What's new
Van's Air Force

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

F4 Rocket Lite

A

Aden Rich

Well Known Member
Gents,
I know this is a RV forum but there is some Rocket people here too. I wrote a thread a long time ago about a Rocket Lite (4 cyl). Mark Fredricks and TeamRocket is thinking about making a go for it. It would be powered by a IO-360 (180 hp). He is trying to get the costs down to help with the people that like the looks of the Rocket but not the expensive 6 cylinder prices. I have had several people express their interest and Mark needs to know this before spending a lot of time and capital in offering a different engine for his kits. If you have any interest in a Rocket lite let me or him know. He can be contacted at TeamRocket.
The airplane would have similar performance as a RV-8 but with 52 gallon gas tanks and a 2000lb gross weight. It will make a very nice airplane and have the looks of the Rocket without the price tag of one. Thanks, Aden Rich.
 
I do not understand what the advantage of this plane would be relative to an RV 4, or an RV 8 fastback :confused:

I seriously doubt that there is enough of a market to justify the costs of the project. I personally would not want to fly my F1 fuselage with only 180HP out front.
 
Last edited:
F4 Rocket

Milt,
There is several advantages over an RV-4. Fuel and room being the biggest. An RV-8 is a great airplane but it has it own set of issues. Mostly in the construction of the gear legs towers and access to it all. Several RV-8 builders have invented new curse words trying to get it all to come together. Again another gain would be more fuel and I personally like the looks of a Rocket against and RV-8. Not the an -8 looks bad, they are a good airplane. Plus you will not have the stall buffet issues that an -8 has. A 180hp Rocket would fly fine and would cost a lot less. I paid 41K to have my IO-540-C4B5 purchased, overhauled, and juiced to 325 hp. I don't care what anyone says 540's just cost more. The cat is out of the bad and RV-10's have driven up the price and cores are more expensive and harder to find. I don't want to sound negative but I have had so many people say that 540's are not as expensive as I think until I show them all the receipts for all of the work done on the engine. Granted you can always throttle back and go the same speed as a RV but upfront cost I've paid 20K more than the 180hp. Plus there is just more products for that engine than the the 540. There is plenums, exhausts systems, ignitions, and parts for that engine that there is not for the 540. I think in the long run that a 180hp would be less expensive and just as fun. I also think the handling wouldn't be as nose heavy as a Rocket is. My dad has has -3's,-4's, -6's and a Rocket and he liked the handling of the smaller engine -3 and -4's. He does like the room of the Rocket however which is why he sold his 4 and built one. It also offers a different look for RV-8 customers. There has been a lot of people that have expressed their interests. Thanks for the input. Aden Rich.
 
Excuse my ignorance, but why do people find the RV-8 stall buffeting to be an 'issue'. It seems like a darn good feature to me. :confused:
 
I can see this thread creating some "interesting" posts.

Just my quick $.02, I think it's the longer nose that helps to create the look. Not sure how far out front Mark would hang a 4-banger, but it might affect the looks some.
 
F4

He plans on using the same cowling and having the prop in the same place. So the engine will hang out a bit. The overall looks will be the same. I've had lengthy conversations with him about cutting some of the gear leg length off so it doesn't sit so high. But that is still out for now. This is not to bash on the RV-8 which is a good airplane. It is just another airplane for those that "prefer" the looks of a Rocket and can come in at a price similar to an RV-8. Thanks, Aden Rich.
 
Rocket gear "wobble"?

Just an observation. Every Rocket I saw turn off the paved taxiway on to the grass parking area at SNF looked like it was about to break both main gear legs. They appeared to wobble and shake rather violently immedaitely after turning off and continued to shake, too muck, in my lay opinion, until parking. My questions are is this wobble appearent in the cockpit, has anyone else observd this and have any of the gear broke under these conditions?
 
Gear legs for F4

They do shake I'll give you that. I haven't heard of one coming off. Some people have cut theirs down a bit to get rid of the bending and make them stiffer. The big reason for using steel is to reduce costs. The titanium gears legs are now about 3200.00 alone for a set. A steel gear can be made for the 4 cyl model since it doesn't have to support the weight and save big bucks. All the F4 is intended to do is give you Rocket looks on RV prices.
 
