Plane crash at William Creek Airfield

[Desert Flower]

Reports of a plane crashing while landing at William Creek Airfield
The Advertiser
10 minutes ago

Emergency services and locals are responding to reports of a plane crash in the state’s far north.

Just after 3pm on Sunday, a plane reportedly flipped while landing at William Creek Airfield.

It is understood two people were on board the light plane and have been injured in the crash.

Paramedics and police from Coober Pedy — 167km away — and Oodnadatta — 205km away — have been notified of the crash.

The crash comes less than a month after two people were killed in a plane crash near Leigh Creek Airport. (https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2)

[Cloudee]

Looks like some RV7A aircraft landed there at about that time on FR24. Looked like a similar aircraft upside down on the tv news.

[cooperplace]

it's an RV-6a:

https://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/ANU


latest report is that their condition is stable:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-28/plane-crash-at-remote-william-creek-airfield/11354666

[machtuk]

Rather common for an A model Vans!
hope they come thru this nasty event ok

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Mr M,
I am wondering why it is 'Common for an A model Vans' please?
I can see that the nosewheel is fairly snapped off - like - did it hit a rabbit hole or similar...??

Cheers

[Desert Flower]

Nosewheel looks a little bit bent!

DF.

[compressor stall]

Sin't William Creek sealed these days? That doesn't look sealed to me....

[Cloudee]

Nose wheel Vans aircraft are not as strong as on a C172 or Cherokee. They need to be flown with a little more finesse. Of course if the third wheel on an RV is where it really belongs, at the back, the problem disappears.

[Cloudee]

Sin't William Creek sealed these days? That doesn't look sealed to me....
Cross strip is still dirt.

[27/09]

Nose wheel Vans aircraft are not as strong as on a C172 or Cherokee. They need to be flown with a little more finesse. Of course if the third wheel on an RV is where it really belongs, at the back, the problem disappears.

When the third wheel is back where it belongs on the aircraft that aircraft is no longer an "A" model.

[Squawk7700]

The picture really demonstrates the dangers of flipping a low wing. Doesn’t leave much room to get out and even a relatively low speed mishap can cause serious injuries.

[machtuk]

Nose wheel Vans aircraft are not as strong as on a C172 or Cherokee. They need to be flown with a little more finesse. Of course if the third wheel on an RV is where it really belongs, at the back, the problem disappears.


A models do indeed need extra care due a weak design, there's even Mods available to help reduce the fixed nose leg becoming a retractable at the wrong time-:) Vans are a great design fly really nice best bang for buck, best as a conventional U/C👍😉

[Okihara]

Could anyone please briefly explain how and why this happens?

[Desert Flower]

Looks like they have been airlifted to Port Augusta.

DF.

[cowl flaps]

Might have bounced the landing, then come down nose wheel first causing it to trip over.
Had there of been a fire, they would have been goners, for sure. A big problem extracting oneself from a low wing aircraft.

[Centaurus]

A big problem extracting oneself from a low wing aircraft.

The RAAF realised that decades ago. That is why two canopy breaker tools (one for each pilot) were installed on the CT4, PC9, and Sabres. . Even the Spitfire had such an escape tool in the form of a small crowbar clipped to the pilots hatch type door. The idea never took legs in civilian light aircraft despite the obvious OH&S value. The old saying "It will never happen to me" was probably the reason.

Most LSA low wingers have large canopies that once locked for takeoff can easily warp or totally jam in extreme hard landings or turn-overs. A RAAF Sabre forced landed into a rice paddy in Malaya after a bird strike and engine failure seconds after lift off. The pilot who was unhurt, could only push back the canopy a few inches when it jammed. A fire started under the aircraft but the pilot used the escape tool to hack his way out of the canopy.

For what it's worth it was this writer that introduced the idea of a canopy breaker tool into the RAAF in 1961 after studying overseas military accident reports. The USAF had them for years earlier after several fatalities following high speed rejected takeoffs in F80 Shooting Star fighters. In each case the aircraft caught fire after over-running into terrain. Ejection seats were not low level type. The electrically operated canopies jammed and the pilots could not get out. A few months after the RAAF approved installation in Sabre fighters, the afore mentioned accident in Malaya occurred and the pilot's life was saved.

