What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV6 incident,South Australia

daveyator

Well Known Member
RV6A flipped on landing at William Creek airfield, photos look like nose gear failure. Occupants injured,but ok.
 
that nose wheel should only be used on hard surfaces. if you land on soft fields get the upgrade. Van's should really make that a service bulletin.
 
that nose wheel should only be used on hard surfaces. if you land on soft fields get the upgrade. Van's should really make that a service bulletin.

And you base this on ... what exactly? The available data surrounding this incident doesn't support it, so it must be your own opinion?
 
Last edited:
that nose wheel should only be used on hard surfaces. if you land on soft fields get the upgrade. Van's should really make that a service bulletin.

Yet, Mike Segar operates the Vans Aircraft RV-6A out of Vernonia, and has for years, and probably has 10,000 landings there, and never a problem.

I stand by the comment that the nose gear could be improved (and was), but the real needed improvement area is pilot technique.
 
Bill-

I think it was designed for the 7/9A, but as I recall it stated that it may be modified to fit a 6A as well.
 
too many innocent copilots are being injured in a flip over.

How many? If even one is too many, then what do you propose to do about the VFR-into-IMC and low-level maneuvering accidents that injure or kill more people each year?

I agree that the nose gear could be better designed, and there are multiple ways to do just that including Van's approach. But an emotional opinion that isn't backed by data isn't very helpful.
 
The "A" models are more than capable to operate out of soft/unimproved strips, not quite as rugged as conventional gear models, but still up to the task. Unfortunately "some" of our nosewheel friends do not have a clue as to proper soft field operations. Thorough soft field training is essential to staying out of trouble.
 
The "A" models are more than capable to operate out of soft/unimproved strips, not quite as rugged as conventional gear models, but still up to the task. Unfortunately "some" of our nosewheel friends do not have a clue as to proper soft field operations. Thorough soft field training is essential to staying out of trouble.

maybe a pilot having a bad day or a gust of wind or something else could trigger a chain of events.
 
maybe a pilot having a bad day or a gust of wind or something else could trigger a chain of events.

Safety isn't just about better pilots/piloting. It can and should include equipment fixes/improvement where a design has a weak point, or as you have suggested, operational adjustments to reduce risk of failure. One of the reasons I chose the -14A is the much more robust nose gear: I hope my skills/technique are enough to never test it but why not take advantage of every opportunity to mitigate risk?
 
Last edited:
Safety isn't just about better pilots/piloting. It can and should include equipment fixes/improvement where a design has a weak point, or as you have suggested, operational adjustments to reduce risk of failure. One of the reasons I chose the -14A is the much more robust nose gear: I hope my skills/technique are enough to never test it but why not take advantage of every opportunity to mitigate risk?

I agree with this comment. There is another thread running on VansAirforce at the moment about an in-flight fire on an RV14A east of Salem that resulted in an emergency landing into a farmer’s field. The interesting thing about that incident is that the beefed up RV14A nose gear with the shock absorber appears to have been robust enough to prevent the aircraft from tipping upside down. If the aircraft had gone over and trapped the pilot inside with the plane on fire the outcome might have been dire indeed.

I did transitional training with Mike Seager so I know what is required to keep the stress off my RV7A nose gear. But I dread the thought of an engine failure leading to an off-field landing on a less than perfect surface. The RV7A nosegear is very fragile and when it fails the plane almost always tips over...that’s the reality. It was good that Vans finally re-engineered the 7A nosegear, but it was 10 years too late.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this comment. There is another thread running on VansAirforce at the moment about an in-flight fire on an RV14A east of Salem that resulted in an emergency landing into a farmer’s field. The interesting thing about that incident is that the beefed up RV14A nose gear with the shock absorber appears to have been robust enough to prevent the aircraft from tipping upside down. If the aircraft had gone over and trapped the pilot inside with the plane on fire the outcome might have been dire indeed.