Last edited:
I'm Intersted

I actually spoke to Mark Fredrick last year about his offering a "Rocket Lite". I have a -4 and although I love it, it has serious limitations that a Rocket Lite would likely address very well.

Oh....and I don't really like the overall look of the -8, and definately don't apreciate the rudder pedal arrangement....just my preference.

Today I flew 900 miles round trip with a friend in the back. He was not very comfortable. I too feel somewhat "stuck" in the front seat and can't move around much at all. The other, more serious issue for me is the rear CG with anyone over 165 pounds or so. If they bring luggage, we are ouside the comfort range of the airplane and the tail will often stall before the wing on landing....not fun. The CG is technically well inside the envelope, but the plane is a different animal with an aft CG. Extra speed helps, but I fly out of a short field and even 5mph costs me 500 feet of runway.

All of the above is why I asked mark about the Lite, and planned an angle valve 4 cylinder Lyc (200 HP I think).

Now, my real wish is to get the Lite with the EVO wing! From what I've read about the EVO, I'm impressed. This would require a motor mount that is far enough forward to get a good CG range on the airplane. If Mark makes that configuration available, I'm a buyer. :cool:

Ron
RV-4 slider - 190 hours since August!
 
F4 with EVO wing.

We talked about that but I think the CG would be a big concern. Even moving the battery onto the firewall may not be enough. The angle valve 390 would add more weight but might not fit in the tight cowling. I guess if you like fiberglass work it would not be a problem. I'm glad to see a least one guy likes the idea. I hope that Mark will go through with it. I am delivering me gear legs to Harmon Lange so he can spec them out and make steel one for the F4. Hope all goes well and Mark can make an engine mount that works. Thanks, Aden Rich.
 
I like the idea in general, but plan it to accept up to the IO-390 210hp. RESTRICTING the RV-6 to 180HP is one of the main reasons VANS had to do the -7 instead of just making the -6 kit a prepunch. If this kit actually goes into production, you KNOW a lot of people will want to hang an angle valve 4 banger on the front.
 
Rocket Rocks!

I finished my RV4 in 97' after 8 years of building. I have since put 1500 incredible hours on it. I thought it couldn't be beat...until; last year I bought a friends 95' HR2 that needed just a little tweaking. I now fly it all the time. The look, feel, extra room, power, speed and capabilities far exceed both the RV4 and the RV8 (which I never liked). I fly the Rocket out of my 1800' rough grass strip just like my RV4 with no worries. I can throttle back to 8 gph and go 155 knots or go 200 knots true at 13 gph. It truly is the best of all worlds. Every RV driver I have taken up loves it.
With Tracy Crooks new 3 Rotor Mazda Wankel cranking out 325HP in his -8 for about $18K installed, there might be a low cost alternative to the IO-540. Running MoGas with a price tag out the door equal to an RV4 the Rocket could be the best bang for the buck.
As far as the Rocket lite goes, weight is everything. If you could build up an IO-360 paralel valve with a Monty Barrett balanced crank, LyCon cyllinders and pistons, you can have around 210HP at 130 lbs less weight than the IO-540. You could even bolt in an IO-390 or XP-400 or Good Lord forbid, a Continental IO-360,470 or 520. Add a composite prop and you might have a real winner...

RR
 
Last edited:
F4

The F4 Rocket should be the best bang for the buck with the sexy looks of the Rocket. With the lighter weight and short wings it should handle close to an RV-3. I look forward to building one someday. Thanks, Aden Rich
 
Mind reader... ?

I am a die hard RV4 guy also. I never liked the 8 ( no offense ) and I have looked real hard at turning my RV4 project into an HR. But the 540 and the heavy weight is just more than I want to deal with.

I have considered ordering John Harmon's plans and maybe borrowing a few ideas to make the RV4 roomier but I really feel I am going to stay with the 4 banger parallel valve engine and no more. I might even (gasp!) stay with a FP prop !