[Sunfish]

Let’s hope everyone recovers well.

[Ascend Charlie]

Centaurus, those tools have their limitations. The Macchis had them on the side wall, and in about 1978, when a canopy was to be removed by maintenance and discarded, the Powers decided it would be good to do a real test on the tool. All the staff and students gathered around, and the steely-eyed knuck walked to the aircraft.

The pilot was strapped in the front seat, the lid was closed and locked, and the clock started.

It was a weird feeling, watching somebody deliberately hacking at the canopy from inside, but what was surprising was that the canopy didn't break easily. It took him a LOT of backhanded hacking, then a rest of the tired arms, a change of grip and more hacking until a tiny hole appeared. A lot more hacking and he managed to make a hole big enough to squeeze out of, and the clock showed over 8 minutes. He was exhausted and overheated. A fire might have heated him a bit too much during the 8 minutes.

We all formed new opinions on the strength of the canopy, and the usefulness of the tool.

[Runaway Gun]

Well, if the fire took nine minutes to start, he's safe.

[KRviator]

FWIW, I carry a welding hammer in my RV just-in-case. One of those ones with the sharp point on one side and the flat blade on the other. Like the PLB in the vest, I hope to never use it...

[barbados sky]

The Pilot is the Head of Aviation Services for Shell Australia accompanied by his wife.

[Dexta]

Nose wheel shimmy on an RV can also cause the front nose-leg to fail. I believe there are strengthening kits available now to help. The nose wheel is only really there to stop the prop hitting the ground :-)

[Clinton McKenzie]

Centaurus, those tools have their limitations. The Macchis had them on the side wall, and in about 1978, when a canopy was to be removed by maintenance and discarded, the Powers decided it would be good to do a real test on the tool. All the staff and students gathered around, and the steely-eyed knuck walked to the aircraft.

The pilot was strapped in the front seat, the lid was closed and locked, and the clock started.

It was a weird feeling, watching somebody deliberately hacking at the canopy from inside, but what was surprising was that the canopy didn't break easily. It took him a LOT of backhanded hacking, then a rest of the tired arms, a change of grip and more hacking until a tiny hole appeared. A lot more hacking and he managed to make a hole big enough to squeeze out of, and the clock showed over 8 minutes. He was exhausted and overheated. A fire might have heated him a bit too much during the 8 minutes.

We all formed new opinions on the strength of the canopy, and the usefulness of the tool.Saw the same exercise in a Mirage while at 75SQN. The tool - it looked like an oyster shucking knife with a bigger, heavy handle - seemed to work quite well. Certainly not 8 minutes of effort.

I carry a similar gizmo in my RV9A.

[machtuk]

I have a 'car safety hammer' in a pouch secured within easy reach of my seated position in my front cockpit, same as the one a guy uses on an RV7 U/S canopy shown on YT. Hope I never have to use it but at least my 3rd wheel is in the correct location:-):-)!

[WingNut60]

I have a 'car safety hammer' in a pouch secured within easy reach of my seated position in my front cockpit, same as the one a guy uses on an RV7 U/S canopy shown on YT. Hope I never have to use it but at least my 3rd wheel is in the correct location:-):-)!

These are good and have the advantage of the "belt cutter blade" built into the handle


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/224x224/image_eeb77ff9f82ecbb9bdc8898d81044a06ba249f4e.png

