What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 with tailwheel?

thomasjorgensen said:
Good to know.
Although my conditions are mostly very dry loosely packed uneven dirt (southern europe). NC seems to be quite humid.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing any difference is in the composition of said dirt. We are dry most of the time but the clay in the soil means everything stays hard packed. I learned that part of our runway resulted from some soil mining for the adjacent highway many years ago. They stripped off the organic top soil and left red and grey clay with little organic content. It's taken many years to turn it from mainly dirt to mainly grass.

Here is one of my less than smooth landings in the Maule... a little give in the soil would have made this look better and given my wife less to laugh about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NULdxJMShtg
 
You are correct, my airstrip is naturally very well drained with rocky soil and also sits on the ridge of a small hill.

Good looking Maule and beautiful scenery!
 
Is anyone good at doing computer drawings. Would love to see an example of the -10 taildragger. I think it would be a great looking airplane. Reminds me of the classy looking Swift. At least that's how I imagine it looking.
 
Its been posted here by someone else before: (edit: posted by Jim P, hope its ok to repost it)

RV-10%20TW.jpg
 
Last edited:
Would somebody thinking of going the 'very' experimental route, go with more of a C-180/RV8 type gear, or go with the engine-mount rod gear like the -6/7.

With the larger airplane, I think builders would preffer the heavier gear of the C180. (or a 1 piece grove gear might make engineering gear towers less invasive to leg room?)
 
Looks good in the air, but I think it would look a little funny on the ground. Not to mention, you'd really have to climb out from the back seats:
RV-10%252520TW%255B1%255D.jpg
 
kinger said:
Still don't look as steep as a Cessna 195
Click to expand...

In 1947 Cessna introduced the 195 and Beechcraft introduced the Bonanza.

Both are classics, and I'd love to fly and land a 195 sometime... more than I'd want to fly a Bo', but the Bonanza is The Classic of perhaps all light aircraft.

I am still traumatized by a moment in 1970 at KAGC when a 195 with crosswind gear taxied out for a foggy takeoff... it was like watching a 3 legged dog try to mate with a mule.

I like quirky stuff like tailwheel Maules and 1960s vintage VW Buses. There's elegance in a certain mixed of quirk and function. But I haven't been able to conjure up an image of a TW RV10 that doesn't look somehow look like a Tri-Pacer (or if you are a Tri-Pacer fan, a Pacer).

However, whoever first puts a '10 on a tailwheel will be famous in a way. I thought retracts would be the biggest t 'out of the box' draw but who knows.

Personally, I'm in such awe of the '10s highly evolved design as-is, I'm proud to be one of the clones in its case. BTW, I find it particularly alluring on the ramp with the doors flying.
Arlington%20Ramp%20%28reduced%29.jpg


Bill Watson
 
As is!

No way, Jose.....Passengers very easily get in and out of my -10.

Sometimes you just have to leave well enough alone.

Best,
 
Perhaps a TW 4 Place RV should go into the "What should Van do next" thread.

The Idea of altering the existing RV-10 landing gear configuration is, eh... well?????
Having flown nearly a thousand hours in many different tail wheel aircraft and almost a couple of thousand in tricycle gear aircraft, I can say without a doubt
that if there has ever been a perfect tricycle gear 4 seater, the RV10 is it.
I can't imagine taking this nearly perfect airplane and setting it up on a conventional gear.
Visibility for taxiing is absolutely great and take off and landings are solid
and so easy that I let almost anyone land without breaking out in a sweat.
None of it would be the case in a TW 4 seater.
The beat up underside of most TW aircraft leads me to believe that a previous poster is very much right about gravel and dirt getting kicked up
by a TW configuration vs. a tricycle gear configuration.
There are Zero benefits to altering a RV-10.
However, build a new TW 4 seater and you might get my interest and don't give up, seems you have quite a lot of support from pilots who have not flown an RV-10.
 
RV Skunk Works..

Guys,
Without releasing information prematurely or naming the designer, let's just say that the idea of a high wing 4place RV bush plane is beyond the idea stage at VAF, as a side project. I have spoken with the Engineer and seen drawings and dimensions. My good friend and Missionary Pilot Steve Saint had inputs and the design looks promising. Seeing that RV10 kits are expensive and modifications and changes to an existing design risky, a new design was a good call.
Does it look like a C180? (best ever in my humble opinion) No. Totally new and very utilitarian. When I asked the Engineer if simply bolting a Harmon Rocket engine mount and stronger gear legs on a 10 with a stronger tail would work he grinned and said "why mess with success?" but theoretically it could work. The important question is "why?"

More to follow...)
V/R
Smokey
www.itecusa.org

PS: Trust me, the Bearhawk is a great alternative in that category.
 
Last edited:
smokyray said:
Guys,
Without releasing information prematurely or naming the designer, let's just say that the idea of a high wing 4place RV bush plane is beyond the idea stage at VAF, as a side project. I have spoken with the Engineer and seen drawings and dimensions. My good friend and Missionary Pilot Steve Saint had inputs and the design looks promising. Seeing that RV10 kits are expensive and modifications and changes to an existing design risky, a new design was a good call.
Does it look like a C180? (best ever in my humble opinion) No. Totally new and very utilitarian. When I asked the Engineer if simply bolting a Harmon Rocket engine mount and stronger gear legs on a 10 with a stronger tail would work he grinned and said "why mess with success?" but theoretically it could work. The important question is "why?"

More to follow...)
V/R
Smokey
www.itecusa.org

PS: Trust me, the Bearhawk is a great alternative in that category.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is an intriguing idea! If Van's made a 4 place high-wing conventional gear plane like you described, I might have to sell my -10 kit.

It would have to have the same (or better) interior space, speed, and efficiency, but if it did, I'd love to be able to run skis in the winter (Minnesota is the land of 10,000 winter runways!) and floats in the summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top