Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
New RV-7A nose gear
- Thread starter mick
- Start date
islandmonkey
Well Known Member
Bonza
That looks great Mick. Is it free castoring or do you have it connected to provide steering?
Just reread the post so no need to answer the above question.
Having flown a few types with free castoring nose wheels, my personal preference is to have the leg connected to be able to provide steering. Although, the turning circle with free castoring wheels can be a lot tighter. Once in quite strong wind conditions, I could not get the the PZL Koliber I was taxiing pointed in the direction I wanted to go. Fortuneately I had enough room to turn full circle in the other direction.
That looks great Mick. Is it free castoring or do you have it connected to provide steering?
Just reread the post so no need to answer the above question.
Having flown a few types with free castoring nose wheels, my personal preference is to have the leg connected to be able to provide steering. Although, the turning circle with free castoring wheels can be a lot tighter. Once in quite strong wind conditions, I could not get the the PZL Koliber I was taxiing pointed in the direction I wanted to go. Fortuneately I had enough room to turn full circle in the other direction.
Last edited:
mick
Active Member
HI Anthony
The steering will be connected to the rudder peddles. I have fitted a steering dampener to smooth out any shimmy also. Suspension travel is about 4" and will prevent any prop strikes. Only early stages of development and may need to fine tune spring rates to suit the weight of the plane.
Mick
The steering will be connected to the rudder peddles. I have fitted a steering dampener to smooth out any shimmy also. Suspension travel is about 4" and will prevent any prop strikes. Only early stages of development and may need to fine tune spring rates to suit the weight of the plane.
Mick
tonyjohnson
Well Known Member
plans
Mick,
Thanks for showing us your nose gear. I would love to know more about it and I suspect lots of other A type builders will also be very interested.
Do you have plans or drawings? What did it cost? Can any machine shop fabricate it?
I look forward to following your progress and wish you well in addressing this important issue.
Mick,
Thanks for showing us your nose gear. I would love to know more about it and I suspect lots of other A type builders will also be very interested.
Do you have plans or drawings? What did it cost? Can any machine shop fabricate it?
I look forward to following your progress and wish you well in addressing this important issue.
Mick, This looks great. Zooming in on the nose fork, I would like to see a stronger fork with more clearance to tire crown. I would like to see how you got the stiffness needed with only one attachment location.
Please keep us all up to date on this............. Many will be ready with check book.
Please keep us all up to date on this............. Many will be ready with check book.
Jamie Aust
Well Known Member
Maybe its just the way the photo was taken, but I would also like to see the above quote.
I do hope it all works out well. You may be asked to make a lot of them soon !
rv9av8tr
Well Known Member
Fork strength...
Wow, I think that's a great start! But dang... I have to agree.... all the energy is transferred through that fork and it looks pretty thin for the kind of beating it's subject to. It should have at least the same caliber material as the fork on a C-152. Top tire clearance should be enough to compensate for low tire pressure and the tire becoming oblong. Something to think about.
Wow, I think that's a great start! But dang... I have to agree.... all the energy is transferred through that fork and it looks pretty thin for the kind of beating it's subject to. It should have at least the same caliber material as the fork on a C-152. Top tire clearance should be enough to compensate for low tire pressure and the tire becoming oblong. Something to think about.
mick
Active Member
For this reason I have had the fork assembly made so it can be changed if needed. Time will tell if I need to make a thicker fork and give more clearance. When I drilled the axle bolt hole I new straight away that more clearance would be nice.
The nose gear is mounted using the original gear socket to take the aircraft weight as per the original. An additional attachment is made to prevent twisting and is located at the gear socket gussets, the gussets are strengthened with 4130 and is attached with bolts. Due to the exhaust location no diagonal bracing is fitted at this time but would be possible to fit if required. At this point there appears no side wise movement of the gear leg.
My theory is that the gear, should it fail, will not cause a roll over. So it has been designed that if it should fail it would be a twisting failure of the gear leg and the aircraft will slide rather than go over. I personally would rather a new engine and prop than a new complete plane.
I will post more on the testing once I sort out the steering linkages.
Mick
mick
Active Member
Not sure. If some one wants to give me a picture of a carburetor set up and possible dimensions I can have a look at it.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
Looking forward to seeing how you design the fairings.
Also wondering how you check the failure mode of the gear.......
Hope it all works out nicely!
Looking forward to seeing how you design the fairings.
Also wondering how you check the failure mode of the gear.......
Hope it all works out nicely!