[Centaurus]

https://fsb.raafansw.org.au/docPDF/John_Laming_Article.pdf

The story of the how the canopy breaker knife was introduced into the RAAF. [quote] Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie Centaurus, those tools have their limitations. The Macchis had them on the side wall, and in about 1978, when a canopy was to be removed by maintenance and discarded, the Powers decided it would be good to do a real test on the tool. All the staff and students gathered around, and the steely-eyed knuck walked to the aircraft.The pilot was strapped in the front seat, the lid was closed and locked, and the clock started.It was a weird feeling, watching somebody deliberately hacking at the canopy from inside, but what was surprising was that the canopy didn't break easily. It took him a LOT of backhanded hacking, then a rest of the tired arms, a change of grip and more hacking until a tiny hole appeared. A lot more hacking and he managed to make a hole big enough to squeeze out of, and the clock showed over 8 minutes. He was exhausted and overheated. A fire might have heated him a bit too much during the 8 minutes.We all formed new opinions on the strength of the canopy, and the usefulness of the tool. Ascend Charlie. The canopy breaker tool (actually a heavy knife with a tough but short blade) was initially tested at ARDU only on a Sabre and Vampire Mk 30 canopy. That was because there were no other spare canopies to smash at the time. Dept of Air needed photographic evidence the knives would work as advertised before approving installation. They were to be tried on the Canberra bomber but that was knocked back by Wing Commander W. Brill who at the time was Staff Officer Bomber Operations (or similar appointment at HQ Operational Command).

The Wingco said the Canberra already had explosive bolts which could shatter the canopy therefore a escape knife was not necessary. If electrical power was not available to actuate the explosive bolts I wondered what would happen then. The result being the Canberra was never fitted with an escape tool. The crew entered the Canberra by a small hatch in the side of fuselage adjacent to the cockpit. If that hatch jammed you were a goner although I understand the navigator could blow off an escape hatch over his own position.
I was unaware of the testing of the canopy breaker knife on the Macchi maybe because I had long left the RAAF by then. But I can well believe the story as our own trials on the Sabre and single seat Vampire were a bit amateur I must cheerfully admit.

[Cloudee]

I suspect the RV canopies are not quite as tough as the RAAF canopies. Checkout how easily it can be broken in this video. The video below that shows when you might need it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRvQxGl4kt4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1sgPXFE114g

[On eyre]

I suspect the RV canopies are not quite as tough as the RAAF canopies. Checkout how easily it can be broken in this video. The video below that shows when you might need it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRvQxGl4kt4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1sgPXFE114g


Watching this makes me wonder if attempting to ground loop while still having rudder authority might be preferable. This might be better than end over ending it and assumes of course that you know you have a damaged nose leg - just a thought.

[Squawk7700]

Watching this makes me wonder if attempting to ground loop while still having rudder authority might be preferable. This might be better than end over ending it and assumes of course that you know you have a damaged nose leg - just a thought.


After seeing that, if in a similar situation I’d be going for bitumen if available.

[Okihara]

After seeing that, if in a similar situation I’d be going for bitumen if available.

Definitely. And if you had a pax, you'd tell them to get into the baggage compartment to move the CG aft.

[runway16]

Wingnut60.

A car window breaking hammer is good for safety glass but almost useless on plexiglass. Get something more like a cold chisel.

[Aussie Bob]

Definitely. And if you had a pax, you'd tell them to get into the baggage compartment to move the CG aft.

Blimey :sad: That would be both brave and foolish. No seat belt, "get in the back" I would refuse! As others have said .... Ya put the wheel on the wrong end and you may pay the price. I am also wondering ..... have you seen a RV baggage compartment? A jockey may fit if the canopy was opened to allow ingress.

[machtuk]

"IF" you had the peace of mind to do it when the A/C has touched down on a surface that you suspect 'may' cause a nose wheel failure then as soon as you get the mains on the ground unlock the canopy & slide it back even partly just in case. Am informed Pax could do this for you under your instructions. Just a thought is all?
I'd never own a nose wheel version of a Vans, I've seen the results of one that flipped at my local field on smooth grass, no thanks!

