What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Carbon Fiber Tapered RV Wings

Tim,

Visitors always welcome. PM for vectors. Waders recommended…the hangar flying can get pretty deep around here…especially if the neighbors or local pilots are around. :D

Cheers,
Bob

I live just south of you in Leander. Would love to take a look at the project some day.
 
It's been a few months since Steve or I posted, but we've been busy, and we are just about ready to take the new wings flying. After deciding not to press to make it to Reno in '22, we spent the fall getting things done at a more manageable pace. I've also decided to do the first flights out of Taylor, TX (T74), to provide more safety margin (4000' asphalt vs 2500' grass, and better "outs" around the airport).

Prior to the move to Taylor, we completed the wing root fairings and aileron control rod fairings, installed aileron stops that Steve designed and built, which attach to the tubular structure between the sticks in the cockpit, and did the aircraft weighing.

I also weighed the wings themselves, and each new wing is about 12 pounds heavier than my old wings, which were clipped 7" each (like a Harmon Rocket or F1 Sport Wing Rocket). About 122# versus 110# each. With the 540 and additional structure, my plane has always had rocket weights, and it now weighs in at 1418#, with a MGTOW of 2000#. The wings were load tested to 6.7g at 1650#, or 6g at 1800#.


IMG_1338.jpeg

IMG_1339.jpeg

IMG_1424.jpeg

IMG_1072.jpeg

IMG_1595 2.jpg

IMG_1323.jpeg

I moved the wings from Siskiyou to Texas, but have not trailered my plane before, so I was able to experience (and empathize with) what many of you have posted about when moving your planes from garage to airport. Juuuust a bit stressful, eh! The wings were moved easily on a trailer, but my 98" wide Rocket gear took some digging to find a wide-enough hauler for the job. Fortunately, after a few calls, I found a fella here in Georgetown that has moved a few RVs before.

IMG_1436.jpeg

IMG_1437.jpeg

IMG_1439.jpeg

IMG_1444.jpeg

The past week has been busy with all aspects of final install. With all final bolts in place, and all systems connected, we did fuel tank calibration and another weighing, so we can accurately determine the station of the fuel tanks for weight and balance calculations.

The main tanks each hold 24 gallons, and the aux tanks hold 7 gallons. (Right Aux is fuel, left aux is smoke oil).

With condition inspection completed after assembly, Steve arrived Tuesday, and Mel Asberry came down from Dallas to do the airworthiness inspection yesterday. It was a great opportunity to have Mel give our project a very thorough look, and we really enjoyed spending the day with him. Mel has authorized re-entry into test phase, and approved our test area. Lots of great stories in all directions throughout the day...and some may even be true! It was great working with Mel!

Here's a shot of Steve and me with Mel, with an amended airworthiness cert in hand, and one of us with John Farquhar (fairing and paint finish work and condition inspection), and Randy Rossi (neighbor at 07TS, who's helped a ton, and who was one of the originators of the RV-12 HS build programs). Special mention to local friends and neighbors (and RVators) Richard Boyer, Danny King, Dean Ogden and Brian Decker, who have all been a big part of this project.

IMG_1667.jpeg

IMG_1671.jpeg

Next up is flight test!

Cheers,
Bob
 
This was a VERY interesting inspection for me. The engineering data presented was outstanding. These guys really know what they are doing.

I always enjoy doing these inspections and this one was at the top of the list.

Congratulations!!!!!
 
Great project report and excellent progress Bob! Sooner or later, there’s nothing left to do but mount up and go fly - so I’ll just say the same thing I always told crews just before they headed out to the Cape - “Go have a good time, and we’ll see you when you get back”.

Paul
 
Bob-----congrats on the new piece of paper :D

Been wondering what was going on with the project, thanks for the report.
 
Great job on this huge modification project.

I would be interested in hearing details about why the wing change required an airworthiness inspection and new 8130-7.
 
Great job on this huge modification project.
I would be interested in hearing details about why the wing change required an airworthiness inspection and new 8130-7.

Quite extensive New wing design affects flight characteristics of the airplane and is only part of the reason. Other part is to update to current Op. Lims. and change of Phase I flight testing area.
 
Quite extensive New wing design affects flight characteristics of the airplane and is only part of the reason. Other part is to update to current Op. Lims. and change of Phase I flight testing area.

I understand that the new wing design is a major change and would require some extensive phase 1 flight testing but that shouldn’t automatically mean a new airworthiness was required. New flight test area and operating limitations totally makes sense though as a reason.
 
Proof is in the eating of the Pudding (Flight Test) Excited for Results

So Congrats on seeing this through. Fantastic. I worked for Boeing in Late 80's. Boeing developed a carbon-fiber wing replacement for the A-6. It flew but never went anywhere. I left the project and did not keep up with flight test. I did hear the ride was firm and the plane was heaver with the new carbon wings (over built). The Navy test pilot reports it was very stiff and transferred more G's to the pilots. Not bad or good just hearsay. Not that Van's wings are flexible, the ride will be firmer I predict with these new wings. The weight gain is common when going from metal to carbon. The fact it only gained a few pounds is a testament to your efforts. The same with Boeing 777 composite tail components, it did not save weight but Boeing had to have it. Same with B787. The first examples were way over weight. However again it was way over built. When I first flew an RV, the RV-6 prototype with Van the man in late 80's, I was taken by how solid it felt compared to a Cessna or Piper.