I think that I would install a hitch receiver on the front of my 72 f-250 and mount the strut as if it were on the A/C. Then drive it out across the field with cameras mounted on the bumper to see how it does.
For steering, look under the hood of a Piper Warrior.
To make this a nice system, The mains should be shortened so the A/C squats like the 6A. This would make it easier to enter the A/C and allow the nose wheel to float better.
mick
Active Member
Gasman
Whats a 72 f-250 ?, is that some sort of nose gear test rig....
All joking aside I did think of testing it from a test stand mounted to a trailer but am confident that it will perform correctly. ( Famous last words ).. I plan on filming it from a vehicle traveling beside the plane.
The steering linkage is already made and is similar to a Beech setup, I have yet to install it. Should have that part done this week. Also need to reinstall the flight controls, they still need to be painted but that's another project.
There would be no reason to shorten the mains as the nose strut can be made to give a nose high attitude and I find the RV is easy to enter if you have side steps installed.
Mick
Mick,
I for one applaud your effort. I think it is this kind of innovation that keeps pushing us forward. For all the postings we have seen lately on the A models doing ground acrobatics, your project is quite timely.
I look forward to seeing the results of your testing.
Jim
I for one applaud your effort. I think it is this kind of innovation that keeps pushing us forward. For all the postings we have seen lately on the A models doing ground acrobatics, your project is quite timely.
I look forward to seeing the results of your testing.
Jim
Bill Wightman
Well Known Member
Well done! Looks like a winner!
I would love to also see some testing done on a vehicle or trailer of some sort also before doing the 'beta' testing on the airplane. Just to be safe is all.
It would be terrible to damage that airplane just because a preliminary test was not done.
The only thing lost is a little bit of time, as opposed to a bunch of time and effort if the plane gets damaged.
Just my opinion though...
It would be terrible to damage that airplane just because a preliminary test was not done.
The only thing lost is a little bit of time, as opposed to a bunch of time and effort if the plane gets damaged.
Just my opinion though...
Pilottonny
Well Known Member
Won't fit mine!
Looks like a good alternative (to late for me though)
Where is your airfilter and throttle body?? (I assume fuel injection?).
It will certainly not fit my engine set-up, which is pretty crowded in that area. Show us a picture of what it looks like "under the hood", please.
Regards, Tonny.
Looks like a good alternative (to late for me though)
Where is your airfilter and throttle body?? (I assume fuel injection?).
It will certainly not fit my engine set-up, which is pretty crowded in that area. Show us a picture of what it looks like "under the hood", please.
Regards, Tonny.
eatenbyagrue
Active Member
great work
I'll add to the chorus... glad to see someone stepping up to the plate on this. Definitely a lot of testing and proving out is in order, but an improved nose wheel design would be a huge benefit to the community (and possibly a great business for someone)
I'll add to the chorus... glad to see someone stepping up to the plate on this. Definitely a lot of testing and proving out is in order, but an improved nose wheel design would be a huge benefit to the community (and possibly a great business for someone)
New RV-7A Nose Gear
Like most of the above posts, I am also very glad to see this new nose gear. Devising a realistic test program will be quite challenging. A great resource on design and testing is Pazmany's book "Landing Gear Design for Light Aircraft".
As a starting point see FAR 23.499 for design loads:
Supplementary conditions for nose wheels.
In determining the ground loads on nose wheels and affected supporting structures, and assuming that the shock absorbers and tires are in their static positions, the following conditions must be met:
(a) For aft loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A drag component of 0.8 times the vertical load.
(b) For forward loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A forward component of 0.4 times the vertical load.
(c) For side loads, the limit force components at ground contact must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A side component of 0.7 times the vertical load.
[(d) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that is controlled by hydraulic or other power, at design takeoff weight with the nose wheel in any steerable position, the application of 1.33 times the full steering torque combined with a vertical reaction equal to 1.33 times the maximum static reaction on the nose gear must be assumed. However, if a torque limiting device is installed, the steering torque can be reduced to the maximum value allowed by that device.
(e) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that has a direct mechanical connection to the rudder pedals, the mechanism must be designed to withstand the steering torque for the maximum pilot forces specified in Sec. 23.397(b).]
Regarding testing see:
FAR 23.723 Shock absorption tests.
(a) It must be shown that the limit load factors selected for design in accordance with Sec. 23.473 for takeoff and landing weights, respectively, will not be exceeded. This must be shown by energy absorption tests except that analysis based on tests conducted on a landing gear system with identical energy absorption characteristics may be used for increases in previously approved takeoff and landing weights.