[4forward8back]

These images and report might be relevant.
Up (https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Van-s-RV-7A/1225773/L?qsp=eJwljEsKwzAMBe/y1tmUQBdeNgdIF72AsEViSCMhqx8TcvcadzcMb96BKLvz1x9VGQGFyeKKAUp Gz4JwQFdxmch5EasIlwFFzG8N8c78meS1O/5ytsTWfOIS%2B8fCPVC2e2eM1%2BZTLrpR7UOnvOE8f4QULYU%3D)
And over (https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Van-s-RV-7A/1242940/L?qsp=eJwtjcEKwjAQRP9lz3oQwUNvVcGTKOIPLJuhBmITNluwlP67a/A2vHnMLCR5NHzsORdQRxWs8qINFVZ%2BV%2BoWUgyxmrLFPPZiEyf3LtvT%2 BXF1r2a14%2BwksKEXQTGEP79pgP4qVGmTg1/sPEDvLdP%2B4DzEWhK3DRjHROv6BU5QMjI%3D)
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772702/ao-2017-001_final.pdf

[telster]

I'm not a pilot so know nothing about canopy design, or materials used, but when I was a paramedic I used to carry a spring loaded centre punch in case I ever had to smash a car window. Only ever tried it on an old abandoned car but worked well on automotive glass. Much less effort than a traditional safety hammer. Dont think I'll be able to post links or photos on here but search on google for "spring loaded centre punch" and you'll find loads...

[peterc005]

Interesting technique in the RV canopy video. Start near the side frame (guess it is more rigid there), create a crack, and then follow the crack around until a large section breaks away.

Might not be so easy in real life, due to rivets around the edge of the perspex, but worth remembering.

[Centaurus]

Dave Prossor writes an excellent aviation column in the magazine Australian Aviation, under the title Right Hand Seat. He has given me permission to reproduce part of his article from the June 2019 issue. Quote:

Cessna and Piper aircraft have been the norm for typical flying school and for-hire aircraft in the past. Now we are seeing more Diamond, Cirrus, Sting, Bristell, RV and other aircraft that have a bubble or sliding canopy. That can create a problem. The recent accident to a Cirrus SR20 at Tooradin was a wake-up call. The aircraft went off the runway and ended up on its left side, minus both wings and the tailplane, over a water filled canal. It was fortunate that the right door could be opened to allow the occupants to exit. Had the aircraft inverted it could have been that the two doors could not be opened and the cockpit sink into the water filled canal.

To the credit of the Cirrus makers there is an emergency egress hammer located in the console between the front seats. In the case of a roll-over the hammer can be used to break the windows to exit the machine. Now the Kiwis also had an egress axe or hammer located behind the seat back on the bubble canopy Airtourer line of aircraft that they produced. Smart people. In America there was the airshow Stearman that had a flip up cockpit cover. The machine ended up upside down on the ground during a low level pass. The pilot could not exit the aircraft due to the design of the cockpit cover. The aircraft burnt and the pilot died.

In the UK there have been several cases of the single seat Tipsy Nipper that have overturned and the pilot could not exit the cockpit due to the bubble canopy. He had to wait for first responders to assist him to exit. Here in Australia there have been several RV aircraft that have had the nose wheel collapse and the aircraft turn over. One was at Atherton Airport in January 2018. Another was at Starke Field, Qld. in January 2017. Both these required first responders to help get the occupants out. One can only guess the outcome if the aircraft had burnt.

.Another RV, near Albany, WA, in September 2016 had an engine failure and ended up upside down. Fortunately the windscreen broke and enabled the occupants to exit via the break. All these and others give serious consideration to the occupants of bubble canopy type aircraft to carry an emergency egress hammer or break out tool of the cold chisel variety to enable an exit by smashing the canopy to allow an exit in the case of an overturn.

It is said that in an aviation landing emergency only those who plan ahead have a fighting chance of survival. The above are a few reminders of considerations to allow that survival..

[Peter Fanelli]

Interesting technique in the RV canopy video. Start near the side frame (guess it is more rigid there), create a crack, and then follow the crack around until a large section breaks away.

Might not be so easy in real life, due to rivets around the edge of the perspex, but worth remembering.

Except that in the video there is no frame, it's just the clear "plastic" piece, the "pilot" is not hanging upside down and only his head and shoulders passes through the resulting void in the canopy part. In a real situation the canopy may well be supporting the aircraft weight and may allow the aircraft to settle further if broken. If it was me, I'd never operate the aircraft on dirt or grass.

