What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

M1? - what ever happened to it

aadamson

aadamson

Well Known Member
So, you Rocket guys.... What ever became of the M1? I've seen the info on the HPA website, looks like a 7 with sleeker lines, the EVO wing, etc. I assume but may be wrong, that it was designed for the F1 company? Will it ever happen? Or was it designed for someone else and now ends up in a legal battle.

It is a very cool airplane, would love to see em flying?

Anyone know the story?

For those that know nothing about it.... Start here..

http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialCon...=b39af695-935d-4d4d-bc54-de4b0faa3638&cat=7#d
 
I'm not the expert here but there's a long story regarding the business relationship between Mark Frederick and HPA. I believe that HPA still harbours thoughts of marketing it, but probably not through Mark who only supports the F1.
 
Dang

f1rocket said:
I'm not the expert here but there's a long story regarding the business relationship between Mark Frederick and HPA. I believe that HPA still harbours thoughts of marketing it, but probably not through Mark who only supports the F1.
Click to expand...

Thanks Randy, thats too bad, it is a very nice looking airplane, I especially like the TD version.
 
I know someone who would build one if they sold it. He's currently flying a Glasair I RG, but wants something bigger, and doens't like sanding very much...
 
me too

I was wounder that also. I dropped HPA a line a year ago and never heard a thing.

I like the idea of a Side by Side Rocket, but from the graphics they show on their site it looks "funny". The Rocket/F-1 is sexy. The "M1 Super Crusier" is odd looking to me. Kind of a cross between QuestAir Venture (now Nu venture) and a Lancair Legacy.

http://www.international-hpa.com/proj_speedcruiser.html

(the specs are impressive, but they claim the M1 cruises 10 mph faster and has a 13 mph faster top speed than a Rocket F-1 with the same engine? I have my doubts, especially for a plane that has yet to ever fly.)

There is one of a kind custom Super 6 and I like that, but the M1 lost something in the translation, at least from the artist hpa renderings. They of course only show a Trike. I meet and hung out with the Super 6 builder Tom at Oshkosh when he first flew it to the show, more than 6 years ago. Nice guy.

Also when I was harboring my Super 6 dreams (I)O540's where cheap since few if any kit planes used them at the time. Rockets where a fairly new thing and Glasairs III's used the bigger angled plug 540's. Now 540's (any) are in demand due to Rockets, Big Pushers and some big rag/tube "Bush" planes. However with gas what it is today, I am happy with my little O360.

George
 
Last edited:
You know, I think this would work the other way around for me than it does for George.

If the M1 actually were an available kit, and I was thinking of building it, and then compared it to the RV7, I'd drop the M1 for the RV in a heartbeat.

The M1 would end up costing appreciably more to build not only because of the required engine, but because it would be a more limited production aircraft meaning the kit itself would cost more (ala the F1).
Plus, that supposed 240mph cruise would cost considerably more in fuel costs for every hour flown.

But for the much lesser cost of the RV7, and then the more miserly 360 engine it uses, and I would save all that ???? while only having to trade off about 25 to 30 mph in cruise? There's no comparison except for those who have to feed their egos by going faster than someone else.
In a typical long cross country, say 500 miles, I would gladly spend those extra few minutes during the last part of each and every flight thinking about the several dozen $K I didn't have to spend. :)
 
Well, I was considering building my -7 as a super -7 (260HP), but after flying Dan's, I decided that 200ish HP was enough for my first. After a few hundred hours of RV time, I'll consider building my second one as a Super... or maybe just build a F1/HR II/III
 
Highflight said:
The M1 would end up costing appreciably more to build not only because of the required engine, but because it would be a more limited production aircraft meaning the kit itself would cost more (ala the F1).
Plus, that supposed 240mph cruise would cost considerably more in fuel costs for every hour flown.

But for the much lesser cost of the RV7, and then the more miserly 360 engine it uses, and I would save all that ???? while only having to trade off about 25 to 30 mph in cruise? There's no comparison except for those who have to feed their egos by going faster than someone else.
Click to expand...

My Rocket only cost me about $6K more than a RV-8. When I built mine, that was the cost difference between the two QB kits. Also, my IO-540 from Bart cost exactly the same as a O-360. So for $6K, here's what I got:

  • An airplane with a conservative estimated value of about $20K more than a RV-8
  • An airplane that has the capability to fly just as fuel efficiently as any RV as long as the RV is at 23 square or above
  • An airplane that is capable of burning a lot more fuel when I want to take advantage of the horsepower
  • An airplane that will cruise at 10,000 over 200kts on about 10 GPH.
It has nothing to do with ego. It's basic economics and performance for me and all the other Rocket drivers I know. Of course, we like to show off every once in a while. :D Wouldn't you if you had one?

I also readily admit that the economics have changed over the past 3 years. The F1 kits are more expensive now and so are the engines, but that wasn't always true.
 
Ditto everything Randy said and I would ad that as a super 8, I did not pay the airframe premium. My engine cost was cheaper than the 4 banger solution, and I have easily 20k more value in the plane at re-sale.

Compared to the 4 banger, I have better fuel effeciency when I want it, & better speed when I want it.

<Vern>
"There's no comparison except for those who have to feed their egos by going faster than someone else."