(b) The landing gear may not fail, but may yield, in a test showing its [reserve] energy absorption capacity, simulating a descent velocity of 1.2 times the limit descent velocity, assuming wing lift equal to the weight of the airplane.
Section 23.725 prescribes the Limit Drop Test.
So compliance with the FARS seems to be limited to design calculations validated by a drop test.
BTW, the use of a '72 F-250 is not referenced anywhere in the FARs
On the other hand a towing rig that simulates the weight of the aircraft and can be driven across a series of "bumps" should be helpful in determining the robustness of the nose gear. The difficulty in this approach is determining the size of the "bump" or "hollow". I read that when the Piper Tri-Pacer was being designed, the Piper engineers towed their test rig across a ploughed field This certainly represents a "worst case scenario" but it may not be realistic for the RV series.
Like most of the above posts, I am also very glad to see this new nose gear. Devising a realistic test program will be quite challenging. A great resource on design and testing is Pazmany's book "Landing Gear Design for Light Aircraft".
As a starting point see FAR 23.499 for design loads:
Supplementary conditions for nose wheels.
In determining the ground loads on nose wheels and affected supporting structures, and assuming that the shock absorbers and tires are in their static positions, the following conditions must be met:
(a) For aft loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A drag component of 0.8 times the vertical load.
(b) For forward loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A forward component of 0.4 times the vertical load.
(c) For side loads, the limit force components at ground contact must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A side component of 0.7 times the vertical load.
[(d) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that is controlled by hydraulic or other power, at design takeoff weight with the nose wheel in any steerable position, the application of 1.33 times the full steering torque combined with a vertical reaction equal to 1.33 times the maximum static reaction on the nose gear must be assumed. However, if a torque limiting device is installed, the steering torque can be reduced to the maximum value allowed by that device.
(e) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that has a direct mechanical connection to the rudder pedals, the mechanism must be designed to withstand the steering torque for the maximum pilot forces specified in Sec. 23.397(b).]
Regarding testing see:
FAR 23.723 Shock absorption tests.
(a) It must be shown that the limit load factors selected for design in accordance with Sec. 23.473 for takeoff and landing weights, respectively, will not be exceeded. This must be shown by energy absorption tests except that analysis based on tests conducted on a landing gear system with identical energy absorption characteristics may be used for increases in previously approved takeoff and landing weights.
(b) The landing gear may not fail, but may yield, in a test showing its [reserve] energy absorption capacity, simulating a descent velocity of 1.2 times the limit descent velocity, assuming wing lift equal to the weight of the airplane.
Section 23.725 prescribes the Limit Drop Test.
So compliance with the FARS seems to be limited to design calculations validated by a drop test.
BTW, the use of a '72 F-250 is not referenced anywhere in the FARs
On the other hand a towing rig that simulates the weight of the aircraft and can be driven across a series of "bumps" should be helpful in determining the robustness of the nose gear. The difficulty in this approach is determining the size of the "bump" or "hollow". I read that when the Piper Tri-Pacer was being designed, the Piper engineers towed their test rig across a ploughed field
This certainly represents a "worst case scenario" but it may not be realistic for the RV series.Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Mick, is this a proper oleopneumatic strut (air, hydraulic fluid) as used by Cessna, Piper etc. Oleo struts are quite sophisticated devices.
I understand that Vans first RV12 prototype flew with a Cessna 152 look-a-like nose strut but it was not an oleo. Instead it was Vans own home brew strut with a coiled spring inside. Presumably Vans did not have the expertise (or did not want to spend the money) to develop a proper oleo device. Vans subsequently dropped the strut (presumably after poor results) and went back to the cantilevered design as featured on their other 2 seat aircraft.
Anyone have any rough ideas on how difficult it might be to adapt the nose wheel strut from another aircraft (a piper or cessna for example) to work with an RV? Seems like this might be a case where adapting an existing solution may be safer than working one up from scratch - especially for someone like me without the engineering knowledge.
I like the idea of this style of nose gear assembly much better than the default, stock -A nose gear setup. The lack of nose wheel steering is one of my few concerns with flying an RV. While I'm sure I could get used to ground handling via differential braking, the preference would be to avoid that necessity.
While I understand that I could build a tailwheel RV and have steering, I've never been particularly attracted to tailwheel aircraft. Building the right aircraft for me means building one that I enjoy looking at and flying, so a -a is the right way to go.