[cowl flaps]

Why not just have a roll bar. In low wing sports aircraft it's probably easier to do during construction, but shouldn't be too hard to do on current aircraft.
The CASA clowns might pose a problem for VH rego'd aircraft though.
A link to some images:-

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1745&bih=874&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hlFAXe7aJcvQrQHt7oWIAw&q=RV-7%20roll%20bar&oq=RV-7%20roll%20bar&gs_l=img.3...245189.251059..252145...1.0..0.194.1104.0j6.... ..0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30.7_FyOv7I0LE&ved=0ahUKEwjutfHf6tzjAhVLaCsKHW13ATEQ4dUDCAY&uact=5

[Squawk7700]

Why not just have a roll bar. In low wing sports aircraft it's probably easier to do during construction, but shouldn't be too hard to do on current aircraft.
The CASA clowns might pose a problem for VH rego'd aircraft though.
A link to some images:-

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1745&bih=874&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hlFAXe7aJcvQrQHt7oWIAw&q=RV-7%20roll%20bar&oq=RV-7%20roll%20bar&gs_l=img.3...245189.251059..252145...1.0..0.194.1104.0j6.... ..0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30.7_FyOv7I0LE&ved=0ahUKEwjutfHf6tzjAhVLaCsKHW13ATEQ4dUDCAY&uact=5

They do effectively have a roll-bar. It’s behind the top of the canopy. The issue is with the angles when you’re upside down.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

It's obviously a poor design, and prone to snapping the wheel off. The strut that's left should be aft-sprung or frangible so it bends/breaks aft and can't act as a pivot point. Better to replace an engine than flip. 5 cents worth.

[Lead Balloon]

The technique in the video of the RV canopy is interesting but, to my mind, pointless, at least in RVs with a fore/after bar running up the centre of the windscreen. That bar and the instrument panel prevent the wielding of the tool in the way it's wielded in the video. Besides: there's no room to crawl across the top of the instrument panel and out forward.

There's only one way out: sideways.

[cooperplace]

I'll just stick to the Jab.

[Centaurus]

when I was a paramedic I used to carry a spring loaded centre punch in case I ever had to smash a car window. Only ever tried it on an old abandoned car but worked well on automotive glass

I wonder if it works on plexiglass, though?

[Desert Flower]

And in other news, an RV14A (VH-JBR) flipped on landing at an agricultural show at Speed in Victoria yesterday.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/67451430_10163795594255206_2266420024094752768_o_6c9a261a803 7fa015f5bf2fa0f65cafa31d06b24.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/67762621_10163795600355206_8661945650067275776_o_c8f16bae46e 3513bc95519da3561d5471c72e2dc.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1728x1296/67760623_10163795607540206_203959587341074432_o_2502bf0291f5 2555da6c82dd514bc0f7d9471dc8.jpg

[On eyre]

And in other news, an RV14A (VH-JBR) flipped on landing at an agricultural show at Speed in Victoria yesterday.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/67451430_10163795594255206_2266420024094752768_o_6c9a261a803 7fa015f5bf2fa0f65cafa31d06b24.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/67762621_10163795600355206_8661945650067275776_o_c8f16bae46e 3513bc95519da3561d5471c72e2dc.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1728x1296/67760623_10163795607540206_203959587341074432_o_2502bf0291f5 2555da6c82dd514bc0f7d9471dc8.jpg

Can’t blame the aircraft if you try to land short of the strip in the crop 😳

[Lead Balloon]

And note that there is only one direction out: Sideways.

[poteroo]

RVs have pretty effective elevator command, and in a full flap landing, it is very easy to hold the nosewheel off the ground until a very low speed. While holding full back stick, the nosewheel sinks very slowly onto the surface. There really is no excuse for not landing an RV, ( A model), on its' mains and taxying it over any suspect surface with the nosewheel held clear: all it takes is to add a touch of power before elevator command is lost, and this holds the nosewheel clear of the surface.

Unfortunately, we are now around to a generation of RV owner/pilots who have been trained to fly the approach too fast, (might stall it!), and whack the aircraft onto the surface before it even approaches stalling, (get it on the ground and use your vg brakes!!). This theory just isn't good for safety. Whatever happened to 1.3 x Vso? With a VANS RV9A - Vso = 43 KIAS, so Vref = 56KIAS. Any competent driver should be able to manage 55-60KIAS on short final. Some of the other A models have a slightly higher Vso - more in the order of 48 KIAS. Thus, 48 x 1.3 = 63KIAS - most pilots use 65KIAS at MTOW.

