What's new
Van's Air Force

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

How to keep it Light, Simple & Safe

T

todehnal

Well Known Member
Make it an RV-12 tail dragger:

WHY??

Less weight
More payload
Less maintenance
More simple (to build and to maintain)
Lower Cost (Check the kit prices for the 9/9A and 7/7A)
Easier to trailer (lower profile)
Less chance of shimmy problems
More prop clearance during taxi
Less chance of picking up ground debris and getting nicks
More capable for use on grass strips that are in something
less than golf course green condition
Safer in the event of an off field forced landing
(think freshly plowed field here)
Easier to move around by hand, without the need of a tow bar
More natural take-off characteristics
Choice of landing technique (wheel landing or three point)
Way cool in appearance

Feel free to add to the list.

Now, how do we get Van?s Aircraft to help make this happen?

Tom
 
It's all market driven!

todehnal said:
Make it an RV-12 tail dragger:

Now, how do we get Van?s Aircraft to help make this happen?

Tom
Click to expand...
Convince him that the market is there. Sorry but the biggest market for the -12 is people who don't want a tail dragger.
I agree with you on all points. Unfortunately, this market wants tricycles. Look at the number of -9s vs. -9As.
 
Right on Mel. Look at all the other LSA's around the world and they are over-whelmingly tri-gear.

The other sad perception is that I think it would be even more difficult to convert the 12 to a tailwheel than the other RV models because of the cab forward seating and the Rotax being tucked so tight up against the firewall.

If you look at the old tailwheel light sport aircraft (Cubs, etc) they all have large wing area so they are more docile in handling, have lower stall speeds and can fly on lower horse power.

I think that Van would have an easier time building an extended wing version of the RV-4 to lower the stall speed a little and then he could run a smaller horsepower engine to create a light sport taildragger (if the market were there).

Frank
 
todehnal said:
Way cool in appearance
Click to expand...

Am I the only person in the world who holds a different opinion of tailwheel aircraft appearance? To the extent that it impinges on my consciousness at all, tailwheel aircraft on the ground (at least) suggest a mental feeling of an object sliding backwards. The word "cool" just doesn't come to mind at all - but discordant does. Sorry about that.
:(
 
JimLogajan said:
Am I the only person in the world who holds a different opinion of tailwheel aircraft appearance? To the extent that it impinges on my consciousness at all, tailwheel aircraft on the ground (at least) suggest a mental feeling of an object sliding backwards. The word "cool" just doesn't come to mind at all - but discordant does. Sorry about that.
:(
Click to expand...
You are probably not the only person but you aren't anything like me.

I think tailwheel aircraft tend to communicate striving or eagerness for flight with the nose-up attitude. Oh, and jauntiness.
 
Last edited:
JimLogajan said:
Am I the only person in the world who holds a different opinion of tailwheel aircraft appearance?
Click to expand...

I'm sort of 50/50 split on this one. I think the tri-gear aircraft, in general, look a little larger and perhaps slightly more "stately" in their ramp appearance, if that's the right word (warbirds excluded). On the other hand, I find taildraggers somewhat appealing, simply because they're more rare and pilots who fly them seem to be held in higher regard for their amazing flying abilities that nose gear pilots will never understand :eek: :D

In any case, I agree with Mel that the -12 will probably forever be a nose gear equipped airplane, simply because that's what the LSA market wants. If you exclude the factory airplanes that meet the LSA requirements (Cubs and copies of Cubs, Champs, etc.) the vast majority of new LSA designs are nose gear equipped for better ground visibility, easier landing characteristics, lower insurance rates, shorter takeoff distances, more forgiving in crosswinds, etc. Plus LSA pilots are willing to live with the slower nose gear airplane, since they aren't allowed to go that fast anyway.

I certainly think that it would be nice to have the options of nose gear/taildragger, slider/tip up, etc. on the -12, but as Van has been saying it's just not in the cards. I'm hoping that once people start flying it they'll just enjoy it for what it is :eek: I still think it's going to be really popular!
 
todehnal said:
Easier to move around by hand, without the need of a tow bar
Click to expand...
Pardon our ugly but temporary registration numbers ...

Heave-ho_web.jpg


todehnal said:
More natural take-off characteristics
Click to expand...
What's unnatural about nosedragger LSA take-offs?

I agree that a TW often makes for better rough strip aircraft.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Pardon our ugly but temporary registration numbers ...


TODR
Click to expand...
Not quite sure that I understand what you plan to do with the registration numbers. I hope you are not planning to reduce the size. S-LSA "N" numbers must be 12".

