VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:18 PM
tomkk's Avatar
tomkk tomkk is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Port Orange, Fl
Posts: 647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonFromTX View Post
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.
I actually do all my local flying with the wheel fairings off just so I can do a better preflight. It lets me see the brake pads, tire condition, brake lines in addition to the nose wheel fork.

To tell the honest truth, I don't care about the speed with local flying, only when I take an extended trip. It only takes about 45 min to put them on.
__________________
Tom
Port Orange, Fl
RV-12 N121TK ELSA #120845
First flight 06/10/2015
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:28 PM
todehnal todehnal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky Lakes area in KY
Posts: 874
Default

I agree with the "pants off" decision. Since the inspection notice came out, I have not put my wheel pants back on, making it very easy on preflights to take a look. So far, all is well........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
  #23  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:41 PM
2johns 2johns is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Posts: 76
Default

Agreed! This is a safety issue that costs less than 1% of what you paid for the plane. Suck it up and replace it even if you haven't even used the original yet.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:58 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 6,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Scott,

This begs the question as to whether the ASTM landing gear loads requirements are adequate. Do you think they are?
If you mean to prevent a nose fork failure from ever happening in any single airplane in the fleet, probably.
That is why a reinforced fork was designed and incorporated.

Food for thought though.....

Does the outcome shown in THIS VIDEO indicate that the load requirements imposed by FAR 23 are inadequate?
__________________
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
  #25  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:39 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Scott,

This begs the question as to whether the ASTM landing gear loads requirements are adequate. Do you think they are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
If you mean to prevent a nose fork failure from ever happening in any single airplane in the fleet, probably.
That is why a reinforced fork was designed and incorporated.

Food for thought though.....

Does the outcome shown in THIS VIDEO indicate that the load requirements imposed by FAR 23 are inadequate?
Clearly, the Piper Warrior "wheel barrow" accident does not say that the Part 23 landing gear requirements were/are inadequate. It is surprising the nose gear didn't fail sooner, given the abuse the pilot subjected it to. And I'm sure Piper did not redesign the nose gear because of that accident.

I was just wondering if the ASTM standards are adequate, given the issues with the initial RV-12 NLG fork, and (IIRC) the additional work Van's did on the braked-roll condition and subsequent modifications to the main gear attach structure (SB 12-11-09).
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 2090 Hours
(Pic 1), (Pic 2), (Pic 3)
Glasflügel H-201B Standard Libelle, N564NS - No longer owned
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned

Last edited by RV8JD : 08-28-2017 at 03:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-28-2017, 04:16 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 6,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Clearly, the Piper Warrior "wheel barrow" accident does not say that the Part 23 landing gear requirements were/are inadequate.
I agree.
My point is that regardless of what standard you design to, there will be situations where something can still be made to fail depending on how it is treated.
I don't mean to imply that a landing such as this caused the failure that is the subject of this forum thread.
As you know there are a lot of different ways things can fail. A single overload event as in the posted video, or progressively over time because of numerous events where the component was only slightly overloaded .

At the time that the new design nose gear fork was installed on the red prototype/demonstrator for flight test and long term durability testing, the original fork had well north of 1000 hrs. A lot of those hours were doing transition training so it was not because it was babied by a few highly experienced pilots.
It had no evidence of any cracking or developing fatigue failure.
__________________
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
  #27  
Old 08-28-2017, 05:02 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 469
Default Pants off, hubcaps on.

Tom,
I'm with you on this. I took my wheel pants off and put on a couple of hubcaps. When I decide to go on a 400+ mile trip, I'll put them back on but for all the local stuff, those huge puppies are staying off. Some may disagree, but Im not seeing a lot of difference between hubcaps and wheels pants. There is no doubt the pressure recovery wheel pants are more efficient, but not as much as you would think. Especially for local stuff.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkk View Post
I actually do all my local flying with the wheel fairings off just so I can do a better preflight. It lets me see the brake pads, tire condition, brake lines in addition to the nose wheel fork.

To tell the honest truth, I don't care about the speed with local flying, only when I take an extended trip. It only takes about 45 min to put them on.
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 Flying
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-28-2017, 05:31 PM
greghughespdx greghughespdx is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 380
Default

I fly around with no pants on all the time. Just sayin'.
__________________
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)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-28-2017, 05:51 PM
David-aviator's Avatar
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
I agree.
My point is that regardless of what standard you design to, there will be situations where something can still be made to fail depending on how it is treated.
I don't mean to imply that a landing such as this caused the failure that is the subject of this forum thread.
As you know there are a lot of different ways things can fail. A single overload event as in the posted video, or progressively over time because of numerous events where the component was only slightly overloaded .

At the time that the new design nose gear fork was installed on the red prototype/demonstrator for flight test and long term durability testing, the original fork had well north of 1000 hrs. A lot of those hours were doing transition training so it was not because it was babied by a few highly experienced pilots.
It had no evidence of any cracking or developing fatigue failure.
Scott, a failure is a failure. It should not have happened.

But it did and it is not appropriate to minimize it.

Like a crankshaft failure, it is unacceptable. The original struts should have been recalled and except for cost, would have been.

Sometimes it is pound foolish to be penny wise. That's what this is all about.
__________________
David Domeier
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...#83261 flying as of 6/16/2014
RV-3 ....fan

I'm in, dues paid 2017 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-28-2017, 05:56 PM
joedallas's Avatar
joedallas joedallas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Spring Hill Fl
Posts: 661
Default Welding

Scott also it could be a problem with the welding on only a few Weldments or quality control

Joe Dallas




Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
I agree.
My point is that regardless of what standard you design to, there will be situations where something can still be made to fail depending on how it is treated.
I don't mean to imply that a landing such as this caused the failure that is the subject of this forum thread.
As you know there are a lot of different ways things can fail. A single overload event as in the posted video, or progressively over time because of numerous events where the component was only slightly overloaded .

At the time that the new design nose gear fork was installed on the red prototype/demonstrator for flight test and long term durability testing, the original fork had well north of 1000 hrs. A lot of those hours were doing transition training so it was not because it was babied by a few highly experienced pilots.
It had no evidence of any cracking or developing fatigue failure.
__________________
Joe Dallas
Kit-#12400
www.joesrv12.com
www.rvbuilderlist.com
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 01:36 PM.


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.