Laminar flow and taper wings on small experimental planes like the Glasair (III) and Harmon Rocket/Team Rocket (EVO taper wing) has a long history. In these two examples the results were less than expected, not bad just expectations not met. Part of that were the new NLF NASA airfoils they picked. In the case of Glasair III they went to latest greatest NASA laminar flow airfoil that had very low drag in wind tunnel. This choice did not perform as well as expect. HOWEVER the Glasair III is still a very formidable plane. The RV-4 derived Rocket came out with basically Van's stock Hershey bar NACA 23013.5, used on the RV-4/6/7/8. The NACA 230 series is used in the Who's Who list of legendary planes: DC-3, Beach Bonanza, Most Cessna Twins, CE500 Cessna Citation, on and on. The Team Rocket EVO Taper laminar flow wing (metal construction) was also a bit of a disappointment. I recall they used the same airfoil Glasair III did. However the examples flying do well in Reno Sports Class. Not sure if the EVO kit is even offered anymore. The thing both of these planes, Glasair III & Team Rocket EVO have in common, as well as the Super 6, is a big 6 cyl Lycoming. :D

Side note I flew freight back in the day. In the fleet, typical Navajo, Seneca III, and Cessna twins. However one of the Cessna twins was an odd ball with laminar flow airfoil wings, forgot which model. Most Cessna Twins are NACA Series 230 like the RV4/6/7/8. In ice conditions this Cessna twin with laminar flow airfoil, did not do well even with known ice. By not well I mean scary. Decade and a half later there was an AD about Cessna twins in known icing I recall. Rutan early canards, had a laminar flow canard airfoil that lost lift in rain; the airfoil was later modified. The point is laminar flow can be affected by surface imperfections (rain, ice) and can affect lift. Early laminar flow designs did not account for this, so real World performance did not meet the theoretical and wind tunnel test.

It will be interesting to see how this wing on the Rocket 6 performs. Did I read this is a RONCZ airfoil? It should be an improvement in lower drag over the Series 230 stock wing airfoil, but there are always trade offs. The proverbial no free lunch. Higher lift devices, like slotted flaps can help low speed performance. However working with large aircraft, trailing edge devices can only do so much. Leading edge devices is very important, especially with high speed wings. This plane is no where near transonic jet territory, not am I suggesting it needs slats. However shout out to the NACA Series 230 (Standard Van's Airfoil). It has low speed performance and fairly good low drag at high speed. Stall to To[ Speed ratio is 4 for RV's. That is amazing, all with simple hinge flaps. The Van airfoil is "fatter" than needed through out the span, but that MAKES BUILDING it a joy and easy, with all ribs being the same and chord constant. It also adds strength and fuel capacity. It is called compromises. Van did a grea job balancing all those factors. So any improvement over stock design is an achievement, because the stock wing is pretty idealized for the mission ("total performance") and aircraft (small two place sport XC aerobatic plane). The contemporary plane all metal Mustang II has tapered wings. There has been a lot written between the Mustang II and RV6. Van the man even had a dog fight against a Mustang II as documented in EAA Magazine decades ago. The RV won, in part do to the ability to pitch and turn at higher angles of attach without losing as much speed. So Van could just go vertical. This tactic was used in Vietnam with F4's against MIG's, the F4 went vertical and the MiG ran out of steam, and the F4 could get on MIG's 6.O'clock on the way back down. The Super 6 is made for speed....

Fixed Gear is GREAT!!! Van knew this. If your fixed gear has good low drag gear leg and wheel fairings, it will be lighter and not much slower than retractable gear version of the same plane (especially in tail taildragger configuration). There have been a few custom builder modified RV's with retract gear in the past, which proved Van's design and logic. Cool as retracts are on an RV, it added weight and was not much faster or even same. However when you start getting into 220 kt plus speed range than retractable gear becomes more critical as the drag increases exponentially. RV's as stock sit in a sweet spot. Hat's off the Van.
 
Last edited:
Bob, Steve, Mel - way cool. Looking forward to the performance numbers!

Bob - 1418 pounds empty? Mine weighs 1242, and my neighbor's Rocket is in the high 1100's... Where is the extra weight from?
 
So Congrats on seeing this through. Fantastic. 'snip'...

It will be interesting to see how this wing on the Rocket 6 performs. Did I read this is a RONCZ airfoil? It should be an improvement in lower drag over the Series 230 stock wing airfoil, but there are always trade offs. The proverbial no free lunch. Higher lift devices, like slotted flaps can help low speed performance.
'snip'...

There has been a lot written between the Mustang II and RV6. Van the man even had a dog fight against a Mustang II as documented in EAA Magazine decades ago. The RV won, in part do to the ability to pitch and turn at higher angles of attach without losing as much speed. So Van could just go vertical. This tactic was used in Vietnam with F4's against MIG's, the F4 went vertical and the MiG ran out of steam, and the F4 could get on MIG's 6.O'clock on the way back down. The Super 6 is made for speed....

RV's as stock sit in a sweet spot. Hat's off the Van.

Thanks for the comments...much appreciated. I snipped a lot, but will reply to some for background info:

Steve, Bob K and I started this 8+ years ago after working together on a Mythbusters shoot with our formation group the West Coast Ravens. He shared with me his concept for a tapered wing, and knew I raced Reno, so asked if I'd be interested in working with them to build a couple sets (for Steve and me). I jumped at the chance. Over many conversations, we made design decisions, such as metal or composite, shortened for pure speed or long enough to preserve good RV all-around characteristics. We chose that latter in each of those conversations. I'll let Steve elaborate on his design and put out any numbers he'd like to, but it's somewhat along the lines of a Harry Riblett GA-37, with Steve's secret sauce in the recipe.

Tradeoffs were always discussed in our planning and throughout the build. Though I race the S6, preserving the total performance aspects was important too. I fly formation, and don't want to be incompatible with my RV bros and sis's. I am also building a modified tail, yet still don't want to outfly even that tail (speed-wise). The fastest two RV/Rockets in Reno were an RV-8 with a lot of N2O, and Harmon Rocket with a supercharger. The Rocket flew a 281mph lap on the old course measurements, which is 275+ under the new course measurements, and the -8 flew just over 276 (new course measurements). Both had hershey bar wings. Mark F's EVO could be that fast, and there is a new EVO in the line-up that will be fast...once he stops sandbagging (I'm talking to you Smooch! :D). We'll sneak up on the speed during flight test, and have an extensive flutter clearance test profile to execute over several flights.

