What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Rocket by Vans ?

rv72004

Well Known Member
I can only hope, but does anyone think that Vans will ever sell a "Rocket" kit? I would buy it right now if it became available. Do others feel the same?
 
Last edited:
I can only hope, but does anyone think that Vans will ever sell a "Rocket" kit? I would buy it right now if it became available. Do others feel the same?

I don't think that Van's will do this, even though I would buy it if they did. A Rocket is a specialized, relatively high performance aircraft that has a limited potential market.

My personal opinion is that they should revisit the RV-3-- upping the gross weight, fully quickbuild and <maybe> folding wings to fit alongside an RV-10 in the same hangar (family+fun). Such an aircraft would give you Rocket performance at an affordable price.

Sonex is introducing the Onex, which fits this spec quite nicely, however, it runs with a VW based engine.

The reason for such an aircraft is that in many parts of the country, a hangar is the biggest fixed cost in aircraft ownership. Basically, it would be everyones's second airplane.

In this economy, lower cost seem to be the right strategy.

Vern
 
Vern...

Just some quick thoughts...

I don't think that Van's will do this .... A Rocket is a specialized, relatively high performance aircraft that has a limited potential market.
My personal opinion is that they should revisit the RV-3-- upping the gross weight, fully quickbuild ... Such an aircraft would give you Rocket performance at an affordable price.
Is it your opinion of what Van's should do.. or your desire ;) The above seem a little contradictory.

Limited Potential Marker You quote this as a reason they won't do the Rocket, yet you think they could do a revamped RV-3. From completions:
Listed by Model
RV-3 269
RV-4 1332
RV-6/6A 2425
RV-7/7A 1019
RV-8/8A 1034
RV-9/9A 653
The RV-3 sector apparently has tiny market potential - when compared to the RV-4/6(A) - both designs having similar design / construction issues. This is despite it being, for a period, the only RV on sale - it has taken since 1973 to sell and build those 269 RV-3s.

If you now look at the RV-7(A)/8(A)/9(A) numbers, and of course, many more "in build", there might be an indication of the market size required to justify the QB / matched hole / CAD design?

Finally
<maybe> folding wings
do you know any / would you be happy in flying a fully aerobatic (+6g) type with folding wings?

As I say, just my thoughts from the market seemingly out there (or not).

Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-3B in s l o w build :eek:
RV-8tors
 
I do know first hand some people at Van's (I won't mention their names) are pretty envious of rockets and like them...but they know the rocket is a niche airplane and the sales numbers would not justify the engineering/production/liability expenses.
 
Vern...

Just some quick thoughts...


Is it your opinion of what Van's should do.. or your desire ;) The above seem a little contradictory.

Limited Potential Marker You quote this as a reason they won't do the Rocket, yet you think they could do a revamped RV-3. From completions:The RV-3 sector apparently has tiny market potential - when compared to the RV-4/6(A) - both designs having similar design / construction issues. This is despite it being, for a period, the only RV on sale - it has taken since 1973 to sell and build those 269 RV-3s.

If you now look at the RV-7(A)/8(A)/9(A) numbers, and of course, many more "in build", there might be an indication of the market size required to justify the QB / matched hole / CAD design?

Finally do you know any / would you be happy in flying a fully aerobatic (+6g) type with folding wings?

As I say, just my thoughts from the market seemingly out there (or not).

Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-3B in s l o w build :eek:
RV-8tors

Hi Andy, I got the same feedback from Van's... not a lot of RV-3's are sold, so it does not make sense for them to re-engineer it.

It's my desire that they do so. I think a match-hole or QB RV3+ would have the type of performance that would be similar to a Rocket, but a much lower cost. I think not a lot of RV-3's sell because it's more work to build one than an RV-7 or RV-8. If it was economical and quick to build it may be more attractive and sell a lot more. I know that if Van's sold one, I'd buy it for my next project.

V
 
I actually think there is a pretty good market out there for a Rocket but Van would be stealing sales from his other models. Just like the -8 took sales away from the -4, the Rocket would doom the -8 to the same fate. I think that's why Vans won't do it. Also, the success of the RV-10 helped to drive up the cost of the Lyc IO-540's also putting a damper on this market. In looking at the market numbers, there are more Rockets than RV-3 for sure. I think Mark sold over 230 F1 kits and there's got to be a hundred or so Harmons.

