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.
Pitch changes during landing

I noticed this thread and watched this video closely. One thing I believe has not been discussed that is IMPORTANT for pilots to understand is the danger associated with bounced landings and allowing your nose to derotate. If you slow this video down you will see that indeed this aircraft bounced during its first touchdown. The nose of the aircraft pitched up due to the spring of the landing gear and the tail continuing in a downward flight path initially due to inertia. This increases the angle of attack of the wing resulting in an increase in lift and works in concert with the springback of the gear. Now comes the CRITICAL point to learn. If you allow or force the nose to pitch over after a bounced landing, you are reducing AOA and lift, which transfers the weight of the aircraft that is being supported by the wings onto the landing gear structure. The aircraft at touchdown usually is supported by the wings and the landing gear gradually accepts the load of the aircraft weight as the aircraft slows down and the weight is transferred from the wing to the landing gear. Additionally, if you lower the nose as a response to a bounced landing, each successive bounce is going to G load the gear with more and more G. Along with the aforementioned lowering the nose reducing the AOA and therefore the lift the wing is generating, this transfers the aircraft's increasingly violent G loads onto the gear structure. Key takeaway here is do NOT lower the nose to land when a bounced landing has occurred. A go around is the best bet. If a sudden sink occurs due to wind shear do not move the nose in an attempt to correct the flight path. Add power or go around. There is an awful lot going on in this video around the 10 second mark but look at the pitch attitude changes in slow motion and you will see a contributing factor as to why this nose gear collapsed. That factor is pitch derotation in response to a bounced landing.
 
Last edited:
restraints

The question was asked a while back but I never saw an answer. What seat restraints did the accident aircraft have?
 
restraints

The question was asked a while back but I never saw an answer. What seat restraints did the accident aircraft have?
Considering the nature of the injury, I would speculate either they were not 5 point, or were not tight enough, or both. Tight 5-point harnesses won't of course guarantee anything, but will help.
 
I noticed this thread and watched this video closely. One thing I believe has not been discussed that is IMPORTANT for pilots to understand is the danger associated with bounced landings and allowing your nose to derotate. If you slow this video down you will see that indeed this aircraft bounced during its first touchdown. The nose of the aircraft pitched up due to the spring of the landing gear and the tail continuing in a downward flight path initially due to inertia. This increases the angle of attack of the wing resulting in an increase in lift and works in concert with the springback of the gear. Now comes the CRITICAL point to learn. If you allow or force the nose to pitch over after a bounced landing, you are reducing AOA and lift, which transfers the weight of the aircraft that is being supported by the wings onto the landing gear structure. The aircraft at touchdown usually is supported by the wings and the landing gear gradually accepts the load of the aircraft weight as the aircraft slows down and the weight is transferred from the wing to the landing gear. Additionally, if you lower the nose as a response to a bounced landing, each successive bounce is going to G load the gear with more and more G. Along with the aforementioned lowering the nose reducing the AOA and therefore the lift the wing is generating, this transfers the aircraft's increasingly violent G loads onto the gear structure. Key takeaway here is do NOT lower the nose to land when a bounced landing has occurred. A go around is the best bet. If a sudden sink occurs due to wind shear do not move the nose in an attempt to correct the flight path. Add power or go around. There is an awful lot going on in this video around the 10 second mark but look at the pitch attitude changes in slow motion and you will see a contributing factor as to why this nose gear collapsed. That factor is pitch derotation in response to a bounced landing.

The A/C didn't bounce due the spring in the U/C the touchdown was fairly gentle the driver reefeed it back up after he would have felt the vibration from the weak designed nose gear, the rest is history!
 
The question was asked a while back but I never saw an answer. What seat restraints did the accident aircraft have?

The ATSB report did not state whether the RV6A had a 4 or 5 point harness. In this particular accident the most important injury was the pilot?s broken neck. I am not sure that the outcome would have been any different with either type of seatbelt. My understanding is that a 5 point harness is specifically designed to prevent injuries caused by the occupant submarining under the waist belt of a 4 point harness.