Along with speed, it will be interesting to see how the bleed rate in Reno is impacted, and it will be interesting to see how the maneuvering envelope has changed. With respect to dogfighting, that will be another area to work up slowly to...we'll explore how accelerated stall behavior is before I really dig into the corners of the PsubS diagram. ;) As far as going vertical, we'll see. I have the horsepower, but going vertical depends on energy management too. Ask Randy Cunningham about Col Toon and going vertical in Viet Nam. ;)


Bob, Steve, Mel - way cool. Looking forward to the performance numbers!

Bob - 1418 pounds empty? Mine weighs 1242, and my neighbor's Rocket is in the high 1100's... Where is the extra weight from?

Thanks Mike! We'll share performance as we test. We'll be very open about that...its a fun project and we want to share it! Of course, in the end, the stopwatch at Reno during qualifying will tell a story. I've had fun in the past saying (In an Elmer Fudd voice), "shhhhhh...be vewy qwiet...I am hunting Wockets". They do look good in the rear view mirror! :D

As far weight goes, my beast is in need of a diet. In '98, the original build W&B showed 1230. A friend who knew the builder said he holds that number suspect, but I won't judge. When I did the first tail mod (RV-6 to RV-8), went to the Hartzell BA prop and did a panel, it weighed in at 1363. Hard to imagine 130 pounds, but... This time the 1418 includes the new wings (12 pounds each), root fairings (5+ pounds each...we will work on that!), a new nitrous set-up, and some more flex lines for fuel and smoke oil. A lot of the original glass work on the cowl and intersection fairings is perhaps...well...more robust than it needs to be. We plan to work on many of these aspects. Anything we can do to lower that number is, of course, all good!

The profile is a custom one that Steve cooked up just for these wings. He designed the wing profile for the RV-10 and RV-14, so he knows a thing or two about this particular solution space.

Some of the really fun aspects of this have been to learn from you and Steve, to see Steve's baby come to life, and see him share the fun with his colleagues in the aerospace world.

More to follow!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Big Day! First Flights!

Wew! It flies! It flies nicely! Bob reports he likes the feel, handling, harmony.
1 inflight.jpeg

Bobby Lucroy provided chase in his RV-8A and I was in the back seat to do visual evaluation of flight characteristics. Stick force gradient in roll and pitch, adverse yaw and Dutch roll damping, clean and dirty stalls, full sideslip, check for any control 'rub' up to 2 g's, and speed up to 185 KTAS on the first two hops. Continued speed and g envelop expansion over the next few days.
Here is the happy team after the day's hops.
2 post flight 1.jpeg
3 post flight 2.jpeg

Control feel was one of my concerns going to a center-hinged aileron with sharp trailing edge. 20% aerodynamic balance helps (hinge set-back).

The airfoil is a rather mild laminar flow section that I designed with the idea of improving cruise and racing performance some, but staying docile enough to be a good daily driver. After I was well along, someone at work (NASA Ames) suggested I take a look in Harry Riblett's catalog, and I was pleased to find something very similar. I even adopted his shape for the aft underside, getting rid of the mild under camber that I had, making it much easier to build.
Just to correct GMCJETPILOT a little bit, it is not really accurate to to call the airfoil on the Glasair III or the EVO wing a laminar flow section. Both those use the GAW(2), with a modification to remove the excessive under camber toward the back. That section does achieve good laminar flow in the middle of the envelop, but not at either end of the envelop. In particular the low angle of attack end (high speed) develops a bad suction peak at the leading edge on the underside that acts like a speed brake. (BTW I have a design to fix that with a thin add-on glove on the bottom, and a small leading-edge add-on, if anyone with a Glasair III is interested).
True that carbon wings often end up a little heavier, due to the irresistible urge to over-build. It is probably premature for me to say that I think our wings here could do 450 mph without trouble, since we haven't done the flutter clearance yet, but I think if you flew into a barn, the barn would lose. Another source of weight in our case is that the retro-fit to the RV-6 was done by mating the wings to aluminum stub spars that start out just like RV-6 spars inside the fuselage and extend outward 2 ft, with two big wing pins on each side pinning the carbon spar to the aluminum stub spar- similar to how sailplane wings mate to each other. To take the higher loads, our stub spars are billet machined from 7050 Aluminum. We did a static load test to 6.7 g's at an aerobatic weight of 1650 lb, and the tip deflection was only 5". So, yeah, pretty stout.

Since the basic design was described so long ago and it would be a chore to dig through that, just to summarize:
Wings are tapered with tip chord = 0.55 of centerline chord
Aspect ratio 6.3 with racing tips, 97 sq ft
Aspect ratio 6.7 with cross-country/high altitude tips, 99 sq ft.
Airfoil designed for 40% chord laminar flow, 13.5% thick.
1.0 degree of washout twist, 3.5 degrees dihedral of the wing reference plane.
I originally designed a slotted flap with the idea that we could keep the landing speed the same as the stock wing, but that was less important to Bob, so building simplicity pushed us to the same piano-hinge flap as Van's. The flaps are 6 ft long though -- BIG.

Probably my biggest concern with the tapered wing with not much twist was the clean stall character. 2-D wind tunnel test data confirmed the docile stall I was going for on the airfoil, but with only 1 degree of twist, it was a concern. I watched today as Bob did three clean stalls, one at idle, one at 10 in. Hg, and one at 15 in. Hg. All three showed very minor wing drop, really very benign. I did bring stall strips with me ready to glue on, but pending the accelerated stall test, I don't think we need them. It is rare to find a low-wing, tapered wing airplane that does not have stall strips of some sort, so I'm really pleased that I don't think we need them.