The Rocket, especially the F1 is an outstanding airframe in every way and the performance/cost is very competitive with the RVs. Faster, sexier, yet fuel efficient. It is the natural progression up the aviation evolutionary chain, not that I'm biased or anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....I think mark sold over 230 F1 kits and there's got to be a hundred or so Harmons...QUOTE said:
That's interesting data that supports my argument about a QB RV-3. The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.

So a marketing guy would say, the HR-II isn't selling much, why do another one? Well, Mark Frederick was a visionary who decided that there was a market for this type of aircraft if you make it easy to build. Too bad he had to suspend production due to the supply problems from the Czechs.

Nevertheless, the total Rocket market is still quite small compared to the Van's models.

I changed my mind, my next aircraft will be a turbine Legend :).
 
f1rocket said:
....I think mark sold over 230 F1 kits and there's got to be a hundred or so Harmons...

That's interesting data that supports my argument about a QB RV-3. The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.

230 F1 kits vs a hundred or so Harmons sounds like an apples to oranges comparison to me. That hundred or so (actually closer to 125) Harmons is FLYING. It would be hard to get a handle on how many HRII's have been started, as you can buy the plans, RV-4 kits, and piecemeal parts from John Harmon. The plans count is around 350 or so, but I'd suppose there are many of those that never went any further. How many flying F1's are there?
 
...supports my argument about a QB RV-3... The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.
That was why I compared the RV-3 with the RV-4/6(A) since they are similar build technology.

I am afraid where you comparison falls down is that the RV-4/6(A)/HR2/F-1 have 2 seats, the RV-3 one. That is where the lack of market is... hence why the single seat Sbach Xtreme single seat version will cost far more than the parallel development 2 seater - the market is considered far smaller to spread the development costs over. I wonder how many HR3s will be built when compared to HR2s/F-1s?

So, yes, Vans could design and market a QB / matched hole single seat "RV-3C". But would people be willing to pay RV-7/8+ (maybe RV-10?) type prices for the kit? When they can get the current one for 1/3 the price?

Re the Rocket - I, as many, feel I would love one. However, until I drive the RV-8 round at full throttle, burning XXX/hr, at 180K+, and still see a need to go faster (at more XXXX/hr!), I have to admit, I don't really need one :confused:

Andy
 
So, yes, Vans could design and market a QB / matched hole single seat "RV-3C". But would people be willing to pay RV-7/8+ (maybe RV-10?) type prices for the kit? When they can get the current one for 1/3 the price?


See, that's the real sticking point - what folks are willing to pay for what is admittedly not a good "only" airplane. Until you are able/willing to keep a "fleet" (defined as more than one airplane), it is hard to justify only owning a single-seater, unless you are truly a lone flyer, no wife, etc....

i was thinking about this the other day - folks tend to price an airplane in their heads by thinking "kit, engine, avionics, misc...) when in fact, if you are comparing kits, you should think "engine, avionics, misc...then kit". You see, the rest of the stuff is fairly "fixed" - ruling out the RV-10, the rest of the RV's are all going to use O-320's or 360's, which are ballpark the same in cost. Avionics - well, you can put more in a two-seater, but you can equip a single seater with quite a bit as well. Finishing costs (props, interior, paint, systems stuff)....that's all going to be about the same, roughly speaking. So the big variable is the price of the kit, and that is a small percentage of the overall airplane. The bottom line is that an RV-3 is not THAT much cheaper than a comparably equipped two-seater, so you really have to believe that the single-seater is "right" for the mission.

I would love nothing more than to see a huge resurgence in RV-3 kit sales, with or without re-engineering, but I understand Van's reluctance to do so - it's hard to base a business model on "if you provide it, the customers will come". I think that Mark would build more F-1 kits if he KNEW that they would sell - but a bad decision on this kind of thing could sink a company. So how do we assure Van that the market is there...that is the question!

Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rocket Request

My input/ request would be for a QB F1 clone(Harmon and Fredrick did it to VAN). However, I would love to see a long engine mount option to hang a 320 way up front with a large battery space on the front of the firewall to help the C ofG.