BTW N612CT shows to be "not assigned or reserved".
Something fishy here.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
Not quite sure that I understand what you plan to do with the registration numbers. I hope you are not planning to reduce the size. S-LSA "N" numbers must be 12".
BTW N612CT shows to be "not reserved or assigned".
Something fishy here.
Click to expand...

From my all-important TSA training, I think tampering with N-numbers would be grounds for either informing my boss or alerting the local authorities...can't remember which :D (just kidding...)

Mel is right though...that call sign is not registered to any airplane. Older picture of a plane that no longer exists? Possibly re-numbered?
 
I'm trying to visualize the RV-12 cab forward fuse on conventional gear and thinking that would have to be one odd lookin' bird. With all the discussion about appearance of this aircraft, I just can't imagine folks thinking it would look cool. I'm also thinking that the cab forward with a tailwheel would be a handful to control. Don't think it's gonna happen on this aircraft.
 
JimLogajan said:
Am I the only person in the world who holds a different opinion of tailwheel aircraft appearance? To the extent that it impinges on my consciousness at all, tailwheel aircraft on the ground (at least) suggest a mental feeling of an object sliding backwards. The word "cool" just doesn't come to mind at all - but discordant does. Sorry about that.
:(
Click to expand...

I have a mental image of squatting dogs, or guppies, but I'm not sure what a squatting guppy really looks like.... :D

As mentioned in another reply, and I've said about the same thing before; the nose wheeling RV's look more stately, or substantial on the ground; but not as good as the tail draggers in the air. And that "4" with retracts looks best of all,
RV wise!

For really playing around rough fields, it needs to be a Super Cub or Aviat Husky with those large tundra tires. And you can't beat a P-51 for looks on the ground, or wheels pulled into the wing while in flight!

My "honest" and unchanging assessment of course. :D

L.Adamson
 
Mel said:
Not quite sure that I understand what you plan to do with the registration numbers. I hope you are not planning to reduce the size. S-LSA "N" numbers must be 12".

BTW N612CT shows to be "not assigned or reserved".
Something fishy here.
Click to expand...
I assure you, the fish has been cooked and eaten. The airplane was supposed to be registered as N621CT, but originally got registered as N612CT; thus the numbers had to be changed to meet the registration and AW until we got it straightened out. Drunken Dino no longer has an identity crisis and proudly shows N621CT on its tail.

TODR
 
Not

Mike_ExpressCT said:
On the other hand, I find taildraggers somewhat appealing, simply because they're more rare and pilots who fly them seem to be held in higher regard for their amazing flying abilities that nose gear pilots will never understand :eek: :D
opular!
Click to expand...

C'mon now. Ever heard of that famous tri-gear aerobatic pilot named Bob Hoover and his buddy Yeager.....nosewheel pilots. Not held in high regard? I have a -6A and a taildragger 700 HP Air Tractor turbine with 37 years and counting doing ag work. I personally don't care what TD pilots think. I respect them all.

Pierre
 
pierre smith said:
C'mon now. Ever heard of that famous tri-gear aerobatic pilot named Bob Hoover and his buddy Yeager.....nosewheel pilots. Not held in high regard? I have a -6A and a taildragger 700 HP Air Tractor turbine with 37 years and counting doing ag work. I personally don't care what TD pilots think. I respect them all.

Pierre
Click to expand...

It was a joke buddy ;)
 
JimLogajan said:
Am I the only person in the world who holds a different opinion of tailwheel aircraft appearance? To the extent that it impinges on my consciousness at all, tailwheel aircraft on the ground (at least) suggest a mental feeling of an object sliding backwards. The word "cool" just doesn't come to mind at all - but discordant does. Sorry about that.
:(
Click to expand...
Depends on the airplane, I think. I'd rather look at a P-51 on the ground than a P-39, for example. A taildragger 747, on the other hand, would look goofy. Kinda like a Lancaster - it would look better with a nosewheel ala the B-24. Not sure a B-17 would, though.

Aesthetics are a very personal thing, just like art. Well, and cars. I, for the life of me, cannot see why anyone would buy a Pontiac Aztek, but people still do.
 
Another reason -- fun

todehnal said:
Make it an RV-12 tail dragger:

WHY??

Less weight
More payload
Less maintenance
More simple (to build and to maintain)
Lower Cost (Check the kit prices for the 9/9A and 7/7A)
Easier to trailer (lower profile)
Less chance of shimmy problems
More prop clearance during taxi
Less chance of picking up ground debris and getting nicks
More capable for use on grass strips that are in something
less than golf course green condition
Safer in the event of an off field forced landing
(think freshly plowed field here)
Easier to move around by hand, without the need of a tow bar
More natural take-off characteristics
Choice of landing technique (wheel landing or three point)
Way cool in appearance

Feel free to add to the list.