Here is a final ATSB report of another RV6A accident that was discussed on this forum recently. It involved the aircraft over-running the end of a runway and coming to an abrupt stop when it hit a drainage culvert whereby the pilot?s head was flung forward and his neck fatally damaged. The pilot was wearing a 4 point harness but once again it is doubtful that a 5 point harness would have altered the outcome. It is interesting in this latter case that the aircraft did not flip over and was not that extensively damaged. See here:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776824/ao-2018-025-final.pdf
 
The ATSB report did not state whether the RV6A had a 4 or 5 point harness. In this particular accident the most important injury was the pilot?s broken neck. I am not sure that the outcome would have been any different with either type of seatbelt. My understanding is that a 5 point harness is specifically designed to prevent injuries caused by the occupant submarining under the waist belt of a 4 point harness.

SNIP[/url]

A 5 point harness could make a very big difference in this type of accident. The low angle of the lap belt makes it less than optimal in the vertical direction. I've flown in turbulence in 4 point equipped RV's, and they are no where near as (vertically) secure as a 5 point.
 
The A/C didn't bounce due the spring in the U/C the touchdown was fairly gentle the driver reefeed it back up after he would have felt the vibration from the weak designed nose gear, the rest is history!

According to the compressed timeline allowing no time for your scenario to play out, I highly doubt that was possible. There were at least two and possibly three contacts of the nose gear in only 2 and a fraction seconds. There was just no time for the pilot to realize what was happening, react by reefing on the stick, then derotate. As far as the nose gear design being weak, the last I looked insurance rates were lower for nose gear RV?s than tailwheel versions.
 
As far as the nose gear design being weak, the last I looked insurance rates were lower for nose gear RV?s than tailwheel versions.
Insurance rates reflect the relative skills needed to fly the two variants, not the strength of the aircraft.
 
Has anyone considered "why" the OP has a camera on his nose gear to begin with?

Previous issue with the structure? Issue with technique? Ongoing maintenance problem in the strut or ?

Seems like a very specific camera location for a casual observation...
 
Insurance rates reflect the relative skills needed to fly the two variants, not the strength of the aircraft.

I disagree (at least partially).

Insurance rates directly reflect claim payouts for a given model when there is a large enough statistical data set to do so.
With the RV-6A being the most built E-AB aircraft in history, I would say there is no argument about whether there is a large enough statistical data set for insurance underwriters to make predictions from.

To a large extent insurance underwriters can be considered the same as casino owners... they are using statistical data to determine the odds of them having to pay a claim on any give aircraft and then setting the premium based on their evaluation of the odds to try and assure they will be in the black instead of the red.

There are of course other variables that they need to take guesses at (like a specific pilots skills) which is why premiums are higher initially until they prove themselves (with no claims filed) and just by the fact that with acquired time in type they should have further developed their skill set.

So I say that premiums are (mostly) directly related to the ratio of claim dollars paid, to how many aircraft of a particular model they have to pay claims on.
 
The ATSB report did not state whether the RV6A had a 4 or 5 point harness. In this particular accident the most important injury was the pilot?s broken neck. I am not sure that the outcome would have been any different with either type of seatbelt. My understanding is that a 5 point harness is specifically designed to prevent injuries caused by the occupant submarining under the waist belt of a 4 point harness.

Here is a final ATSB report of another RV6A accident that was discussed on this forum recently. It involved the aircraft over-running the end of a runway and coming to an abrupt stop when it hit a drainage culvert whereby the pilot?s head was flung forward and his neck fatally damaged. The pilot was wearing a 4 point harness but once again it is doubtful that a 5 point harness would have altered the outcome. It is interesting in this latter case that the aircraft did not flip over and was not that extensively damaged. See here:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776824/ao-2018-025-final.pdf

I can recall my primary instructor's phrase "hot and high" as being a bad combination of events. Certainly in play here.
I was also intrigued by somethingi in the report I had either never learned or have forgotten (happens a lot nowadays) - namely a runway sloping down or away from the landing aircraft will deceive the pilot visually as far as their expected landing point. Of course, a runway sloping up would cause the opposite effect.
A great lesson to keep in mind.
 