They might raise the VNE to about 300 kts. The leg , head and shoulder room is only surpassed by the control harmony. Even with the heavier tail feathers and skins, the over all weight would be lighter than a 540 F1. It would cruise almost as fast with some serious dive speed safety, but the fuel burn of a 320 in a 4.

My alternate request would be for a side by side 540 Rocket. primarily for the leg room, cargo space and panel not jammed in your face. It should also have a long motor mount option for a 320. Why not buy a six or build a 7? Just sit in or fly a Rocket one time and you will know why.

If VAN offered a QB F1 clone, I would buy one. But only with a laminated spar like the 4. Until then I hope to enjoy as many hours as I can in the F1 that I am lucky enough to own. It's the only air frame I can get in and out of without scraping my shin bones.

I really like the stubby straight wings. They fit through a garage door and have a much longer CofG envelope vs the tapered EVO wing.
 
Fund it first...........

So how do we assure Van that the market is there...that is the question!

Paul

Well, here is a way, but folks are not going to like it.

Vans does a study of the costs involved with re-engineering and production of the 3c.

Say for grins it is $50k----easy number to work with.

Now, Vans says OK, we will start the process of re-designing and reworking the tooling, after we receive 50 $1000.00 deposits, in a year. These deposits are non refundable for the year, or once the project is initiated.

The only way a deposit can be returned is is the goal of 50 deposits is not reached in a year, or Vans chooses to cancel the project.

At least if I was running the show, this is how I might structure it.

Debate window now open:eek:
 
I really like the stubby straight wings. They fit through a garage door and have a much longer CofG envelope vs the tapered EVO wing.

Do you have many hours in an EVO? I carry 250lb passengers with no problem and have made many long distance trips with a big guy in the back and luggage. I will admit that the short wing has a higher roll rate but it also makes my wife sick on almost every flight. With the EVO she can travel with me and we now take long cross country fights. After 450 hours in the EVO I would have a hard time going back to the straight wing. This is the fourth rocket that i have owned personally, the two were straight wing HRIIs, the third a straight wing F1. While they are a delight to fly, the stability and stable feeling of the EVO wing, in my opinion, is an advancement of type. (not to mention a 10 knot slower landing speed)
 
Last edited:
Short Wings

Hello Tom,

I have never knowingly made anybody sick in any aircraft, including my stubby square winged F1. In fact I usually get mile wide smiles and repeat ride requests. I have quite a waiting list.

My understanding is that in general, a higher wing loading results in a smoother ride. An F-18 at 200kts would ride like a soft mushy Lincoln.

Undoubtedly the taper wing has some advantages and some down sides as well. We might still have F1 QB kits available new today if the cost and complexity of the taper wing had not raised the cost of production.

I might have to offer a Canadian QB Kit, just to prove the point.

Cheers

Richard
 
side by side is kind of defeating the purpose of a rocket. Well for my purpose anyway, to each his own.
 
Last edited:
I can guarantee that if you were to give my wife a ride she would reward you with a full bag. She gets sick if she has to sit in the back seat of a car. That was what was so amazing about the EVO, is that wing, has allowed her to share my joy of flight. We have flown coast to coast and are planning this summers trip, destination unknown at this time.
If the economy could show a bit of stability I think Mark would be back in business with his new wing. It is going to be a carbon fire EVO with a bit smaller surface area (bad for my wife!). This will allow some higher speeds and a retract option is planned as well. Hopefully it will be a retrofit option for the straight wings.
One thing not mentioned previously is the advantage that the taper wing holds with altitude. Up to 8000 feet there is not much difference but above that the EVO really starts to pull away from the Sport wing. At altitudes above 12,000 the sport wing will burn up to 25% more fuel trying to keep up. We found this out coming home from Colorado a year ago.
 
...side by side is kind of defeating the purpose of a rocket. Well for my purpose anyway, to each his own.

I might have to disagree with ya there ;), though I do "jones" for a tandem and a right-hand stick occasionally. But for fun, we could settle the debate at a SARL race or at high noon at 5,000', somewhere over.... :D

...While they are a delight to fly, the stability and stable feeling of the EVO wing, in my opinion, is an advancement of type. (not to mention a 10 knot slower landing speed)

I also "jones" for an EVO retro for the S-6...just to see what it's like! However, I do like the roll rate and turn capability of the sport wing...better for fighting Rockets! :p

...We might still have F1 QB kits available new today if the cost and complexity of the taper wing had not raised the cost of production...

more like, if unscrupulous distant business partners hadn't hosed a great kit maker/provider...the business story is much more complex then the wings!