I did transitional training with Mike Seager so I know what is required to keep the stress off my RV7A nose gear. But I dread the thought of an engine failure leading to an off-field landing on a less than perfect surface. The RV7A nosegear is very fragile and when it fails the plane almost always tips over...that’s the reality. It was good that Vans finally re-engineered the 7A nosegear, but it was 10 years too late.

Interesting take on that accident, I hadn't thought about that before. One more reason I'm glad I upgraded.
 
Talked with both Rian Johnson and Gus Funnell at OSH about the improved nose gear design. When they asked how far along my project was and I stated "flying", they both in unison stated unequivocally "don't do it".

Their comments were more about the level of complexity of converting a flying airplane. Specifically about the amount of working re-doing baffles (I have a BL plenum) and the likelihood of extensive cowling rework. Additionally, there may be some issues of interference with accessories on the firewall and concerns of exhaust routing.

As to the new nose gear design - you don't need to be an engineer to understand the improvements over the old design. As they both stated, the original design met Van's criteria of light, functional and inexpensive - but the new gear is a lot more robust.

We are still going to do the mod later this year...
 
Perhaps instead of rehashing the same old arguments about nose gear this or that, it might be helpful instead to find out what sort of axle/bearing adjustment design the subject airplane had. Since people started changing to a solid axle design some years ago (as was the design in the early models of 6A), the reported incidences of nose gear tuck-unders appears to have dropped significantly.

If anyone has knowledge about or access to this aircraft, it would be very good to learn about this detail.

See this thread for more about this.
 
that nose wheel should only be used on hard surfaces. if you land on soft fields get the upgrade. Van's should really make that a service bulletin.

William Creek is a well-maintained hard surface (bitumen) runway, so I don't know why that's relevant here.

- mark
 
Most outback runways are in really good condition the flying doctor uses them. Mate and I visit many outback bitumen strips and are suitably impressed by the condition of them. Hungerford pop about 15 has a fenced bitumen runway for the Royal Flying Doctor Service King Air. The fence is to keep kangaroos and emus out.
 
Great debate...and it?s an ongoing one regarding strengths/weaknesses of the A model nose strut, pilot techniques, modifications, etc.

NONE of this identifies the mishap?s cause. Please observe VAF Posting Rule #2: No speculation on the cause.
http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm
 
Passing through that region a couple days ago I saw the notam for William Creek said runway 03/21 was closed due disabled aircraft, that?s the gravel cross strip.
 
I went and took a look at the wreck when it was pushed into a shed up there, what a mess, the two occupants where damed lucky to even survive! The so called 'Anti-Splat' didn't do a thing, other than keep that small length of leg straight, the rest folded up like a plastic drinking straw! Personally I would never own an A model but that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The ATSB did not say the antispat device was not effective. The report notes that the brace was intended to increase rigidity and transfer forces to the top of the strut - where it is thickest. It then points out that ?The principal deformation was the bending in the aft direction at the top of the strut, near the engine mount?. In other words the brace did what it was intended to do.

The analysis found the strut or fork must have contacted the runway ?imparting significant forces on the gear assembly and initiating the damage sequence?.

My reading of the report is that the brace ?did not prevent the accident? because the forces involved in the landing exceeded the capacity of the strut and the brace, not because the brace was ineffective.
 
"significant forces" can hurt, if applied in an abnormal manner.
My RV9A can hurt me... if I am not careful. So can my Ford SUV.
Vigilance on landing an A model is of utmost importance.
Glad they both survived.
 
My reading of the report is that the brace “did not prevent the accident” because the forces involved in the landing exceeded the capacity of the strut and the brace, not because the brace was ineffective.

Well that’s YOUR reading of the report....it’s your interpretation...but it’s not what the report actually says. I have the Antisplat Nose Job on my RV7A but I’m now inclined to believe that it’s effectiveness is very questionable. I have a sneaking suspicion that the comfort that the device provides to builders and pilots comes more from the placebo effect than the actual performance.

My advice to RV pilots is to keep the nose wheel off the ground whenever there is elevator authority available to do so (take-off or landing). Plopping an RV down virtually flat on landing is a recipe for disaster, whether you have an Anti-splat brace or not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top