Now, how do we get Van?s Aircraft to help make this happen?

Tom
Click to expand...
Amen, brother! But you forgot one reason -- FUN!

Experimental aircraft aren't trainers. And with top speed and payload limited by law, homebuilt LSA's are not going to be very good traveling planes either.

The whole point of a homebuilt LSA is to be FUN.

If they can't make it aerobatic, the very least they can do would be to give us a taildragger option. And as I've said before, with the slow speeds we're talking about, there's no reason not to give us an open-cockpit option, too.

There are two reasons to build a 12: 1) You don't want to maintain your medical. 2) You can't afford to feed a Lycoming.

So what if the taildragger 9 has never sold well? -- it's a totally different market. Almost none of them have a 118 hp engine, either. 9 builders want a fast cross-country plane that's an easy step up from a rented Cessna. They're mostly low-time and working. 12 builders will be mostly mid-time and retired.

In fact, a lot of the guys who will build the 12 would probably still have their previous RV if they were younger and richer. They'll want a taildragger.
 
'Maintaing your medical' is sometimes harder than you think

jonbakerok said:
There are two reasons to build a 12: 1) You don't want to maintain your medical. 2) You can't afford to feed a Lycoming.
.
.
.

In fact, a lot of the guys who will build the 12 would probably still have their previous RV if they were younger and richer. They'll want a taildragger.
Click to expand...

Jon,

It bugs me when people assume that 'maintaining your medical' is a matter of choice. At least in my case, it's not my decision - the FAA is forcing my hand.

I'm 'only' 53 and consider myself to be in excellent health but a one-time occurance of kidney stones more than two years ago caused the Feds to put me through *three* separate rounds of tests taking 5 months at my last medical. After the third round of tests it became clear that they were just looking for an excuse to ground me, and they finally found it - a CAT scan looking for kidney stones found some gallstones instead. That was all it took to get me a Special Issuance medical. So now I am a 'marked man' and can expect similar treatment at my next medical, should I be brave enough to attempt to get one. And should I try and fail, well I can kiss the Sport Pilot option goodby.

So I guess my point is this - until you have experienced it you won't understand how the FAA really *is* out to get you. Every time you go to renew your medical you are playing Russian Roulete with your pilots license. Once Warren Silberman in Oklahoma City has messed with you a LSA airplane like the RV-12 starts to look real appealing, and things like landing gear configuration and top speeds become less important.

I would love to be able to have a faster RV than the 12. But if the choice is between the 12 and watching 'Wings' on the TV, I'll take the 12. And while a taildragger version of the 12 would be nice (I have hundreds of hours in a Cessna 120), I'll happily take the nosewheel model, too.

Almost losing your ticket has a way of focusing the mind. :)

Jim
 
Mel said:
12" numbers on the tail? Must be tight.
Click to expand...
I can't say that I went and measured them. However, when we got the new numbers from the graphics guy, they looked to be 12", judging on the 8 1/2 x 11" receipt that came in the tube.

Interestingly, we originally had numbers in a serif font with a shadow, but our DAR nixed that at the original inspection, so a sans-serif font with no shadows it is.

TODR
 
jonbakerok said:
There are two reasons to build a 12: 1) You don't want to maintain your medical. 2) You can't afford to feed a Lycoming.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, and I would add to the list that, if you can't afford to invest $60K-$100K for a -7a/-9a, the -12 will hopefully a good alternative. Hopefully in my case, at least. As a mid 20-something, recently married and looking at first houses to buy, price overall is a big factor :)
 
Back to the original post.

It experimental, so if you want a taildragger, build one. I bet you will have help blazing that trail.

that said, I have flown a couple Rans LSA's. I believe the LSA folks are a different pilot than "most" RV'rs. someone mentioned midtime, older retired pilots. Maybe. But those guys don't care if they are flying 180mph at 12500. A friend sold his '58 Bonanza because he didn't fly in enough(too expensive), he bought a Luscombe. the Luscombe does 115mph on 4.5gph. He is almost always solo, so it works perfect for him. He is watching the -12 closely. He also has J-3, but it has no range or speed, but excellent ramp appeal.

Another exRV-4 builder/owner, figures him and his wife, full fuel will still be able to haul almost 100# of stuff. That's more than he carried in his -4. He loves airport hopping. one day coming back from S&F, he never got above 800'agl. He says you don't have to fly fast or high to enjoy flying.

