VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #391  
Old 12-30-2018, 10:18 PM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is online now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,863
Default

Mel,

I don't follow your logic. The Bushby Mustang II has a tapered wing, and even the old non-prepunched kit wings were no worse to build than the old -4/-6 wings. And they've been available prepunched for quite a while. It's still a flat wrap wing. CNC makes many perceived problems disappear.

Charlie
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 12-30-2018, 10:19 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 14,766
Default Welcome to VAF

Pascal, welcome to VAF

Have you thought about a Rocket with the Evo wing?

http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/f1...fications.html
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 12-30-2018, 11:42 PM
Captain Bravo Captain Bravo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S View Post
Pascal, welcome to VAF

Have you thought about a Rocket with the Evo wing?

http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/f1...fications.html
Hi Mike, thanks for welcoming me here. The Rocket might be too much airplane for me.

In my quest for the next airplane, I am looking to solve four shortcomings of my current airplane which are limited range and speed, certified prices for everything (especially avionics), and a very small community of owners for an aircraft which is out of production but still supported by its manufacturer.

I have been reading the forums here for a while. Iím thinking an IO-320 or IO-360 with a fixed pitch propeller to keep the complexity, weight and price down. Apart from the occasional aileron roll and looping, I am not planning on any serious aerobatics. The mission calls for an aircraft that can reliably give me 500 nautical miles plus reserve, on a 20 knots headwind.

I donít know much about airplane building but I have designed, scratch built and flown several RC airplanes.

Letís say I want to build a wing that would be similar to the RV8ís wing, but two feet wider and tapered. Could I build the wing upside down on a flat surface? The resulting wing when turned upright would be horizontal and the taper would provide some dihydral on the underside?
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:03 AM
smokyray's Avatar
smokyray smokyray is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TX32
Posts: 1,819
Default Le' Apples and Le' Oranges...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bravo View Post
I have been reading the forums here for a while. I’m thinking an IO-320 or IO-360 with a fixed pitch propeller to keep the complexity, weight and price down. Apart from the occasional aileron roll and looping, I am not planning on any serious aerobatics. The mission calls for an aircraft that can reliably give me 500 nautical miles plus reserve, on a 20 knots headwind.
Pascal,
Not to further hijack the RV15 thread but your question is valid and response-worthy.
Based on your requirements, Range/Speed, the distaste of the Hershey Bar Wing and you don't have time to build, consider a Mustang II. The Mustang is faster at top end for equal HP but the RV will takeoff and land slower. Another Mustang II advantage is cost. They can be purchased flying for less $$$, especially compared to newer RV's. Additionally Mustang Aero makes kits and they aren't far from you...www.mustangaero.com

All that said I still prefer the RV for my own requirements which include operating from 400M' (1200') runways. For me, utility outweighs pure aesthetics every time. Any stock RV will also match your speed/range requirements flown properly or modified like mine with ER tanks. www.hotelwhiskeyaviation.com The RV's NACA23012/3 airfoil is shared by the Bonanza, Taylorcraft, King Air, Baron, T-34 and others. There is a reason that all-star list of aircraft is so successful. They all have awesome flight characteristics across the board, including aerobatics. You don't need to re-invent the wheel building a one-off tapered wing to have that...

Here is an AOPA comparison article between the RV7 and the Mustang 2.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...-vs-mustang-ii

Bonne Chance..
Smokey

PS: I have been blessed to fly everything from Commercial Jets to the F16 and Sport Aircraft for 40 years. What do I own? A highly modified RV...

Last edited by smokyray : 02-08-2019 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 03-01-2019, 02:31 PM
Lufthans's Avatar
Lufthans Lufthans is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Hilversum, The Netherlands
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Have you bothered to compare the Falco with an RV?

Granted, the Falco is beautiful but the RV is faster, slower, wider, has a greater useful load, simpler fuel system, is easier to build, etc. All those traits make the RV a much better looking airplane!
We have 5 Falco's at our local airstrip, and number 6 in the works (for decades).

Despite their tapered wings and retractable gear, our dirt simple RV-4 with 160 hp O-320 and fixed pitch (Catto) prop outruns and certainly outclimbs even a Falco with IO-360 and c/s prop.

Great looking and flying they might be, I wouldn't trade the -4 for one!

(A taper-wing F1 Rocket on the other hand... hmmmm)
__________________
Hans Teijgeler
Hilversum, The Netherlands


Preparing to build a Rocket
PH-BRR Bowers Fly Baby; Imported and upgraded
PH-MGA Jodel DR1050; Built, with Subaru EJ25
PH-SUM RV-4; Imported and upgraded. Sold my share :-(
PH-EIL RV-4; Imported and upgraded for friend. Sadly crashed
PH-ERD Robin DR300; Built with Subaru EZ30 for friend.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:19 PM
akschu's Avatar
akschu akschu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, Alaska
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Doug,

I agree with you Doug; however, I would like to see a 2+2 "bush" plane. Call it a 180 hp Cessna 170 with 8" wheels (Larger, if the pilot wants).

