I will probably get raked over the coals for this one but here it goes... a true 80% scale p-51 kit. Something that looks real and not forced. The titan looks a bit "off" IMHO.
This should make most of the RV aircraft LSA compliant...
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LSA-Weight-Limit-Increasing-To-3600-Pounds-231639-1.html
I wonder how that will effect the decisions for an RV-15?
Yes! the RV15 could be should be a 170B heavy hauler, with a 180 to 210 hp engine.
Designed with sticks, two front seats, OR ! One seat up front. Extended baggage a baggage door. Or a litter door?! Have you ever seen a 180 with a litter door?
I would not want a back seat, but there is an Atly Dodge folding seat that is offered for the 180. Might want one of those for my RV15.
- RV-14 fuselage & Wings
- IO-540
- Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
- Flutter tested to 280KTs
- RV-14 fuselage & Wings
- IO-540
- Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
- Flutter tested to 280KTs
- RV-14 fuselage & Wings
- IO-540
- Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
- Flutter tested to 280KTs
Yep, now yer talkin'!! Sign me up!!
To be really innovative, make it a cantilever high wing
So basically a Cessna 210.
Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.
Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.
You just described the RV10.
One of the downsides to the current fleet of RV designs, as a friend reminded me the other day, is that we all sit in a big bucket that are difficult for less mobile pilots and passengers to get in and out of.
Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.
Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.
More correctly, you've described a Glasair Sportsman 2+2! [...]
[...] Designing a viable high-wing aircraft would take a considerable departure from the "tried and true" methodologies found in the current Vans low -wing airplanes. [...]
I think when the folks at Van's get bored and need a good chuckle, they read this thread!
And yes, the Cub, in all its reincarnations, has been done to death.
Hi,
The ineresting thing Vans could do is looking at Higgs engines as a replacement of Lycoming in term of weight and consumption.
It isn't compression ignition...it is a combined cycle engine...
Rotax 915 engine would be a good match for the RV9 wing. Is there scope there for a model between the 9 and the 12.
A 7/9 sized kit refreshed to the build documentation of the 14 would be good also.
Van?s would do well to offer a tapered wing option for the Rv-7 and RV-8 kits.
Only two things currently prevent me from starting to buid a Van?s kit. First of all, I have a busy life and I just don?t have more than 800 hours to spend on such a project. I could probably purchase an abandoned project plane.
Secondly, I already own an airplane. The next one will be my forever plane, so it absolutely has to have tapered wings. I mean no disrespect, but I don?t like the looks of the Van?s rectangular wings.
My dream airplane would be a quick build metal/composite Van?s airplane that would look like the Falco, but With the kit being produced and supported by Van?s, which has a great reputation in the industry.
...
My dream airplane would be a quick build metal/composite Van?s airplane that would look like the Falco, but ...
Pascal, welcome to VAF
Have you thought about a Rocket with the Evo wing?
http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/f1-specifications.html
Pascal,I have been reading the forums here for a while. I’m thinking an IO-320 or IO-360 with a fixed pitch propeller to keep the complexity, weight and price down. Apart from the occasional aileron roll and looping, I am not planning on any serious aerobatics. The mission calls for an aircraft that can reliably give me 500 nautical miles plus reserve, on a 20 knots headwind.
Have you bothered to compare the Falco with an RV?
Granted, the Falco is beautiful but the RV is faster, slower, wider, has a greater useful load, simpler fuel system, is easier to build, etc. All those traits make the RV a much better looking airplane!
Doug,
I agree with you Doug; however, I would like to see a 2+2 "bush" plane. Call it a 180 hp Cessna 170 with 8" wheels (Larger, if the pilot wants).
Van's could design it like the -7 & -8 where they can be built with any engine from 150 to 200 HP and with or without a CS prop.
I don't need to build another two seat RV, I have one that I love but we already use it like a Super Cub and would like room to take my wife and another couple out for dinner or myself, my wife, and son can load it up and go camping for a weekend.
