[ChiefPilot]

This thread reminds me of other places on the internet where people come up with ideas about what the next iPhone, Tesla, etc. should look like and get excited about those ideas.

It’s nothing more than mental masturbation since Apple, Tesla, or in this case Vans Aircract have no credible market niche to be filled by such ideas and in Vans case, lack the resources to do anything about it. Especially when the folks coming up with those ideas have no background in microelectronics, the automotive industry, or aerospace - as was said elsewhere already, generating AI-based renderings is a far cry from any real engineering (or even market research) disciplines.

 

[Jonnyb]

I don’t think anyone has a problem with considering new ideas…but…you need to look at them realistically. Just because AI makes a pretty picture doesn’t mean that it fills a need or a want, or more importantly, can be practically built.

So while a twin turbofan, pressurized RV-10 with ER tanks and a 350kt Vne would be really nice, I’m pretty sure it will never happen…except maybe in an AI generated picture.

I disagree here.
Why does anyone have to look at them “realistically”? And what elements of realism should we apply in this case? Time? Money? Because if you have enough of those realism goes out of the window.
You guys sent humans to the moon, and now you want realism!
When Mike Patey built Draco what elements of realism was he looking at?
Some times it’s just good to spit ball ideas, even if you know they will never happen.

 

[MacCool]

So, are we going to have a forum where no one is allowed to debate ideas? Is that it?

Very important question. It’s very easy for a person to just not click on threads that evoke a negative emotion.

 

[MacCool]

When Mike Patey built Draco what elements of realism was he looking at?
Some times it’s just good to spit ball ideas, even if you know they will never happen.

It’s amusing to wonder what the response to Mike Patey might have been here had he posted for discussion about his ideas for Turbulence, Draco, or Scrappy.

 

[Auburntsts]

I disagree here.
Why does anyone have to look at them “realistically”? And what elements of realism should we apply in this case? Time? Money? Because if you have enough of those realism goes out of the window.
You guys sent humans to the moon, and now you want realism!
When Mike Patey built Draco what elements of realism was he looking at?
Some times it’s just good to spit ball ideas, even if you know they will never happen

I disagree with your disagreement. We're talking E-AB so there's absolutely nothing except time and money stopping him from dreaming and even turning these dreams into reality -- it's not uncommon even in the RV world. However, those examples, as well as your Mike Patey one, are one-offs and don't rise to level of mass market appeal that's necessary for a manufacturer like Van's to seriously entertain. IOW there's a vast gulf between dreaming (by all means do so to your heart's content) and having an idea that even remotely market worthy. Aviation history is littered with countless failed attempts and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars spent trying. I'm sorry but not every idea is good one no matter how well meaning or enthusiastically it is presented.

 

[PabloSniper]

The RV-12 is, for me, the dream airplane right now.
It consumes very little fuel, and from the comments I’ve read, it’s very gentle in flight.
But just imagine an RV-12 in a tandem configuration, with reduced drag area and more tapered wings.
Currently, an RV-12 covers around 23 nautical miles per gallon, or about 11 kilometers per liter.
Now imagine that, but with a higher cruise speed?



Like an Aero Shark — but from Van’s, and at a lower price (since the Aero Shark is very expensive).




And that's why I spent days and days editing a video to show the two alternative engine solutions used in the RV-4: a German builder used the 915iS, and an Italian builder used the 912 ULS.




Does that mean I want Van's to build an RV-4 with a Rotax 912? No! But it can be a starting point in the search for an economical cross-country solution.
I think I’ve mentioned this in another thread, but I live in a poor and large country, so if the airplane is affordable and can cover long distances while using less fuel—especially car fuel like a Rotax—it would be a dream.

 

[ChiefPilot]

It’s amusing to wonder what the response to Mike Patey might have been here had he posted for discussion about his ideas for Turbulence, Draco, or Scrappy.

The difference being of course that Mike has the knowledge and know-how to make it happen vs. dreaming up ideas and wanting someone else to put in the time, effort, and treasure to make it happen.

 

[MacCool]

The difference being of course that Mike has the knowledge and know-how to make it happen vs. dreaming up ideas and wanting someone else to put in the time, effort, and treasure to make it happen.

It's a simple matter to just not click on threads that one doesn't care to participate in.

 

[rocketman1988]

And that’s exactly why I’m here — to discuss and read your opinions.

You must be referring to the RV-10 equipped with two Rotax 915iS engines, which I mentioned would likely perform well at high altitudes, where the IO-540 loses performance.
But right now, at this moment, I had only asked about an RV-8 with RV-9 wings for cross-country flying.

Nope; I discussed what I thought of the twin rotax when you posted last time.

