What's new
Van's Air Force

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

2011 RV-12 nose fork collapse

Keldog

Member
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 an 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.
Same here... and if I find an SB does not apply to my plane, I note that as well so no one has to wonder whether or not I checked it.
 
Same here... and if I find an SB does not apply to my plane, I note that as well so no one has to wonder whether or not I checked it.

Excellent point and I do this as well, for SB's that may or may not apply by model type.
 
Here's another data point...

On Feb-13 my wife flew me down to KWVI so we could look at an RV-9A for sale. The RV-12 we flew had been carefully inspected and there was no visual indication on the nose fork of any stress or cracking. The plane is in of a club of 5 people, 2 of whom were the builders. I did the wiring on it so we know this plane very well. She joined the group to have a nice cheap way to keep current and has really enjoyed it. RV-12s are magic.

Before we get a pile of replies: Yes we all knew about the SB. The plan was to replace with the new fork model at the next condition inspection.

She made a perfect landing, gently set the nose down, and taxied off uneventfully. But when we got to parking we had to make a fairly sharp turn that probably turned the nose wheel to the stop bolts. This was apparently the last straw for the nose fork and one side sheared at the weld. Fortunately, there was no prop strike and we didn't even realize it had failed until we shut down and got out.

Thanks to the fantastic builder community at KWVI for coming to our aid! Sayid and Bill quickly gathered tools, helped us get the nose wheel pant off, and assessed the problem - it was pretty obvious since the wheel was at a 30 degree angle and the fork was clearly broken at the weld.

Sayid knew of an RV-12 builder who was nearing completion and called Bob. Bob drove 20 miles to the airport to open his hanger, removed his already installed nose fork, and loaned it to us. Sayid and Bill helped us (actually we just helped them) to install and tension it and we were back on our way home just a few hours behind schedule. We removed, cleaned and UPS'ed the fork back to Bob the next day.

This is the first time we've experienced this wonderful side of the builder community in time of need and though I've been flying an RV-6 since 2007 I was just amazed and grateful to these folks. Thank you guys!
 
. The RV-12 we flew had been carefully inspected and there was no visual indication on the nose fork of any stress or cracking.
Before we get a pile of replies: Yes we all knew about the SB. The plan was to replace with the new fork model at the next condition inspection.

If I am a RV12 owner, knowing this, I wouldn't be waiting for visible signs of a crack to do the SB given your experience.

Good post and good stuff to know. I am sure RV12 owners appreciate it.

As we know, some SB's are the factory covering their you know what for a one time event, some are arguably "no action required", and some are more like an AD in that they should be immediately dealt with. It is tough to know which is which sometimes.
 
Thanks for all the replies everyone! Lots of great information. I wonder if Van's will cover the cost of the new fork since the original failed. With the added expense of the gear leg that was also damaged, parts alone are over $650.
 
... The RV-12 we flew had been carefully inspected and there was no visual indication on the nose fork of any stress or cracking.

... helped us get the nose wheel pant off...

That's one of the reasons I don't fly locally with the wheel fairings - they cover everything up. I can't see the brake pads, brake lines and, in particular in this case, the nose wheel fork, which I inspect as part of my normal preflight. I do use the wheel fairings when I take long cross country flights. They take maybe an hour to put on and less to take off.
 
I wonder if Van's will cover the cost of the new fork since the original failed. With the added expense of the gear leg that was also damaged, parts alone are over $650.
:rolleyes:Sure! Like they covered the new plexi window I purchased to replaced cracked Lexan. Crack appeared shortly after mounting, no connection to screw holes or edge. I am thankful that they at least moved on to a better replacement.
 
Another downside of wheel pants is that if a tire goes flat on the mains you can't get the wheel pant off without first jacking up the plane because the plane will be resting on the wheel pant and the bottom screws will be inaccessible. In the case of a leaking Schrader valve it means you can't just replace the valve and charge the tire without a jack.
 
:rolleyes:Sure! Like they covered the new plexi window I purchased to replaced cracked Lexan. Crack appeared shortly after mounting, no connection to screw holes or edge. I am thankful that they at least moved on to a better replacement.

Another RV-12 on my field had a really tedious time with the factory replacement and no room for error on an expensive replacement part. He said the nature of this RV-12 fuel filler location is it will happen again even if you are very careful and it might be worth (if I heard it correctly) considering using the old glass to shape, form, and drill store-bought lexan (?)... Now knowing that's it is structural....I guess that's not the way to go. Sorry, I've never seen what I'm talking about and just know there are those of us that have had issues and I usually fall into the other category.....and their are those that will.
 
Last edited:
Well, after reading all of the post regarding nose wheel fork issues, I decided to order the updated fork, even though after 250 hours, mine still looks good. I have an early build, (120119) but I like to keep up with the changes that make sense. Just received the new style fork. Man, that is one UGLY looking assembly. I'm now arguing with myself about installing it. It's really ugly, and I don't think paint is going to help.......Tom
 
I'm very curious how you don't get a prop strike when the nose gear collapses? Was it a partial or gradual bending?
 
Upgraded fork - just do it?

Can i upgrade the fork and simply reinstall my current nose wheel pant?
OK I hear it's ugly. So what? Cant I just cover it with the wheel pant?
Is this really a big deal?
I dont get it.
 
Can i upgrade the fork and simply reinstall my current nose wheel pant?
OK I hear it's ugly. So what? Cant I just cover it with the wheel pant?
Is this really a big deal?
I dont get it.

Dick,

I asked the Mother ship about replacing the old style nose fork with the new improved version. My take away is that older wheel pant kits used on the original fork can be installed on the new fork ... HOWEVER, the mounting is different so it will leave you with unused holes that will need to be plugged likely requiring a repaint.

I was asking because I have the RV-12 wheel pant kit, but it is not installed yet ... so I called to find out should I install the pants now on the old fork and replace the nose fork at a later time could I reuse the wheel pants? After hearing that I could reuse the wheel pants but it would need the old mounting holes plugged or patched, (likely requiring repainting) it prompted me to order the new fork now and install it when installing the wheel pants.

Just received the new nose fork ... it is much beefier than the old fork. Van's did not skimp on the metal ... it is made WAY stronger than the old fork.

Also, because the wheel pant mounting is different on the new style fork, it requires some different mounting hardware and brackets which Van's has ... so be sure to ask for that if you are using an older wheel pant parts kit on the new fork.

Happy flying,
 
Last edited:
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?

Of course it is practical to individually list all of the relative SBs in the aircraft logbooks. A "standard blurb" indicating that all relative SBs have been complied with, without referring to any relevant SBs, is absolutely meaningless. How does anybody examining the airframe logbook determine if any particular AD or SB has actually been dealt with. I would guess this may be illegal. At best it is incompetent. In this particular case the nose wheel may have been inspected in accordance with the SB at the last annual...but it may not have. How can you know in this instance.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top