What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New engine mount and nose gear option for RV-7A/9A kits

While I don't own a Vans aircraft, I have some experience with our Glasair Sportsman. The Sportsman nose gear came into being before the RV10 and I sometimes wonder if Vans used the Sportsman design as a nearly direct copy - yes, they look that similar.

I’d be reasonably confident that Vans plagiarised the nose gear for the RV10 from the Cirrus. And then when they saw how it performed in service they incorporated a similar design into the RV14A. And now finally they are offering a similar principle mechanism on other A models.

The original spring steel design as introduced on the RV6A was always a bit problematic but it was very cheap and Vans have always been fixated on price. Also the RV6A came onto the market in a different era (1985) for a different demographic. It had a lower gross weight with typically an O320 engine, a fixed timber prop, and simple VFR panel. Originally there were virtually no bells and whistles from third party vendors. So the RV6As typically were lighter and with less load on the nose gear.

However with the later introduction of the RV7A the game eventually changed. The gross weight increased and IO360s with heavy Hartzell CS props became the new standard. The simple spring steel nose gear design carried forward from the RV6A was now being expected to withstand higher loads....and logically the safety margin was eroded. The nose gear was simple....but it was too simple. The end result was a plethora of nose gear failures.

Broadly speaking Vans modus operandi has been to not re-engineer existing models. Once a model is on the market their engineers move onto the next one. Even their construction drawings and building instructions for any model remain frozen in time.

The current major change to the engine mount /nose gears on the RV7A and RV9A (the new nose gear is now the factory standard on all new finishing kits) is a huge and unprecedented move by Vans. It is unlikely that they have ever re-engineered any existing model on this scale before. Why they have opted to do it now is another interesting subject of discussion. Bear in mind that the RV7A has now been in production for 18 years.

For those who are building and can still make the swap I say do it and don’t worry about the money. You’ll get it back and more when you sell the plane. Planes on the market with the new nose gear will be in hot demand.
 
Last edited:
An alternate viewpoint could be......

........that since the Lord style compression elastomers are one of the most logical ways of absorbing load on a solid style (non-oleo strut) nose gear leg, that it was only natural that they end up look similar (though they are still very far from being the same). I don't remember the Cirrus design being referenced at the time but if it important to people, it should maybe be considered a copy of the Grumman line of airplanes (which was possibly copied by Cirrus???)

As far as Vans never re-engineering existing models.......
There is very strong argument for just the opposite position.

The RV-8 was essentially a major redesign of the RV-4
The RV-7(A) was essentially a major redesign of the RV-6(A)
The RV-12iS was not as major, but still an extensive redesign of the RV-12


As far as the why now question? I think in large part you answered that yourself. There is now quite a few years of experience with that style nose gear from the RV-10 and additionally on the RV-14A. That was valuable experience for developing a system that is robust enough to take the abuse that some pilots are able to induce, and have a system that could be retrofitted to the existing fleet without the need for structural changes to the fuselage.



I’d be reasonably confident that Vans plagiarised the nose gear for the RV10 from the Cirrus. And then when they saw how it performed in service they incorporated a similar design into the RV14A. And now finally they are offering a similar principle mechanism on other A models.

The original spring steel design as introduced on the RV6A was always a bit problematic but it was very cheap and Vans have always been fixated on price. Also the RV6A came onto the market in a different era (1985) for a different demographic. It had a lower gross weight with typically an O320 engine, a fixed timber prop, and simple VFR panel. Originally there were virtually no bells and whistles from third party vendors. So the RV6As typically were lighter and with less load on the nose gear.

However with the later introduction of the RV7A the game eventually changed. The gross weight increased and IO360s with heavy Hartzell CS props became the new standard. The simple spring steel nose gear design carried forward from the RV6A was now being expected to withstand higher loads....and logically the safety margin was eroded. The nose gear was simple....but it was too simple. The end result was a plethora of nose gear failures.

Broadly speaking Vans modus operandi has been to not re-engineer existing models. Once a model is on the market their engineers move onto the next one. Even their construction drawings and building instructions for any model remain frozen in time.

The current major change to the engine mount /nose gears on the RV7A and RV9A (the new nose gear is now the factory standard on all new finishing kits) is a huge and unprecedented move by Vans. It is unlikely that they have ever re-engineered any existing model on this scale before. Why they have opted to do it now is another interesting subject of discussion. Bear in mind that the RV7A has now been in production for 18 years.

For those who are building and can still make the swap I say do it and don’t worry about the money. You’ll get it back and more when you sell the plane. Planes on the market with the new nose gear will be in hot demand.
 
Dont know about you guys, but I'm pretty confident that Vans is looking at all the models, and maybe doing some upgrades to make them better/safer for all of us.

Tom
 
Scott,
Thanks. I have my 9A at the certification stage and I am thrilled you guys have upgraded the nose wheel. I will probably get mine papered, flown, and then make the change since I am so close. I agree with others that the price is very reasonable for the benefit. I believe the value of planes with the new nose wheel will increase higher than the cost and the old style will be reduced in value the same amount or more.
 
Due to good points in this thread I have changed my mind and got my name on the list for the new system. Mainly for resale purposes.

Scott, I think what Captain Avgas is trying to say is that there seems to be a general shift in thought at Van's to better support existing product lines and make improvements. (correct me if I'm wrong Captain) While I agree with your statements about new kits modifying and re-engineering old kits it is without question that many models (especially plans) have remained unchanged. I have always wondered why Van's doesn't update drawings after knowing there is an error?