...One thing not mentioned previously is the advantage that the taper wing holds with altitude. Up to 8000 feet there is not much difference but above that the EVO really starts to pull away from the Sport wing. At altitudes above 12,000 the sport wing will burn up to 25% more fuel trying to keep up. We found this out coming home from Colorado a year ago.

And also at Airventure Cup...I caught Mark in the climb to 15.5K, then watched him walk away...then chased him all the way down. Wayne with his Sport wing was in the same boat with me...but down low, Wayne is faster than both Mark and I. All great airplanes!

What was this thread about...oh yeah...a Van's Rocket! Great comments all around, including those on the QB3. I'd add that for a V1 Rocket, Vne considerations, and the conjoined liability, would probably weigh heavily in such a decision. Rockets (and their pilots) just want to go fast...and that may be an area (speed-wise) they may just not want to go. Lots of engineering to conquer that beast, but as they say, speed costs...how fast do you want to go?!?!

Now a QB RV-3 with a 540...that would be...(I'm kiddin'! :rolleyes:)

Cheers,
Bob
 
Last edited:
I can't see it

I watched the history videos, talked to Van while receiving sheetmetal training at North Plains, Oregon in 1996 and monitored the product decisions he has made for the past 15 years. My personal opinions:

- There is no business motivation for a Van's Rocket.

- Van has emotional ties to the RV-3 and that is the only reason it is still available.

- If there is anything in the airplane kit world that has new market potential without impacting current product sales it is the RV-11 or something similar and that appears to have died on the vine.

Bob Axsom
 
This has been a great conversation, hypotheticals and all. Answer me this, if you could build a Rocket for the same price as a RV-7 or RV-8, which would you build? Many would opt for the Rocket (not all) for various reasons. Van already has sunk his start-up costs in the -8. He's not going to throw that away since he already has the market captured.

When I built my Rocket, Mark's kit was more than the quickbuild RV-8 but the engine was less. RocketBob asked me the question above when I was building a -7 and he was right. I sold the -7 and built the Rocket with no regrets. I'm sure Van's could put a Rocket quickbuild together for the same amount as a RV-8. They are basically the same size and shape and aluminum is aluminum. But there's no economic reason to do so not because there's no market, but because he already owns it.

I'm with Vern though, a Turbine Lengend would be awsome if I was a millionaire!
 
Last edited:
I might have to disagree with ya there ;), though I do "jones" for a tandem and a right-hand stick occasionally. But for fun, we could settle the debate at a SARL race or at high noon at 5,000', somewhere over.... :D

well that would be no fun for ya because you'd straining your eyes to my tail.:eek:
 
well that would be no fun for ya because you'd straining your eyes to my tail.:eek:

Did ya mean to see your tail? Well, maybe to put the pipper on it? :p

Or do ya mean in a race? Money, mouth...are they in the same place? ;)

Yes, its all in fun!

Concur with the thought on the 8 market. In some ways a Rocket might dilute 8 sales, but perhaps not. The 8 offers so much performance from a 4 banger, with such economy, its hard to beat in its segment...and its a little fighter! Total performance at a Van's cost, with Van's reliability...hard to improve on that. The Rocket takes it a step farther, but at a cost (which is worth it to some). My gut says perhaps delving into the faster speeds and higher costs (engine and operational) are things that make a V Rocket less attractive from a business standpoint. Still fun to dream though...and to hope for the next gen from Mark!!

Cheers,
Bob
 
lol, I thought I'd get a laugh out of that one.:)

yes, i think for most the 8 surfices quite well. And for the little extra out of the rocket it really may not be worth the added expense for most. Which i totally understand. For me however it is.;) Everything has it's purpose.
 
They Harley crowd has a nice saying..."if you have to explain it, they wouldn't understand." Fits nicely in terms of rocket ownership.
 
Better climb, more speed, more noise. Whats not to like? Maybe F-1 boss will chime in an let us no of any progress.
 
Not me!

Better climb, more speed, more noise. Whats not to like? Maybe F-1 boss will chime in an let us no of any progress.

Nah, I'm not gonna chime in...yet...

But, I will when the time is right.

