VAF Forums

VAF Forums (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/index.php)
-   RV-12 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=73)
-   -   2011 RV-12 nose fork collapse (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=147159)

Keldog 02-28-2017 06:54 PM

2011 RV-12 nose fork collapse
 
The nose fork on my RV-12 cracked and subsequently collapsed on the runway approx. 150-200 ft. after landing. Subsequent inspection by my mechanic looks like the weld on the inside left front corner of the fork was inadequate.

I ordered both a new fork and a nose gear leg as the threads on the bottom of the gear leg were also damaged as we skidded to a stop. No prop strike thankfully, but I am a little confused as to what may have gone wrong.

I noticed that my replacement parts have new numbers as they are now modified from the original fork shipped and installed with the kit. Was there a known problem that perhaps the builder I purchased from was unaware of? I've only had the plane about three months and did take transition training in it and have not made any hard landings. Plane had only 95 hours on it when I purchased it from the pilot/owner/builder, but obviously I would have no idea if the nose gear had sustained any previous abuse.

Any help would be appreciated. I can't help but wonder why the original fork has been replaced with a different one now.

Phantom30 02-28-2017 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keldog (Post 1153984)
The nose fork on my RV-12 cracked and subsequently collapsed on the runway approx. 150-200 ft. after landing. Subsequent inspection by my mechanic looks like the weld on the inside left front corner of the fork was inadequate.

I ordered both a new fork and a nose gear leg as the threads on the bottom of the gear leg were also damaged as we skidded to a stop. No prop strike thankfully, but I am a little confused as to what may have gone wrong.

I noticed that my replacement parts have new numbers as they are now modified from the original fork shipped and installed with the kit. Was there a known problem that perhaps the builder I purchased from was unaware of? I've only had the plane about three months and did take transition training in it and have not made any hard landings. Plane had only 95 hours on it when I purchased it from the pilot/owner/builder, but obviously I would have no idea if the nose gear had sustained any previous abuse.

Any help would be appreciated. I can't help but wonder why the original fork has been replaced with a different one now.


There was a service bulletin #16-05-23 dated May 23, 2016 regarding inspection of the fork. You should check Van's SB's to make sure all other SB's have been complied with....glad you and plane didn't substain major damage.

Walt 02-28-2017 07:08 PM

SB on this has been around for a while now:

https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb16-05-23.pdf

Pat Stewart 02-28-2017 07:08 PM

Check SB16-05-23

Captain Avgas 02-28-2017 10:50 PM

I can't help but think that the OP got out of this very lightly. His failed nose gear could easily have resulted in a very serious accident. And not even a prop strike....amazing luck!

If I was the OP I'd take a look at the aircraft's Airframe Log to see whether the seller of the aircraft complied with the relevant Vans Service Bulletin which was issued fully 7 months before the plane changed hands. The SB called for immediate inspection of the nose fork and ongoing inspections at all subsequent annuals.

Then I'd have a good look through all the other applicable Vans Service Bulletins on the RV12 to see if they've been complied with.

This incident goes a long way to highlighting why a pre-purchase inspection (by a competent person) might make huge sense for non-builders contemplating the purchase of an Experimental aircraft.

Pat Stewart 03-01-2017 05:55 AM

In this case it could be that the seller complied with the SB as its not a terminating action. This issue requires repetitive inspections and it could have cracked at any time. Good idea however to check all SBs.

Captain Avgas 03-01-2017 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Stewart (Post 1154096)
In this case it could be that the seller complied with the SB as its not a terminating action. This issue requires repetitive inspections and it could have cracked at any time. Good idea however to check all SBs.

Surely if the seller complied with the Service Bulletin (inspected the fork for cracks) there would be an entry in the Airframe Maintenance Log Book to that effect. Additionally the relevant Service Bulletin should have been entered in the Record of Manufacturer's Service Bulletins with a note that a recurring inspection was required at the Annual.

Maybe the OP could advise this thread whether the Maintenance Log contains this information.

John-G 03-01-2017 08:47 AM

Apologize for the slight thread drift but this question is related to the RV-12 nose fork replacement.

For those of you that have had painted wheel pants on the RV-12 and needed (or wanted) to replace the nose gear fork to the new design ... was it necessary to modify the existing wheel pant to the point repainting the wheel pant was necessary?

The reason I'm asking is I have yet to install the wheel pants on my RV-12 which has the original nose gear fork. I'm about ready to begin the wheel pant instillation but don't want to find myself in the position of needing to repaint the wheel pant after converting over to the new style nose wheel fork at some point in the future. Ideally, I would like to get a little service out of the one I have now (it has less than 10 hours on it all on paved runways) and replace it during an annual at some point in the future.

Happy building,

Keldog 03-01-2017 08:51 AM

All the aircraft log books are complete and the plane was due for annual condition inspection about 1 month after the proposed purchase date, so I negotiated for that to be completed prior to sale; and it was on 12/28/16.

The entry for this annual inspection as well as almost all of the previous simply have a standard blurb indicating that all relative SB's have been complied with. Only once in the logs do I see a specific SB# called out. Is this standard? Or is it even practical to individually list all of the relative SB#'s?

All annual inspections on this aircraft have been performed by A&P/IA's

JonJay 03-01-2017 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keldog (Post 1154144)
All the aircraft log books are complete and the plane was due for annual condition inspection about 1 month after the proposed purchase date, so I negotiated for that to be completed prior to sale; and it was on 12/28/16.

The entry for this annual inspection as well as almost all of the previous simply have a standard blurb indicating that all relative SB's have been complied with. Only once in the logs do I see a specific SB# called out. Is this standard? Or is it even practical to individually list all of the relative SB#'s?

All annual inspections on this aircraft have been performed by A&P/IA's

I can not say what is standard or typical, but I list all SB's that terminate with action by SB number and a statement that it was complied with along with any specifics as to how. This is typically done towards the back of the log book. Recurring inspections called out by a SB get listed again each time they are inspected and listed in the logs along with all the other "normal" stuff like compression, oil change, etc.... So, for me, they should get listed by SB number individually and a statement as to what was done and what was found or not found. I do this for Engine AD's etc.... as well.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44 PM.