So, I absolutely love the idea. But it's probably not for me at this time. Since I have an RV4 to finish. Now, if we were talking about a scenario similar to a Harmon, where I could convert my existing kit, that would be VERY interesting. There are, after all, a lot of RV4 kits out there unfinished (4,000 or so) and you wouldn't be going head to head with the RV8. You could stay with the stock RV4 wing (just add fuel) and have fuselage and finish kit options to make the F4. The weight would be probably no more than a heavy RV4.

Anyway, just another angle on a very interesting idea.

Good luck

John
 
Great Idea!

Aden,
Put me down as another person that thinks this is a great idea! I love the
F-1, but at this point in my life, I couldn't possibly afford one. :( I also love the RV-8 and RV-4, so this would just add another plane to the list of great ones that I could build one day! I hope to see a kit offered! :D
 
Aden (and Mark),

Sounds cool, count me as interested also. I've already built, flown, and sold an RV-8 even though I never did think the aesthetics were especially attractive. And I like to have something a bit different also. I like small, responsive, and cost-effective machines which is why I'm just finishing an RV-3B. No doubt I'll get the itch to start on something else once the -3 is flying and debugged and the F4 could be just the ticket, especially if the cost is right.

To my eye the F1 Rocket is the sexiest experimental in the sky, and I like the simplicity of the engine mount / gear leg combo. Also, I think the aft angled gear legs are more forgiving that the -8 legs. Good to hear the 4-cylinder would be hung forward thereby keeping the F1 rocket proportions, they're beautiful. As others have indicated though, for marketability purposes make sure it can take an IO-390.

It shouldn't be much of a conversion for Mark, most of the parts should be common with the F1. Let us know when we can order... ;)
 
randylervold said:
Aden (and Mark),

<snip>I've already built, flown, and sold an RV-8 even though I never did think the aesthetics were especially attractive.<snip>
Click to expand...

WOW!, I can't believe so many people think the -8 is ugly. :confused: I like it and the -4 but I think the -8 is the better looking of the two. :eek: I like the straight gear legs. I do hope this kit becomes available because the F-1 IS extremely sexy!! :D
 
To all F4 addicts

Gents,
I delivered an engine mount to a potential fabricator of the gear legs. Going to see if we can make them out of steel and provide all of the strength requirements while keeping the cost down on the kits. Mark has talked of offering a parts kit to also keep the cost down and let us do the building of the airplane. Would take a little longer but you could build to suit. I think that it would be assemble with all of the F1 parts except the engine mount and gear legs. We have talked of the possible engines for the F4 and the cowling is designed around the narrower engine. You would have to shoe horn a angle valve engine in there but it can be done. There are people who are offering round air inlets on the front cowling with a plenum chamber (Massey Air). This might work for the IO-390 which would be a great engine for this plane. Although a juiced up 180hp putting out 210hp with a counter-weighted crankshaft would also propel the plane along fine. Mark is pretty set on trying to keep the gross the same as the regular F1 as long a CG is OK. 52 gallons of gas, width of the Rocket, the looks, and a useful load in the 850lb range is hard to beat! I look forward to this airplane more and more. The engine mount is the next thing to tackle so we'll try and keep you posted on the next phase of this project for those who are thinking they want something a little different. Anyone with questions are more than welcome to call me 1-360-636-6074 PST.
 
Which wing?

Aden, would it be the same as the F1: either with the Evo or standard wing? If the Evo kit with emp is $49k how much would an F4 kit be? Steel gear legs would save a few $ but the rest of the kit would be the same, true? Seems like the Evo wing would be the better choice for a 4-cylinder application.
 
Put me down for one...

I've been looking at building the F1 for a while but just can't justify the $ at the moement. However I'd be very interested in an F4 slow-build with Evo wing and O390 or 400!! :D :D
 
Evo vs Hershey bar

It's great to see some excitement on this! I wanted to relate that a year or so ago, when I spoke to Mark about the Lite version of the F1, he felt it could work. But, he felt the Evo wing was too suseptable to an aft CG if it didn't have the weight (and horsepower) on the nose. I don't recall all the details of what he said, but I for one still would want the EVO....and somehow work out the weight/CG issues.