It appears to me that there has been inadequate transition training happening: which really isn't compliant with the CASR 61.385 rule on general competency.

I understand that it's not just a noseleg issue with A models: there is an issue with the nosewheel locking and this creating the bending moment.

happy days,

[RV6JOY]

Hi Leadbaloon, that’s not right.
In the RV9a accident near Albany WA the pilot, a large guy, and his wife got out through the gap under the panel and over the roll bar, so it definitely can be done. Surprising when you see how BIG he is. He kicked the windscreen out. He says with fuel running out everywhere it’s surprising how resourceful you can be. Both wings had been ripped aft when he had to land in the tops of 10 metre trees after engine failure.
It was a sliding canopy so had the forward roll bar unlike ANU.
Needed to correct you as misinformation can be dangerous, especially in cases such as this.
Cheers, RV6JOY

[Squawk7700]

https://m.dailymercury.com.au/news/pilot-escapes-sinking-plane/435531/

Always a good idea to pack your safety hammer as Steve Maltby found out.

​​​​​​​

[Egipps]

And in other news, an RV14A (VH-JBR) flipped on landing at an agricultural show at Speed in Victoria yesterday.



Hopefully those on board are okay? Only news is the Weekly Times, and its behind a paywall.

[Desert Flower]

Hopefully those on board are okay? Only news is the Weekly Times, and its behind a paywall.

A man in his 70's from Mildura suffered minor injuries & was taken to hospital.

DF.

[harrryw]

I am not sure that the test of the plexicglass on a canopy not rigidly mounted against the cockpit and just held in the air by people is valid. The loose cockpit can flex on being hit making any cracking extend while the in place cockpit would not be prone to flex the same. My guess is that a safety ax as in larger aircraft is the minimum I would rely on.

[Lead Balloon]

Hi Leadbaloon, that’s not right.
In the RV9a accident near Albany WA the pilot, a large guy, and his wife got out through the gap under the panel and over the roll bar, so it definitely can be done. Surprising when you see how BIG he is. He kicked the windscreen out. He says with fuel running out everywhere it’s surprising how resourceful you can be. Both wings had been ripped aft when he had to land in the tops of 10 metre trees after engine failure.
It was a sliding canopy so had the forward roll bar unlike ANU.
Needed to correct you as misinformation can be dangerous, especially in cases such as this.
Cheers, RV6JOY
So the aircraft to which you refer was flat on its back with the engine cowl in the dirt? I very much doubt it. But I could be wrong.

[RV6JOY]

So the aircraft to which you refer was flat on its back with the engine cowl in the dirt? I very much doubt it. But I could be wrong.
Yep flat on it back. Fell vertically nose down out of the tree onto the ground and fell on its back from there. Kicked the windscreen out and wriggled through. I guess you could kick the panel shade cover down easily to give yourself more room. He azures me it was not that hard and as I said he is a big guy, I’d say 115 kilos easy.
Important that people know that so they try it if trapped. He is a lawyer and has no reason to bull**** about it. They were very lucky.
As I said it has the front roll bar, same as mine.
Cheers

[Aussie Bob]

Unfortunately, we are now around to a generation of RV owner/pilots who have been trained to fly the approach too fast, (might stall it!), and whack the aircraft onto the surface before it even approaches stalling, (get it on the ground and use your vg brakes!!). This theory just isn't good for safety. Whatever happened to 1.3 x Vso? With a VANS RV9A - Vso = 43 KIAS, so Vref = 56KIAS. Any competent driver should be able to manage 55-60KIAS on short final. Some of the other A models have a slightly higher Vso - more in the order of 48 KIAS. Thus, 48 x 1.3 = 63KIAS - most pilots use 65KIAS at MTOW.

