What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 Taildragger

T

thomasjorgensen

Member
First post here so hope this works. :)

First I would like to congratulate you all on an amazing community.

I have been absolutely sold on experimentals ever since i stumbled over a Lancair a few years back. When my father totaled his 182 last year (engine failure), we decided to make the jump to the famed RVs and sourced a nice 7 with 200hp and CS. She's a peach. :D

Going from a 182 to a 7 was obviously quite a shock in terms of space, and has sparked renewed interest in building a 10. The extra seats and improved access would be much welcomed, especially as my father is not getting any younger. I find the 10 to be quite the ideal aircraft for our purpose.

However, as 98% of the flying is from and to rough farm (dirt) strips, the tailwheel configuration is much valued (the 182?s paint had a hard time, and that was a high-wing). Also, IMO, RV look right with the small wheel at the back. :cool:

I know that this has been asked before, but would it be structurally feasible to build a tailwheel RV-10? Are the mains attatched to the wing spar, and would there be a good place to mount them if they were moved forward? I suppose for the third wheel one could "just" mount a tailwheel from another RV and strengthen the tailcone? Just throwing this out there, as i suspect i?m not the only one that has had this thought. I have seen 10?s with v8 engines and whatnot, but how come no one has tried this yet? Is there a good reason? :confused:

I realize that this would complicate a build a lot, and that for most folks it just not worth the work. I also realize that Vans would not support you, and i presume that it would be harder to get it inspected (airworthiness) and to get insurance for it. It would probably also have less value, as it would be a possibly wonky one-off. But that wouldnt matter cause we would never part with it. :D

But my reasons for building it would be partly the need, partly the Engineering challenge (my father is a Mechanical Engineer and i?m an undergrad, and we have great passion for stuff like this), and partly the fact that one would have a truly unique aircraft.

But my question to you guys is can it be done and how would you do it? They are Experimentals after all. :)
 
Welcome to VAF!!!!

thomasjorgensen said:
First post here so hope this works. :)
Click to expand...

Thomas, welcome aboard, yes it worked;)


thomasjorgensen said:
First I would like to congratulate you all on an amazing community.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and now the amazing factor has just risen by having you as a part of the community.

thomasjorgensen said:
I know that this has been asked before, but would it be structurally feasible to build a tailwheel RV-10? Are the mains attached to the wing spar, and would there be a good place to mount them if they were moved forward? I suppose for the third wheel one could "just" mount a tailwheel from another RV and strengthen the tailcone?

But my question to you guys is can it be done and how would you do it? They are Experimentals after all. :)
Click to expand...

I would love a taildragger 10 also.

The main gear is attached to a weldment that is attached to the spar, and to other fuse structure also. I do not think it would be too hard to re-design the unit to point the gear forward, considering it now points back a bit. No idea what it would do from either a structural or aerodynamic standpoint.

I have used the tail tiedown to pull the nose wheel off the ground before, so I suspect there is enough strength in the aft fuse------but I am not an engineer, so ........my opinion is not worth a lot.

A flat gear like the 8 uses might be easier to re-engineer for the mains----mount forward of the spar, diagonal bracing down to the gear pad???

Again, welcome to VAF:D
 
I have to comment on this.

Several years ago at Copperstate I was checking out the "new" -10 demo aircraft at the Vans booth. The Van's employees were very nice and let me sit in it, poke around, etc. This one particular guy (presenting himself as a Van's employee) was very nice and accommodating until I asked him if a tailwheel version was in work, at that point it was like a switch was thrown in the guys head. He went into a tirade along the lines of "why do you taildragger guys want everything your way...'' Blah, blah, blah. His display was actually a little shocking. So, given his reaction, I figured I'd have a little fun. I simply told him that if Van's could not provide me the product I want; I'd just buy a kit and make the required "improvements" myself. He took the bait and his reaction made my whole day. :D
 
I'm sure that if you were to put gear mounts on the tail and engine mount you would easily get the plane to stand and taxi just fine. I'd be concerned about the forces during landing, especially a hard landing, and how the airframe would handle that. a RV-10 coming down at gross making a rough landing is gonna put a LOT of force on those gear attach points, and at the very least I think that running the numbers for all those parts would be a good idea.
 
I'd be afraid that the -10 probably weighs too much and is too long of a fuselage to employ engine-mount-attached spring gear legs up front, and there's just not enough legroom space in the front footwell area to build gear tower structures like the -8 has to spread the landing loads around. A taildragger -10 would need some kind of load-bearing/load-spreading structure incorporated into the forward fuselage between the spar and the firewall to handle the main gear attachment.
 
I would buy one in a heartbeat!! It seems like it would be possible, considering the gross weight is similar to a C-185.
 
I don't know about this, guys. Besides all of the structural issues, I don't think making it a taildragger is going to solve the so-called "bush operation" issues. The T/W configuration is going to put the trailing edges of the wings and flaps much closer to the ground and more prone to damage from ground objects. And loading the back seat passengers will certainly not be easy, and perhaps even uncomfortable for them to pull themselves up and out. Sure, it might look nice and appeal to a few, but Van's has made a pretty successful business out of understanding the market needs at the right time. I wouldn't expect them to tackle this one any time soon, if ever.

