Plane crash at William Creek Airfield
Perhaps Aussie Bob those who opt for the A models actually prefer an aircraft with a much higher and safer crosswind performance?
Superior in what way ?
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.
Last edited by Aussie Bob; 1st Aug 2019 at 21:01.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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!
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.
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.
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”.
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
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/showt...st-Impressions
If nose wheels were any good they would be fitting them to Cubs. Oh wait!!!!
https://www.supercub.org/forum/showt...st-Impressions
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Stag Lane
Age: 52
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Incredible to think anyone got out of that one! Did he really have to put it down in tree tops?
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 .....
Just saying .....
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/showt...st-Impressions
If nose wheels were any good they would be fitting them to Cubs. Oh wait!!!!
https://www.supercub.org/forum/showt...st-Impressions
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Stag Lane
Age: 52
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the accident you are referring to. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...-in-wa/7813428
Incredible to think anyone got out of that one! Did he really have to put it down in tree tops?
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,
Report out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577731...-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.”
“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.”
