Nosedraggers... what are you thinking?

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:03 pm

darrylDog2000

I was curious where you saw stats on nose wheel collapses. Was that on RV's or all tri-gear? Did they give any causes. I know the vast majority of nose wheel collapses in pipers and cessnas is poor pilot technique, getting into a porpose during landing, its rarely the gear. I'd be interested if its RV related........Larry

4kilo · Post by **4kilo** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:05 pm

Larry,

I don't have any of the stats handy, but the nosewheel RV models are subject to an abnormally high number of nosewheel collapses due to mechanical failure. From what I have seen and heard, this is typically caused by builders attempting to fair the nosewheel in too tightly. If insufficient clearance is left around the tire, an underinflated or damaged tire will not roll freely in the fairing, resulting in damage to the fairing. If the fairing then shifts into a bad position, it will stop the nosewheel from turning completely. You can put together the rest.

I have also heard some speculation that there may be other problems with mounting the gear itself, but my guess is that the above mentioned problem causes the majority of the mechanical failure incidents.

Pat

arffguy · Post by **arffguy** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:22 pm

4kilo wrote:Larry,

I don't have any of the stats handy, but the nosewheel RV models are subject to an abnormally high number of nosewheel collapses due to mechanical failure. From what I have seen and heard, this is typically caused by builders attempting to fair the nosewheel in too tightly.

Pat

I would like to see more research on this. Van is asking for builder comment. My understanding is that this has only occurred on one aircraft so far. Other nosewheel failures have happened with the earlier nosegear which led to the service bulletin in October of 1998 and a redesign.

http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb98-10-1.pdf

It is my personal belief that most nose gear failures are probably pilot error. I personally have been witness to some rough technique myself.

There seems to be a "sudden" hysteria about nosewheel collapses which I fear are being spread by forums such as these. Every airplane will break if it is flown improperly.

Frankly, I am more concerned with the numbers of total power losses that seem to happen than with tearing my landing gear off.

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:42 am

arffguy wrote:
It is my personal belief that most groundloops (I changed this) are probably pilot error. I personally have been witness to some rough technique myself.

Every airplane will break if it is flown improperly.

Wow!

Kinda sounds like we are talking about groundloops here!

CJ

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:58 am

Thanks for the input guys. I'm going to quiry our data base (NTSB) but I can tell you I write at least 10 tail wheel related accident to every 1 nose wheel related accident. But truth be told very rarely is the gear at falt in either case. In both cases there are usually side loading issues due to poor pilot technique which takes out the mains, or nose wheel first landings that result in a porpose. I have seen unapproved mods fail but usually under abnormal landing conditions. I'll see if I can pull RV specific data from our database..........Larry

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:03 am

I swiped this off a fellow builders site. I am not sure who authored it though...

Ode To The Tail dragger

Tail dragger, I hate your guts.
I have the license, ratings and such,
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and controls in my clutch
It takes a little rudder....easy, that's too much !

You see, I learned to fly in a tricycle gear
With one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer,
But this miserable thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder.....easy, that's too much !

It demands your attention on the takeoff roll,
Or it heads towards for the boonies as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.

This wicked little plane is just too much
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine.
It's not too bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder....easy, that's too much !

I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye
I suddenly realize, with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that 's going by!
You ground looping wreck, I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder....Good Lord, THAT'S TOO MUCH !

CJ

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:39 pm

Here's the sort of official skinny of RV accident reports 2000 to present, total amature built aircraft accidents 985, RV's 99.
9A (3) 2-Loss of control (LOC) landing, 1-fuel related
8 (7) 2-LOC landing, 2-loss of engine, 2- fuel related,
1-construction related.
8A (3) 2-LOC landing, 1-loss of engine
7 (0)
7A (2) 1-loss of engine, 1 controlled flight into terraine (Cfit)
6 (25) 8-LOC landing, 1-Cfit, 5-loss of engine, 2-construction related,
3-stall related, 4-fuel related, 1-midair, 1-LOC take off
6A (34) 13-LOC landing, 3-Cfit, 9-loss of engine, 4-stall related, 2-taxi,
1-LOC take off, 1-fuel related, 1-jammed rudder (headset)
4 (24) 3-LOC landing, 3-Cfit, 3-loss of engine, 5-fuel related,
2-construction related, 7-stall related, 1-propeller blade separation
These numbers do not reflect percentages, but simply individual occurrences. They do reflect that airmanship accounts for the vast majority of accidents. There were no reportable accidents related to material failure. The fuel related incidents did result in a loss of engine power, but were related to poor planning. All the landing accidents that resulted in loss of the nose wheel were related to hard or bounced llanding, and porpose. Fortunately most of the accidents resulted in minor or no injuries. There was really no common thread in the loss of engine power, it ran the gammot. There is really no reason not to fly what you want as long as you fly it well. Hope this helps a little........Larry

tshort · Post by **tshort** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:46 pm

Makes me feel better about leaning towards the -8. I'm no statistician but it sure looks like there is no significant difference in the number of landing loss of control accidents regardless of where the little wheel goes.