I will be even more blunt and say that those that get the "A: model are either too lazy to get the training or lack the skills to master a tailwheel aircraft. Sadly if this is indeed the case then in all likelihood they also lack the skills to fly the nose dragger properly. Having flown both, the taildragger is, in my opinion, superior and also a tad faster.

Just saying .....

[On eyre]

I will be even more blunt and say that those that get the "A: model are either too lazy to get the training or lack the skills to master a tailwheel aircraft. Sadly if this is indeed the case then in all likelihood they also lack the skills to fly the nose dragger properly. Having flown both, the taildragger is, in my opinion, superior and also a tad faster.

Just saying .....

Superior in what way ?

[Hot n Heavy]

Perhaps Aussie Bob those who opt for the A models actually prefer an aircraft with a much higher and safer crosswind performance?

[Cloudee]

Superior in what way ?

They look better!

[Cloudee]

RV14/14A undercarriage testing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KbFMogBNUa0

[Aussie Bob]

Perhaps Aussie Bob those who opt for the A models actually prefer an aircraft with a much higher and safer crosswind performance?

Hmmmm ... very debatable, are you talking demonstrated or actual? The taildragger can easily handle 15 knots plus. Ya flimsy nose wheel may not handle much more.

Superior in what way ?

Stronger undercarriage
Better looking
Better on rough fields
Slightly better takeoff performance
Better ground turning radius
More leg room in cockpit due better placement of undercarriage crossmember
Slightly faster
More prop clearance
Less tendency for nose over incidents

But anyway .... my absolute commiserations on the unfortunate incidents in this thread and I mean no offence to any RV owner. I love them, just expressing an opinion.

[machtuk]

RVs have pretty effective elevator command, and in a full flap landing, it is very easy to hold the nosewheel off the ground until a very low speed. While holding full back stick, the nosewheel sinks very slowly onto the surface. There really is no excuse for not landing an RV, ( A model), on its' mains and taxying it over any suspect surface with the nosewheel held clear: all it takes is to add a touch of power before elevator command is lost, and this holds the nosewheel clear of the surface.

Unfortunately, we are now around to a generation of RV owner/pilots who have been trained to fly the approach too fast, (might stall it!), and whack the aircraft onto the surface before it even approaches stalling, (get it on the ground and use your vg brakes!!). This theory just isn't good for safety. Whatever happened to 1.3 x Vso? With a VANS RV9A - Vso = 43 KIAS, so Vref = 56KIAS. Any competent driver should be able to manage 55-60KIAS on short final. Some of the other A models have a slightly higher Vso - more in the order of 48 KIAS. Thus, 48 x 1.3 = 63KIAS - most pilots use 65KIAS at MTOW.

It appears to me that there has been inadequate transition training happening: which really isn't compliant with the CASR 61.385 rule on general competency.

I understand that it's not just a noseleg issue with A models: there is an issue with the nosewheel locking and this creating the bending moment.

happy days,



Whilst the RV's do have effective elevators they won't help here on that type of surface. With spats and small wheels regardless of how much back stick you have upon touchdown it's the sudden drag or 'grab' on the mains that pitches an A/C fwd.
Your comments only apply on a relatively smooth surface as the sudden 'grab' of the mains is far less.
I believe those that build/buy 'A' models prefer the easier general handling on the ground, they pay a price for that though, apart from the design that kinda killed the aesthetics of the Vans design (personal opinion only) the obvious weakness of the nose gear is always ever present when landing.
There will be more flip overs, you can guarantee it!

[Cloudee]

Hmmmm ... very debatable, are you talking demonstrated or actual? The taildragger can easily handle 15 knots plus. Ya flimsy nose wheel may not handle much more.



Stronger undercarriage
Better looking
Better on rough fields
Slightly better takeoff performance
Better ground turning radius
More leg room in cockpit due better placement of undercarriage crossmember
Slightly faster

But anyway .... my absolute commiserations on the unfortunate incidents in this thread and I mean no offence to any RV owner. I love them, just expressing an opinion.
16 lbs lighter too.
This from the Vans web site:
“Configured to stand on tricycle-gear, the RV-7A provides great forward visibility on the ground and for some, crosswind landing confidence and stability”.