A 5 point harness could make a very big difference in this type of accident. The low angle of the lap belt makes it less than optimal in the vertical direction. I've flown in turbulence in 4 point equipped RV's, and they are no where near as (vertically) secure as a 5 point.

Aah yes Alex, it?s a valid comment. I myself have a 5 point harness.

What is truly amazing in this accident is the violence of the deceleration and flip-over. From the moment that the nose of the aircraft hits the runway to the time that the aircraft lies stationary and inverted at a complete stop is only a matter of about 2 seconds. I think that this might be an eye opener for many RV pilots. It certainly was for me.

I had always imagined in these circumstances that somehow as the nose gear collapsed the gear would bend under the aircraft and that the aircraft would skid along for some distance on the failing nose gear thus dissipating some kinetic energy before finally teetering and toppling over. But that is definitely not what happened in this case. In this accident the nose gear was completely destroyed instantaneously allowing the prop spinner to impact the ground and initiate a violent deceleration that immediately threw the plane upside down.
 
Nosewheels

Typical Cherokee with nose gear torn off can be put back in the air in one long day with two mechanics. Not including paint.
 
Insurance rates directly reflect claim payouts for a given model when there is a large enough statistical data set to do so.
...
So I say that premiums are (mostly) directly related to the ratio of claim dollars paid, to how many aircraft of a particular model they have to pay claims on.
I agree with everything you've said. Maybe I should have said "in this case" rather than suggesting that I meant "in general."

In this case, where we're talking the difference between two aircraft types with identical structure except for the landing gear, I think we would find that the difference in claim rates is more closely tied to the skills required to fly them than the structure of the aircraft itself.
 
Hot and High

When I was learning, the "Hot and High" mantra referred to density altitude for take offs, not landing. But I guess it applies to both. I have seen many 172s dive for the deck because they were high and fast on final. Guess that doesn't work on the RVs!

Sorry to hear about the injuries of the occupants.
 
In this case, where we're talking the difference between two aircraft types with identical structure except for the landing gear, I think we would find that the difference in claim rates is more closely tied to the skills required to fly them than the structure of the aircraft itself.

I think most of the discussion over the last 15 years on the A model nose gear proves that the nose gear requires “skill” to land correctly as does the tail dragger. I would say that nose gear tends to make pilots “complacent” on landing technique because typically a nose wheel requires less attention to details than a tail dragger.

I have plenty of hours in nose gear and tail draggers. There definitely is differences in technique to each. I would use the word “proficiency” not the word “skill”. I know, minor difference in meaning.
 
landing skills

I can't find it now, but I recall one of the 3 or 4 letter agencies published a video of landings at a fly-in - with narration and comments. It was really entertaining and educational, and unfortunately showed that even though all of us are better than average, there are some pretty bad landings out there.

I think it would be cool to set up some automatic cameras that follow each landing at a fly-in like Oshkosh and pull it together in a "greatest hits" and training video.
 
Why

. The video was shot with a GoPro camera mounted under the left wing. ]

That's an interesting video and an unfortunate and tragic outcome.

I wonder what was the reason for the pilot to go flying with the GoPro camera focussed on the nosewheel? (The wheel is in the centre of the field of view.) We cannot speculate why someone set this up, but perhaps the poster could elaborate on what instigated this initiative, and whether there was perhaps a prior indication of a problem that needed to be monitored and recorded? It's not after all an everyday thing to go to the trouble of mounting a GoPro on the wing to make a video of the wheel...

This thread has attracted a lot of comments and views, so it is a topic of interest and importance, and any learnings could be of benefit.
 
Typical Cherokee with nose gear torn off can be put back in the air in one long day with two mechanics. Not including paint.

Does this include the engine teardown and inspection after a prop strike?

Or are you talking "not in accordance with regulations"?
 
