What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Speed Slope or Standard…..That is the question….

Speed Slope or Regular?

  • Speed Slope

    Votes: 41 27.7%

  • Regular

    Votes: 98 66.2%

  • I like Cake…..

    Votes: 24 16.2%
  • Total voters
    148
Ironflight

Ironflight

VAF Moderator / Line Boy
Mentor
So here’s a question that Probably belongs in the “Never Ending Debates” forum, but since I am trying to establish a presence here in the “Rocket Ranch”, I’ll throw it out there….. Standard Windshield or Speed Slope? This also gives me a chance to try picture insertions…. And learn how to use polls….

Bottom line is that this is really esthetics - there is no established speed difference, and installation effort seems to be about the same either way. Having flown a couple hundred hours in my little Subsonex which has a REALLY ”speed-slopey” windshield, I can say that the subjectively, the visibility from the pilot seat isn’t quite as good when looking through that long narrow windshield….but there is also something unique in the look. However, I have always wondered if (visually), the essentially straight lines of the Speed Slope go with the essentially curved nature of the canopy. It’s really an art question. But…..let’s see how close the poll coms to 50/50…..


For those not familiar with the two options….here is the standard windshield:

98D18FCD-C847-462F-AF00-BA982D4B1EC2.jpeg

And here is the Speed Slope!
80B344A1-3FC0-41AD-813A-E60A0B2C3559.jpeg

(Pictures taken from the web……)
 
Isn’t there another option? A tip-over?
That option goes beyond aesthetics in that the view is unobstructed by a canopy bow. Desirable if flying formation.
I prefer the tip-up on a side by side for the same reason.
 
Paul,
I agree with the subjective nature of this question, and I vote the regular windscreen. But I do like cake...
 
Obviously a matter of personal choice but I think the curved windshield looks better, I guess it depends on the specific aircraft as on my Champ project I am installing the Citabria straighter windshield versus the original bubble windshield as I think that looks better.:rolleyes:
Figs
 
It's hard to decide an aesthetic choice for somebody else, but I am wondering if the longer windshield has an impact on the shape/size/usability of any forward-fuselage access panels or similar openings.
 
I have the typical 1piece bubble and will at some point convert to a flat wrap and separate bubble. In my case, the flat wrap is mainly so I can go thicker and shallower angle for birdstrike protection. I also much prefer the looks, which is also a major consideration for me.

Also, straying from the pack, I am keeping the side hinge on the canopy. It will be the same configuration as my L-39
 
I think the speed slope looks much better, but it seems like visibility on the rounded one would be better. If I’m concerned about visibility, I agree with Dan, the Showplanes type tip over bubble would not only offer better visibility than the other two, but also look better.
 
Esthetically I like the regular windshield But I wonder if the speed slope windshield would give better bird strike protection?? Cake is good (y)
 
I really like the speed slope. I’ve never been a fan of the standard—too blunt IMO. I also like cake but there was no check all that apply option on the poll.
 
I like the look of the standard windscreen better. Of course, I am coming from an RV-4 outlook. I would like to sit in both and see how the speed slope distorts the view out the windscreen. The Rocket doesn't need to LOOK any faster; it already is fast! The speed slope looks too radical. I also like the tip-over, again coming from the -4 crowd. I have never liked the roll-over bar in the field of view. I really like the single-piece canopy. MUCH better when flying formation as you don't have to keep moving to look around your obstruction. I'm thinking F-16 here as well.....as opposed to a Star Wars X-Wing;)
 
Last edited:
uk_figs said:
Obviously a matter of personal choice but I think the curved windshield looks better, I guess it depends on the specific aircraft as on my Champ project I am installing the Citabria straighter windshield versus the original bubble windshield as I think that looks better.:rolleyes:
Figs
Click to expand...
Nooooo! You will lose the cartoonish look. My wife called our Champ “the Mickey Mouse airplane”.
 
More importantly, which style wingtips? Flat plate as in pic #2, or curved as in pic #1? ;)
 
Another consideration: Do you want to stand out in the herd?
Speedslope seems to be the norm for a modern F1.
With a bubble or tip-over more folks will pause and take a close look to see what exact “Rocket” varient is before them.
 