[Lead Balloon]

Yep flat on it back. Fell vertically nose down out of the tree onto the ground and fell on its back from there. Kicked the windscreen out and wriggled through. I guess you could kick the panel shade cover down easily to give yourself more room. He azures me it was not that hard and as I said he is a big guy, I’d say 115 kilos easy.
Important that people know that so they try it if trapped. He is a lawyer and has no reason to bull**** about it. They were very lucky.
As I said it has the front roll bar, same as mine.
Cheers


I don’t doubt you were told what you were told, but please look at the pictures at post #46 and the pictures of the aircraft on its back at William Creek, and tell me how it’s physically possible for any adult - big or small - to get out through the front windscreen.

[Squawk7700]

Give it a rest guys! The nosewheel versus taildragger argument has been going on for years.

If nose wheels were any good they would be fitting them to Cubs. Oh wait!!!!

https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?56182-NX-CUB-First-Impressions

[4forward8back]

Yep flat on it back. Fell vertically nose down out of the tree onto the ground and fell on its back from there. Kicked the windscreen out and wriggled through. I guess you could kick the panel shade cover down easily to give yourself more room. He azures me it was not that hard and as I said he is a big guy, I’d say 115 kilos easy.
Important that people know that so they try it if trapped. He is a lawyer and has no reason to bull**** about it. They were very lucky.
As I said it has the front roll bar, same as mine.
Cheers



Is this the accident you are referring to. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/light-plane-crashes-near-mount-barker-in-wa/7813428
Incredible to think anyone got out of that one! Did he really have to put it down in tree tops?

[WingNut60]

............ Did he really have to put it down in tree tops?

Pls read caption on final foto

[industry insider]

I will be even more blunt and say that those that get the "A: model are either too lazy to get the training or lack the skills to master a tailwheel aircraft. Sadly if this is indeed the case then in all likelihood they also lack the skills to fly the nose dragger properly. Having flown both, the taildragger is, in my opinion, superior and also a tad faster.

Just saying .....

Hmm, JM is an experienced commercial Pilot.

[machtuk]

Give it a rest guys! The nosewheel versus taildragger argument has been going on for years.

If nose wheels were any good they would be fitting them to Cubs. Oh wait!!!!

https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?56182-NX-CUB-First-Impressions


Thanks 'squawky' I wasn't sure whether it would be okay to discuss the subject matter but now the PRRune police rep has arrived we shall bow to your requests!-):-):-)

[4forward8back]

Pls read caption on final foto
That's part of why i asked the question. Perhaps I should have added a 'skeptical' emoji. RV6JOY has spoken to the driver and earlier stated that he 'had' to.

[poteroo]

Is this the accident you are referring to. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/light-plane-crashes-near-mount-barker-in-wa/7813428
Incredible to think anyone got out of that one! Did he really have to put it down in tree tops?


We are getting away from the William Creek accident, but, I thought there were better 'paddock' options available with this Mt Barker accident. The damage to the front end was due to the aircraft striking tree tops several metres up - arriving in an out-of-control nose down attitude. No nosewheel could have withstood the impact force, and a tailwheel type would likely have ended up with much the same damage. I flew over it on the next day, and have spoken with the pilot too. I had flown this aircraft many times, and converted the pilot onto it some years previous. There are several inexplicables with this accident, which I don't intend to explore here. I have nothing but praise for the crews after crash actions: it was a near miraculous escape.
happy days,

[Cloudee]

Report out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5777317/ao-2019-037_final.pdf

“The ATSB reviewed the damage to the aircraft and found that the nose gear did not sustain a fracture through any of the major structural components (i.e. the nose gear strut or fork), but had deformed rearwards, under the aircraft. For this to have occurred, the ground clearance must have been sufficiently reduced so that the nose gear strut or fork made contact with the runway, imparting significant forces on the gear assembly and initiating the damage sequence.
The factors that affect the ground clearance during landing include the tyre pressure, engine weight, runway condition and dynamics of the landing. In this accident, the exact mechanism by which the gear made contact with the runway was not determined.”