BTW I sold ~175 kits, and ~90 are flying. THAT is an unheard of completion percentage in the kit plane industry. Heck, 2 of 'em I built myself!:D

Carry on!
Mark
 
The Harley crowd has a nice saying..."if you have to explain it, they wouldn't understand." Fits nicely in terms of rocket ownership.

yeahthat.gif
 
Someone mentioned that a side-by-side rocket would defeat the purpose of the Rocket. I thought the purpose was to climb and cruise like you're the Bandit and Smokey is on your tail. All-out speed, with a little increased roll-rate thrown in for kicks. Oh, and the growl of the 540 vs. a 4-banger.

I do understand all that. But given the comparison between the -4 and -6, and between the -8 and -7, I suspect a side-by-side Rocket wouldn't be much slower at all. If at all. And having your passenger beside you would help with any CG issues. Wouldn't it?
 
Mark, are you the person to whom an unnamed RV4 pilot/builder of Rocket with EVO wings talks about? I suspect that you are and I am trying to get him down to a SARL race in that area this year.

Guess I should state he is at Meadow Lake airport in Colorado.
 
Last edited:
I have always known what my next airplane would be, but since I bought the EVO Rocket, I have no idea what my next airplane would be... It really is at the limits of what can be done in a S/E airplane with a reasonable stall speed....

The only way I can see making it better is to but a turbo-normalizer on a -550 to increase the high altitude cruise speed and move the CG forward.....

Until that happens, it looks like I am stuck with Ole '84. There is really no where to go from here for my mission.....
 
Someone mentioned that a side-by-side rocket would defeat the purpose of the Rocket. I thought the purpose was to climb and cruise like you're the Bandit and Smokey is on your tail. All-out speed, with a little increased roll-rate thrown in for kicks. Oh, and the growl of the 540 vs. a 4-banger.

I do understand all that. But given the comparison between the -4 and -6, and between the -8 and -7, I suspect a side-by-side Rocket wouldn't be much slower at all. If at all. And having your passenger beside you would help with any CG issues. Wouldn't it?

Mark says the side by side shape is actually a better aerodynamic shape, though it still seems to be "frontal area challenged"...still trying to figure that one out (he's 'splained it, but I'm slow), and still trying to find more speed (to hunt Rockets with! ;)) But it is nice sitting next to the kiddos and the bride at times, and still going fast. Formation and dogfighting makes me long for a tandem...sometimes, and that is perhaps what the person that wrote the comment had in mind...and there's merit to it...fighter fantasies are perhaps more true to life in a tandem. However, here's a couple interesting tid-bits, just for fun:

Mark and I met in 4 races this year, and split them between Pesky and Rocket Six. Something over 750 miles of racing, and the difference in total elapsed time between us...9.11 seconds (to Mark's favor). Difference in the average time for the four races combined: Mark 243.93 mph, me 243.56 mph.

OK, some caveats. Mark babied his motor a little on a couple races, and had a gear leg fairing malfunction in one, so I think he is really a few mph faster, and will have room to gain speed. I think I can gain some too, with some glass work and cooling drag mods...we'll see.

Wayne Hadath and Greg Nelson are one level up, being consistent 250+ mph speedsters...they are in our gunsights (Mark's and mine!). Mark says Doug's Red Rocket (ole' 84) is in that class as well (Doug, can you come out and play? :)). Tom Martin is in a class by himself, consistenly in the 260+ mph range. Every time I ask him about something on his plane with the query "is that stock", his reply is, "Bob, nothing on this airplane is stock"! I'm a believer!

Overall, the S6 has done well against a few F1's, and has not lost to an HRII yet (are you reading SmokyRay? :D) I'd also love to see what Kahuna's S8 would do...I'll bet its fast!

So a side by side Rocket can play, but I don't know which (SbS or tandem) would hit the speed wall first, and certainly the wing is a big factor.

Back to the OPs thought line, still thinking the engineering effort (including Vne/flutter protection) and the competetive issues make a V-Rocket improbable from a biz standpoint. Mark is a great guy to carry that torch! And who knows what John Harmon will come up with down the road. Fun stuff!