Now we just need to see how fast it will go!
 
Last edited:
stick force gradient

A bit more detail on those tests.

With center-hinged ailerons, I really didn't expect anything unusual there, but one needs to check. If anything, I was afraid they would be too heavy.

And changing the wings, one might ask, "why would the stick force gradient in pitch change, when nothing was done to the tail."

Well, with the increase in wing span, and more nearly elliptical span loading, the downwash on the horizontal tail has been reduced significantly. The tail is now effectively operating at much higher incidence (or less negative incidence). It is possible for this to lead to very little, or even negative stick force gradient. We can change the tail incidence a little if we need to. But so far, so good.
 
I said this to Bob in private, but didn’t tag up with Steve - to both of you, many congratulations on a great design and build effort!
 
As Steve mentioned, we did two flights today, and both went quite well. That first takeoff today...in a wing that has never flown before...has been in my thoughts quite a lot over the past several weeks, and especially the last few mornings, as we waited for weather to support a first flight, and I had more time to think about it. I've done a few first flights for builders, but this was a bit different. The good side is I do know my airplane well. That notwithstanding, would the wing fly straight and balanced, would I get any buffet on takeoff, would a wing drop, would the ailerons work, would this beast fly? You know, those things you think about between waking up and that first cup o joe in the morning. As Steve said, "if you make it round in the front, and pointy in the back, it will fly". Of course, we poured in a lot more science and build care into this, and we really worked hard this week to ensure we were all green for launch.

So there at the end of RWY 35 in Taylor, it was take a breath, and push in the black knob, then do some of that pilot $#!+. By the time I had my power set for TO and had eased the tail up, it was already light on the wheels, and was ready to fly. Flew right off, and was laterally stable from the liftoff on. No heavy wing, and ailerons (and the stock aileron trim) worked as advertised.

Climbout felt nice. We wanted to work at Va for the most part during the tests, which was calculated at approx 140 KIAS. (After stall testing on hop 2, Va is 142 KIAS...Steve knows his stuff). Control harmony is smooth. Ride is somewhere between an RV and a Glasair, in terms of how the plane rides through small bumps. So it's a slightly stiffer ride, but has a solid feel. Rolling into turns does not show a lot of adverse yaw, but I did focus on using a bit of rudder today. My previous ailerons were shorter than stock RV, due to the wing clip, so these larger ailerons feel more effective to me. Perhaps not as spritely as a light RV-4, but effective and somewhat powerful. Rolls are a bit downstream in testing, but it will be interesting to see how the full deflection rate is in a roll.

All of the stability and stick force gradient tests displayed what, to me, feels like a "normal airplane ride and performance". Go faster, it needs down trim, slow down, it needs up trim. Steady state turns needed a "normal" amount of opposite aileron pressure to stay steady state. All good! I worked up to sideslip yaw rates slowly, and it was very stable. Rudder deflections to cause a dutch rolling tendency displayed just a bit of wing rock (proverse roll), and the yaw dampened out quickly.

Slow flight was solid and stable. I did incipient stalls on hop 1, and full stalls were done on hop 2. I was probably on the cautious side on hop 1, as I didn't really feel any buffet before accelerating back up after each test (clean and half flaps). I only slowed to 68 KIAS in hop 1, but that gave me confidence for a decent (not too fast) final approach speed. On hop 2 I took it to a stall break. There were nice, clear buffet cues from about stall + 5 knots, to the stall. Clean and half flap stalls had a clear, but not intense break, and I did note that a wing would drop slightly if I did not have the ball centered. Kinda normal...perhaps a bit quicker on the wing drop than my previous wings, but not radically so. On the first few I didn't quite have enough right rudder, and got a slight left wing drop. On the next few I probably overcorrected with rudder, and got a slight right wing drop. All were perhaps 10 degrees of bank, and were easily corrected with easing the AOA/back pressure, and with rudder. Clean stalls averaged 58 KIAS, and half flap stalls averaged 54 knots. My old (clipped) wings stalled at 58 clean, 52 full flaps...so this is a nice result.

We did not do any high speed testing today...we'll sneak up on that. Descent revealed a nice solid ride, and it just flew smoothly and turned nicely in a low power 170 KIAS glide.

Today I stayed fast in the pattern (110 DW, 100 base, 90 final), especially in hop 1, since I hadn't done full stalls, and I flew a somewhat wide pattern with a bit of extra speed, since I hadn't done accelerated stalls. 80 over the fence was a good, safe speed, and that turned into just a touch of float, and a slight bounce. The airplane felt light on the ground, but directional control felt normal, the tail could be flown down in a normal-feeling manner, and deceleration was good.

All in all it was a very satisfying day, and its nice to have that first takeoff/test flight monkey off our backs. Can't get cocky or complacent though, there's a lot of testing ahead, and envelope expansion will require similar focus. Sure is fun to fly though, and its very fun to see Steve see his creation fly. I'm lucky to be a part of this.

Oh yeah...don't look back you Wascally Wockets....heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.... ;)

Cheers,
Bob
 
Nicely done Gents! Congrats!

And Carl thank YOU for your help as a sounding board and adding beneficial insights.

We have 100% mass-balanced ailerons, with balance horns tested to Part 25 standards. Flutter envelop expansion will proceed carefully. (gulp).
 
Congratulations - that is a hugely satisfying outcome after such a significant undertaking. It looks sweet too, following the old adage that if it looks good, it will fly good.

Well done. Look forward to reading more.
 
And Carl thank YOU for your help as a sounding board and adding beneficial insights.

