting and already installed leg. We will send you the new gear leg, which we now include in our kits:

RV-12, you will need nose gear leg part no. WD-1201-1-PC (price $325.00) and BAG 982 (price $3.00).
RV-12iS, you will need only the nose gear leg part no. WD-1201-1-PC (price $325.00)

If you have already installed your gear leg/mount (you've drilled the holes in the firewall, you need the retrofit kit outlined in the SB and in my original post above.
 
Last edited:
Without a photo of the failure it?s difficult to visualize why crack initiation can?t be determined visually at annual inspection. Any insight on that?
 
Greg I want to thank you for your detailed easy to follow explanation for the service bulletin. I am sure others will agree with me and are thankful to you as well. Sure makes a bitter pill much easier to swallow!:),
 
Without a photo of the failure it?s difficult to visualize why crack initiation can?t be determined visually at annual inspection. Any insight on that?

The crack forms internal to the welded assembly in an area of the tube that is completely obscured from view by the weld and the lower mounting plate. It is impossible to see a crack externally prior to failure of the part.
 
Service Bulletin 19-08026

Greg,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and answer to my question. I do appreciate it.
 
Response to if you haven?t installed the nose gear leg yet

Greg;

Many thanks for the detailed response.

Brett
Columbus Indiana
 
The crack forms internal to the welded assembly in an area of the tube that is completely obscured from view by the weld and the lower mounting plate. It is impossible to see a crack externally prior to failure of the part.

Thanks Greg,for the info you have provided!
Tony
 
120836 ordered today... first lot or batch is completely sold out... estimate 4 to 6 weeks before next batch is complete and ours then gets shipped.

Annual inspection in March.....

Going to have some lightly used nose gear and fork for sale soon. Only 216 hours, no student landings , grass, gravel, or bush pilot exposure, ever, experienced 2000 + hour AP for pilot. LOL!

ELT 407 battery replaced, 5 yrs old, check.... VR replaced, 216 hrs, check... all new front landing gear ordered, check.

Wondering out loud how much of me is going to have to squeeze in to match drill those holes from inside near the center near the footwells, as the owner is now 72, and not going to go crawl in there to do it. Hope some smart feller's that ordered first and have February Annuals can provide some feed back and or links to pictures hosted to give us a clue what we are up against.

Have any RV-7A or 9A's had to have replacement front wheel strut or forks recalled and replaced?
 
Last edited:
I would sure like to hear from someone that has already performed the front gear leg replacement and their experience with it, and if any difficulties or advice.

Anyone on the forum done the replacement yet?
 
Thanks, Greg. You are creating a lot of good will for the mothership by being so open.

I never would have thought the crack would start on the inside wall.
 
Back
Top