So where the heck are those other 85 F1 kits? and how many have EVO wings? :D

Cheers,
Bob
 
Agreed the 8 does everything well, BUT I fly only for fun, and a Rocket would just add to the overall experience. I have spoken to many a military or professional pilots [which have flown both] who all say the Rocket is just nicer in all respects. I have yet to meet someone who has been negative towards the Rocket.
So for me its kinda the last step. Problem is Mark is just taking too long to get the ball rolling again !!!:rolleyes:

But one thing someone mentioned makes sense, " if Vans builds a Rocket it would take away from 8 sales "
And just this statement alone has convinced me Vans will never build a Rocket and has answered my initial question. So I patiently await Mr Fredricks................
 
Could be?

Mark, are you the person to whom an unnamed RV4 pilot/builder of Rocket with EVO wings talks about? I suspect that you are and I am trying to get him down to a SARL race in that area this year.

Guess I should state he is at Meadow Lake airport in Colorado.

Are you referring to Lee? I hear that particular plane is blazing fast - might give Ol' Tom a run for his money. The Pagosa Springs race is very good Evo territory - he should go to that one for a good start on his SARL experience.

Don't look for me to show up there until I get some kind of forced induction installed.

Carry on!
Mark
 
it only take money!

I have always known what my next airplane would be, but since I bought the EVO Rocket, I have no idea what my next airplane would be... It really is at the limits of what can be done in a S/E airplane with a reasonable stall speed....

The only way I can see making it better is to but a turbo-normalizer on a -550 to increase the high altitude cruise speed and move the CG forward.....

Until that happens, it looks like I am stuck with Ole '84. There is really no where to go from here for my mission.....

Now that there is the best elucidation of the reason for the development of the Evo. All that, and Tom gets to take his wife along FINALLY.

Bring 'er over & drop 'er off - I can arrange for the requested changes.:eek:

On second thought, let's use 158 for this project....it's 3/4 there already. I can arrange for the Big Red paint....

Since roll rate was discussed earlier in this thread, our Official Test Pilot found 158 has enough roll rate to put the Dynon to sleep. Dynon sez that is 150 deg/sec (http://wiki.dynonavionics.com/EFIS-D100_FAQ), so this particular ship is better than what we thought the Evo was capable of, thanks AGAIN to Tom Martins' tweaking skills.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Don't forget the Harmon Rocket!

But one thing someone mentioned makes sense, " if Vans builds a Rocket it would take away from 8 sales "
And just this statement alone has convinced me Vans will never build a Rocket and has answered my initial question. So I patiently await Mr Fredricks................

To the gentleman that wrote the above quote, don't forget that you can still build a new Harmon Rocket. The HR II offers loads of safe and proven performance. Check out his web site.

Factory Glassair test pilot Jack Kane told me, "If you want to fix airplanes, build a retractable. If you want to fly, build a fixed gear." I know why Tom and Mark like the taper wing and if Mark gets his new airfoil just right it will go faster. Not all of us want higher or faster. For me the sport wing is enough, and it's way beyond excellent. But it will fun to watch just how fast Tom can go if Mark ever ships him a new set of wings.
 
Why not an R-10?

What would it take to make a high speed Rocket 10?

Maybe put a set of Evo wings on a -10 fuselage and stuff a 400 HP IO-720 up front. Thicker skins might be required and why not convert it to a taildragger while you are at it.

Of course acro would be out but it might pick up a few knots over a Rocket and haul four people.
 
But one thing someone mentioned makes sense, " if Vans builds a Rocket it would take away from 8 sales "
And just this statement alone has convinced me Vans will never build a Rocket and has answered my initial question. So I patiently await Mr Fredricks................

To the gentleman that wrote the above quote, don't forget that you can still build a new Harmon Rocket. The HR II offers loads of safe and proven performance. Check out his web site.

Factory Glassair test pilot Jack Kane told me, "If you want to fix airplanes, build a retractable. If you want to fly, build a fixed gear." I know why Tom and Mark like the taper wing and if Mark gets his new airfoil just right it will go faster. Not all of us want higher or faster. For me the sport wing is enough, and it's way beyond excellent. But it will fun to watch just how fast Tom can go if Mark ever ships him a new set of wings.

Agreed. But the Harmon is not a quickbuild. I enjoy building , but there are limits. Also the F1 is a more complete package than the Harmon.