Van's could design it like the -7 & -8 where they can be built with any engine from 150 to 200 HP and with or without a CS prop.

I don't need to build another two seat RV, I have one that I love but we already use it like a Super Cub and would like room to take my wife and another couple out for dinner or myself, my wife, and son can load it up and go camping for a weekend.

The RV-9 with a strut plugged in at the tie-down ring fitting, longer wing tips, the same RV-9 taildragger firewall and engine mount with the wing mounted up top would be amazing.

The RV-7 & -9 tail cone, VS, and rudder could be reused along with the -9's HS but with five rib tips installed on each side, instead of just three would increase the strength.

The goal would be a plane that can comfortably land and take off in 1500', not 200' like many of the highly modified Super Cub's can, and can cruise at 150 to 160 MPH but still stall in the 40's like the -9 does.

Van's, if you read this and agree, send me the first kit and I will be more than happy to be your test builder! If that doesn't work, let me know you are designing "my plane" and I will stop building the WagAero 2+2.

As everyone knows, airplanes are full of compromises, and I would argue that this is even more true in the bushplane world. Having an airplane go fast and slow (which in my mind is in the 35kt range) is super hard to do. You need a very draggy airfoil to do it, and draggy airfoils kill speed, that said, using a draggy high lift airfoil and keeping the rest of it clean would surely work well.

Anyway, I think a bush plane coming from Vans would be cool, but I wouldn't do rag and tube because there are already a LOT of options in that field, and because Van's doesn't have as much experience here, and because, well, it wouldn't be a Vans.

This is one of the reasons the S-21 is so popular and interesting, it's an aluminum bush plane, with a single strut, and spring gear (translation, it's able to go fast too). Your typical cub is a seriously dirty airplane.

So if van's built a high wing, this is what I would like to see:

1. Combination of aluminum and steel construction like the S-21. Rollcage is important to a bush plane. Cessna's look like crushed beer cans when crashed.

2. Horner style wing tips build into the design, made from formed aluminum. That would make the effective wing length longer.

3. High lift wing like a Cessna 180 with a Sportsman cuff.

4. Single strut, for simplicity and speed.

5. Jackscrew style h-stab. The ability to trim the stab makes a huge difference in making the airplane safe with rear CG.

6. Spring gear. It's not as good as the other options for back country flying, but it makes sense to have a faster back country airplane from Vans. If you want to smash it on the ground, buy a cub.

7. Gear mounts very very very very strong. Like a p-ponk box kit.

8. Skylight and seaplane doors as options. Allow the builder to choose and have instructions for either way.

9. Float attach points, so make sure the fuse is strong enough to get roughed up on floats without wrinkling.

10. Use a strong tailwheel, Scott 3200.

11. HP wise, 180hp is plenty, so parallel valve lycoming.

12. Side by side seating. Lots of tandem options, so make this one different.

13. Bike mount option like the Murphy Radical.

14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.

15. Nice, long, extending fowler flaps, like Keller flaps. Stuff on the front of the wing like slats makes it fly slower, but very nose up, while stuff on the back of the wing like flaps also make it fly slower, but nose down.

16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.

17. Provide strong/nice seatbelt mounts with inertia reels and 4-pt harnesses.

You get the idea, something like a very light/strong/smaller Cessna 170 without the rear seat, much better flaps, stab trim, with seaplane doors and skylight with a 180HP engine.


Given that I can operate my (heavy) 170A with a stock engine in 1000ft with two people (300 ft solo), I suspect the above could work in 800ft at gross, or 200 ft solo, but still cruise at 120kt with a fixed pitch or 135kt with a constant speed.

Anyway, opinion is only worth $.02 Alaskan, so take it for what it's worth.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 03-07-2019, 01:38 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu View Post
As everyone knows, airplanes are full of compromises, and I would argue that this is even more true in the bushplane world. Having an airplane go fast and slow (which in my mind is in the 35kt range) is super hard to do. You need a very draggy airfoil to do it, and draggy airfoils kill speed, that said, using a draggy high lift airfoil and keeping the rest of it clean would surely work well.

Anyway, I think a bush plane coming from Vans would be cool, but I wouldn't do rag and tube because there are already a LOT of options in that field, and because Van's doesn't have as much experience here, and because, well, it wouldn't be a Vans.

This is one of the reasons the S-21 is so popular and interesting, it's an aluminum bush plane, with a single strut, and spring gear (translation, it's able to go fast too). Your typical cub is a seriously dirty airplane.

So if van's built a high wing, this is what I would like to see:

1. Combination of aluminum and steel construction like the S-21. Rollcage is important to a bush plane. Cessna's look like crushed beer cans when crashed.