I like the idea of this style of nose gear assembly much better than the default, stock -A nose gear setup. The lack of nose wheel steering is one of my few concerns with flying an RV. While I'm sure I could get used to ground handling via differential braking, the preference would be to avoid that necessity.
While I understand that I could build a tailwheel RV and have steering, I've never been particularly attracted to tailwheel aircraft. Building the right aircraft for me means building one that I enjoy looking at and flying, so a -a is the right way to go.
mick
Active Member
Like most of the above posts, I am also very glad to see this new nose gear. Devising a realistic test program will be quite challenging. A great resource on design and testing is Pazmany's book "Landing Gear Design for Light Aircraft".
As a starting point see FAR 23.499 for design loads:
Supplementary conditions for nose wheels.
In determining the ground loads on nose wheels and affected supporting structures, and assuming that the shock absorbers and tires are in their static positions, the following conditions must be met:
(a) For aft loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A drag component of 0.8 times the vertical load.
(b) For forward loads, the limit force components at the axle must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A forward component of 0.4 times the vertical load.
(c) For side loads, the limit force components at ground contact must be--
(1) A vertical component of 2.25 times the static load on the wheel; and
(2) A side component of 0.7 times the vertical load.
[(d) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that is controlled by hydraulic or other power, at design takeoff weight with the nose wheel in any steerable position, the application of 1.33 times the full steering torque combined with a vertical reaction equal to 1.33 times the maximum static reaction on the nose gear must be assumed. However, if a torque limiting device is installed, the steering torque can be reduced to the maximum value allowed by that device.
(e) For airplanes with a steerable nose wheel that has a direct mechanical connection to the rudder pedals, the mechanism must be designed to withstand the steering torque for the maximum pilot forces specified in Sec. 23.397(b).]
Regarding testing see:
FAR 23.723 Shock absorption tests.
(a) It must be shown that the limit load factors selected for design in accordance with Sec. 23.473 for takeoff and landing weights, respectively, will not be exceeded. This must be shown by energy absorption tests except that analysis based on tests conducted on a landing gear system with identical energy absorption characteristics may be used for increases in previously approved takeoff and landing weights.
(b) The landing gear may not fail, but may yield, in a test showing its [reserve] energy absorption capacity, simulating a descent velocity of 1.2 times the limit descent velocity, assuming wing lift equal to the weight of the airplane.
Section 23.725 prescribes the Limit Drop Test.
So compliance with the FARS seems to be limited to design calculations validated by a drop test.
BTW, the use of a '72 F-250 is not referenced anywhere in the FARs
On the other hand a towing rig that simulates the weight of the aircraft and can be driven across a series of "bumps" should be helpful in determining the robustness of the nose gear. The difficulty in this approach is determining the size of the "bump" or "hollow". I read that when the Piper Tri-Pacer was being designed, the Piper engineers towed their test rig across a ploughed field
I had a load test done on the original gear by a qualified aeronautical engineer when I designed long range leading edge tanks for the RV7. The tanks were designed to FAR23 standard and pasted with a good safety margin, the landing gear on the other hand !!. Even before the test was conducted the engineer correctly announced it would fail. (We did not conduct a drop test but a static load test).
I am more than happy to do a drop test if some one is willing to donate an old engine mount. The strut structure is not in my opinion the place of failure but more likely the engine mount attachment, so I feel it would be more beneficial to conduct the testing with the strut mounted to a engine mount.
Unfortunately I'm not in a financial position were I can purchase another mount for possible destruction just to see if it will meet FAR23 standard.
At this point the gear is a trial and will no doubt be improved as testing starts. I have made provision for the strut to be fitted with a gas strut insert to dampen any rebound that may be in-counted, this would add considerable weight so I will start with just the progressive spring. I intend on building a second strut with any improvements.
Regards
Mick
Friction damping...
...might be lighter. In the late 70s I was responsible for ride and handling development for Dodge Trucks. The shocks back then were hydraulic and we had take-apart units so that internal bits and pieces could be changed to affect damping rates at various frequencies. That test & development work was known as "putting a ride" on a vehicle.
A fellow came along with a friction design in a telescoping package that would fit in the same space as the std. shocks. There wasn't enough damping variation versus frequency for automotive use, but an aircraft is an easier application. For our aircraft, the top speed is much less than a car has to be designed for and the landing surfaces are relatively smooth compared to what cars are expected to handle. BTW, friction damping is not a new idea - the old Indy roadster race cars used a variation of friction damping which could be varied by altering preload.