We have 100% mass-balanced ailerons, with balance horns tested to Part 25 standards. Flutter envelop expansion will proceed carefully. (gulp).

You're quite welcome! Glad I could help a little. Thanks for the feedback on the aileron design, sounds good.

Needless to say, but during envelope expansion keep a close eye on the tail as well as the new wing/aileron. When Boeing was testing some wing mods to the E-6A, the 'stock' tail fluttered during flight flutter testing. The airplane flew back and made a safe landing. It happened twice, but it's a long story. Here is a pic from chase after the second event:

i-kvD9mpZ-L.jpg



I have no doubt you will have a safe and successful flight test program!
 
Last edited:
Gotta love the look of that planform. Congratulations to all involved in bringing it this far!
 
We flew 2 more test hops today, and continue to be pleased with the results and progress.

The morning flight was a general handling assessment by Steve, who has extensive experience in this, and a keen sense of feel. I'll let him post his impressions, but my takeaway is that he loved the overall feel, but prefers a little more aileron responsiveness than I do. I like the feel of the new wing's ailerons, which may be attributable to my primary missions of formation, racing and X-C, and perhaps my years of flying my old wings with clipped wings and smaller ailerons. If I was flying aerobatics in an Extra, more responsiveness would be fitting, but these don't feel sluggish to me either. Then again, RV-3s/4s/6s/7s/8s are all a bit lighter than my plane, and the ailerons sometimes feel a bit light to me. I'm sure it's a matter of small degree, and one gets used to what one flies the most. Steve already has a plan to make the second wing-set's ailerons a bit more responsive (via the trailing edge shape).

During the afternoon hop, I was chased by a racing bud in a Lancair Legacy, as we had some higher speed envelope expansion on the test card.

I tested for control effectiveness and no binding at higher angles of bank and higher g (up to 4g this flight), all near Va. All good.

Accelerated stalls were done at 30°, 45° and 60° angle of bank turns. Buffet cues were good, again from about +5 to 7 knots above stall to the stall. Right turns showed a slight drop further to the right, but no big tuck-under. I needed a bit more right rudder on the steeper turns, which contributed to this. Left turns tended to also drop the right wing, but less so than the right turns. This tended to level the wings a bit. I'll do more of these to refine the test, but the initial impression is they are fairly docile, if recovery is initiated at the first bit of break. It's snappy enough, especially in right turns that, like many aircraft, letting it progress more deeply into an accelerated stall could be colorful. But so far, the tests are indicating we will not likely need stall strips.

Incremental flutter clearance was started today. I did stick raps at 210, 215, 220, 225 and 230 KTAS, and the ailerons were rock solid. Each test was done starting from a trimmed state of 205, lowering the nose to accelerate to 5 knots above the test point, then easing forward pressure to let the nose come up. This confirmed that pitch stick force gradient was positive, and allowed the speed to slow to the test point. The rap was done as the plane slowed to the test speed. Steve, as the passenger in the Legacy, was able to see the deflection and the return to neutral (though not from too close). We'll continue the incremental test on subsequent hops. We'll see if the Legacy can keep up ;)

Roll stick force gradient (more force for more aileron deflection), and rolling lateral stability (slight opposite stick pressure to hold a specific angle of bank, and no tendency to snatch the roll to a greater angle of bank) were very normal feeling at 220 KTAS, and slightly higher.

Dutch roll tendency with a rudder deflection at 220 KTAS was also low, and dampened quickly.

I flew the pattern at 100 DW, 90 Base, 80 final today, with 75 over the fence. The plane felt very stable there, and I think it will prove to be compatible with the 87/78/72 speeds that are standard in formation recoveries.

Headed to Llano (where the Legacy is based) for tomorrow's test, which will provide a chance to test the aux tank feed and get a bit of X-C performance look-see. Perhaps some Cooper's BBQ too :D

Cheers,
Bob
 
Last edited:
The newer Scalewings P-51 molds show artistic flush rivet heads. Though not a plus for speed, it would be funny molding all but one perfectly and seeing how long it takes someone to find it while grass trampling your work.
 
Really great looking wings? When does the kit come out and will you have a version to retrofit to a F1 Rocket!? How does what you are doing compare to what the Team Rocket guys are working on and did you share any data and ideas between each other?
On the weight issue the F1 I own was listed by the original builder at 1215. I think that was pretty accurate because after a few upgrades with the heaviest being new seats we came in at 1255.
 
Really great looking wings? When does the kit come out and will you have a version to retrofit to a F1 Rocket!? How does what you are doing compare to what the Team Rocket guys are working on and did you share any data and ideas between each other?
On the weight issue the F1 I own was listed by the original builder at 1215. I think that was pretty accurate because after a few upgrades with the heaviest being new seats we came in at 1255.

I would also strongly consider these for a Rocket. Keep us informed.
 
Too much fun Bob - this airplane is clearly going to need a Kitplanes flight review! ;)

Any time Paul...it'd be fun to have you fly it again, and hear your thoughts! :)

Really great looking wings? When does the kit come out and will you have a version to retrofit to a F1 Rocket!? How does what you are doing compare to what the Team Rocket guys are working on and did you share any data and ideas between each other?
On the weight issue the F1 I own was listed by the original builder at 1215. I think that was pretty accurate because after a few upgrades with the heaviest being new seats we came in at 1255.

Thanks George!

As for kits or wings for sale, that's something we've talked about, and there are a lot of things to consider if Bob K and Steve were to go that direction. First we need to build Steve a set. Beyond that, I believe delivering completed wings might be more desirable than offering a kit, from a quality control and liability aspect. Not that folks couldn't build these, but they are a prototype scratch-built item at the moment, and I'm sure you can imagine the steps to make plans, tool up, and prepare for production. Then it's price point vs delivery time, and seeing what the market would bear, and tolerate, respectively. We knew our excitement would be shared by the VAF/RV/Rocket community, so this is a fun, albeit perhaps a bit intimidating concept.

