Side-by-side RV-8 - finally!

Not sure you've seen this, but I thought it was pretty funny!

That's totally impractical!

I think this is a much better approach.





My apologies to those who already saw this when I posted it a few years ago on the RV10 yahoo group.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The twin approach might be quicker to build than an RV 10 given the amount of -8 expertise there is out there. Now if Van will just run the design thru his computers----not that such were necessary to build the P 38 or the twin Mustang. Shall we quarrel over the best powerplants? I say go with the new 390s. CAW

I guess I'll have to try and find the file on my RV-66.
I know some of you have seen it. I showed the picture to Van as the best contender for a 4-place RV. The RV-66 is similar to the RV-82, except with the -6 fuselages you have side-by-side-by-side-by-side seating. No one has to sit in the back.
Mel...DAR

BTW; When I showed it to Van, he just rolled his eyes and said, "Please don't be showing that around."
Many of you don't know the story in the RVator showing the original RV-8 as a 4-place.

I don't know, the twin looks like it will allow for mounting a couple of 50 caliber's and possibly a rocket launcher with minimal effort!

Rv 8 Twin

I have long thougtn that a P 38 Lightning replica built around RV8 components would be the ultimate homebuilt.

Milt

Rv-82---p38

Maybe that is not as fanciful as first appears....maybe a few of us could put something like that together....at least it would be a great discussion.....CAWMD82

It'd be expensive as hell (comparatively), but there would be absolutely like it in the skies. Weight & balance would be an interesting prospect!

BTW - thanks for the new screen saver.

Sounds to me like a great project for some aero engineering student to sort out all the various loads, drags, balance, etc.......

Then we need somebody to really craft those center wing and HS sections and controls. I will volunteer to cleco the fuselages......
CAW

I've been thinking about this all day

The center wing would be easy enough to build, just tie the two spars together like you do with the HS spar.

The center leading edge would become one big tank, probably with more capacity than the standard leading edge tank.

Aileron push tubes would be easy to connect through the center wing.
Elevator control could be connected through the common elevator. (Note the loss of aerodynamic counter balances.) The trick would be to keep this thing in clean air.
Rudder control could be accomplished by putting a bell crank on each rudder and putting a push tube through the common HS.
Engine controls could be linked via push cables.
Engine and flight instruments are easier with the advancement of electronic EMS and EFIS systems.

Landing gear is the biggest issue. Retractable gear could be designed into the center wing. The tail wheels could be left hanging out in the wind like a standard -8 or they could be put in the tail like the guy from Germany did with his RV-4RG.

Fixed gear off the engine mounts wouldn't look very good, IMHO, and you would really have to put some baseball bat sized gear legs on it to hold up both engines.

Engines choice, if you are going to build this monster, you might as well put in tricked out IO-360's with three bladed props. Looks are everything after all.

Cost? I'm thinking it could be built for around what some are putting into their RV-10's. The low side should be around $130K and the high side up to $200K. (Oh, and don't forget to add in the cost of your divorce.)

Empty weight: 2300 lbs to 2500 lbs +/-
Cruise speed: 250 MPH +/-
ROC: 3,000 - 3,500 FPM +/-
Insurance costs: Uninsurable

(I really don't know about any of those numbers, just guessing.)

One question, where would you put in the second set of controls?
A. One set of controls
B. Both front seats
C. One side - front and back
D. One side - front and back, plus one front control on the other side
E. Both front and back on both sides

RV-82: Need 4 seats?

I think it would make a better plane if you didn't put an interior or a canopy on the
right side. You could put a big fuel tank over there. I agree that the biggest
engineering problem in this would be the landing gear. I can't think of a solution
that doesnt involve changing the spar or fuselage center section.

Two other things come to mind the more I think about this craft.

1st. A good number (probably all) the skins would have to be thickened to handle the increased air loads imparted by the significant increase in cruise speeds. Not to mention the spars.

2nd. Flutter would become an ugly issue with this craft and you would probably have to significantly strengthen all the control surfaces.

I wonder how this monster would do at Reno?

Rv-82

I am glad to know that I am not the only one who has spent a good bit of time thinking about this......I think your analysis is spot on in most regards, we can only hope your top speed guess is correct.

I think I would go with dual controls only in the front seats. The gear is a big question. My Comp Air 8 main gear handles a 5600 lb gross and is not that big. It is available from Hammerhead.

I looked up some notes on the XP-82 project and the issue of how the engines counterrotate and the resultant propwash/drag was a matter they had to switch engines to place the meeting prop tips in the downward, not upward motion for. This is found in several web pages.

Engine selection will be influenced by the available designs in a counterrotating engine. That will require some research. Maybe using F1 Rocket parts and a 6 cylinder??????

Chuck Wallace

cawmd82 said:

I looked up some notes on the XP-82 project and the issue of how the engines counterrotate and the resultant propwash/drag was a matter they had to switch engines to place the meeting prop tips in the downward, not upward motion for. This is found in several web pages.

Click to expand...

Chuck,

I guess we would "have" to use V-8's then. They make counter rotating parts for marine applications. (Cranks, camshafts, etc.) I know this is a bummber because it would push the HP up a few notches.

The coolest part is that they would require a radiator. I'm thinking of a P-51 style "dog house" on the belly. What do you think?

Now all we need is a sponsor with a few more coins in his/her pocket than I have. Figuring we split the construction up between accomplished RV builders and then bring the parts together for final assembly, pluming, and wiring. I figure it could be flying w/in a year and a half.

I love dreaming about this kind of stuff. Who knows, it might just happen.

I will stick with counterrotating aviation engines--again I have not got real good knowledge of what is out there but there is a substantial selection. Unless the guys at Innodyne could get it together........

The design, if thought out a bit, is really not as far out as first appears. Even when the original was built the only big post build change was switching the 2 engines as mentioned above.

Avoiding retractable gear will simplify matters hugely.

I am about half serious about all this.....

I really may call Mark at Rocket and see if he thinks we are all totally nuts.

CAW

CAW