Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
How to determine long or short legs from photo
- Thread starter Saville
- Start date
I think it's quite a noticeable difference when viewed from the side. The shorter legs are at a steeper angle, too, if I recall. I know it to see it, but I couldn't tell you the two angles.
Saville
Well Known Member
A steeper angle towards the back?
Saville
Well Known Member
I don't think I ought to because it's watermarked Barnstormers.
If you go to Barnstormers.com and get to the RV-4 ads, look at:
The first picture of this ad (the yellow and black airplane):
2005 VAN'S RV-4 ? $53,500 ? FOR SALE ? 2005 Van's RV-4 N205DT, Airframe/EngineTime: 170, Need to feed the inner acrobatic pilot? SEE COMPLETE DETAILS HERE ? Contact Christopher Benham - LAS VEGAS AIRCRAFT SALES
Is it possible that the longer legs are situation more forward? Look at this ad on Barnstormer's:
97 RV4 360TT 100SMOH ? $43,500 ? AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE SALE ? 97 RV4 on tall gear.
First picture
Thanks
rv6rick
Well Known Member
'05 is short gear legs.
The other one has long gear if I looked at the right pic.
You really can't go by the 'year' the plane was finished. It depends on when the finished kit was purchased.
If I may, what's the big deal with long or short gear? I've had 5 RV 4's with various gear lengths and could care less if the gear was long or short.
The other one has long gear if I looked at the right pic.
You really can't go by the 'year' the plane was finished. It depends on when the finished kit was purchased.
If I may, what's the big deal with long or short gear? I've had 5 RV 4's with various gear lengths and could care less if the gear was long or short.
Saville
Well Known Member
I understood that it's not a function of the year completed. I'm only using the year to point out the a/c to look at.
It seems to me that on that '05 plane, if you were to lift the tail on takeoff roll, or land a wheelie with the fuselage level, the tip of that prop has maybe 2 inches clearance. Seems rather prone to prop strikes.
As I investigate various -4's to buy, prop strike seems to the the biggest element of damage history by far. So I'm wondering if considering only long gear is important.
This thread from 2007 has a reply from Van's that suggests the difference in length of the gearleg itself is 2-3 inches.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=22540
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=22540
Saville
Well Known Member
Yes but I wonder if the angles are the same.
A few of the posters in that thread all said that using a larer diameter prop with short gear is asking for trouble.
Last edited:
rv6rick
Well Known Member
Agreed that you don't want a 74" prop on the short gear RV4. I know a few RV4's with this combo but one must be extra cautious.
The short gear takes one engine mount and the long gear takes another, they are not interchangeable.
The short gear takes one engine mount and the long gear takes another, they are not interchangeable.
Don't necessarily shun prop strike damage history...
IF the prop and engine were properly repaired (or overhauled), and this was properly documented by a reputable shop, a prop strike shouldn't be considered a show-stopper, and can actually be a good value. If there was structural damage, then things can be more problematic; but again, if PROPERLY repaired, may also be just fine. As with any home-built, properly repaired is judgment call as is properly constructed in the first place!
RV-4's can suffer heavy landing damage without a prop strike (some of which can be spotted by looking for buckling or deformity in the lower stainless firewall corners) and general wear and tear where the main gear legs attached to the engine mount (usually in the form of welds cracking).
68" Wooden propellers were originally envisioned for the "short gear" RV-4, but the need for speed as well as constant speed types has increased the typical prop diameter over time (although a 68" two-blade or even smaller three-blade can provide plenty of performance). The "long gear" is a logical engineering evolution of the type, so, therefore good; but as Rick said above, shouldn't be considered a factor unless it's fitted with a really large prop; and 74" would meet that criteria!
Big props and big engines also contribute to "heavy nose" syndrome for RV-4's, but that's a matter of personal preference as well...some of us like light-weight airplanes with a light nose simply due to the handling characteristics (yup, can limit rear cockpit payload capability); but even light noses are subject to fatigue damage over time (perhaps more prevalent if the airplane is operated off of grass)...we had to re-weld the lower engine mount corners/gussets at the 1200 hour point due to cracking, which is not atypical.
Enjoy the search!
Vac
IF the prop and engine were properly repaired (or overhauled), and this was properly documented by a reputable shop, a prop strike shouldn't be considered a show-stopper, and can actually be a good value. If there was structural damage, then things can be more problematic; but again, if PROPERLY repaired, may also be just fine. As with any home-built, properly repaired is judgment call as is properly constructed in the first place!
RV-4's can suffer heavy landing damage without a prop strike (some of which can be spotted by looking for buckling or deformity in the lower stainless firewall corners) and general wear and tear where the main gear legs attached to the engine mount (usually in the form of welds cracking).
68" Wooden propellers were originally envisioned for the "short gear" RV-4, but the need for speed as well as constant speed types has increased the typical prop diameter over time (although a 68" two-blade or even smaller three-blade can provide plenty of performance). The "long gear" is a logical engineering evolution of the type, so, therefore good; but as Rick said above, shouldn't be considered a factor unless it's fitted with a really large prop; and 74" would meet that criteria!
Big props and big engines also contribute to "heavy nose" syndrome for RV-4's, but that's a matter of personal preference as well...some of us like light-weight airplanes with a light nose simply due to the handling characteristics (yup, can limit rear cockpit payload capability); but even light noses are subject to fatigue damage over time (perhaps more prevalent if the airplane is operated off of grass)...we had to re-weld the lower engine mount corners/gussets at the 1200 hour point due to cracking, which is not atypical.
Enjoy the search!
Vac
Last edited:
No. Simply putting a longer gearleg in at the same position and angle would move the wheels back 2-3" as well. Since that would wreak havok with the ground stability, the angle is made steeper to bring the wheels back forward to where they were before.
The result should be an increase of 4-6" in height AGL at the spinner, but that's just a rough estimate based on the geometry...
Saville
Well Known Member
Ah ok so then one possible way to tell from a picture might be the fore and aft rake angle as viewed from the side