Teardown

Aug 1964, no tear down requirement back then. We did two Twin Commanches after that, no tear down, I flew one of the TC's for two years and tracked the airplane until recently. The Cherokee is still active.
 
I wonder what was the reason for the pilot to go flying with the GoPro camera focussed on the nosewheel? (The wheel is in the centre of the field of view.) We cannot speculate why someone set this up, but perhaps the poster could elaborate on what instigated this initiative, and whether there was perhaps a prior indication of a problem that needed to be monitored and recorded? It's not after all an everyday thing to go to the trouble of mounting a GoPro on the wing to make a video of the wheel...
.

It never struck me as strange at all that the pilot shot video of his landing gear....if I had a GoPro I?d do the same....easy to mount it at the wing tie-down....and interesting to monitor the mains and the nose gear for any oscillations...or just to see how high off the ground you?re flaring. It?s a quite common practice. Post 42 on this thread provided video of some-one else doing it in an RV6A. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7rqQa1VIwI

And here?s another one of an RV7A with commentary. This one is interesting because the pilot does not hold the nosewheel off the ground for anywhere near long enough...and he even mentions that in his commentary. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS_777dIfR8
 
Videoing

..if I had a GoPro I?d do the same....easy to mount it at the wing tie-down....and interesting to monitor the mains and the nose gear for any oscillations...or just to see how high off the ground you?re flaring. It?s a quite common practice. Post 42 on this thread provided video of some-one else doing it in an RV6A. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7rqQa1VIwI

And here?s another one of an RV7A with commentary. This one is interesting because the pilot does not hold the nosewheel off the ground for anywhere near long enough...and he even mentions that in his commentary. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS_777dIfR8

It sounds like it may be less difficult than I expected to mount an external video camera. It could certainly assist to develop good techniques.

The first video above looks textbook best practice for the landings, and I assume his takeoffs would also raise the nosewheel as early as possible.

The second video shows some nose gear back and forth oscillation on a paved surface, which is a bit disconcerting. I'm hoping that this sort of movement will not occur with the new style nose gear. Vans now appears to have good simulation capability to model the nose gear stress and dynamics, as has recently been done for the -12 and resulting in an improved nose gear for that model.

Maybe a GoPro camera and a wing mount bracket would be a good investment.
 
RV6A nose over accident

I am getting real close to finishing my RV6A.

This is a very valuable thread. I have learned a lot. I feel terrible for the pilot and his daughter.

I just had my nose gear modified by Langair to comply with the SB. In my own opinion it is not accurate to say it is now "beefed up". The SB simply requires that the gear leg be shortened so the portion that is in front of the tire has more ground clearance. (less likely to dig in on a rough/hard landing).

I also just ordered the Aniti-splat. I did not get get their skid plate.....but now I just might get that too. None of these are guarantees, but I do believe they add to the safety factor.

There is no question that keeping the nose off the surface as long as possible is an important tactic for the -A's. I knew this, but I have a whole new appreciation for this now..... As well as the importance of executing a go-around after a bounce.

I think this landing was an odd combinations of bad circumstances of the nose contacting slightly before the mains after the bounce and probably on a soft surface. Just a weird bad combination.

I have been to many fly ins with dozens of -A operate on grass strips and I have never seen a nose gear failure. I just wonder if this would have been on grass if we would have seen the same results.
 
?Lichter? Nose Wheel....

Hello Together,

What is your Opinion: Does a ? Lighter? Hose Wheel (for Exempel a Behringer Wheel and Tire) Support the Issue die ?Oszillation? ?
My thinking is, the lower Mass for the Wheel should be reduce this a bit. Or?

Greetings
Manfred
 
Soft sand, high speed - the nose cone fairing/bottom of the strut dug in bending the strut back till it exceeded it’s approximately 1g yield strength???

Worth reading this old post then this post by Bryan Wood who’s 9A was used in an NTSB study. Note that he had the older fork installed at the time. Also of interest is that his strut bent near the top so it is unlikely the antisplat brace would have been much help in his incident??