There are some problems in that the Evo is quick-built, and I believe that is necessary....not sure really. Again, I am far more interested personally if we can get it EVO'd. Stalls at 50 mph, top speed is around 240 mph. Those are Dave Anders' type of numbers (but probably only 15-1800 ft per minute climb). For me, if I spend 2 minutes longer climbing and 2 hours screaming toward my destination, then fly 65-70 MPH on final....that would be the ultimate machine.

One solution I believe may solve the HP and perhaps the CG issues is a 460 pound Mistral rotary G-230-TS. Fuel burn would be close in cost (auto fuel), up to 210 HP continuous, the ability to go very high and get more power at altitude than most other engines available. Fuel burn may even be less overall in cost, especially at 15000 feet. Unproven as yet, but exciting.... :cool:

Ron
RV-4
 
Ok... How about a side/side F4

mark manda said:
Wait until you can't see anything(over the nose) and wonder what you traded sideways for.
Click to expand...

That would take care of the CG problem and keep the wifey happy!
 
NO NO NO!!!

AWWW MAN!!!!
Now you went and ruined a perfectly good airplane! (side by side :( )
Just kidding (sort of) :D

As I understand it, the F4 would be exactly or allmost exactly the same kit as the F1. But with a smaller engine... A side by side would have to be a clean sheet design. Right?? :confused:
 
Question for Mark.

mark manda said:
Wait until you can't see anything(over the nose) and wonder what you traded sideways for.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you elaborate for this dummy please!?!? :confused: :rolleyes: :eek:
 
mark manda said:
Wait until you can't see anything(over the nose) and wonder what you traded sideways for.
Click to expand...
As a person who has built and flown both a F1 and many RVs, I can say with exacting certainty that the visibility is nearly the same, and it most definitely is not a sideways trade. I don't know what your experience with Rockets is, but I've not met one person who would go back to an RV after having one. In fact, most Rocket builders/fliers are FORMER RV owners.

As far as the F4 goes, I would not hold out any hope that it can be made to work with the EVO wing. I think there are two primary reasons why it won't work. One, the EVO is very heavy and I can't see how you can get the CG in range without changing the airframe significantly, which I know Mark doesn't want to do. Two, the EVO is a complicated wing to build and would probably need to come from the factory pre-built as it does today. That leads to cost. The EVO, having to be built by the factory, will probably price most folks out of the market the way the F1 has, thus defeating the purpose of producing the F4.

I think the concept is great and hope Mark is successful in putting something together. He's a great guy to work with, very supportive.
 
Hi Fellas:

To reduce some of the speculation,, yes, I'm working on a 4 cyl version, to be called the F4. The base version will be delivered with fewer 'options' in comparison to the F1 -- all this TBD.

The F4 will only be sold as the Sport wing -- not the Evo.

The Evo wing is shifted fwd on the fuse a bit to reduce the heavy elevator feel, and this shift has allowed us to install an even BIGGER engine for those who have a bad case of horsepower desire: TCM IO550 (310HP). It still won't be enough...but this fwd shift of the wing eliminates the Evo wing as an F4 option.

One of our customers came up with an elev bellcrank mod which also reduced the heavy elevator feeling, and this has been added to all new production kits, both Sport wing and Evo.

The F4 will be sold as a parts-only kit with steel gear legs, with options available for pre-built sub-assemblies and Ti legs, and even a full QB kit (this will cost the same as an F1 Sport wing kit). The engine mount will be built to keep the prop disc in the same location as the F1 has it, so it will look very similiar. Gross weight will remain the same, so the usable load could go up by 125LBS or so, but where would you put this much weight?

Getting this project thru R&D should be fairly easy -- I'm thinking we will need to develop only the mount and fwd battery box, and the steel legs, and we're on our way. Then again, past experience would suggest that this attitude is extremely optimistic.

So, how much will it cost? Due to the reduced assembly processes involved, it should be very reasonable. I know what I WANT it to cost, but we still have to get all the beans to the beancounters, and then the final costs will then be available. I hope to have all the data crunched in time for the Southwest Regional Fly-in at Hondo TX on 1 June.

I hope this answers some of your questions -- if you have further questions or suggestions, email me off-list please. f1boss (at) gmail.com

Carry on!
Mark
 
Last edited:
No Evo thanks...