YMMV
 
JimmyBob said:
Jon,

It bugs me when people assume that 'maintaining your medical' is a matter of choice. At least in my case, it's not my decision - the FAA is forcing my hand.

I'm 'only' 53 and consider myself to be in excellent health but a one-time occurance of kidney stones more than two years ago caused the Feds to put me through *three* separate rounds of tests taking 5 months at my last medical. After the third round of tests it became clear that they were just looking for an excuse to ground me, and they finally found it - a CAT scan looking for kidney stones found some gallstones instead. That was all it took to get me a Special Issuance medical. So now I am a 'marked man' and can expect similar treatment at my next medical, should I be brave enough to attempt to get one. And should I try and fail, well I can kiss the Sport Pilot option goodbye.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Good to know you're still flying and that LSA may be a way for you to continue to fly.

Richard Collins' July 2007 column in Flying pretty much sums up what my experience says many pilots think of the Sport Pilot rules:

"Many thought the no-medical thing would create a huge market. That has not developed because most people who can function normally can pass an FAA medical exam. And the things that preclude passing an FAA medical are things that most people wouldn?t want to take for an airplane ride without another functioning pilot on board."

To rebut this I need only say two words: Bob Hoover (although Jim's experience works about as well). Perhaps Collins will change his tune if he get his medical denied.

TODR
 
In practice

I think it will be easier to install and remove the wings when the airplane is level and on three wheels. You can still tip the plane on its tail in needed for trailering. I think having the nose wheel will help with trailering because it gives you a forward hard point to tie down to where most the weight is. :rolleyes:
 
FrankS said:
The other sad perception is that I think it would be even more difficult to convert the 12 to a tailwheel than the other RV models because of the cab forward seating and the Rotax being tucked so tight up against the firewall.

Frank
Click to expand...

I don?t think that it would be that difficult for an experienced team, like Vans, to make the RV-12 into a tail dragger. Most of his tail draggers simply required that they discard all of the apparatus in the cabin area that was needed to support the main gear. Then, discard all of the nose gear trussing up front. Now, it?s a matter of moving a little closer to the firewall, then adding a couple of gear sockets into the existing engine mount like they did on the 6, 7, and 9. Also, I?m sure that there is some additional structure added at the conventional gear locations.

It seems to me that it is advantageous, having the main gear attached to the engine mount when performing an inadvertent carrier type landing. It should offer better energy absorbing for that engine mass as the mains take the load when the aircraft meets the runway. I know about these. I operate out of a narrow, 35? runway and if I happened to be landing on one of those 200? wide runways, I have a tendency to end the flare roundout at 3? instead of 3?. A wide runway will get me every time.

I wonder what the real cost was for Vans to do the RV-9 and how many additional ?kits sold? it takes, for them to consider the 9 to be a good business decision. Maybe we could get a sign up sheet for tail dragger RV-12 kits. If we just knew how many it would take?
Sign me up!

Tom
 
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION

Remember that the -12 was designed with weight as a big factor. I'll bet that you would have to add considerable weight to the tail cone structure to support tail wheel loads.
 
A wannabe's take on it...

Gallstones will fail your medical? That's insanity. I'm going to go ask my nurse friend for a little info about gallstones. I had no idea they could incapacitate you.

LSA pilots don't really want taildraggers, at least as of yet. Aside from the medical concerns, we're talking low or no time pilots (like me) who want to get in the air cheap. The homebuilt market consists of people like me who think, "I can build it for 1/3 of what I can buy it for and it'll be as good or better!" Heck, if you really want an E-LSA taildragger, just go to the dark side and build a Sonex (fightin' words, I know). It's LSA and it's available taildragger.

The point about trailering a tri-gear being easier because you can push on the tail to raise the nosewheel onto the trailer is a GREAT one. I hadn't considered this. I love taildraggers because they are the classic airplane configuration, no other reason. If I become a taildragger pilot I hope I never lord it over a tri-gear pilot.

edit: she said that yes, it can incapacitate someone. "Doubled over in pain."
 
Last edited:
It sure won't happen like this

todehnal said:
Make it an RV-12 tail dragger:

Now, how do we get Van?s Aircraft to help make this happen?

Tom
Click to expand...

We're for sure never going to get a taildragger if everytime the question is raised a chorus of nay-sayers jumps in to tell us why we don't need it.

Everybody has their druthers. It's not about what's best. It's about options.