The RV-9 with a strut plugged in at the tie-down ring fitting, longer wing tips, the same RV-9 taildragger firewall and engine mount with the wing mounted up top would be amazing.
The RV-7 & -9 tail cone, VS, and rudder could be reused along with the -9's HS but with five rib tips installed on each side, instead of just three would increase the strength.
The goal would be a plane that can comfortably land and take off in 1500', not 200' like many of the highly modified Super Cub's can, and can cruise at 150 to 160 MPH but still stall in the 40's like the -9 does.
Van's, if you read this and agree, send me the first kit and I will be more than happy to be your test builder! If that doesn't work, let me know you are designing "my plane" and I will stop building the WagAero 2+2.
As everyone knows, airplanes are full of compromises, and I would argue that this is even more true in the bushplane world. Having an airplane go fast and slow (which in my mind is in the 35kt range) is super hard to do. You need a very draggy airfoil to do it, and draggy airfoils kill speed, that said, using a draggy high lift airfoil and keeping the rest of it clean would surely work well.
Anyway, I think a bush plane coming from Vans would be cool, but I wouldn't do rag and tube because there are already a LOT of options in that field, and because Van's doesn't have as much experience here, and because, well, it wouldn't be a Vans.
This is one of the reasons the S-21 is so popular and interesting, it's an aluminum bush plane, with a single strut, and spring gear (translation, it's able to go fast too). Your typical cub is a seriously dirty airplane.
So if van's built a high wing, this is what I would like to see:
1. Combination of aluminum and steel construction like the S-21. Rollcage is important to a bush plane. Cessna's look like crushed beer cans when crashed.
2. Horner style wing tips build into the design, made from formed aluminum. That would make the effective wing length longer.
3. High lift wing like a Cessna 180 with a Sportsman cuff.
4. Single strut, for simplicity and speed.
5. Jackscrew style h-stab. The ability to trim the stab makes a huge difference in making the airplane safe with rear CG.
6. Spring gear. It's not as good as the other options for back country flying, but it makes sense to have a faster back country airplane from Vans. If you want to smash it on the ground, buy a cub.
7. Gear mounts very very very very strong. Like a p-ponk box kit.
8. Skylight and seaplane doors as options. Allow the builder to choose and have instructions for either way.
9. Float attach points, so make sure the fuse is strong enough to get roughed up on floats without wrinkling.
10. Use a strong tailwheel, Scott 3200.
11. HP wise, 180hp is plenty, so parallel valve lycoming.
12. Side by side seating. Lots of tandem options, so make this one different.
13. Bike mount option like the Murphy Radical.
14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.
15. Nice, long, extending fowler flaps, like Keller flaps. Stuff on the front of the wing like slats makes it fly slower, but very nose up, while stuff on the back of the wing like flaps also make it fly slower, but nose down.
16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.
17. Provide strong/nice seatbelt mounts with inertia reels and 4-pt harnesses.
You get the idea, something like a very light/strong/smaller Cessna 170 without the rear seat, much better flaps, stab trim, with seaplane doors and skylight with a 180HP engine.
Given that I can operate my (heavy) 170A with a stock engine in 1000ft with two people (300 ft solo), I suspect the above could work in 800ft at gross, or 200 ft solo, but still cruise at 120kt with a fixed pitch or 135kt with a constant speed.
Anyway, opinion is only worth $.02 Alaskan, so take it for what it's worth.
Wow... when I read that well-reasoned list of requirements I realized it was checking off all the boxes that I checked off when selecting our Glasair Sportsman. OK, all except the "all metal" part.
Glad to see I'm not the only one with this kind of shopping list!
For what it's worth, our 180HP Sportsman with Hartzell F7666A constant speed blades trues out pretty nicely at 134kts at my usual cruise power just below 75%. I love being able to fill the 50gal tanks, stick another 200lb person in the seat beside me and still have over 200lbs of cargo capacity, while enjoying a very comfortable, well-appointed cabin. After a year of flying this bird I can't see anything in that "wish list" that needs to be modified.
14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.
16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.