I wish you great success in your endeavor. Test & Development work is truly one of the most challenging and rewarding areas in engineering. "One test is worth a thousand opinions" and you will have a lot of tests before you are done.
LarryT
...might be lighter. In the late 70s I was responsible for ride and handling development for Dodge Trucks. The shocks back then were hydraulic and we had take-apart units so that internal bits and pieces could be changed to affect damping rates at various frequencies. That test & development work was known as "putting a ride" on a vehicle.
A fellow came along with a friction design in a telescoping package that would fit in the same space as the std. shocks. There wasn't enough damping variation versus frequency for automotive use, but an aircraft is an easier application. For our aircraft, the top speed is much less than a car has to be designed for and the landing surfaces are relatively smooth compared to what cars are expected to handle. BTW, friction damping is not a new idea - the old Indy roadster race cars used a variation of friction damping which could be varied by altering preload.
I wish you great success in your endeavor. Test & Development work is truly one of the most challenging and rewarding areas in engineering. "One test is worth a thousand opinions" and you will have a lot of tests before you are done.
LarryT
New RV-7A Nose Gear
Mick,
Do you mean the original Van's supplied rod type nose gear? What kind of test did you do on it? What was the failure mode? Did it fail because of the additional weight from the long range leading edge tanks?
Terry
Mick,
Do you mean the original Van's supplied rod type nose gear? What kind of test did you do on it? What was the failure mode? Did it fail because of the additional weight from the long range leading edge tanks?
Terry
170 driver
Well Known Member
I'd also like to see under the cowl, do you have some pics of the mounting?
mick
Active Member
The tests that were conducted on the gear were a simple loading and deflection test of the gear legs. This was done prior to the long range tanks being fitted and was with the original Vans gear. We were trying to establish if the gear was strong enough for landing with full fuel in all four tanks. I left it to the engineer to do the sums and I can not remember the exact figures (Measured in G's ) but he did say that the gear as per standard Vans would not meet FAR23 standards even without long range tanks. I will add that when the test was done, my plane was not set up as full gross weight as the flight controls were removed at that time and had no fuel. His thoughts on the nose gear, the weakest part was that a possible 10% increase in strength would fix most of the issues with the bending of the leg, he then quickly added that by doing this it would be transferring a lot more loads back into the engine mount and in the end I might as well start from scratch and build a new gear.
We must remember these are experimental aircraft and we do not need to meet FAR23 standards. It is a good goal to set though.
Anyway I have lots to do before taxi tests start.
Regards
Mick
We must remember these are experimental aircraft and we do not need to meet FAR23 standards. It is a good goal to set though.
Anyway I have lots to do before taxi tests start.
Regards
Mick
mick
Active Member
Just an update on progress.
The steering linkages have been more problematic than first thought. The main issue has been clearances around the engine mount tubes and exhaust. I now have a one inch hole in the firewall that will need to be patched. The other problem is converting 4" rudder peddle travel to 2" travel for the steering link. I will reposition the linkage this week but will need to manufacture a few items for it to work.
I think building the actual gear leg was simple compared to setting up the steering...
Mick
The steering linkages have been more problematic than first thought. The main issue has been clearances around the engine mount tubes and exhaust. I now have a one inch hole in the firewall that will need to be patched. The other problem is converting 4" rudder peddle travel to 2" travel for the steering link. I will reposition the linkage this week but will need to manufacture a few items for it to work.
I think building the actual gear leg was simple compared to setting up the steering...
Mick
robertahegy
Moderator/Tech Counselor
The small frontal area of the RV leaves things more cramped for space compared to Pipers and other AC. Maybe some type of bellcrank setup in the cockpit linking the L and R pedals in the center would be viable and would not need as much space FWF. A spring damper (Piper) in the steering linkage would help reduce stresses on the steering system.
Good luck with your development.
Roberta
Good luck with your development.
Roberta
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Problem is, that type of gear won't act as a castoring nose gear, and self align. It has to have steering.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
mick
Active Member
Roberta
I have settled on a Bell crank mounted inside the cockpit and just below the hot air valve on the firewall. This will allow a direct link to the nose gear and also allows for the 4" - 2" throw change. the bellcrank will be connected to the pedals by tension springs of approx 4" long. The bellcrank will need to be approx 6" wide to accommodate the rudder pedal movement but will also mean I will have to manufacture a new cover for the heater valve. It seems there is always a solution for one problem but it then causes another problem some where else. The good thing is that a cover is easy to make..
Mick
robertahegy
Moderator/Tech Counselor
How true that is!!! I always liked the steerable nose wheel on my Cherokee, so it will be nice when you get your system all worked out.