F1Boss Mark is a good friend, and he's helped us several times. He suggested the idler bellcrank for the aileron push tubes, as ours were pushing appropriate length limits. Our collaboration has been more him keeping an eye on my work, and being a good wingman. We've discussed what he and Vince are doing with the MKIII Rocket, but our composite design, and the way our stub-spars mate to the wing makes that part of the engineering fairly different. Adaptations are probably do-able, but would take a lot of design work, and we've not discussed anything like that yet. Steve and I did spend a lot of time discussing tail mods with Mark, and we are incorporating strengthening measures similar to the MKIII Rocket tail. I'm going to build a new RV-8 VS and Rudder, and a new RV-7 HS and Elevator, with a number of mods that Steve, Mark/Vince, and others have developed or proposed.

My plane is in a 12-step program for weight...or sure needs to be. My cowl and plenum are way too heavy...in fact, all of my fiberglass parts are. I could probably lose a lot of chubby there. I think the plane was painted red over the original white paint, without much removal. If I ever decide to paint the entire plane (the wings have to remain white or light), I would take it down to the bones. Steve and I have been talking about this, and have some ideas for WW/Noom for planes. :p

Cheers,
Bob
 
3 hops today. 2 were short X-C to Llano and back, where my buddy Alan (Sport 21) chased me in his Legacy on our final flutter clearance test flight.

I continued with increased speed tests in the same manner as yesterday. Started at 230 (previous high known safe speed data point), and did raps at 230 to 250 KTAS, in 5 knot increments. Each was a separate event, and speed was increased (in a slight decent) to 5 knots above, prior to slowing to the test point, as described earlier. For 250, I let the speed increase to 261 KTAS (300 MPHTAS) before allowing the nose to come up and slow to 250. All test points were very solid, no inklings of buzz or oscillations. Dutch roll tests were done up to 245 KTAS, and damping was as good as it was at all lower speed tests. At lower speeds, near Va, I did 4g, 5g and 6g turns, and the plane was solid, with no control binding at all.

To test the Aux tank feed, I started the engine on the Aux tank, then took off and did the first half of the climb on a main. I then tested the feed from the Aux tank on the way to Llano, and it fed nicely...though I needed the boost pump on to feed well in a climb...fuel pressure started dropping to 10psi and below, but came right up into the high 20's with the boost on. When level, it fed well without the boost pump on. The Aux tank has a #6 line, and its a bit of a further uphill climb from behind the spar...my thoughts on the why of the results. FWIW, the main tanks are fed by #8 lines, from the wing to the boost pump, and my Andair selector valve is a #8. I did that to ensure I could always feed the beast up front at race power.

Basic X-C performance was improved. I flew at 10.5K, WOT/2300, slightly LOP, with AFR in the high 14's to low 15s...its a basic profile I use a lot...sometimes leaner. At 11.8 gph, I saw 213-214 KTAS. My previous performance at these settings was 198-203, with 200-202 being pretty common. Some items to note are that I had 52 gallons on board today, versus the 38 I used to carry, the aileron control rod fairings are not on yet, I have no tape on my (kinda ugly fitting) upper and lower intersection fairings, and Steve feels strongly that we need to block sand the paint on the wing better, to provide better laminar flow. The wing root fairings I made could use some refining too. So that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. Call it a 10-12 knot increase in medium power cruise for now, with more improvement possible. Of course, one test, a result does not make, or so Yoda sez.

Here are a few pics from today:

RV on wing.jpeg

RV wing flash.jpeg

Legacy on Wing.jpeg

Panel 214.jpeg

Bob on ground.jpeg

Alan and Bob.jpeg
 
So at 11.8 gph Bob has gone from 17.1 to 20.8 mpg. At 246 mph he's getting better mileage than my wife's car does at 55 mph.
 
I see 201-204 @ 12 GPH at the same altitude but thats as high as I can go before the TAS just seems to level out. Interested to see what you can do in the mid teens.

My "goal" for the airplane is a solid 200@10gph (makes flight planning easy), but it looks like you are there, easily.
 
Last edited:
We see about 200 kts true at 10,500 LOP, 11.5 GPH. I can get a 214 kt cruise but fuel flow is 14GPH. What you posted is a really excellent result! I want a new wing!
 
Where’s the speed coming from?

So I know this thread is primarily about the new tapered C.F. wings, but I also know that this airplane is a super -6. So my question is where’s all of this extra speed coming from? Is it primarily from the new wing?….from the big motor?….or equally from both? These are really some fantastic performance numbers that’s been shared. 👍
 
FAST(er) Bob.

Great results so far Bob - -2300rpm and 212kts - - could you run out of pitch on your prop blades?
 
So I know this thread is primarily about the new tapered C.F. wings, but I also know that this airplane is a super -6. So my question is where’s all of this extra speed coming from? Is it primarily from the new wing?….from the big motor?….or equally from both? These are really some fantastic performance numbers that’s been shared. 👍

Mark,

The original builder of my plane set out to build a "side-by-side Rocket", so although it's a slow-build 6, and the dimensions are stock from the firewall to the baggage bulkhead station, it's stretched 8" behind the baggage bulkhead (with custom bulkheads designed by the builder and his then EAA chapter-mates). It's longer FWF also, due to the 540, and has titanium Rocket landing gear, and Sam James wheel pants. The fuselage structure is beefed up (thicker stringers and extra corner braces in specific locations), and some areas of the fuselage have .040 skin. That helps to explain some of the extra weight, as does the custom engine mount.