With the new Carbon & Glass wing and engineering that Mark is putting into it, it could well be the ultimate Rocket. Low landing speed , good cruise speed and total excitement.
We can only hope it will happen. As some of you know,Mark needs 20 people to get the first production run going. I think he may have that number.
If anyone really wants a ultimate Rocket, this a opportunity not to be missed.
I missed out on the EVO when mark was selling them and hopefully wont make the same mistake again.
 
Man! if only ...

If I were only 50 years younger I would be all over it. Mark is the best and only hope I suspect for such a high quality offering to come to pass. The absolute beauty of his designs are without equal. SARL performance by the "Team Rocket - Canada" alone validates the everyday usability and speed of his designs. Tom Martin and Wayne Hadath repeatedly fly hundreds of miles from their homes in Ontario to a race, fly high speeds in the race, then turn around and fly home again with no special preparation or maintenance.

Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 274.58
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2010 10/30/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 270.06
AirVenture Cup 2008 7/28/08 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 266.54
AirVenture Cup 2010 7/26/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 262.21
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 261.54
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 256.04
Pagosa Springs 100 2009 9/27/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 253.61
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2009 6/14/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 250.32
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 247.29
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 244.21
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 243.31
Top of the Chesapeake 7/11/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 224.61

Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 258.36
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2010 10/30/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 253.74
AirVenture Cup 2008 7/28/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 251.55
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 247.41
Rocket 100 2008 11/23/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 246.07
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 245.32
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 243.38
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 243.09
Pagosa Springs 100 2009 9/27/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 242.74
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2009 6/14/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 242.3
AirVenture Cup 2010 7/26/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 241.06
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 238.65
AirVenture Cup 2009 7/27/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 234.74

Bob Axsom
 
They are in mph

They are in mph. I will go back and get all the rocket speeds and put them here in kts:

EVO Rockets

Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 238.6
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2010 10/30/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 234.63
AirVenture Cup 2008 7/28/08 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 231.62
AirVenture Cup 2010 7/26/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 227.85
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 227.27
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 222.49
AirVenture Cup 2008 7/28/08 Sport FX EVO Rocket Siegel, Paul 222.01
Pagosa Springs 100 2009 9/27/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 220.53
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2009 6/14/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 217.52
Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 215.79
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 214.89
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 214.85
AirVenture Cup 2010 7/26/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 212.66
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 212.21
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 211.43
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 210.74
Taylor 150 4/11/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 204.57
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Holcomb, Gene 200.41
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Fisher, George 198.35
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2009 6/14/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Fisher, George 197.91
Taylor 100 2009 3/16/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 197.82
Grace Flight 2009 10/4/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Frederick, Mark 197.42
Top of the Chesapeake 7/11/10 Sport FX EVO Rocket Martin, Tom 195.18
AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/07 Sport FX EVO Rocket Siegel, Paul 193.74
AirVenture Cup 2009 7/27/09 Sport FX EVO Rocket Siegel, Paul 182.98

F1 Rockets

Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Nelson, Greg 225.85
Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 224.51
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2010 10/30/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 220.45
AirVenture Cup 2008 7/28/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 218.59
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Nelson, Greg 217.24
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Unlimited F1 Rocket Meyn, Wolfgang 216.86
Rocket 100 2009 11/22/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 215
Rocket 100 2008 11/23/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 213.83
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 213.17
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 211.49
Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 211.24
Pagosa Springs 100 2009 9/27/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 211.07
Tennessee Valley Air Race 2009 6/14/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 210.55
AirVenture Cup 2010 7/26/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 209.48
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 207.38
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Edmiston, Ray 204.01
AirVenture Cup 2009 7/27/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Hadath, Wayne 203.98
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Linebaugh, Jeff 203.9
Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/10 Sport FX F1 Rocket Fisher, George 202.94
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Rhodes, Howard 201.48
Memphis 100, 2007 10/28/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Butcher, Darren 200.09
Memphis 100 2008 10/19/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Holcomb, Gene 199.87
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Edmiston, Ray 199.84
AirVenture Cup 2009 7/27/09 Sport FX F1 Rocket Fredrick, Mark 199.58
Colorado 150, 2008 6/29/08 Sport FX F1 Rocket Edmiston, Ray 197.94
Rocket 100, 2007 11/18/07 Sport FX F1 Rocket Berry, Dean 193.15

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Back
Top