My take on all this is that you need to do everything possible to prevent the nose cone fairing ever contacting the ground. Have a look at the suggestions by Walt (this thread post 66) especially raising the bottom of the nose cone fairing.
Fin 9A
 
Last edited:
The pilot's answers to questions raised on this thread.

In the course of this thread there were many questions raised about this accident by VansAirforce members...in particular they were often about important issues not covered by the ATSB report. It is very difficult for the pilot to respond to emails due to the totally debilitating nature of his injuries so I waited until the thread had died down to ask all of these questions in one go rather than pester the pilot on a piecemeal basis. In the end he can only respond by dictating his answers to a helper. My questions below are in black, and the pilot's answers are in red.

1. Did your RV6A have a tip-up or a slider canopy.
A: Slider canopy

2. Did the roll-over bar maintain its structural integrity during the tip over?or did it deform.
A: I can only go by photos that I have been shown, but I believe it was not deformed during the accident, however it was cut by emergency services during the extraction.

3. Were you wearing a 4 point or 5 point safety harness.
A: I assume the 5 point safety harness includes the crutch strap as well, which I had installed.

4. Was your safety harness properly secured at the buckle and adequately adjusted for tension.
A: I believe that i had them adjusted adequately.

5. Do you believe that your neck injuries were created by whiplash or by your head hitting something.
A: I'm sure the injuries were caused by my head hitting the canopy.

6. Did you have an Anti-splat nose brace on the the nose gear. See here: https://antisplataero.com/products/the-nose-job-two
A: No I did not have one installed, and was not aware of this after market product.
I built it as per vans instructions and had the nose leg modified as per their service bulletin.


7. Did you have any other modifications done to your nose gear eg. special nose wheel bearings etc.
A: No other modifications, just as per vans instructions.

8. Why did you instal the camera under the wing to view the landing gear. Was it just for interest or did you have a prior concern.
A: From memory i initially installed the under wing camera to view any shimmy that might occur while i was operating off a paved aerodrome runway, i think i mainly used it for a different camera view of the landscape.

9. Did you build the aircraft yourself or was it purchased.
A: I built the aircraft myself.

Additionally the pilot made the following additional comments which I am quoting verbatim:

"It is hard for me to not blame myself for having a less than textbook landing, however I do feel that the overwhelming evidence suggests that there is a weakness in the nose gear leg which i didn't appreciate or wasn't fully aware of at the completion of my build.
After all, I think the expectation that every landing should be textbook landing is unrealistic and there should be safety margins engineered into the design, instead of relying on aftermarket solutions.
Anybody that has contacts within the aviation or LAME communities has heard of bad landings that occur even from professional pilots."
 
My Matco wheel has the rubber seal that has two lips on the seal and it had a lot of drag. I used a razor blade to remove one of the lips on the seal. The wheel now spins freely.
 
My Matco wheel has the rubber seal that has two lips on the seal and it had a lot of drag. I used a razor blade to remove one of the lips on the seal. The wheel now spins freely.

anti-splat nose wheel bearing mod allows the wheel to rotate slowly in flight.

see video

https://youtu.be/QpS3JzUIgTE

this the same nose wheel at 850 hrs. I like it.

IMG_20200430_161040_zpseflkkxvk.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hello Together,

What is your Opinion: Does a ? Lighter? Hose Wheel (for Exempel a Behringer Wheel and Tire) Support the Issue die ?Oszillation? ?
My thinking is, the lower Mass for the Wheel should be reduce this a bit. Or?

Greetings
Manfred

I checked the weight of Van's standard nose wheel with bearings, tube and tire mounted against the Beringer nose wheel with bearings and tire mounted. In spite of the Beringer wheel looking much lighter than the Vans wheel, the assembly weight saving was only about the weight difference of the tube, about 0.5 lbs (Beringer is tubeless). The reasons I'm thinking about buying a Beringer are lower bearing torque and the elimination of the tube.
 