As for speed, the Lycon IO-540 dyno'd at 322HP in 1998, and has been a really strong motor. The original builder made his own plenum, and had a ram air scoop that could be opened for additional manifold pressure. However, the basic inlet was via the left inlet ramp floor, through a sponge filter, and then a scat tube to the side of the ram air scoop. In my first year of racing in Reno (2011), I raced it as I bought it, and qualified at 242 mph under the old course measuring system. That would have been about 238 mph under the current measuring system on the current course layout (long story about that measurement system, and how to get apples to apples comparisons over the years). Over the years, I have modified, with extensive design help from Steve, both the induction inlet (Sam James), and the exit area (Steve's design, with a lot of motivation from Dan Horton's "Shrinking Exit" project, and Dave Anders' work in this area. The inlet added 3 mph, and the exit work added 7 mph. We've also done various clean-up work on the airframe and fairings (which has more room for improvement), and my qualifying speed has increased from that first year to the following: 2012 = 240.5 mph, 2013 = 249.6, 2014 = 252.2. I'm sure some of that was race course learning curve for the meat servo too, but we put a lot of effort into drag reduction and slight HP increases. From 2015 to 2019, while I was racing a Thunder Mustang and a Glasair III, my friends Shane and James raced Rocket Six. James posted the fastest pre-nitrous speed in 2019 at 254.3 mph. During those last couple years, I added an Airflow Performance FM-300B servo and a Sky Dynamics Forward Facing Cold Air Sump. In 2021, I added a nitrous package designed by Don at AFP, and used a 50HP shot. It required water spray on the cylinders and oil cooler to stay in good temp ranges, but it increased our speed to 262.4 in qualifying and 263.8 in an average race speed.

Nitrous is not being used for any of the current testing, and won't be until we are prepping for Reno this summer. Although the flutter clearance testing was taken to the speeds required by Reno Racing test rules (105% of the predicted qualifying speed), most of the current testing regime is designed to ensure we have very safe margins for all of my "daily driver", formation and cross country missions, as well as establishing Vs, Vx, Vy, Va, Vno, and Vne speeds.

The benefits to overall performance that all of the racing-motivated modifications have provided are pretty significant. The RV is actually a great platform to start with in this regard, as Van really designed a magnificent airplane. In one sense, starting with such a great all-around plane makes you work for small increases, but on the other hand, that work can pay off in some pretty darn awesome performance.

Fun Stuff!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Great results so far Bob - -2300rpm and 212kts - - could you run out of pitch on your prop blades?

Bill,

It's a valid question. In Reno, I raced at 2700-2800 RPM, at 260+ mph average speed. Speed in the Valley of Speed was above that. The prop speed could be increased, so I don't believe I was at the stop...and I don't want to be. Coming down the chute for the start, I add power first, and then up go to desired RPM, to mitigate a prop overspeed. I have a Whirlwind 330-3B-73 propeller, and will discuss this with Jim (WW owner and fellow racer)...but I am interested in your thoughts on this, both at the low and high pitch stop ends. Thanks for bringing it up!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Mark,

The original builder of my plane set out to build a "side-by-side Rocket", so although it's a slow-build 6, and the dimensions are stock from the firewall to the baggage bulkhead station, it's stretched 8" behind the baggage bulkhead (with custom bulkheads designed by the builder and his then EAA chapter-mates). It's longer FWF also, due to the 540, and has titanium Rocket landing gear, and Sam James wheel pants. The fuselage structure is beefed up (thicker stringers and extra corner braces in specific locations), and some areas of the fuselage have .040 skin. That helps to explain some of the extra weight, as does the custom engine mount.

As for speed, the Lycon IO-540 dyno'd at 322HP in 1998, and has been a really strong motor. The original builder made his own plenum, and had a ram air scoop that could be opened for additional manifold pressure. However, the basic inlet was via the left inlet ramp floor, through a sponge filter, and then a scat tube to the side of the ram air scoop. In my first year of racing in Reno (2011), I raced it as I bought it, and qualified at 242 mph under the old course measuring system. That would have been about 238 mph under the current measuring system on the current course layout (long story about that measurement system, and how to get apples to apples comparisons over the years). Over the years, I have modified, with extensive design help from Steve, both the induction inlet (Sam James), and the exit area (Steve's design, with a lot of motivation from Dan Horton's "Shrinking Exit" project, and Dave Anders' work in this area. The inlet added 3 mph, and the exit work added 7 mph. We've also done various clean-up work on the airframe and fairings (which has more room for improvement), and my qualifying speed has increased from that first year to the following: 2012 = 240.5 mph, 2013 = 249.6, 2014 = 252.2. I'm sure some of that was race course learning curve for the meat servo too, but we put a lot of effort into drag reduction and slight HP increases. From 2015 to 2019, while I was racing a Thunder Mustang and a Glasair III, my friends Shane and James raced Rocket Six. James posted the fastest pre-nitrous speed in 2019 at 254.3 mph. During those last couple years, I added an Airflow Performance FM-300B servo and a Sky Dynamics Forward Facing Cold Air Sump. In 2021, I added a nitrous package designed by Don at AFP, and used a 50HP shot. It required water spray on the cylinders and oil cooler to stay in good temp ranges, but it increased our speed to 262.4 in qualifying and 263.8 in an average race speed.

Nitrous is not being used for any of the current testing, and won't be until we are prepping for Reno this summer. Although the flutter clearance testing was taken to the speeds required by Reno Racing test rules (105% of the predicted qualifying speed), most of the current testing regime is designed to ensure we have very safe margins for all of my "daily driver", formation and cross country missions, as well as establishing Vs, Vx, Vy, Va, Vno, and Vne speeds.

The benefits to overall performance that all of the racing-motivated modifications have provided are pretty significant. The RV is actually a great platform to start with in this regard, as Van really designed a magnificent airplane. In one sense, starting with such a great all-around plane makes you work for small increases, but on the other hand, that work can pay off in some pretty darn awesome performance.

