Economic Musings and Dreams of Low and Slow RV Flight (RV-15?)

[txaviator]

Maybe I missed it but what is the proposed powerplant? [TBD. dr]

But Doug, it can't have an automotive engine, thus, it may be WAY over the estimated price point?

"I don’t fly in aircraft that have engines in them that they weren't designed for (i.e. car engines in RVs)
And I don't drive cars powered by aircraft engines, either. I admire those gearheads, but I'm not one. I know you aren't either. Please don't do it".

[ed. Yes, hence the words 'that they weren't designed for.' The Legal Eagle XL was designed for a VW. As is many in the Sonex lineup, the original VariEze, RV-5 and KK-1. <g> dr]​

 

[Canadian_JOY]

Hmmm, what an interesting set of points to ponder... I guess I'm lucky enough to have been able to see (but not yet personally experience) both sides of this coin. In our hangar we have an RV8A, a gaggle of Lazairs (including parts to build a 2-seater) and my Glasair Sportsman project. I've had to find space elsewhere for my flying Davis DA2A.

The Lazairs only fly on the most calm of days. They have no groundspeed to speak of (a decent headwind means you fly backwards). They require great fortitude to fly as the temperatures drop below about 50F. But my hangar-mate LOVES the sensation of being out there in the breeze, close enough to touch the faces of angels. Sunsets are spectacular with nothing between you and the orange fireball on the horizon.

As I contemplate selling my very economical-to-operate Davis the concept of doubling my fuel consumption gives me pause for thought. A CX-4 or Onex makes sense to me as a second airplane that can be used to get that frequently-needed flying fix, but I really would prefer a high-wing airplane for my low-and-slow flying. Having access to a bigger, multi-seat airplane for cross-country cruising or taking others up to enjoy the experience of flight just seems like a natural, sensible pairing.

If, after reading the above, you get the idea that our hangar is full, well, you'd be more than right. After living for years with airplanes wedged tightly against other airplanes I'm a big fan of having my "personal flyer" airplane be compact, or have folding wings or similar means by which it can share hangar space with our "family flyer".

Any form of folding or removeable wings needs to be easily accomplishd by one person, outside the hangar, in the wind. After all, what good is it to have folding wings in a single-seater if it takes two people to fold the wings so you can put the airplane in the hangar?

As for powerplants for the "personal flyer", well, I'd love to go electric, IF it didn't cost three times as much as a comparable internal combustion engine. My personal flying style requires 1 hour of flight time, plus safety reserves. I don't think we're there yet with electric technology.

 

[jcaplins]

But Doug, it can't have an automotive engine, thus, it may be WAY over the estimated price point?

"I don?t fly in aircraft that have engines in them that they weren't designed for (i.e. car engines in RVs)
And I don't drive cars powered by aircraft engines, either. I admire those gearheads, but I'm not one. I know you aren't either. Please don't do it".

[ed. Yes, hence the words 'that they weren't designed for.' The Legal Eagle XL was designed for a VW. As is many in the Sonex lineup, the original VariEze, RV-5 and KK-1. <g> dr]​

I see what you did there Doug. Crafty? or a grammer mistake in your favor? It may not be wise to aurgue with the great leader, but I like the taste of shoe; so here it goes.

I thought your orginal quote there was a personal limitation on using auto engines in aircraft, because the auto engine was not designed for an aircraft, not the other way around as you are now describing. (maybe we need a sentence diagram?)

It shouldn't make any difference, other than performance, what engine the airframe was designed for as long as the fan keeps turning. What the engine is designed for is a whole different story.

Does the reliability of a VW engine suddenly become an issue when it's put on an RV12 instead of a Sonex?

(not talking accessories here)


Kinda like saying:
Me: "I didn't spend 10 years in a POW camp so you could eat soybeans."
You: "you were never in a POW camp."
Me: "Right. Like I said "I didn't spend 10 years in a POW camp.""

 

[Kokemiller]

The RV-15 is one week old. How about an update.

What, if any, is the reaction from the mothership on this concept?

 

[DeltaRomeo]

82 ?virtual sales? as of today.

I keep a running total at the bottom of www.vansairforce.net. Related, I found three pictures of the plans-built ‘J-3 Kitten’ UL that semi-resemble what I was envisioning. What I was hoping for was something LSA (larger), all metal and assembled with pull rivets. Doors removable.

You can Goggle ‘J-3 Kitten’…..some pics:

One on snow skies​

One in the flare.​

Flyby.​

I have no idea what the factory thinks about any of this. My goal was only to see if there was sufficient interest given the increasing costs of …….well……everything. Enough to make an eyebrow or two move up a little.

The original document is at: www.vansairforce.net/RV-15.pdf if you havent' seen it.

br,
dr

 

[Phlyan Pan]

That looks very much like the N3 pup one of our club members built. Supposedly a joy to fly. Like a cub but even easier.