As I said before, with the new branding, the new upgrades and what appears to be a new mentality at Van's I really truly appreciate it and look forward to what Van's has in store for the future!
 
I have often thought this too, Jereme.

I don?t pretend to know the first thing about aircraft engineering/manufacturing processes, but I always wondered if maybe Van?s could get a couple of aeronautical or engineering students in there each summer as interns and work on trying to update the instruction manuals to make them more like those of the ?modern? RV designs (10, 12, 14). Plus the interns could peruse the plans ?gotchas? here on VAF and make these updates as well.
 
Scott, I think what Captain Avgas is trying to say is that there seems to be a general shift in thought at Van's to better support existing product lines and make improvements. (correct me if I'm wrong Captain) While I agree with your statements about new kits modifying and re-engineering old kits it is without question that many models (especially plans) have remained unchanged. I have always wondered why Van's doesn't update drawings after knowing there is an error?

As I said before, with the new branding, the new upgrades and what appears to be a new mentality at Van's I really truly appreciate it and look forward to what Van's has in store for the future!

Jereme, you are 100% correct in your interpretation of my comments. This is a big change for Vans to be making a significant improvement/structural modification to an existing model (and in this case to 2 existing models). Scott missed the point. I think we’re seeing a changing of the guard at Vans.
 
Last edited:
Anyone happen to grab a few pics of the new mount/gear that Van's brought to Osh that they would be willing to post? I believe it is on a quick-build kit. I still haven't seen what I purchased other than the drawings. haha
 
Undrilled mount

For those of us waiting for the "undrilled" mount, what the heck is it going to look like. No way, I'm going to hit the center of those hole flanges with that thing clamped to my firewall.
 

Heck ya John, you da man!

For those of us waiting for the "undrilled" mount, what the heck is it going to look like. No way, I'm going to hit the center of those hole flanges with that thing clamped to my firewall.

Larry if you look at the pics as well as the plans you will see that there is quite a bit of error that can be taken. The two lower inboard holes have 9/64" to work with while the outboard holes have 3/16" to be off. You can see in the pics (especially on the outboard holes) that there is a fair amount of area to work with compared to the current mount. Will you hit center spot on the money, probably not but maybe. Will anyone really be able to tell with how busy it is under the cowl, probably not. Will it make any difference on strength as long as you are in spec with Van's, no. I mainly wanted to see the pics on how much bigger the bushing are, glad to see they are bigger.
 
New Nose Gear

So all of the nose gear failures I've seen have curled BACK UNDER the nose. Does anyone think this new configuration can/will prevent that?
 
So all of the nose gear failures I've seen have curled BACK UNDER the nose. Does anyone think this new configuration can/will prevent that?

Yes because the gear leg pivots up instead and I'm assuming the gear leg is no longer made of spring steel (but can't be sure). If you watch the RV-14A drop test you will definitely see the gear leg pivot up instead of bend back like the old style.
 
Brought me to osh

This is one of the things that brought me to Osh.
Glad I got a chance to see it on the mock up QB fuse and on the RV9 A demonstrator. I saw the louvers on the RV9 and they are not so bad looking; think I will install those too.

I am concern with any new routing of the control cables thru the firewall since I will be installing the injected 320, not the O320.
 
That's not the problem

Yes because the gear leg pivots up instead and I'm assuming the gear leg is no longer made of spring steel (but can't be sure). If you watch the RV-14A drop test you will definitely see the gear leg pivot up instead of bend back like the old style.

From the videos I've seen, the nose wheel drops into a hole or a divot on the runway (heck, one I saw happen when someone transitioned from grass to tarmac). That forces nose gear back, not up. The RV14 drop test is nice, but I don't think it's simulating the same scenario.
 
From the videos I've seen, the nose wheel drops into a hole or a divot on the runway (heck, one I saw happen when someone transitioned from grass to tarmac). That forces nose gear back, not up. The RV14 drop test is nice, but I don't think it's simulating the same scenario.

That could be but on the old style the only way it could absorb that force is to bend the spring steel leg and if it is far enough that the fork touches the ground then off to pretzel roll it goes. With the new design I don't think the leg is spring steel and will not bend to a large degree in the middle of the leg. The energy of a bump/hole seems to me that it would still transfer to rubber via pivot (if the fork can't bend back because leg is stronger the only place for the force to go is up which will pivot the leg, keeping in mind that when you hit a hole unless it is MEGA deep there will always be an upward force component). I suppose you could hit one heck of a hole and something would still happen but I don't think your going to see what we have in the past. It is also worth noting that to my knowledge I don't know of a RV-10 or RV-14A with a failed nose gear from something superfluous like some of the old A models in the past.
 
So all of the nose gear failures I've seen have curled BACK UNDER the nose. Does anyone think this new configuration can/will prevent that?

It sure looks that way. The Chief Engineer, Rian, showed videos of the (7-9) drop tests (and other tests too) at the Vans Banquet. Very impressive performance. The very stiff beam to the wheel did not curl. One test was a pull back test, mains blocked and a cable pulling aft on the nose wheel. Rian said they would eventually be posted.

No comment was made about any drop test for the old design.
 
New Engine Mount measurements.

Do you suppose Vans would be williing to provide the layout and measurements of the new engine mount to kit owners so that we could compare the new mount to our current hole locations. This would help some of us to get off the fence as to whether we want to upgrade to the new design.
 
Back
Top