Vans RV-9A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
From: UK
Originally Posted by Spamcan defender
I shall investigate the RV NW issues further.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
RV-9A
The RV-9A is an accident in the making, the aircraft has a habit of tripping over it's self and is only a matter of time before one flips on its back and the crew are killed.
Vans produce very good aircraft and it is a mystery to me why some one should spend two years and £60,000 to build one of these with a nose wheel rather than go and get a £1000 worth of education to learn to fly a tail dragger.
At the end of the day the they will spend more money get a vastly worse aircraft.
I can't help thinking that these people think that the nose wheel will protect them from the short comings in personal flying skill or education.
Vans produce very good aircraft and it is a mystery to me why some one should spend two years and £60,000 to build one of these with a nose wheel rather than go and get a £1000 worth of education to learn to fly a tail dragger.
At the end of the day the they will spend more money get a vastly worse aircraft.
I can't help thinking that these people think that the nose wheel will protect them from the short comings in personal flying skill or education.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
Spamcan...
You might find "TW" 1930s style... However, excepting the RV-10/12, RV's are basically TW designs. The -A version is a "bolt on modification"...
Taking your analogy further, how many airliners and other types use a "pole vault" arrangement for the NW? The RV -A types require this because there is no structure forward of the firewall capable of taking the NW, hence the angled leg coming back to firewall / rear of the engine mount.
Try http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf
NoD
You might find "TW" 1930s style... However, excepting the RV-10/12, RV's are basically TW designs. The -A version is a "bolt on modification"...
Taking your analogy further, how many airliners and other types use a "pole vault" arrangement for the NW? The RV -A types require this because there is no structure forward of the firewall capable of taking the NW, hence the angled leg coming back to firewall / rear of the engine mount.
Try http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf
NoD
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
If you learn to fly on a nosewheel spamcan you should find it easy to handle - after all that is the purpose of the rules they were designed and certified against.
However moving onto aircraft with more performance will increase the challenges, scan through the old threads here about Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza etc and you will find all sorts of horror stories from people who have not found them easy to handle.
The Vans (and a couple of others that look to have the same sort of arrangement - Europa, Sportcruiser etc) have long cantilevered noselegs hung off the firewall - compared with the certified designs I'm familar with this is a pretty flimsy arrangement - the nosewheel is 'free' to move considerably and that lattitude leads to shimmy and unpredictable behaviour. Worst if there is an overload it will often severely damage the firewall which makes for a very big repair.
On many of the spamcans, the noseleg sits within a tubular frame, often linked to the engine frame so the repair is to that frame only.
At the end of the day the Vans are essentially sport aircraft and designed to do that well, part of that equation is TW undercarriage - saving weight and drag.
However moving onto aircraft with more performance will increase the challenges, scan through the old threads here about Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza etc and you will find all sorts of horror stories from people who have not found them easy to handle.
The Vans (and a couple of others that look to have the same sort of arrangement - Europa, Sportcruiser etc) have long cantilevered noselegs hung off the firewall - compared with the certified designs I'm familar with this is a pretty flimsy arrangement - the nosewheel is 'free' to move considerably and that lattitude leads to shimmy and unpredictable behaviour. Worst if there is an overload it will often severely damage the firewall which makes for a very big repair.
On many of the spamcans, the noseleg sits within a tubular frame, often linked to the engine frame so the repair is to that frame only.
At the end of the day the Vans are essentially sport aircraft and designed to do that well, part of that equation is TW undercarriage - saving weight and drag.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I built a 9A and converted it to a 9. At the end of a landing run with the stick on the back stop at approx 15 kts the nosewheel hit a series of bumps that resulted in the spat getting damaged. After that I was very nervious about landing on grass.
Other things you might want to think about.
Other things you might want to think about.
- The 9 is cheaper than the 9A so you can spend the difference on TW training
- The 9 looks so much better than a 9A
- The 9 is about 25lbs lighter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: East Sussex
Hi Having instructed on both RV9 and RV9A, I can say that I prefer the tailwheel(ok i have an RV7), but understand why some people prefer nose wheels. The nose wheel on the RV A model, is not fool proof, but what is ? There are mods that are being done to the A model to make them safer, by installing a larger fromt wheel as well as the improved wheel fork, so saying that they are a death trap is a bit OTT. Pilot traing however is something that needs to be sorted, there are those with the A model that have operated for many years without problems, mainly due to there handling of the aeroplane, which is key.
Any way up the RV7 is a superb aircraft, and a good touring machine, capable of standard aerobatic sequence, however, it would be hard work in IMC for long periods, hence why most fit a wing leveller to help with the work load.
Will.
Any way up the RV7 is a superb aircraft, and a good touring machine, capable of standard aerobatic sequence, however, it would be hard work in IMC for long periods, hence why most fit a wing leveller to help with the work load.
Will.
Last edited by will5023; 20th June 2008 at 16:50.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”
There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.
Rod1
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”
There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.
Rod1
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
wil5023
I am not OTT in caling the RV-9A a deathtrap, no amount of modification is going to make the thing safe, there is too much weight at the front already, bigger wheels and stronger legs are just going to make the problem worse!
The RV-9 is a superb aircraft (if you have as much of the weight at the back as you can) and by tail dragger standards it is easy to land.
So why pay more money, add more weight, add more drag and make the aircraft more risky to fly (land)?.
It can only be because some people are too busy thinking that they can build a fool proof aircraft to protect themselfs.
The answer is to remove the fool from the cockpit rather than try to make the aircraft foolproof! This is done with good training and it costs a lot less than an RV-9A nose wheel kit.
The RV-9 is a superb aircraft (if you have as much of the weight at the back as you can) and by tail dragger standards it is easy to land.
So why pay more money, add more weight, add more drag and make the aircraft more risky to fly (land)?.
It can only be because some people are too busy thinking that they can build a fool proof aircraft to protect themselfs.
The answer is to remove the fool from the cockpit rather than try to make the aircraft foolproof! This is done with good training and it costs a lot less than an RV-9A nose wheel kit.
Last edited by A and C; 25th June 2008 at 22:16.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
From: Worcs/Glos border
Quite a lot of heat being generated in this debate. It has been rehearsed endlessly in the RV forums (Yahoo rvsqn in UK and Vans Airforce in the US) and both TW and NW RV's have fierce devotees.
The proportion of Type-A (nosewheel) RV's of all types, not just RV 9's, in the US is considerably higher than in the UK - there are far more RV's there than in the rest of the world anyway.
One reason for this is that US aircraft insurers load TW insurance compared with NW - on grounds of accident rates presumably. Many builders seem to opt for the nosewheel because they are worried about the premium for taildragger. It will be interesting to see if the recent (admittedly quite small) spate of A-type pole-vaulting accidents changes this.
I haven't flown an A-type but I can say that it's really not hard to learn to handle a TW RV.
And those looks!!! No contest!!!
The proportion of Type-A (nosewheel) RV's of all types, not just RV 9's, in the US is considerably higher than in the UK - there are far more RV's there than in the rest of the world anyway.
One reason for this is that US aircraft insurers load TW insurance compared with NW - on grounds of accident rates presumably. Many builders seem to opt for the nosewheel because they are worried about the premium for taildragger. It will be interesting to see if the recent (admittedly quite small) spate of A-type pole-vaulting accidents changes this.
I haven't flown an A-type but I can say that it's really not hard to learn to handle a TW RV.
And those looks!!! No contest!!!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire
“It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”
There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.
Rod1
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”
There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.
Rod1
Spamcan
