VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #451  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:11 AM
bkervaski's Avatar
bkervaski bkervaski is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market
Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.
__________________
#140376 RV-14A QB IO-390 Thunderbolt
Registered: N196
Progress: Flying!
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:30 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkervaski View Post
Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.
There has been a lot of debate regarding if twins are safer than singles when an engine fails on either.

The reason being is that with a single, you have to land and there is a lot of structure between you and the ground. With twins the pilot screws up and the plane rolls over and everyone dies.

Lots of debate, as I said.

Look into the Velocity V-twin. Nice plane but EXPENSIVE to build.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:51 AM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,977
Default

The video below is graphic and sobering. It shows a recent crash of a Beechcraft Duke. For me it called into question all the "conventional wisdom" about the safety of the second engine. Until the NTSB report is released we won't know probable cause. Whatever it was, two engines did not prove a safer solution.

https://www.instagram.com/skywonders...=1sh9bduuackcw
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:52 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 1,544
Default ...and

Not to mention twice the cost, twice the maintenance, and a higher insurance premium...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
EFII System 32 - Done
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...

Dues Paid 2018,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:59 AM
vlittle's Avatar
vlittle vlittle is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 2,070
Default

I'd like to weigh in. I already made my choice (S-21), but the tech has evolved sufficiently so that something like an electric RV-12 would appeal to a whole new generation of buyers. This will increase the market size by appealling to a younger demographic.

By way of evidence, a local float-plane airline (Harbour Air) is converting several DH2 Beavers to electric propulsion for their island-hopping flights, starting next year. This is one of the largest float operators in the world, so this is a serious statement (and one I predicted a few years ago).

I don't do a lot of long x-country flights anymore, but I do many short flights to see family or buy $100 burgers.

The capital cost of an electric RV-12 may not be less, but operating and maintenance costs would be much lower. A lot less stuff in the hangar would be required as well. Oh, there may also be an environmental benefit.

Someone please dust off this post in 5 years and see how close to the mark I was.
__________________
===========
V e r n. ====
=======
RV-9A complete
Harmon Rocket complete
S-21 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:27 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 4,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Yes, but "attention" doesn't always mean sales.
True, but a lack of attention always means a lack of sales. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkervaski View Post
Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.
A valid argument can be made that a single turbine is as safe as a twin recip, from the MTBF and mortality-per-failure standpoint. There is a lot of comfort to be had with the absence of Vse blueline. Turbines tend not to fail catastrophically, and twin pilots without good recurrent single-engine practice are a liability.

To each their own. I won't build or buy a twin - but I'm very interested in a single turboprop.
__________________
Greg Niehues - PPSEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2019 dues paid
N16GN flying 400 hrs and counting! Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.

Last edited by airguy : 05-16-2019 at 12:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:59 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 613
Default

Blue line, VMC, things that you learn when flying a twin comes to mind but so many possible causes. Nevertheless, if twins weren’t safer, then airlines would only fly with one engine. Twins are considered unsafe by pilots who can’t fly them. Twins are unsafe by pilots who refuse to be current. Many stats will show what happens when a pilots isn’t current in their training. Same can be said for the base to final spin in singles, exceeding VNE that causes the tail to depart in a single, and so on. Over the mountains with the family and in the clouds, a twin is my best friend. Single engine performance in my twin Comanche was Good.
No, the engine out does not take you to the crash site.

So, haters gonna hate, but a twin10 should be in my den. The ultimate building experience. Make some mods to fuse of the -10, fab a spar for to handle an assortment of engines, dump the toothpick gear and design a part 23 gear, and let the hair go with the hide.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY View Post
The video below is graphic and sobering. It shows a recent crash of a Beechcraft Duke. For me it called into question all the "conventional wisdom" about the safety of the second engine. Until the NTSB report is released we won't know probable cause. Whatever it was, two engines did not prove a safer solution.

https://www.instagram.com/skywonders...=1sh9bduuackcw
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
Comanche 260 - poor mans RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:24 PM
Scott Hersha Scott Hersha is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,054
Default

I think the next kit from Vans will be another of the same - an upgraded RV10, similar in technology to the RV14. Quicker, easier build, and importantly, an excellent Mosaic candidate (like the RV14) for someone setting up a build center.
__________________
SH
RV6/2001 built/sold 2005
RV8 Fastback/2008 built/sold 2015
RV4/bought 2016/sold/2017
RV8/2018 built/Flying
Cincinnati, OH/KHAO
JAN2019
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:29 PM
rcarsey rcarsey is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 96
Default

There's only a few options that I can see for a new model.
  1. Motorglider. Anyone not familiar with them, they are basically airplanes with a wing loading of less than .6 lbs/sqft. You need a glider rating -- and an add-on is a very short affair. And NO medical or basicmed is required. Van's himself owns two gliders and is an enthusiast. Supposedly the RV-11 is the motorglider.
  2. Turbine. Did someone say "Total Performance"? Similar to SubSonex. Lots of professional-track pilots would love to have turbine time... I wouldn't mind having a personal toy like that either...
  3. The RV-5 "frankenplane". This thing has been resurrected more times than an ObamaCare repeal bill.. Van's keeps dropping hints about it. And it seems when they re-designed the Van's website, they activated the URL: https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-5/ as a placeholder... similar to https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-15x/

Twin. I don't think the demand is there. Who wants double the maintenance? If you have the money to afford that.. you probably aren't going to want to be building anyway..
__________________
Rob Carsey, North Brunswick NJ
RV-12iS (N713)
Tail 95% done (VS fairing)
Wings 95% done (AOA)
Fuse 100% done
Finish 75% done (canopy, cowl & tail glass)
Avionics 0% done (waiting for GTN650 package offering)
Dues paid 2019
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:35 AM
n6233u n6233u is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Finger, NC
Posts: 33
Default

I would like to see a glider w/optional motor, it would be perfect for aging pilots who can only fly LSA or gliders.
__________________
-Jim Pantas
Building: RV-7a
Flying: Hatz CB-1
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.