From a practical sense the blown bubble gives a very good view. That is a major plus. That said, I have taken a bird through the thin blown windshield in a slower airplane so I generally start to get a bit nervous above 200 KIAS in my current ride. Sure the forward hoop blocks some view, but it also adds a bunch of protection. That trade is worthy of consideration.
 
mburch said:
It's hard to decide an aesthetic choice for somebody else, but I am wondering if the longer windshield has an impact on the shape/size/usability of any forward-fuselage access panels or similar openings.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that is probably my biggest driver at this point - the speed slope requires some fancy cutouts in the forward deck that are different than the standard….. but anything can be done! And with a removable panel, who needs to remove the forward deck? Avionics have gotten so small and light….
 
Standard but I would go speed slope if it were an extended bubble rather than flat wrap. Standard is really too abrupt and flat wrap is too, well... flat. Now if it were segmented with a flat, armored center - that would be cool.
 
I would pick the speed slope on aesthetics. But, there's another consideration not mentioned yet. The more sloped windscreen would more efficiently shed water and thus offer better visibility in rain. I haven't flown a speed slope equipped aircraft, but comparing the RV-9 bubble we had to our Lancair (with plexiglass at a similar angle to the speed slope) it was no question, the Lancair had much better visibility in the rain.
 
N14ZM has the speed slope windshield. I’ve never regretted going that way. Yes, the front edge of the windshield overhangs the boot cowl a bit but access through it behind the panel is still very good.
 
Speed slope looks like it was adapted from a Mig 21, and that's just fine if you're going to put red stars on the airplane. No offense intended to our Russian born RV pilot.
 
Just ordered mine. A "standard" or "traditional" bubble.

@Ironflight. Becky said they were already prepping for another Rocket canopy. Mine should ship a week from order. Letting you know if that timetable works better for you.
 
based on the photos posted alone, I like the standard look better
but
I wonder about optical qualities.
The curved bubble could introduce all sorts of distortions...as could looking through the large slope angle in the speed version
 
I had not considered bird strike. I could easily be convinced to go with a two-piece canopy if I could get a much thicker windshield.
 
DanH said:
I had not considered bird strike. I could easily be convinced to go with a two-piece canopy if I could get a much thicker windshield.
Click to expand...
When I did the flat wrap on the 8 after my bird incident I went to .250. I’m planning to do .500 on the Rocket
 
Speed slope forever! I had a birdstrike at 200 knots and I have a small notch on the windshield, one inch from the cowl...BUMP, blood all around, that's all.
 
I own an F1 with a regular windshield and slider canopy and love it. My brother owns an F1 with the speed slope windshield and I love it too. I have close to 400 hours between the two airplanes and here is my take. Initially, I really liked the aesthetic of the speed slope and lamented the fact I found a very nice airplane with the standard windshield. Over time and hours in both planes, I will say the biggest difference (from a flight perspective) is the speed slope windshield can, depending on the sun angle, have significant reflected glare off the glare shield that can be annoying. The standard windshield does not have this at all. When I bought my F1 I had every intention of swapping out the standard for the speed slope but I have since changed my mind on that. If I were to build a new F1 today... It would be a difficult decision. Both are awesome!

For what its worth, I fly quite a bit of formation with 6 other F1s and HRIIs. The only reason I would ever consider the tip-over option would be for this purpose. Visibility, in close fingertip formation, is sometimes hindered by the slider bar and the tip over doesn't have this.
 
Darinh said:
I own an F1 with a regular windshield and slider canopy and love it. My brother owns an F1 with the speed slope windshield and I love it too. I have close to 400 hours between the two airplanes and here is my take. Initially, I really liked the aesthetic of the speed slope and lamented the fact I found a very nice airplane with the standard windshield. Over time and hours in both planes, I will say the biggest difference (from a flight perspective) is the speed slope windshield can, depending on the sun angle, have significant reflected glare off the glare shield that can be annoying. The standard windshield does not have this at all. When I bought my F1 I had every intention of swapping out the standard for the speed slope but I have since changed my mind on that. If I were to build a new F1 today... It would be a difficult decision. Both are awesome!