I guess I'm the only one. But I would prefer the RV wing to the EVO. I'm not trying to wring the last few mph out of the plane and (from what I've read) the RV wing is much more pitch stable. I'd be inclined to stick with it.

Mark should really sit down and run the performance numbers on the airframe with various powerplants. The performance should equal or exceed the RV8. I think if it doesn't, the potential market would evaporate quickly.

John
 
I based my statement on the remarks from a ret. Lt. col. who owned a six, built a 4 and built and is flying a HR-2.

sideways-- same powerplant as a RV.

I have only ridden in this HR; maybe an F1 is narrower and shorter or I mean the F4.

5207xr2.jpg
 
Last edited:
mmmmmmmmmmm.....!

I cannot wait to see this thing (F4) If this turns out as good as I think it will.. we will certainly have a bad to the bone bird...
Best
Brian
ps./.... veeerrrryyyy interested
 
mark manda said:
I based my statement on the remarks from a ret. Lt. col. who owned a six, built a 4 and built and is flying a HR-2.

sideways-- same powerplant as a RV.

I have only ridden in this HR; maybe an F1 is narrower and shorter or I mean the F4.
Click to expand...
Oh, I got it. I misunderstood the sideways comment. My bad.

I don't know how the harmon is to see over the nose. The F1 isn't that bad with the new tailwheels.
 
Pre-punched? Matched-hole?

I assume that a parts only kit will be pre-punched or matched hole, or whatever vans termanology is for the ones you don't have to drill any holes in.....?
 
RVAddict said:
I assume that a parts only kit will be pre-punched or matched hole, or whatever vans termanology is for the ones you don't have to drill any holes in.....?
Click to expand...

No -- our vendor company doesn't have the computer controlled forming equipment required to make the pre-punched formed skins. That being said, we are just about finished with a fuselage kit here (boning up the parts kit assembly manual) and we have less than 100 hrs in it.

I've built a few 6s, and a few 8s, and this one is still pretty easy to do: side skins are punched, so there is your bulkhead alignment, and the fwd floor is also punched, so there is the fwd floor & cockpit section alignment for you. The bulkheads and ribs are not punched, so alignment is actually less of a problem (as I recall with the 8s).

I didn't mention in my earlier post -- we will be setting the ship up for the 180HP style IO-360 engines. If market demand allows for it, we will produce a cowl to fit the 200HP IO360 style engines too.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Mark,
Thanks for posting the info you have given us!

I really like the F1 and the idea of the F4 seems doable for me one day in the future. (I don't even have my PPL yet... :eek: ) I was asking because Obviously I have never built an airplane before and that was one thing I liked about the RV-8 vs the RV-4.(it's prepunched, or if you have the $, the QB option) I'm a mechanic and feel that I have the ability to build one, but don't have the knowledge or experience, plus I'm a bit of a pessimist and worry about screwing something (or a lot of somethings) up. After all, it's going to be my butt in the seat. :eek:

It's nice to know you are planning to offer it as a QB or individual kits (wings, fuse, ect.) as QB if I understood you correctly.

I wish you the best of luck with this and I sincerly hope to see it come to market!!

Respectfully,
Josh
 
Building

Josh:

If you're a mechanic, you're way ahead of a lot of people who start and finish homebuilt airplanes. If you're an auto mechanic; just remember things are a bit more delicate on a plane and we deal in inch pounds not foot pounds.
Red torque, not Blue torque. (You just torque intil you're red in the face, not blue in the face.)

Seriously, you will goof up on occasion. Correct the mistake and if it's serious enough, order a new piece.

It's an incredible accomplishment when you finish!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
It is just my opinion that Vans has it pretty well sown up with regards to 'up to 200hp' planes.

I dont think that F1 will sell enough to make it viable or competitive with the Vans products, but I could be wrong. Just get a Showplane rear deck on a 8 and you got a kinda F1 lookalike.
I think Vans planes are popular because of customer support ,builder fraternity and cheap prices.

That being said, the F1 Evo is the most beautiful kit I have seen . It offers everything. Low stall speed , fast cruise, aerobatic, looks, and a presence second to none. A RV really hasnt much on it.