I used the Matco axle upgrade in my build. I just checked and Spruce sells it. Allows smooth turning of the nose wheel and proper torque on the fork. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/matcoaccessories.php

Yes, I have the same upgrade and highly recommend it. The original Vans nose wheel bearing system just made no sense to me....if you torqued up the axle bolt enough to take out all of the lateral wheel movement the wheel wouldn?t spin freely. 500 hours on the Matco upgrade and no problems so far but I always try to keep the nose wheel off the surface while there is elevator authority left to do so on both take-off and landing.

Incidentally Steve Melton?s video in Post # 131 is interesting. The landings and take-offs are not flat but he is definitely not holding his nosegear off the runway for anywhere near long enough. But they were shot in 2015 so he might have improved his technique since then. :)
 
Procedure, not technique

As highlighted in the recent RV flying webinar please remember to keep the nose wheel off the ground as must as possible and stick full aft during taxi, no matter what mods you have.

“The nose gear is just a kickstand for the prop” - stolen from someone else here on VAF.

Those watching the recent video, the nose gear is up very late in the takeoff roll and comes down way too soon. Since we’re using videos it must be said. Don’t take my word for it.

Source EAA Webinar with Mike S.
 
As highlighted in the recent RV flying webinar please remember to keep the nose wheel off the ground as must as possible and stick full aft during taxi, no matter what mods you have.

“The nose gear is just a kickstand for the prop” - stolen from someone else here on VAF.

Those watching the recent video, the nose gear is up very late in the takeoff roll and comes down way too soon. Since we’re using videos it must be said. Don’t take my word for it.

Source EAA Webinar with Mike S.

if you are speaking of my video, sometimes one installs a camera to do a test and have a look.
 
Last edited:
As with all the videos of the standard "A" model rod type nose gear strut I'm amazed at how much fore/aft movement there is due to minor ripples on paved runways and especially how much the "spin up torque" of the nose wheel on landing moves and rotates the rod type nose gear strut.

I'm not sure there is an easy way to measure spin up torque, but there certainly is for the various nose wheels, nose wheel bearings and axles in current use.

The original Vans design of a simple bolt through the castering fork is not a robust design and a poor way of adjusting the taper roller bearings.

However, Vans current design (rubber biscuit sprung tube strut) includes a solid axle which allows the bearing end play to be adjusted separately from the fork bolt. This solid axle can be retrofitted to the nose wheel without any other changes.

The Anti Splat conversion replaces the taper roller bearing with sealed ball bearings.

The Matco axle (solid axle) also can be retrofitted to the nose wheel without any other changes (or installed initially) and also allows the bearing end play to be adjusted separately from the fork bolt.

The Beringer nose wheel has ball bearings and a solid axle.

Has anybody ever measured the bearing/seal torque of any or all of the above options? I don't recall seeing any numbers, forgive me if I overlooked them. It would be an easy test. Lift the nose wheel (put a weight on the HS), wrap a string around the wheel and add weights until it just starts to rotate.

What would this prove? Whether the ball bearings really have a measurable advantage over taper roller bearings in wheel torque. I think the spin up torque of wheel/tire itself would be the same in all cases, essentially the same weight and moment of inertia of the wheel/tire.
 
However, Vans current design (rubber biscuit sprung tube strut) includes a solid axle which allows the bearing end play to be adjusted separately from the fork bolt. This solid axle can be retrofitted to the nose wheel without any other changes.

Correct

The new design axle can be installed on legacy nose gears even if the new design nose gear/engine mount is not being retrofitted.
 
Larger nose wheel

Correct

The new design axle can be installed on legacy nose gears even if the new design nose gear/engine mount is not being retrofitted.

Is it possible to install the fork and nose wheel from a -10 onto the new style nose gear for the -7A and 9A so as to have a 5 inch nose wheel? This would be done in conjunction with 380-150×5 tyres on the mains so overall ground stance should remain the same. I'm aware that there would be work involved on the spats to get clearance.
 
Last edited:
Correct

The new design axle can be installed on legacy nose gears even if the new design nose gear/engine mount is not being retrofitted.