Also, regarding the number of 2 seater requests...there seems to be a bit of outrage that some of us would have that as a deal breaker. Perhaps the difference is those of us who don't yet have a flying airplane? If I already had something I could give rides in I would probably consider this little one seater a fine option. But for right now, I'm just a renter schmuck and sharing flight with someone who doesn't yet know is the greatest fun I can have in the air.

 

[nucleus]

The Engine is Key

I think that the key to a small project like this is the engine. You probably want something in the 50-60 HP range.

I have a hard time imagining relatively conservative Van's Aircraft putting a Rotax 582 (two stroke) or half a VW engine on the front of one of their planes. There are some pretty good looking half VW engines out there, but no small four strokes from a big company like Rotax. Hirth makes some two stroke engines in this HP range as well.

I think it is far more likely that Van's will build some high wing bush planes in the two to six seat range, using their beloved Lycomings. Another possibility would be a high wing bush plane using the firewall forward from the RV-12.

I would love to see a six cylinder high wing bush plane with a big long chorded wing, like 8 feet of chord.

Hans

 

[lockeed]

I think that the key to a small project like this is the engine. You probably want something in the 50-60 HP range.

I have a hard time imagining relatively conservative Van's Aircraft putting a Rotax 582 (two stroke) or half a VW engine on the front of one of their planes. There are some pretty good looking half VW engines out there, but no small four strokes from a big company like Rotax. Hirth makes some two stroke engines in this HP range as well.
Hans

You forgot the HKS. Good little engine. Perfect for the type of plane you're talking about. They even have a turbo version now with 80HP.

 

[Wally]

Lot's of food for thought in these posts. Some seem to have missed some of the important goals Doug set out. Under $20K and 500 hours to build. While there are several great existing designs mentioned, few meet both of these design goals.

As for two seats, we have 3 Kitfoxes, two Challengers, two Sonex's and several two seat trikes. I spend a lot of time at the airport building my RV-4, I can not think of a half dozen times that any of these have had a passenger except for training with an instructor. Nearly all flights are with an open seat. There is a "new" Rans ES7 (?) with the 40 hours flown off for sale for $59,900, less than the build cost.

Car gas is now at $4.00 a gallon in northern Illinois, look for avgas to be $7.00 plus by the time OSHKOSH rolls around.

My son and I have been looking seriously at the Legal Eagle. Not sure how long I'll be able to afford to fly the 4 when it is finished. Son has a freshly restored PA-22-20.

For the high performace Cub type, look at the OSHKOSH Ski Plane flyin photos from January 2012. Great photo of the Kodiak Cruiser owned by a friend of mine. Pacer with 30 inch stretch and an 0-540 to make the noise! Would cost $5,000 for fuel alone to take it to Alaska which was the builder's dream.

Perhaps if Van isn't interested in the "RV-15" someone will get wind of it and run with the production.

Can't commit to buy just yet but like the concept.

RV's forever!!

 

[NickAir]

HKS

You forgot the HKS. Good little engine. Perfect for the type of plane you're talking about. They even have a turbo version now with 80HP.

YES. This is the same engine I was thinking would be ideal for Doug's idea of a RV 15.

 

[lockeed]

I flown an HKS for aprox 20hrs in a Flightstar ultralight. It's solid, and very economical.

Just a suggestion, one of the hotest "light high wing" aircraft right now is the Skyraider. Check it out. Easy foldable wings. HKS ready.

Have a friend who just finished his - should be flying any day now. He has flown well over 1000 hrs in HKS powered Flightstars (Flight instruction) He put the the 80HP turbo HKS in his Skyraider. Anxious to see how it performs!

 

[NickAir]

HKS RPM

I flown an HKS for aprox 20hrs in a Flightstar ultralight. It's solid, and very economical.

Just a suggestion, one of the hotest "light high wing" aircraft right now is the Skyraider. Check it out. Easy foldable wings. HKS ready.

Have a friend who just finished his - should be flying any day now. He has flown well over 1000 hrs in HKS powered Flightstars (Flight instruction) He put the the 80HP turbo HKS in his Skyraider. Anxious to see how it performs!

The only thing that gives me concern on the HKS is the high RPM.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

The only thing that gives me concern on the HKS is the high RPM.

The HKS has less stroke than the Rotax 912 (60.0mm vs 61.0mm) so piston speed will be nearly identical to the reliable 912. The HKS should spin happily for a long time just as its Rotax cousin does.

 

[NickAir]

Short stroke

The HKS has less stroke than the Rotax 912 (60.0mm vs 61.0mm) so piston speed will be nearly identical to the reliable 912. The HKS should spin happily for a long time just as its Rotax cousin does.

Thanks Sam. This is good news as an option, and I appreciate the explanation above. It makes good sense now that I understand. I learn every day and love it.