Solid rivets look incredibly better and you’ll be thanking yourself during paint when you’re not painstakingly masking around hundreds of rivet heads.
There's no reason that pulled rivets have to be "round-head". They make flush pulled rivets too.
Solid rivets look incredibly better and you’ll be thanking yourself during paint when you’re not painstakingly masking around hundreds of rivet heads.
This is exactly what Vans needs to make! A pop riveted RV-9.
If saving eighty thousand dollars, hundreds of hours of time, and thousands over the years on fuel by building a -12 over a -14 makes me Captain Cheapo then I'll gladly wear that yoke.
I do, however, wish there was a middle ground between the two in terms of build time, cost, ease of construction and performance. Hopefully the -15 occupies that space.
Van’s did some testing on the -9 with much lower powered engines like the continental O-200 and 0-235 and it still performs like a champ. Fast. Cheap. (Doesn’t sounds like a lawnmower) this sounds like the plane you are looking for!
Van's response was interesting. He replied: " There seems to be a desire for simpler flying...for outback flying"
I wonder if Vans could use their considerable pull in the market to help one or more alternative (and cheaper) engines gain the traction,volume, and track record required to really compete with Lycoming/Continental/Rotax. Aeromomentum, for example, have a FWF kit for the RV-12 and their AM15 engine, so the engineering's been done. And Viking have similar kits.If the Rotax 915 iS at 141 HP wasn't so expensive compared to a Lycoming 235 or 320, I'd think it's the perfect mate for Van's to offer in a 9A or a newer model, like the 12, but Vne higher rated and more #'s /sq ft of wing, in an AB build. Must have EFIS and ADSB In and Out, in the kit. The airspace on west coast is very busy these days, ADS-B is a safety factor.
Time to build is always a consideration. Pop rivets, if they work, don't smoke and have longevity without failure.
OK when is this thread going to die?
Just saying.
When the RV-16 thread starts
I agree. There has been the 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14. Next should be the 16.
OK when is this thread going to die?
Just saying.
John, I'm note sure why you want to have long running threads permanently closed when it is obvious that people have an interest in the subject and want to keep posting. This is not the first time you've pushed to have a major thread closed. Have you become the self appointed arbiter of when a thread has run its course? I say let the members of VansAirforce decide with their typing fingers when a thread has run its course...when they stop posting the thread will inexorably recede into the archives. There is no need to close any thread that is being conducted in good spirit and does not break any of Doug's rules.
When a thread is permanently closed it is consigned to the graveyard along with all its intrinsic information. People can never revive it by adding comments down the track when further relevant information becomes available or further queries arise.
I think it's bad practice and totally unnecessary for moderators to permanently close threads for whimsical reasons and I trust that they will reject your advice in this instance.
I thought the Van's announcement (RV-X) would light up the boards
Honestly I'm stuck between a Glastar and an RV9A but the availability of local build help is what has me on the Vans side as well as the difficulty finding a good deal on a Glastar kit since it is out of production.
If Vans would build an all aluminum bird that would perform like a Glastar they would really put a dent in Kitfox, Rans, and Murphy business.
They did! The RV-9 (original was a tri-gear, it wasn't intended to offer as a tailwheel) was Vans answer to the original 2 seat Glastar. The Glastar originally had a C-152 engine (O-235) and Vans decided they could design/build a better airplane. The RV-9 has a higher cruise, and lower landing speed with the same engine as the Glastar. The original Glastar performed poorly on the O-235 and they kept putting bigger and bigger engines in it to get better performance. The RV-9 was offered with the O-235 and O-320 engines although most are built with the O-320.
Check the performance specs with the same engine.
There is the Sling TSI high wing in development that will compete in this space. Mojogrip has a interview on YouTube with the designer. Designed around the 915 with a pre done Carbon Fiber main fuselage section and the rest is metal. It will have a tail wheel version.
I think you are mixing the Glastar with the Glasair. The Glastar is the high wing, STOL, 2 seat, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage covered in a fiberglass shell. it evolved into the sportsman that has a 4 seats and the kit/completion costs grew significantly
No I am not. The 2 seat high wing Glastar was one of the aircraft that inspired the RV-9. Yes I know, high wing vs low wing, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage with fiberglass shell vs all aluminum structure. Each company used its own design philosophy. At the time of introduction of the Glastar, Vans looked at it and decided they could build a better airplane to compete with it. And they did.
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:
1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.
2. Potentially better visibility.
3. With struts, a lighter airframe.
The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.
Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.
Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.
So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.
Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:
1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.
2. Potentially better visibility.
3. With struts, a lighter airframe....
So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:
1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.
2. Potentially better visibility.
3. With struts, a lighter airframe.
The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.
Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.
Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.
So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.
Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying
Add for high wing:
4. Easier to get into and out of, and load/unload.
5. Sit in the shade both in the air and outside on the ground.
6. Less risk of getting trapped upside down if it flips in a crash.
I'm not a fan of the Rotax 915 at 37k for 141hp at 186lbs. Thats big motor money for one that really doesn't do a whole lot more than say a UL350is at 22K for 130hp at 173lb. Unless you're at high DA and need the forced induction. Too spendy a powerplant for my budget.
Having just gone through the process of engine selection for my RV-8, I selected the IO-390 despite cons of weight, forward cg, etc,etc....however, I do not appear to be alone as others on this forum are also going through this process of engine selection. I just had an epiphany! What if Van’s developed an RV-8 “plus” kit to help offset some of the cons associated with using this engine. Maybe a shorter engine mount, cowl mods, other ways to move the cg aft that would restore the good handling of the O/IO-360 equipped 8’s. I am already making adjustments to help with cg like aft mounted battery, Sky Designs alum gear (saves 15 lbs), Hartzell composite prop (Saves 10-15 lbs), anything else that might help. I believe Van’s might have a market for this.
I would be first in line for this.