2. Horner style wing tips build into the design, made from formed aluminum. That would make the effective wing length longer.

3. High lift wing like a Cessna 180 with a Sportsman cuff.

4. Single strut, for simplicity and speed.

5. Jackscrew style h-stab. The ability to trim the stab makes a huge difference in making the airplane safe with rear CG.

6. Spring gear. It's not as good as the other options for back country flying, but it makes sense to have a faster back country airplane from Vans. If you want to smash it on the ground, buy a cub.

7. Gear mounts very very very very strong. Like a p-ponk box kit.

8. Skylight and seaplane doors as options. Allow the builder to choose and have instructions for either way.

9. Float attach points, so make sure the fuse is strong enough to get roughed up on floats without wrinkling.

10. Use a strong tailwheel, Scott 3200.

11. HP wise, 180hp is plenty, so parallel valve lycoming.

12. Side by side seating. Lots of tandem options, so make this one different.

13. Bike mount option like the Murphy Radical.

14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.

15. Nice, long, extending fowler flaps, like Keller flaps. Stuff on the front of the wing like slats makes it fly slower, but very nose up, while stuff on the back of the wing like flaps also make it fly slower, but nose down.

16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.

17. Provide strong/nice seatbelt mounts with inertia reels and 4-pt harnesses.

You get the idea, something like a very light/strong/smaller Cessna 170 without the rear seat, much better flaps, stab trim, with seaplane doors and skylight with a 180HP engine.


Given that I can operate my (heavy) 170A with a stock engine in 1000ft with two people (300 ft solo), I suspect the above could work in 800ft at gross, or 200 ft solo, but still cruise at 120kt with a fixed pitch or 135kt with a constant speed.

Anyway, opinion is only worth $.02 Alaskan, so take it for what it's worth.
Wow... when I read that well-reasoned list of requirements I realized it was checking off all the boxes that I checked off when selecting our Glasair Sportsman. OK, all except the "all metal" part.

Glad to see I'm not the only one with this kind of shopping list!

For what it's worth, our 180HP Sportsman with Hartzell F7666A constant speed blades trues out pretty nicely at 134kts at my usual cruise power just below 75%. I love being able to fill the 50gal tanks, stick another 200lb person in the seat beside me and still have over 200lbs of cargo capacity, while enjoying a very comfortable, well-appointed cabin. After a year of flying this bird I can't see anything in that "wish list" that needs to be modified.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:41 PM
akschu's Avatar
akschu akschu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, Alaska
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY View Post
Wow... when I read that well-reasoned list of requirements I realized it was checking off all the boxes that I checked off when selecting our Glasair Sportsman. OK, all except the "all metal" part.

Glad to see I'm not the only one with this kind of shopping list!

For what it's worth, our 180HP Sportsman with Hartzell F7666A constant speed blades trues out pretty nicely at 134kts at my usual cruise power just below 75%. I love being able to fill the 50gal tanks, stick another 200lb person in the seat beside me and still have over 200lbs of cargo capacity, while enjoying a very comfortable, well-appointed cabin. After a year of flying this bird I can't see anything in that "wish list" that needs to be modified.
I agree, it's close, but many people really dislike working with glass airplanes, and the sportsman is still missing the trimmable stab, horner wing tips, has MUCH less wing area than a 170, no bike mount, the Keller flaps.

Think of a Cessna 170 with a stol kit, that's only 1200lbs, with 180hp and these flaps:

http://www.supercub.org/forum/attach...0&d=1305137109

I think that would fly very very slow.
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 03-08-2019, 07:21 AM
jnorris's Avatar
jnorris jnorris is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oshkosh
Posts: 171
Default

A couple of thoughts....

I agree with just about every point on your list, with the following comments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu View Post
14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.
At the speeds these airplanes operate at, there is no advantage to flush rivets other than looks (except maybe on the leading edge of the wing), and flush rivets are a lot more work (which equates to either time or money, depending on who does the work). I'd be perfectly happy with standard rivets rather than flush. Maybe a minor point, but saving time and/or money isn't a bad thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu View Post
16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.
All good, except maybe make it just a couple inches wider than a 170. In that size range, two inches of extra width would be hugely noticed without sacrificing anything notable in the speed department.

All in all, it would be a **** of an airplane! (Especially if you get the shape of the tail right. That's the one place where the Glastar loses me.)
__________________
Cheers!

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 03-08-2019, 09:46 AM
pjc's Avatar
pjc pjc is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 69
Default RV Jet

Well, sorry to spoil all the high wing bush plane fun, but I think Van should do a (simple!) jet. Think of it as the RV-3 of personal jets to improve upon the pioneering Sonex (the RV-1/prototype in this analogy). Besides, we need something to get Ironflightís head back in the game ... too many (snarky) non RV posts from him these days

A guy can dream canít he ?

Peter
__________________
RV6 N42HC flying
2019 Dues paid
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 01:47 PM.


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.