Vern what are you talking about? Thats silly. Using that logic, why not just put a 120hp engine on, and go 30mph slower than everyone else? You will get great economy and only get there a few minutes later on your 500mile flight. :confused:

Adam... I think your thread has been hijacked. Sorry!

Best,
 
Kahuna said:
<Vern>
"There's no comparison except for those who have to feed their egos by going faster than someone else."

Vern what are you talking about? Thats silly. Using that logic, why not just put a 120hp engine on, and go 30mph slower than everyone else? You will get great economy and only get there a few minutes later on your 500mile flight. :confused:

Adam... I think your thread has been hijacked. Sorry!

Best,
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with Vern on that.

Well, about that "thread" thing; look through a lot of threads here on VAF and you'll see a "hijack" pattern with lot's of guilty parties. :eek:

And no, all I'm referring to is the difference in performance and cost between a well equipped '8 and Rocket, and a well equipped '7 and the (non-existent) M1.
For what you get for the difference, it just doesn't make that much sense to me. It's kind of like the horsepower vs. speed thingy where there's a point where you have to add a disproportionate amount of horsepower to get only a few % points in speed.
The proposed higher cruise speeds for the M1 clearly come from bolting lots more horsepower up front and not from the airframe so much if at all.

The average fuel consumption at 75% for an O-540 is around 14.1 GPH which is higher by 50% MORE than an O-360 would use at similar power settings. I know a lot of you airplane guys are rich beyond my wildest dreams ( ;) ), but spending $15 per HOUR for fuel to get somewhere a few minutes earlier is, for me, poor economy. I'd rather work on building an ultra-clean airframe and get another 10mph or so from that.

There's also the practical side of building even beyond the added costs in that I don't think anyone would argue that Van's has taken his kit designs to the point where we're really close to cheating on the 51% rule... his kits are that easy to build when compared to most anything else out there.
Does anyone really think that a brand new M1 design wouldn't take half again as long to build?

I know it's fun to speculate about what could be with a new AC design, but I like to get to the down and dirty about things right away and the M1 starts to fade a bit when you consider the investment in cost, time, and operational costs compared to the '7 that can be "almost" as fast in cruise when it could realistically see 210mph cruise speeds when rigged right.
Do 'ya think there may be a reason(s) why the M1 is still not available after all these years? Do 'ya think I may have touched on some of those reasons?

That's all I'm sayin'
 
Last edited:
Super 8 and Super 7

Please no offense to those who supersized their RV's. I don't know all the particulars. Certainly adding on 260 HP will do good things to your performance. Of course weight is an issue but workable.

My point, the Harmon Rocket II is based on a RV-4, right. John Harmon did the following:

Clipped the wings
Stretched the fuselage (I think)
Widened the fuselage near the firewall
Longer Gear and engine mount to match
I believe increased some sheet metal gages
Of course a big 6 banger and a cowl to cover it.​

Harmon II
Span 21'
length 21'10"
wing area 104 sq ft

RV-4
Span 23 ft
Length 20 ft 4 in
Wing Area 110 sq ft

The Super RV's I am seeing just basiclly add the big engine on with no wing or fuselage change. (not sure) The main modification, I assume, is the engine mount and cowl. Also I guess W&B is maintained by adding large batteries aft of the cockpit in the tail. It is very clever. However with the long wing does that limit the full "Rocket" Experience. Just curious.

In other words how does a Super-8 compare to a Rocket/F-1?

George
 
No offense taken. Ill let my wonderful plane speak for itself in the air and on the ground.

Yes George you are correct on the Super 8's and 7.

As for flying, the F-1's and HR's are about 10mph faster than the full length Super 8's wing at sea level. At 10k', then spread is tighter at about 5mph.

I do not have any solo, hair on fire, time in F-1's so I can't speak for them in flying quality comparison. I only have cheesy back seat time. Who is gonna cough up their F-1 for me to go tear up the sky with? Hmmm??? :eek:


Roll rate is also slower on the 8's with the longer wing.

My simple list of Super 8 elements can be read.

Best
 
One of the things I like about this forum is the self censorship that goes on. It's vary rare to meet a group of individuals as mature as this group is on the internet. That fact that Doug rarely has to interfere with the day-to-day conversations on a board this size says a lot.


We can be opinonated at times, but we usually can control ourselves :)
 
M1 Speedster

Iwrote HPA several times and they have told me they are working on getting a kit version together. They have a lot of the parts already made up but are still working on it. Mark sold them the rights to build the F2/M1. They make the EVO wings and QB kits. I have the EVO wing on a F1 and it is awesome. I can't wait until the M1 comes out. It would be a great airplane. Aden Rich
 
Has anybody ever pulled 6G on an EVO wing? How many EVO wings have been pulled to 5+G?
 
Can't answer that one Dan, but on another topic... what are the possiblities of fitting an EVO wing onto a -7? Doable? We'll make our own stinkin M1... right after we make the twin -8 people were talking about a while ago.
 
The M1. I was in the factory a few weeks ago in the Czech Republic and the prototype was well along. They were very focused on it. I got the impression it would be test flying soon.
 
Pictures?

Steve Sampson said:
The M1. I was in the factory a few weeks ago in the Czech Republic and the prototype was well along. They were very focused on it. I got the impression it would be test flying soon.
Click to expand...
Steve, when are you planning to post the pictures? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top