Fun Stuff!

Cheers,
Bob

Thanks a lot Bob for a very detailed response. I’ll continue to follow your progress closely. 😊👍
 
Today I flew an aft CG loading test flight. Goals were to assess the takeoff and landing feel, do a flutter clearance at normal cruise with an aft CG near Max Gross, check roll and pitch force gradients, and roll stability.

For the test, I loaded up full duffle bags in the baggage compartment to capacity, and put some weight in my helmet bag in the right seat. Fuel was full at 48 gals in the mains, and 7 gals in the Aux tank.

Here's a shot at the Taylor pumps after the fill-up. Lots of great folks there that have been very friendly and helpful. If you ever find yourself there, be sure to call...and walk across the street for good burgers or Mexican food, served by a super-friendly waitress...but I digress ;)

Taylor aft shot.jpg

It was a bit breezy today, so takeoff roll was still short near gross, perhaps 500-600', and it did take the customary forward stick pressure to get the tail to come up, which has always been the feel in my plane when flying with a pax.

Cruise at 9500', WOT (23.3"), 2300 RPM, 12.4 gph (slightly LOP, 14.9-15.2 AFR), came in at 218 KTAS.

Panel 218.jpg

The flutter check and all the pitch and roll checks were solid and as expected. I did an aft CG landing at Taylor before launching for the first grass landing at home field with the new wings. Did my best landing so far with the new wings at Taylor (funny how winds make you focus), but bounced it a bit at home...it still feels very light on its feet in the takeoff and landing...must practice! ;)

Flare.png

Its nice to have Sport 49 back home. 8 flights and about 7 hours into test, and things are progressing nicely. Aerobatics, climb and glide performance, and high altitude X-C testing ahead. More info to follow!

Cheers,
Bob

Home front.jpg

Home back.jpg
 
Nasty,
Like the reports and the yellow thing (315) in the background.
I have to hook up with you next time I am in Austin.

Good luck in the testing and extra KNOTS

Boomer
 
This is a very insightful question actually. Chances are we are very close to the coarse pitch stops.

I recognize this is a Whirlwind, but I let the nose down on my Rocket last weekend and saw 250 KTAS with the prop at 2300 and never saw an RPM increase (indicating it was still governing, off the stops). I have a Hartzell BA.
 
I recognize this is a Whirlwind, but I let the nose down on my Rocket last weekend and saw 250 KTAS with the prop at 2300 and never saw an RPM increase (indicating it was still governing, off the stops). I have a Hartzell BA.

During the flutter clearance exercise, I used 2400, and it remained steady and governed all the way to 262 KTAS. No RPM increase. This will be important in the chute at Reno, though I will not get to that speed. We keep the release speeds appropriate to the aircraft in the flight, and even if I'm in Silver, we keep it to 190 KIAS, and we teach the Pace Pilots to release flat and late, so as to prevent crazy speeds in the start. The Legacies and Glasairs don't like me in their heat for that limitation (especially if I'm faster than they are :D), but that's where I (and other Metal Mafia pilots) have to be most careful. Too steep, and too early of a release, and full power going downhill, and it's a recipe for going too fast.

During the descent on the X-C to Llano yesterday, it was steady at 2300. As the airspeed climbed from the 214 KTAS cruise to up to 230 KTAS in the descent, it stayed there. I throttled back MP to slow from 230, as that was the highest speed I had cleared at that point, and it stayed at 2300...all quite normal.

On the second descent going home, I experimented with reducing RPM instead of manifold pressure, and found that above 220 KTAS, I could not reduce below 2200 RPM. On today's flight, I did a couple descents as I burned off Aux fuel, to test this further. Starting from 2300 in cruise at 218 KTAS, I lowered the nose and accelerated slowly to 230 KTAS. Again, I could not reduce RPM below 2200. I slowed to 210 knots, and I was able to reduce to 2100 (where I stopped moving the blue knob). This was the case from 180 knots all the way up to 215 knots. At 215+, I again could not reduce below 2200, and even with the blue knob back where 2100 was at 200 KTAS, the RPM crept up as I accelerated the decent to 220, 230, 235. If the RPM is set at 2300 before doing this exercise, it stays at 2300. If it's set at 2100 before accelerating, RPM increases as speed increases.

So I think that at least partially answer's BillL's question. At 2300 and 212-214 yesterday, and at 218 today, I was governing, and saw no RPM changes when I started the descent and accelerated. But if I try to govern it to a slower speed, I do hit the stops, and it won't go any coarser. Is your question expressing concern that at full power in racing, we may hit the stop and then be speed limited by that...or subject to a runaway?

Just describing all this to get BillL's feedback, and to generate discussion. I'll discuss this with Jim at WW too. He and I have discussed other prop possibilities as well. :)

Thanks for the discussion!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Nasty,
Like the reports and the yellow thing (315) in the background.
I have to hook up with you next time I am in Austin.

Good luck in the testing and extra KNOTS

Boomer

Please do Boomer! Would be great to connect!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Propeller Blade settings

I recall I had to have the high stop to 39.5 deg (3 Dec 2012). If you want to follow what Hartzell did for me, have at it! I suspect all of the Rocket props were reset to that setting after I did some test flights for them.
 
Cruise at 9500', WOT (23.3"), 2300 RPM, 12.4 gph (slightly LOP, 14.9-15.2 AFR), came in at 218 KTAS.

The wing is really cool. Goes faster, looks great. You guys are a dream team.

Bob, 23.3" at that speed/altitude/temperature is impressive. May I ask the cowl intake diameter, and did you see an indicated MP increase when you swapped to the taper tube Sky Dynamics manifold?
 
Back
Top