Is this the new design axle in the Vans Store? Or it is probably the Matco kit.

6A,7A,8A,9A, MATCO Nose Whl. axle kit
7A/9A AXLE KIT

Where can I see Vans axle kit. Anybody have a picture of what this kit has in it?
 
Last edited:
SNIP The original Vans nose wheel bearing system just made no sense to me....if you torqued up the axle bolt enough to take out all of the lateral wheel movement the wheel wouldn?t spin freely. SNIP

The original axle design for the 6A's was indeed solid. The design Avgas and others is referring to is the second design. Somewhere in the late 1990's or early 2000's the change was made to the axle design. See the third image in post #1 in this thread.
 
The original axle design for the 6A's was indeed solid. The design Avgas and others is referring to is the second design. Somewhere in the late 1990's or early 2000's the change was made to the axle design. See the third image in post #1 in this thread.

Thanks for that information Alex. Do you know why Vans dumped the original pre 1999 solid axle. Did it have appropriate adjustment like the Matco upgrade axle has.
 
Thanks for that information Alex. Do you know why Vans dumped the original pre 1999 solid axle. Did it have appropriate adjustment like the Matco upgrade axle has.

Bob, it did not have adjustments. One would have to either trim off the bushings or add shims. In my case, it had just the right amount of clearance, with a slightly perceptible amount of bearing play.

I had a local shop machine a number of this same design for the local guys who were finishing 7A's and 9A's in the early to mid 2000's, to replace the gen 2 bolt and puck designs they had. I don't recall exactly, but I think I designed them slightly short, and we used shims from McMaster to adjust.
 
Is this the new design axle in the Vans Store? Or it is probably the Matco kit.

6A,7A,8A,9A, MATCO Nose Whl. axle kit
7A/9A AXLE KIT

Where can I see Vans axle kit. Anybody have a picture of what this kit has in it?

The new nose gear / engine mount utilizes an in house newly designed/manufactured nose wheel axle. It is similar in concept (being solid and adjustable) as the Matco, but I believe it is less expensive. It may not have been broken out into a single item assembly and added to the web store, but I believe it is available on its own (one of the order people in the office should be able to help).

There is no photos of the axle on the web site but this post has a link to some photos of the entire engine mount / nose gear leg kit that someone posted online.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1363834&postcount=41

Update The part number for the new design axle is 7A/9A Axle Kit
Even though the part # says 7A/9A, it should be able to be retrofitted onto a 6A,7A,8A or 9A as long as teh airplane has a Matco nose wheel (wont work with the original Cleveland nose wheel)
 
Last edited:
Bob, it did not have adjustments. One would have to either trim off the bushings or add shims. In my case, it had just the right amount of clearance, with a slightly perceptible amount of bearing play.

I had a local shop machine a number of this same design for the local guys who were finishing 7A's and 9A's in the early to mid 2000's, to replace the gen 2 bolt and puck designs they had. I don't recall exactly, but I think I designed them slightly short, and we used shims from McMaster to adjust.

Alex is correct.
The no adjustment was problematic because the dimensional tolerance that Cleveland was able to hold when machining their wheels was very poor.
 
On this same topic, does anyone have a mechanical drawing of the stock nosewheel? I am thinking about making my own tubeless wheel, but don't want to take mine out of service in the meantime (getting into prime flying time around here). Alternatively, someone have a damaged nosewheel they wish to sell? This is just one of those fun side projects, so it will probably not happen fast...
 
Actual failed nose leg

This is a photo of the actual failed nose leg. You can see where the powdercoating has been worn off as it skidded along the ground.


C1xxSVq.jpg
 
Torque?

This is a photo of the actual failed nose leg. You can see where the powdercoating has been worn off as it skidded along the ground.

It would be interesting to try and straighten it, maybe by slipping a bit of pipe over the end, just to see how difficult/easy it is to bend it back.

Is someone perhaps able to do this and share the results here?
 
I'm curious to know what the Engine/Gear mount looked like after the accident. Was it bent or did it look intact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top