Roberta
mick
Active Member
update
Well it's been slow going. After many hours trying to get the steering linkages working satisfactorily, I have abandoned that setup for the moment. Clearance of the steering link to engine mount and exhaust was the final straw.
I have instead modified the nose wheel fork to give it caster, almost identical to a Yak52 nose gear. The added bonus will be that the gear can be made lighter, and mark 2 will incorporate a self centering cam. The cam will center the nose gear when there is no load on it such as in flight. This new fork has given the plane a nose high attitude similar to an RV6A, but the final gear will be made so the attitude will be as per original configuration.
At this point the tow harness is attached to the aircraft and just waiting for the rain to let up so the runway can dry out. Maybe the weekend?
I will post the results once we have the testing done.
Mick
Well it's been slow going. After many hours trying to get the steering linkages working satisfactorily, I have abandoned that setup for the moment. Clearance of the steering link to engine mount and exhaust was the final straw.
I have instead modified the nose wheel fork to give it caster, almost identical to a Yak52 nose gear. The added bonus will be that the gear can be made lighter, and mark 2 will incorporate a self centering cam. The cam will center the nose gear when there is no load on it such as in flight. This new fork has given the plane a nose high attitude similar to an RV6A, but the final gear will be made so the attitude will be as per original configuration.
At this point the tow harness is attached to the aircraft and just waiting for the rain to let up so the runway can dry out. Maybe the weekend?
I will post the results once we have the testing done.
Mick
frazitl
Well Known Member
Lots of us
are watching your progress with keen interest. Every plan abandoned is a step toward the final solution... I too favor a more nose high ramp (taxi) attitude, but I think this would be best accomplished with shorter main gear legs.
Keep up your good work.
are watching your progress with keen interest. Every plan abandoned is a step toward the final solution... I too favor a more nose high ramp (taxi) attitude, but I think this would be best accomplished with shorter main gear legs.
Keep up your good work.
Last edited:
mick
Active Member
Thank's for all the encouragement guys, I know there is a solution, its just finding the best way of accomplishing it. Once done I'm sure there will be someone who will have other ideas on how it should have been done, but we need to start somewhere. Flight safety ( A magazine here in Aus ) Has listed three RV accidents last month. One was engine failure, but the other two caught my attention as they were both A models with nose gear collapses. I thinks we have a problem!!
I just got home from the hanger, not good signs when bridges are closed and some parts of the roads are under water! Any way checked the strip and I don't think there will be any action on the runway for a few days. The ground is sodden with water and we will need about a week of dry weather before I'll be able to drive on it.
Cheers
Mick
I just got home from the hanger, not good signs when bridges are closed and some parts of the roads are under water! Any way checked the strip and I don't think there will be any action on the runway for a few days. The ground is sodden with water and we will need about a week of dry weather before I'll be able to drive on it.
Cheers
Mick
David-aviator
Well Known Member
We have been seeing news clips of the flooding in your part of the planet every evening, sure hope things begin to dry out soon. Reminds me of the flood of '93 around here, the Mississippi was 10 miles wide looking north.
Good luck the the NG mod. The larger tire and vertical strut will help for sure.
mick
Active Member
I toyed with the idea of using double acting hydraulic cylinders for steering. One attached to the rudder peddles and the other to the nose gear. Would make the system very easy to install, but I was unable to find suitable cylinders at reasonable prices. I even looked at brake master cylinders to see if they could be modified to work. Maybe???
My only concern using such systems is redundancy. If the system fails you need to be able to still control the aircraft on the ground. Possibly using a small amount of caster on the nose wheel fork would allow enough control if the system fails.
Mick
Aerostar Electric Steerable Nosewheels
Mick:
Aerostars use a left-right rocker switch below the throttles for nose wheel steering. Any thoughts to that type of steering. I was first against it, but when you treat it like a tiller wheel, I really liked it. Steering is mainly for taxi and line up and as soon as power came up, rudder authority was sufficient. The toggle could be placed on the control column. Your thoughts?
Paul
N277PM
RV7A
LAF
Fuselage
Mick:
Aerostars use a left-right rocker switch below the throttles for nose wheel steering. Any thoughts to that type of steering. I was first against it, but when you treat it like a tiller wheel, I really liked it. Steering is mainly for taxi and line up and as soon as power came up, rudder authority was sufficient. The toggle could be placed on the control column. Your thoughts?
Paul
N277PM
RV7A
LAF
Fuselage