If i had a vote in all of this, I would vote for a cheaper EVO ,which is also totally prepunched. I would also want a complete firewall forward kit available.A bigger fraternity of builders would be a big plus too, but that will take time.
Now I dont mean as cheap as a RV as that is not reasonable. A lot more goes into a EVO than a RV. Just a bit more in line would possibly attract a lot more builders.

If I decide on another project, it will be a EVO . And it wont be with a measly 200hp !!
 
F4: EVO vs. Sport Wing

Guys,

The F4 news is VERY exciting indeed!

Just a word on the "Sport" vs. "EVO" wings. I have a "Sport" winged F1 and fly with an F1 EVO in formation frequently. Here is what we have seen as the differences:

The EVO is faster by a few knots (he has at least 30 more HP too...). It also lands a few knots slower.

The "Sport" has a much better roll rate! The Sport is light in roll and moderate in pitch (without the bellcrank mod.) The EVO is heavy in roll and light in pitch.

The EVO is 75 pounds heavier with much less avionics (but has a gross weight increase to make up for the useful load loss).

Personally, I do most of my flying locally, formation and acro. I thoroughly enjoy the flying qualities of the "Sport" wing and wouldn't trade it for an EVO! When I do go cross country, I spend (at most) a couple of extra minutes per leg--smiling about my better roll rate the whole time! If you use your F1 as a "2 place Bonanza" cross country machine, then EVO it is. But if you enjoy sport flying...the Sport wing is the winner, especially if you are trimming 50 horsepower! (JMHO....)

The F4 promises to be an awesome machine...and will blast the RV-8 out of the sky! (Performance, interior room, handling...and of course looks!) The F1 chops through turbulence much better than an RV-8. Mark's personal customer support is without equal. Wow...this is exciting- very cool!

Jeff
 
mannanj said:
Josh:

If you're a mechanic, you're way ahead of a lot of people who start and finish homebuilt airplanes. If you're an auto mechanic; just remember things are a bit more delicate on a plane and we deal in inch pounds not foot pounds.
Red torque, not Blue torque. (You just torque intil you're red in the face, not blue in the face.)

Seriously, you will goof up on occasion. Correct the mistake and if it's serious enough, order a new piece.

It's an incredible accomplishment when you finish!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Mannan,
Thanks for the advice! I'm a maintenance technician in a factory. It's not a union job so it's multi-craft. Meaning we do everything; mechanical, electrical, pnumatic, ect. Plus, I've always bent my own wrenches on my vehicles and home projects. I'm reasonably confident that I have the skills, it's mostly the knowledge and experience that worry me. Hopefully as I pogress through my PPL training and hanging out with the guys there, and here, I will learn more about what needs to be done and what should not be done. ( I love to know what makes things tick) I've always wanted to be involved with GA aircraft but just now got in a position to start. I didn't grow up in it so I'm starting from scratch... It's gonna be great! :D
 
If this was offered as a quick build kit like the RV-8 and closer in price I wouldn't give it a second thought. I would also consider paying more for an EVO wing. But Without quickbuild or even prepunch I'm going to stick with the RV-8 as my fist kit.

My second kit well then I might as well go for all the ponies up front.

So in short. In order for this to fly it needs to be competitive with the RV-8 in terms of builder ease and price. And of course a bit better preformance.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the F1-EVO has some pitch handling/feel issues. Were those resolved?
 
I have 120 hours on my EVO F1 and I could not be happier with the wing. The lower stall rate is welcome and the stability in the air makes it a much improved cross country aircraft. Although the roll rate is not as fast as the sport wing it is more than adequate for type of aerobatics that most RV owners are used to. The pitch issues that I hear about are not really problems but more a different feel. I can carry the same load as I did with my standard, or sport, wing. The difference between the two wings is that there is a greater stick pressure difference loaded vs solo with the EVO than with the sport.
Here is the clincher for me. I have been flying the standard airfoil for twelve years, RVs, and numerous rockets. My wife flew more with me last year in the EVO than she had in all of my previous twenty five years of flight. She likes it so much that we are planning a 1700nm cross country flight to the west coast this summer. My airplane is now our airplane and that makes expenses much easier to justify.
Having said all of that the F4 with the sport wing has the potential to give ther rocket feel and looks to many more pilots and I feel it will be a big winner.