I said exactly what I meant; and turbofans could never be confused with rotax engines, further questioning your knowledge base.

I completely agree!

I might suggest reading about general aircraft design as it may help you with your ideas. There is a good design series of books by Lan and Roskam. Start with “Aircraft Design”…

 

[rocketman1988]

The RV-12 is, for me, the dream airplane right now.
It consumes very little fuel, and from the comments I’ve read, it’s very gentle in flight.
But just imagine an RV-12 in a tandem configuration, with reduced drag area and more tapered wings.
Currently, an RV-12 covers around 23 nautical miles per gallon, or about 11 kilometers per liter.
Now imagine that, but with a higher cruise speed?

View attachment 89308

Like an Aero Shark — but from Van’s, and at a lower price (since the Aero Shark is very expensive).

Maybe you ought to look at the aero designs pulsar from 1985…it seems to be in line with your wants.

View attachment 89309


And that's why I spent days and days editing a video to show the two alternative engine solutions used in the RV-4: a German builder used the 915iS, and an Italian builder used the 912 ULS.

View attachment 89310
View attachment 89311

Does that mean I want Van's to build an RV-4 with a Rotax 912? No! But it can be a starting point in the search for an economical cross-country solution.

Who’s search? Vans? Pretty sure they are happy with the -9 being economical. I will say, however, that rotax power in an existing airframe is certainly a realistic option.

I think I’ve mentioned this in another thread, but I live in a poor and large country, so if the airplane is affordable and can cover long distances while using less fuel—especially car fuel like a Rotax—it would be a dream.

You could always look at a Quickie aircraft; on a twin cylinder 18 hp lawn mower engine for power.

 

[ChiefPilot]

It's a simple matter to just not click on threads that one doesn't care to participate in.

You're right of course.

 

[PabloSniper]

I might suggest reading about general aircraft design as it may help you with your ideas. There is a good design series of books by Lan and Roskam. Start with “Aircraft Design”…

Thanks for the reading suggestion — I really do need something interesting to read right now.

Maybe you ought to look at the aero designs pulsar from 1985…it seems to be in line with your wants.

I’ll look it up, thank you.

Who’s search? Vans? Pretty sure they are happy with the -9 being economical. I will say, however, that rotax power in an existing airframe is certainly a realistic option.

Yes, I saw that, and the numbers really impressed me. I’ll say it again — I believe Van’s should have more projects with Rotax engines, not just the RV-12.

You could always look at a Quickie aircraft; on a twin cylinder 18 hp lawn mower engine for power.

No need to go that far — The goal is a Van’s with a 912, two comfortable tandem seats, and at least 250 km/h (around 135 knots) cruise speed. Or, as I mentioned earlier, a tandem RV-12 with a taildragger option.

 

[Auburntsts]

The bottom line is if you want a niche aircraft you’re gonna have to build your own or find another make/model that is closer to your mission and performance requirements. So my recommendation is approach this in that vein using the brain trust here to murder board your ideas. Expectation management: If all this is going to just be a wish list for Vans to fill your personal desires, this effort is doomed to stay in dreamland.

 

[plehrke]

I have designed hundreds, if not a thousand, aircraft concepts in my 38 year career as a configuration designer engineer, some I only spent 4 hours laying out and others 4 years. I thought most were great ideas (some thought many were crazy) that satisfied a customer’s need/requirement. All but 3 ended up archived (meaning in the trash) due to cost, schedule, engineering challenges, over promised technology, personalities, politics, etc. But the root reason was always changing customer desires or a changing customers which basically translates to a lack of a market.

Aviation history is full of companies that came and went that had great ideas/plan/designs. The beauty of where we are in Experimental Amateur Built is that we can dream and are allowed (with some government oversight) to go try and build it. Just don’t expect that a kit company will jump in to help. If you want a twin RV-10 with Rotax engines or RV-9 wings on an RV-8, great, go for it and we will all watch in awe and give advice (aka critique/criticize). If you are an innovator you need to have a thick skin.

 

[PabloSniper]

If all this is going to just be a wish list for Vans to fill your personal desires, this effort is doomed to stay in dreamland.

Living in a tough reality like ours makes escaping into dreamland kinda tempting. Anyway, thanks for your words! I might’ve started the thread, but I’m really just here to see what other lunatics like me have to say too haha.

I have designed hundreds, if not a thousand, aircraft concepts in my 38 year career as a configuration designer engineer, some I only spent 4 hours laying out and others 4 years. I thought most were great ideas (some thought many were crazy) that satisfied a customer’s need/requirement. All but 3 ended up archived (meaning in the trash) due to cost, schedule, engineering challenges, over promised technology, personalities, politics, etc. But the root reason was always changing customer desires or a changing customers which basically translates to a lack of a market.