For what its worth, I fly quite a bit of formation with 6 other F1s and HRIIs. The only reason I would ever consider the tip-over option would be for this purpose. Visibility, in close fingertip formation, is sometimes hindered by the slider bar and the tip over doesn't have this.
Click to expand...
Bravo!! Great perspective for both choices! Give the man a big piece of cake!
 
Tough choice. The Standard option looks good but the Speed Slope makes the aeroplane look like it goes faster. What takes the win for me is the option that provides the easiest long term maintenance access. I would want to spend more time flying and less time fixin'.

One other consideration that might sway you - perhaps the Speed Slope screen gives you sufficient room to mount a HUD, if you desire? You know... in case you want to rock out some fighter pilot vibes.
 
Darinh said:
I own an F1 with a regular windshield and slider canopy and love it. My brother owns an F1 with the speed slope windshield and I love it too. I have close to 400 hours between the two airplanes and here is my take. Initially, I really liked the aesthetic of the speed slope and lamented the fact I found a very nice airplane with the standard windshield. Over time and hours in both planes, I will say the biggest difference (from a flight perspective) is the speed slope windshield can, depending on the sun angle, have significant reflected glare off the glare shield that can be annoying. The standard windshield does not have this at all. When I bought my F1 I had every intention of swapping out the standard for the speed slope but I have since changed my mind on that. If I were to build a new F1 today... It would be a difficult decision. Both are awesome!

For what it’s worth, I fly quite a bit of formation with 6 other F1s and HRIIs. The only reason I would ever consider the tip-over option would be for this purpose. Visibility, in close fingertip formation, is sometimes hindered by the slider bar and the tip over doesn't have this.
Click to expand...

There is one other possible consideration. The F1 is a derivative of the RV4. I am told but have not confirmed that the canopy bow on the slider aircraft is not stressed for rollover protection. Since there were structural changes between the F1 and Harmon it’s also possible this might only apply to the Harmon.
 
Thanks for all the thoughts and comments folks - some really interesting perspectives beyond the simple “I like how XXX looks!” Still haven’t decided for sure (don’t have to yet….), but some good stuff here.

Paul
 
Well - the vote change works - after looking, reading, noodling I changed to speed slope with a thicker material. Forward access notwithstanding.

It was a gorgeous day that opened up from the winter icing dome and considered a flight a few days ago. But . . . having done some snow removal at -5F and getting my face frozen, I had second thoughts imagining taking off and having the canopy fail at -10F - - But, I guess in a Rocket - a helmet would look at home any time, so that would not be a factor in either canopy version.
 
Ironflight said:
So here’s a question that Probably belongs in the “Never Ending Debates” forum, but since I am trying to establish a presence here in the “Rocket Ranch”, I’ll throw it out there….. Standard Windshield or Speed Slope? This also gives me a chance to try picture insertions…. And learn how to use polls….

Bottom line is that this is really esthetics - there is no established speed difference, and installation effort seems to be about the same either way. Having flown a couple hundred hours in my little Subsonex which has a REALLY ”speed-slopey” windshield, I can say that the subjectively, the visibility from the pilot seat isn’t quite as good when looking through that long narrow windshield….but there is also something unique in the look. However, I have always wondered if (visually), the essentially straight lines of the Speed Slope go with the essentially curved nature of the canopy. It’s really an art question. But…..let’s see how close the poll coms to 50/50…..


For those not familiar with the two options….here is the standard windshield:

View attachment 54579

And here is the Speed Slope!
View attachment 54580

(Pictures taken from the web……)
Click to expand...
Well Paul, I struggled with the same question and added a few more wrinkles. Full disclosure: I've been building for over 20 years and am still a ways from completion. I got a speed slope and didn't like it. So I had (I forget who) make a custom canopy bubble with more rake (more slopey?) front. I like the aesthetics of this a lot. And I went further. Unlike some folks, I like the front roll-hoop: a) it strengthens the front windshield in case of bird or other strike b) it gives a reference point for formation flying and c) it may give some additional roll-over protection. And the often quoted downside of visibility isn't an issue with me; I don't see the problem.
But I also didn't like the downsides of a slider canopy: the canopy doesn't slide all the way back so the PAX is encumbered in ingress and egress. And the canopy rails that fix this problem aren't to my liking. So I've got a windscreen with tip-over. With a slight twist. I designed a hinge system that allows the main canopy to slide aft 1.5" with the aft sliding aft and up to avoid the turtledeck. Then in this aft position it tips over. This allows the front of the main canopy to slide under a lip created in the front windscreen frame; constraining and sealing the front of the main canopy. The pilot is also moved aft 4" for legroom and to move my head aft into more headroom in the bubble.
If I had to do it over again I don't think I'd go to this extent; I'd probably still do the fixed windscreen with tip-over main canopy but leave it at that. If the cut between the windscreen and main canopy is angled forward (mine is) with a fixed windscreen the main canopy can be hinged on the longeron and tip-over.
IMG_2918.jpg
 
Great question Paul. I just started my fuselage on a HRII and have been thinking about this same subject. Having had an RV4 and an RV8, I'm firmly in the tip-over camp. Not having a roll bar in front of you is visually best plus ingress and egress is exceptional for both seats. The only thing I do not like about the standard HRII canopy is the abrupt front slope but the F1 style speed slope is too much. If anyone can steer me in the right direction I would like to find someone that custom make a canopy with a shallower front slope. Still at least a year away from needing it so plenty of time.
 
Capflyer said:
Great question Paul. I just started my fuselage on a HRII and have been thinking about this same subject. Having had an RV4 and an RV8, I'm firmly in the tip-over camp. Not having a roll bar in front of you is visually best plus ingress and egress is exceptional for both seats. The only thing I do not like about the standard HRII canopy is the abrupt front slope but the F1 style speed slope is too much. If anyone can steer me in the right direction I would like to find someone that custom make a canopy with a shallower front slope. Still at least a year away from needing it so plenty of time.
Click to expand...
There are two options that I'm aware of; an extended bubble and the flat wrap. I have a sketch from Airplane Plastics. Got an email in to Becky. If she says I can share here, I'll post it.
 
Seeing all these canopy pictures, I never realized how perfect the canopy on SuzieQ actually is! It was standard issue from Vans back in 1992..... :) Did I mention I really like this airplane? :giggle:
 

Attachments

  • img681accrop.jpg
    img681accrop.jpg
    615.1 KB · Views: 44
sailvi767 said:
There is one other possible consideration. The F1 is a derivative of the RV4. I am told but have not confirmed that the canopy bow on the slider aircraft is not stressed for rollover protection. Since there were structural changes between the F1 and Harmon it’s also possible this might only apply to the Harmon.
Click to expand...
This is a valid concern. Each builder should consider their comfort level as it relates to the possibility of a noseover. *

While the slider front windscreen bow might provide some rollover protection, there were no structural changes made to the fuselage to provide a substantial load path from the windscreen front bow into the fuselage. The builder, as always, has the final say on this and can add structure as they see fit. One possibility is to add structure (a gusset, or similar) between the front windscreen frame and the #4 bulkhead.

The slider builder could also add an RV-4 type roll bar behind the pilot's seat, however, it is problematic as the roll bar cannot be the proper height w/o interfering with the canopy sliding action. It also could make entry/egress from the front seat a bit more cramped.

The flopper canopy does allow an RV-4 roll bar to be added. The RV-4 type roll bar is designed to transfer load down through the #5 and #6 bulkhead ribs into the lower fuselage structure. I know for certain that this set up can work properly as my RV-4 was upside down way back in 1994 and suffered no damage to the roll bar or center fuselage whatsoever, though the Plexi bubble had a large hole in it when we righted the aircraft. The pilot was unharmed, though he needed a fresh pair of underwear.

YMMV. I just make parts. It is the builder who has the final say on how to put them all together! It's all part of the education that the FAA requires of us builders.

*Regarding noseovers: Mark moved the main wheels about 2" forward as compared to the HR2s. This seemingly minor change greatly reduces the chance of nosing over during routine operations, i.e. hard braking. However, landing off field is not a routine operation and nosing over is a distinct possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top