More pictures of F1s, and a few more of mine, can be seen at http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/gall/gallery.html
 
Last edited:
Now I see why somebody would sell their RV-4 and build one. Good thing there will be one 20 ft from my RV-10 when I get it done.
 
Question for Tom Martin

Tom,
I like your paint scheme! It's very similar to the one with "84" on it. I thought I would like having that scheme myself if I ever get to build one, but didn't want to copy someone else's idea. But it seems there are at least two with your scheme, do you know of any more???

Josh
 
Last edited:
Josh
There are a few F1s with this style of paint and more to come. Actually it is not paint but different shades of primer. For me it works well as I like to modify my aircraft and this allows me to do so with out the worry about painted surfaces. Also it is really cheap but provides protection for the aluminium.

Tom Martin
 
Tom Martin said:
Josh
<snip>There are a few F1s with this style of paint and more to come.<snip>

Tom Martin
Click to expand...

Tom,
Does that mean you've got something like a frat brotherhood or what?

I noticed it was a flat or semi golss finish but didn't know it was primer. That makes it really easy to fix if you scratch it or something. Too cool!!! :cool: :cool:
 
Best of all worlds

The best of all worlds - an F4 - with looks, handling and economy.

I find myself strangely following Randy's path in the world of RV's, having owned and sold an excellent RV8. In the search for the perfect sports plane I am now building a single seat Twister which has great handling and flyability.

m_e7552f462e0e51751edf5fa92adb4a12.jpg
m_59f294ae5b3bf7097f587081656b1362.jpg


There is no doubt that the F1 Evo is in a different league to the 8 when it comes to looks, and if a new F4 can retain the style with performance and above all improve on the 8's handling, then it would be a winner.

I really hope that this project comes to fruition.

Nic

randylervold said:
Aden (and Mark),

Sounds cool, count me as interested also. I've already built, flown, and sold an RV-8 even though I never did think the aesthetics were especially attractive. And I like to have something a bit different also. I like small, responsive, and cost-effective machines which is why I'm just finishing an RV-3B. No doubt I'll get the itch to start on something else once the -3 is flying and debugged and the F4 could be just the ticket, especially if the cost is right.

To my eye the F1 Rocket is the sexiest experimental in the sky, and I like the simplicity of the engine mount / gear leg combo. Also, I think the aft angled gear legs are more forgiving that the -8 legs. Good to hear the 4-cylinder would be hung forward thereby keeping the F1 rocket proportions, they're beautiful. As others have indicated though, for marketability purposes make sure it can take an IO-390.

It shouldn't be much of a conversion for Mark, most of the parts should be common with the F1. Let us know when we can order... ;)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I really think that the IO-390 and XP-400 are going to need to be included for development. I'm really excited about this too. About the differences:

If someone got into building an F4 and decided during construction to switch to an F1, what would be required besides the obvious engine mount, cowl and gear legs? Say this builder got a great deal on an IO-540.

This may be my second kit after I finish my -7. I was planning on a fire-breathing -3 or -4, but the F4 seems awesome.

Now comes the question I've been waiting to ask for awhile in this thread... What are the F2 and F3? :D A single seat and a Side-by-Side right?
 
F2

The F2 was a side by side Rocket. It looked like a RV-6 on roids. The design was sold to HPA which is now working on the M1 Speedcruiser. A RV-6 with the EVO wing and 260hp. They said the kit would be offered with different engines. I have heard nothing if they have actually produced any kits. Mark would know more than me on that one since I think they build the wings for the EVO Rocket. The F4 was for 4 cylinder, although Rocket Lite is kinda cool sounding. The F3 can be anything you want it to be. Aden.
 
it's the smoothness

have I missed it? the word vibration on this thread? you guys with rockets, isn't that the number two reason for the Rocket? I know that's what John Harmon thinks, six cylinder smooth as silk, throttle back and not be tired when you get there.

reason one-- vertical take offs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top