I suppose it will need counter rotating Lycomings so,like a P-38, there is no "critical" engine?...
And the electric powered Extra can fly for how long on a charge? Doesn't look like a good choice for a cross country machine... even for burger runs. maybe I'm mis-remembering.
Just add about 6 inches to the width of the -10 and/or -14. It's cool that Van's makes these awesome machines but all the side by sides feel like a C-150. Like the window seats in coach on an RJ....
Hmmmm......
The published width of the C-150 is 38"
The published width of the RV-14 is 46" (3" wider than the RV-7/9 at 43")
The published width of the RV-10 is 48 1/4"
If you added 6 inches to the width of an RV-10 you would only be a little more than in inch shy of the cabin width of a Cessna Mustang
Maybe you are looking at the wrong class of airplane.....
As a point of order, the P-38 was unusual in the fact that the counter rotation was "backwards" from other twins. This was done to reduce vibration so it was a more effective gun platform. And as a result, both engines are "critical".
RV3 replacement, to same quality of kit as RV12/14, with new 135hp Rotax due next year.
Quickbuild as much as possible.
Pop rivets for speed/ease of build.
Please - and I'll have 2.
My friends at the Sling Factory have designed a nice AC that flies 4 people on 120 hp fairly cheaply but there are about 180-190 aircraft units needed to get one flying Its' a beautiful airplane but I wonder how many they will sell?
Yes. This. Maybe not the Rotax specifically, but pre-punched RV-3 with pulled (flush) rivets and same strength as the standard current -3? Yes please. Keep it simple and keep it a true -3. I'm in!
I think a great start would be an upgrade to the RV6 with engineering to up the VNE to 230mph.
Bob
J F, congrats on your intel. I spoke directly to Jordan and to Matt at the Sling Factory and one of them, I don't remember which one, said something like 'no power upgrade is in the offing' for the Sling 4 place. That was when I first became aware of the Rotax 135hp engine.
One of them said that the Airplane Factory would likely develop a new aircraft for the Rotax 135. Powering the 4 place Sling with 135 hp seemed like a good idea to me! Maybe there are structural considerations?
How about an RV purpose-designed to take the Rotec radial, or even an M-14P?
Just add about 6 inches to the width of the -10 and/or -14.
As a point of contrast, the Sportsman has no structure or other impediments projecting into the area occupied by hips and shoulders, so it's width measurement is effectively measuring "clear space". Similarly, it's instrument panel is relatively far forward as compared to RVs. And, the Sportsman offers pretty substantial height above the seat cushion to accommodate tall people, especially those with long torsos.
An electric engine would provide plenty of power and basically vibration free.
A hybrid solution with an electric engine/battery to provide good TOGA performance together with a small diesel/generator package on a dampening mount and with no need to comply with rpm demand from a propeller, scaled for cruise power demand plus some for recharging the battery.
How about an RV purpose-designed to take the Rotec radial, or even an M-14P?
+1 for an all metal Glasair Sportsman competitor. Reasonable cruise and short field performance in an all-metal, high wing package, with the option to put it on floats and skis. There is a reason why Cessna 180s are so popular?
I also wish that Van?s would improve their production process of the metal parts. I recently had chance to check out Zenith and Rans kits ? much less, if any, deburring required. I understand that they use a different process than Van?s to cut the metal parts.
....I also wish that Van?s would improve their production process of the metal parts....
I second the comment re: metal part production process.
I was looking at that latest RANS airplane at Oshkosh with an aerospace engineer friend of mine (he knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do!!!) and he pointed out a lot of different things with the high quality of the parts on that new RANS plane. Quite impressive!
[...] The RANS S-21 is what I would have wanted from an RV-15 [...]
[...] And between RANS and Murphy, the all aluminium high wing market is pretty competitive already.
Once we are done with our 10, we want to build a high wing all metal plane with a performance in the range of a Cessna 180 (wouldn't need 4 seats though). Currently the S-21 is on top of our list and I know that we are not the only ones who are excited about it.
Personally, I am convinced that a lower cost engine option for the 14 wold have
covered the market segment the 9 is occupying. The remaining funds should have been invested in a 7 kit update and / or the development of a fast high wing all metal aircraft.
The 7 and 9 came out at about the same time. Just over 1,500 7s are completed with just over 1,000 9s completed. 9 has strong market interest. I agree that the engine choice for the 14 was one that causes many, including myself, to pass on it.
In forecasting the future market, one should not neglect to consider the ramifications if the Primary Non Commercial certification proposal. The ability to restore a 172 (or any other factory plane) with the engine and options of your choosing would really reduce kit sales for a while. It'd arguably also increase the value of the vintage "factory" fleet considerably while simultaneously decreasing the value, at least modestly, of the experimental fleet. I bought my low-time M-20F for about half of what some 9s are
All this said, if the S-21 offers fuel capacity of over 50 gallons, I'll buy one in a second. Same thing if a match-holed RV-3 kit came on the market.
Right now, The S-21 looks to be similar to the RV-9 in performance, with the ability to equip it for rough fields and more cargo.
....Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!
If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV....