VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-12
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:37 PM
DonFromTX's Avatar
DonFromTX DonFromTX is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,635
Default

I would guess that MOST of the RV12 fleet has a wheel pant on the nosewheel. This looks nice etc, but it keeps the nose fork from being inspected unless you remove the two piece cover.
__________________
AF1 (was RV12) EAB Air Force One, SN 461, N461DG VIKING/HONDA ENGINE POWERED! AND N756TS ROTAX POWERED
A&P, PP-SEL, Pathological Flier, EAA Technical Counselor
EAA Chapter 595 President,http://www.595.eaachapter.org/index.htm
Retired US Army Officer
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index....X&project=1903
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:47 PM
todehnal todehnal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky Lakes area in KY
Posts: 888
Default

Wow! So many questions that my concern is that we are going to overwhelm Jim with questions. Like, when was the nose wheel purchased, (kit number). Is he the original owner/builder? Was the front wheel balanced. Vibration can be very destructive, even in healthy assemblies. In addition to the earlier posted questions, we need all of the information that we can get to help determine if there are any extenuating circumstances. Anything will help.

I purchased the new, heavy duty updated nose fork, but the thing looked so ugly, that I haven't installed it. Maybe now I will have to rethink that decision.
It just looks like overkill with all of the additional bracing, reminding me of a stock car field repair, instead of an aircraft engineering project.........Tom
__________________
2013- RV12, Kit #119. N123M First flight Nov21. It's a keeper!
1998- RV-9 tail kit, built and sold
1989- RV-6 tail kit, built and sold
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:01 PM
joedallas's Avatar
joedallas joedallas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Spring Hill Fl
Posts: 670
Default I think this is a serious problem

I think this is something there should be a recall on.

Doing a visual inspection on all the area of the fork is not something that will insure there is no crack starting.

The fork breaking and not bending is a serious problem and can cause a very expensive repair or maybe loss of life.
I paid for a front fork for my aircraft and now I should not have to purchase a new one to feel safe.

The RV12 is a great little Aircraft and I think this is a serious problem.
Taking off the wheel pants after a landing to do an inspection is not realistic request.

My View

Joe Dallas
__________________
Joe Dallas
Kit-#12400
www.joesrv12.com
www.EAA1298.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:52 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedallas View Post
I think this is something there should be a recall on.

Doing a visual inspection on all the area of the fork is not something that will insure there is no crack starting.

The fork breaking and not bending is a serious problem and can cause a very expensive repair or maybe loss of life.
I paid for a front fork for my aircraft and now I should not have to purchase a new one to feel safe.

The RV12 is a great little Aircraft and I think this is a serious problem.
Taking off the wheel pants after a landing to do an inspection is not realistic request.

My View

Joe Dallas
The proper way to analyze something like this is to look at the data.

520+ RV-12's flying and only a small handful have managed to fail the nose gear fork.

The nose gear fork as designed easily meets the load requirements for the LSA ASTM. I think the data easily shows that a small percentage of the RV-12's have had occurrences that acceded what the ASTM load requirements are.

Because there is data to show that a small percentage have done that, a redesign was done to give the fork more strength margin way beyond what the design requirements are. It is up to individual owners/builders to decide whether the cost of the updated part is worth the extra margin to them.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:08 PM
greghughespdx greghughespdx is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedallas View Post
Taking off the wheel pants after a landing to do an inspection is not realistic request.
Taking the wheel pant off after any hard landing as well as at regular inspection intervals to ensure the aircraft is safe, especially knowing a replacement part is available should the owner wish to beef it up, seems to me to be a very reasonable request. Neither nose fork design fails under normal use/load.

Quote:
I paid for a front fork for my aircraft and now I should not have to purchase a new one to feel safe.
I disagree with that one. By definition, aircraft must be maintained in safe condition, and part of owning an airplane includes the understanding that sometimes changes are made that cost money. Especially problems caused by over-loading a part, which is what we're talking about here, I think. At some point that fork must have been stressed beyond its limits, either all at once or through repeated over-stressing. I think that's a safe assumption given the data, per Scott's comments.
__________________
Building RV-8A as of September 2014 (N88VX reserved)
VAF build thread - Flickr project photo album - Project Facebook page

Flying a Warrior PA28-151 and a few RVs here and there
TeenFlight program mentor
Exempt, but paid anyhow
Hillsboro, Oregon (EAA 105)

Last edited by greghughespdx : 08-28-2017 at 03:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:11 PM
joedallas's Avatar
joedallas joedallas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Spring Hill Fl
Posts: 670
Default considered an upgrade ?

Scott is the new fork now included in the new kits
Or is this considered an upgrade

Joe Dallas




Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
The proper way to analyze something like this is to look at the data.

520+ RV-12's flying and only a small handful have managed to fail the nose gear fork.

The nose gear fork as designed easily meets the load requirements for the LSA ASTM. I think the data easily shows that a small percentage of the RV-12's have had occurrences that acceded what the ASTM load requirements are.

Because there is data to show that a small percentage have done that, a redesign was done to give the fork more strength margin way beyond what the design requirements are. It is up to individual owners/builders to decide whether the cost of the updated part is worth the extra margin to them.
__________________
Joe Dallas
Kit-#12400
www.joesrv12.com
www.EAA1298.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:16 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joedallas View Post
Scott is the new fork now included in the new kits
Or is this considered an upgrade

Joe Dallas
It is included as a standard part of the kit.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:30 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 508
Default Fork

I'm waiting for the someone to offer a titanium or stainless reinforced doubler to wrap around the fork as a backup when the fork decides to separate. Not sure if it will help, but it may make some feel better.

On a serious note, fairings on our wheels give us additional speed but I wonder if folks don't look under them more often than they should. Things like cracked forks, brakes getting ready to fail, brake lines compromised, and other things may not have the occurances if those fairings aren't removed more often. Just my thoughts. Sorry to hear about your incident. Hope you can get it repaired and back in the air soon.
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 Built & Flying
Twin Comanche Flying
RV-10 Thinking about it...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:35 PM
DaleB's Avatar
DaleB DaleB is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Omaha, NE (KMLE)
Posts: 1,729
Default

Add me to the list of people who would really, really love to see detailed, close-up pictures of one or more failed forks. I haven't seen one yet.
__________________
Dale
Omaha, NE
RV-12 # 222 N980KM "Screamin' Canary" (bought flying)
Fisher Celebrity (under construction)
Previous RV-7 project (sold)
-=VAF=- 2017 dues paid
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:12 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
The proper way to analyze something like this is to look at the data.

520+ RV-12's flying and only a small handful have managed to fail the nose gear fork.

The nose gear fork as designed easily meets the loads requirements for the LSA ASTM. I think the data easily shows that a small percentage of the RV-12's have had occurrences that acceded what the ASTM load requirements are.

Because there is data to show that a small percentage have done that, a redesign was done to give the fork more strength margin way beyond what the design requirements are. It is up to individual owners/builders to decide whether the cost of the updated part is worth the extra margin to them.
Scott,

This begs the question as to whether the ASTM landing gear loads requirements are adequate. Do you think they are?
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 230 Tach Hours
(Pic)
- Out with the Old, In with the New (Pic)
RV-8, 1935 Tach Hours
(Pic 1), (Pic 2), (Pic 3) - Sale Pending
Glasflügel H-201B Standard Libelle, N564NS - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.