Vic
 
10 TG

Even if you solved the gear and CG issue I would be surprised if the tail cone structure is designed to take on the load that it would be subjected to as a tail dragger.

Pat
 
Toobuilder said:
I simply told him that if Van's could not provide me the product I want; I'd just buy a kit and make the required "improvements" myself. He took the bait and his reaction made my whole day. :D
Click to expand...

What did he say, or is it too vulgar to say here? ;)

I'm on both sides-- I'm about to go sell our LSAs & engines at Sun n Fun. As a commercial aircraft builder and someone close to the kit business, I understand why Van's might not want people to mess with their designs. Frankly it's annoying when you pour your soul into a design and it still isn't good enough for somebody. And you worry about someone making a bad structural mistake and killing themselves in it.

But on the other hand, if Van hadn't listened to people when they wanted to carry more passengers, convert to nose gear, use more power, gain more shoulder room, etc, the only RVs out there would be single place taildraggers. (not that there's anything wrong with that! :D)
 
Thanks for the warm welcome and all the comments. I agree that it would be a major project, requiring a lot of thorough calculations and testing. Just throwing it out there.

I understand why Vans didn't do the Tailwheel 10, after the sales disaster of the 9, and the increased difficulty of getting people and luggage into it (although the 180 & 185 drivers don't seem to complain about that?) But I would be right in line if he ever made one, and It's nice to see that I'm not alone.

Do you guys think that demand for a RV-10 taildragger (if one existed) would be as low as the 9?
 
Would the Tail cone structure really need reinforcement? On the 7 and 7a the tailcone is identical, on the 7 you mount a tail spring mount and the 7a you mount a tie down block. Now I understand the 10 was not designed to have very many structural forces back there however for anyone who has seen that section of the fuse there really is not a whole lot going on there that is different in the 10.

-david
 
Put on a 3 bladed prop for ground clearance and learn how to land it. This is the same arguement for those pilots who talk about folding over the nose gear in the "A" models. It's a SLOW TAXI wheel not a landing gear.
Woodman
 
Flyguytki said:
Would the Tail cone structure really need reinforcement? On the 7 and 7a the tailcone is identical, on the 7 you mount a tail spring mount and the 7a you mount a tie down block. Now I understand the 10 was not designed to have very many structural forces back there however for anyone who has seen that section of the fuse there really is not a whole lot going on there that is different in the 10.

-david
Click to expand...

It very well could be strong enough. However the -10 is a very different beast. The rest of the RV line was designed to be both a taildragger and a tri-gear setup, so the structure was designed to be able to handle all of those forces so that there would be basically one fuselage. The -10 on the other hand was designed to be a tri-gear, and while it may be structurally similar to the rest of the vans aircraft, they never designed it to be a tail dragger and there is about an extra 900 lbs of gross or so that they have to deal with that this plane could land with. I'm not positive, but I'm think that the gear is tested to withstand a 2 or 3 g landing, so that would mean an extra 1800 or 2700 lbs of force compared to what one of the two seaters sees.
 
RV-10TW

Sometimes I just can't resist...:D

RV-10 TW.jpg
 
Tail cone

Some thoughts from a recovering engineer:

I can't imagine a tailwheel subjecting the tail cone structure to greater stress than the flight loads on the tail in fast, uncoordinated flight.

Countless 172s, 150s, and other certified aluminum monocoque aircraft have been converted to taildraggers with nothing more than local reinforcement at the tailwheel mount.

M
 
I would think the biggest challenge would be the main gear mounts, not the tailwheel. On Van's tri-gear planes, the mounts are attached to the forward center section bulkhead (wing spar carry through) while on the TD models it's part of the engine mount. To make it work on the -10 you'd have to follow suit and move the mounts forward from their present location or significantly lengthen the fuse which really isn't a practical solution.
 
foka4 said:
Some thoughts from a recovering engineer:

I can't imagine a tailwheel subjecting the tail cone structure to greater stress than the flight loads on the tail in fast, uncoordinated flight.

Countless 172s, 150s, and other certified aluminum monocoque aircraft have been converted to taildraggers with nothing more than local reinforcement at the tailwheel mount.

M
Click to expand...


Exactly my thoughts. While the 172 and 150 descended from taildragger models, there are STC's for taildragger conversions of Cherokees and the various Grumman "cats"... These lines were designed from the outset as nosewheel aircraft (I think).
 
don't need a TD for a bush10

There is a 10 builder who reinforced his nose strut and put C-206 wheels on all 3 wheels and replaced the brakes with double puck brakes.

Check out where's he's flown too:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=51393&page=3

Probably could get by with just the mains and the brakes and you'd have a pretty capable bush plane.

The other rv TDer's don't really improve your off field performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top