In aviation, almost anything is possible — as long as you’ve got Howard Hughes-level money.
Now imagine, just for a second, if that dream project of yours somehow got sponsored by Elon Musk?
And let’s take it a step further: what if your project was actually great — and it took off?
Sometimes, the difference between success and failure is just trying one more time.

Aviation history is full of companies that came and went that had great ideas/plan/designs.

Out of all the companies that either went bankrupt or stopped making aircraft, the one I liked the most was Curtiss.
My first aviation crush was the P-40, and when I read about the Curtiss XP-60, it was love at first sight.
Same engine as a Hellcat/P-47, laminar flow wings, and contra-rotating propellers.
Woww.

But as we know, it never got past the prototype stage, and the company stopped building aircraft altogether.

Just don’t expect that a kit company will jump in to help. If you want a twin RV-10 with Rotax engines or RV-9 wings on an RV-8, great, go for it and we will all watch in awe and give advice (aka critique/criticize).

An RV-10 with two front-mounted engines driving contra-rotating propellers, inspired by the Macchi M.C.72, or a Push-Pull setup like the Do 335 — those really are nearly impossible.
But with two wing-mounted engines, like this RV-6 Twin Jag… it just seems so straightforward. Don’t you think?"

If you are an innovator you need to have a thick skin.

Rough and tough like boar hide

My best regards

 

[280FX]

But with two wing-mounted engines, like this RV-6 Twin Jag… it just seems so straightforward. Don’t you think?"
View attachment 89332

From my neighbor (who would post, but he can't) -

Given the latest Service Notice from Van's (SN00108) warning of reduced flutter margins due to the extra weight of fuel from ER tanks in the wings (and regardless of location in the wing according to the SN) - an additional 400 pounds of weight from two Rotax 916iS engines located on the wings would reduce Vne by 187 knots (400 pounds divided by 6 pounds per gallon times 2.8 knots per gallon). Lack of a nose mounted engine shouldn't affect wing flutter margin. Vne of 13 KTAS hardly makes for a practical modification, don't you think?

 

[plehrke]

In aviation, almost anything is possible — as long as you’ve got Howard Hughes-level money.

Actually very untrue starting from the very beginning of aviation with the Wright Brothers vs Langley. Money helps but it is far from the most important ingredient in success. Other good examples in computers especially back in the 1970s and 80s. Typically the money helps by buying the upstart competitors that have the new innovative ideas. Even Musk’s success prior to his current fortune when his Space-X was easily outspent by Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Tesla could easily have been outspent by any of the big 3 (plus half dozen non-U.S.) automakers. His fortune was a product of his success and therefore not the reason for his success.
Oh, and I would not call Howard Hughes all that successful in aviation. He did have some innovative ideas but never made any successful. Of course depends on your definition of success.
But we digress.

 

[skirting_virga]

He did have some innovative ideas but never made any successful. Of course depends on your definition of success.
But we digress.

I'm led to believe we owe him thanks for flush riveting, but I'm not convinced it does a lot more than double the build time of an RV.

 

[EdH]

Sounds like you need a SAM LSA. Zenith bought the design, and might sell it to you.

Sam LS

Retro look for fun flying.

www.kitplanes.com

Flying the SAM Aircraft for the first time

Since announcing that we'd purchased the assets of SAM Aircraft earlier this year, Zenith Aircraft demo pilot Roger Dubbert and I recently traveled to Zenair L…

zenith.aero

 

[PabloSniper]

Sounds like you need a SAM LSA. Zenith bought the design, and might sell it to you.

Sam LS

Retro look for fun flying.

www.kitplanes.com

Flying the SAM Aircraft for the first time

Since announcing that we'd purchased the assets of SAM Aircraft earlier this year, Zenith Aircraft demo pilot Roger Dubbert and I recently traveled to Zenair L…

zenith.aero

So, no offense with my comment, but that’s one ugly bird
Let’s just say Van’s is never going to make a tandem-seat aircraft powered by a 100hp Rotax, right?
In that case, my choice would be the scaled replica made by the Italians at Flying Legend.
Their version with the Rotax 912 iS cruises at 130 knots — which is much more appealing than the RV-12’s cruise speed.

Not to mention, it’s inspired by the Tucano, a Brazilian design — and I actually had the chance to meet its original designer about 20 years ago.
Unfortunately, the price of their kit is not exactly encouraging.
And now that it’s being operated by two small air forces (Dominican Republic and Vietnam), chances are the price isn’t going to get any better anytime soon.



They say they’re working on a version with a 200hp turboprop, which sounds really interesting.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

As expected, this thread has detoured into discussions that don't apply to future RV models. Thread closed.