Thomas

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:02 pm

I like the dash seven stats!

CJ

spikescopilot · Post by **spikescopilot** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:34 pm

I would imagine that the stats also reflect the sheer numbers of eaach model flying (ie: higher incident reports for the 4's and 6's, over the 7, 8, and 9 which probably don't have as many flying yet).

tshort · Post by **tshort** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:26 pm

What are the totals for the tailwheel vs. -A models? How many of each are built? Is it 50:50 or is there a preference...

Thomas

bmurrish · Post by **bmurrish** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:02 am

Thomas- the numbers are leaning towards you building a straight 8. Now get on with it.

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:42 pm

Patti is 100% right about the numbers reflecting the higher number of completed airplanes. I can tell you that low time pilots in tail-draggers comprize the bulk of my case load............Larry

4kilo · Post by **4kilo** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:06 pm

Larry,

Thanks for posting the actual statistics. There are a lot of anecdotal stories out there which can be refuted a little more easily with some actual numbers.

It is obviously nearly impossible to draw any statistically meaningful conclusions from this data without knowing numbers of aircraft of each type, amount of flying time for each type, and so on, but it certainly looks generally like nosewheel or tailwheel makes very little difference to the percentage of total accidents which are landing related.

Thanks for "clouding the issue with facts."

Pat

tshort · Post by **tshort** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:49 pm

l & d lewis wrote:Patti is 100% right about the numbers reflecting the higher number of completed airplanes. I can tell you that low time pilots in tail-draggers comprize the bulk of my case load............Larry

The only problem is, the path to high time taildragger pilot leads straight thru low time taildragger pilot...!

Thomas

Dan A · Post by **Dan A** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:37 pm

AS for the nose gear problem, turn to page 77 of the Feb. 2005 issue of Sport Aviation, the EAA magazine. This RV6 is in Sweden.
I still prefer a taildragger!

Dan

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:06 am

I saw that and was going to say something! As soon as I looked at the picture, I thought of this thread!

I was waiting to see how long it took before someone else saw it and said something too!

It seems that the Alphas should (seriously) stay on the hard pack. Most of the collapses (so I hear) happen on grass runways. There is another thread on the 7/7A board that goes into detail if you want to read it.

Here it is mirrored on the dualrudder site:

http://www.dualrudder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8092

It is titled "Another nose over" by Dan Checkoway.

If you nose around (pun intended!) there, you will see another thread that talks about a Piper nosegear AD ad well!

CJ

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:50 am

You're all right on the button. Statistically we don't know because the number of hours flying and number of landings are unknown also. Typically gear collapses in tail-wheel are the result of gear side loading (ground loop), and gear collapses in tri-gear are the result of a porpose both of which are pilot technique issues. Its not what you fly, but how you fly. I know from my transition that tail-wheel are more demanding (at least for me). In the old days landing areas were larger, and most military fields were triangular in shape allowing pilots to take off and land into the wind cutting across the field if necessary. Today's narrow straight line runways with berms/banks and ditches on either side make landing in a cross wind even more of a challenge. Crosswinds are handled better (with less effort) by properly landed tri-gear than by tail-draggers. There are probably more unreported incidents but knocking the gear off an airplane doesn't qualify as an accident unless there is associated structural damage i.e. gear attachment to the fuselage, or wing/rib, or other fuselage damage. Either airplane will get you into trouble if you don't heed your's and your airplane's limitations. If you choose to take an airplane with a factory demonstrated maximum crosswind component of 26 knots and land it in a 35-40 knot direct crosswind you just became a test pilot, and I have pictures of the result..........build on, and fly safe.........Larry

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:11 pm

Patti,

Here's what the FAA is showing for current aircraft records.

RV-4 872
RV-6/A 1294
RV-7/A 122
RV-8/A 363
RV-9/A 104

They don't differentiate between A's and straights. That's a total of 2755 airplanes. I presume the rest of the planes flying are outside the US......

spikescopilot · Post by **spikescopilot** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:14 pm

l & d lewis wrote:Patti,

Here's what the FAA is showing for current aircraft records.

RV-4 872
RV-6/A 1294
RV-7/A 122
RV-8/A 363
RV-9/A 104

They don't differentiate between A's and straights. That's a total of 2755 airplanes. I presume the rest of the planes flying are outside the US......

So, if we compare just the 6 and the 8, we're looking at 59 accidents vs 10 accidents. Percentage-wise, that's 4.5% for the 6, and 2.75% for the 8. Interesting numbers..... attributable to the length of time that they've been flying (ie: parts wearing out, poor maintenance, etc)?

The 4 is also roughly 2.75%, so I guess time has nothing to do with it. That's odd that the 6 has such a more pronounced accident rate.