Heck, I've never even flown a taildragger. It would just be nice is there was a challenge of some sort left to look forward to.
 
smoore said:
Gallstones will fail your medical? That's insanity. I'm going to go ask my nurse friend for a little info about gallstones. I had no idea they could incapacitate you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was surprised as well. :(

After getting my Special Issuance letter, I immediately got online and found several references stating that the FAA did not consider gallstones to be a 'disqualifying' condition. But not in my case, apparently - the letter specifically stated that I was 'ineligible for medical certification under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised Part 67' due to a 'history of gallstones'. Oh, and I've never had any symptoms of any sort related to this 'condition'.

All of which makes me feel that the FAA is actively attempting to thin the ranks of Private Pilots. Don't listen to Phil Boyer - they don't want more GA pilots in the air.

And that's why I don't think guys should assume that they will always be able to get a 3rd class medical. I've read too many threads that ask 'why would anyone want a slow RV?'. Answer: because it beats sitting on the ground. :)

Oh, and one last thing: I've come to believe that being a non-LSA pilot is inherently unhealthy as it tends to make you reluctant to go to the doctor. When you have to report every doctor visit you have a big incentive to stay home.

Jim
 
no symptoms? Yeah, sounds like they don't want you up there for one reason or another. If there's not a legitimate one, they'll find one.

That's horrid.
 
Rick S said:
I'm trying to visualize the RV-12 cab forward fuse on conventional gear and thinking that would have to be one odd lookin' bird. With all the discussion about appearance of this aircraft, I just can't imagine folks thinking it would look cool.
Click to expand...


Is there anyone out there who is familiar with ?paint? software, and would volunteer to take the drawing that is at the bottom of Van?s RV-12 page and transform it into a tail dragger, similar to an RV-6 or 7? It might be interesting to see!!

Tom
 
RV-12 Tailwheel

todehnal said:
Is there anyone out there who is familiar with ?paint? software, and would volunteer to take the drawing that is at the bottom of Van?s RV-12 page and transform it into a tail dragger, similar to an RV-6 or 7? It might be interesting to see!!
Click to expand...

Here ya go:

rv12tailwheelwv3.jpg


I based the mains position roughly on the RV-9, and I fattened up the wheels a bit.

Here's how it would look on the ground:

rv12tailwheelrotxw5.jpg
 
Last edited:
SO........ if you don't have the spar there, and the motor mount is too forward, then what do you mount the gear to?
 
Last edited:
Heck, I've never even flown a taildragger. It would just be nice is there was a challenge of some sort left to look forward to.[/QUOTE]

I know the appeal of flying a tailwheel. I do that every opportunity I can (which is getting less because no-one in my area wants to rent a tailwheel plane any more - insurance issues.)

However there are a few things to keep in mind about the RV trigear challenging your flying skills.

The tri gear should be landed full stall, nose off the ground which is the same landing attititude of a tailwheel in three point. So, strictly speak the "landing" is the same but taxiing is the difference. When the plane is slow enough to taxi the tail dragger remains tail low (with less visibility) and the nosewheel plane sits level with great visibility.

Now I realize that tailwheels want to swap ends on landing but a buddy of mine who flies an RV-6 studied RV accidents and discovered that there were equal number of "loss of directional control on landing and take-off" accidents in the trigear as there were in the tail draggers. So the notion that you can fall asleep during the landing of a tri-gear or that the plane will somehow compensate for poor airmenship is false security. You'll be challenged well enough to make consistently good landings in various conditions in the tri-gear RV-12. All that said a tri-gear plane does have a natural tendency to straighten itself out if your not perfectly aligned during the landing. Thats a bit of safety insurance. Still getting a tri-gear plane to land perfectly straight requires good flying skills (and it is good the plane as well to limit side loads on the landing gear).

Tailwheels are good for short and soft fields but light sport aircraft should be able to handle that with tri-gear as well.

Of all the requested changes I would like to see a larger wheel option for those whose operate off really rough grass strips. The Cessna 150 used to have two different wheel size options. The 1965 I used to own had the larger wheels and I never had any problems with grass runways.

So choosing a tailwheel over tri-gear should not be just for the challenge of landing a tail wheel. We should be just as conscientous about our landings in a tri-gear plane. Choosing a tri-gear should not be an excuse to get lazy about our landing skills (because we expect the plane to fix what we do wrong).

Looks are a personal preference. I once saw a Piper Cherokee converted to a tailwheel and the plane took on a whole new appearance. Very cool!

However I think the RV-12 looks fine as a tri-gear ( I got my flame suit on).

Frank
 
Well, early on in developement I pute my 2cents in lobbying for a tandem, low wing, taildragger with removeable wings. In a return e-mail I was told 'some' of those features were being considered now but others were at least 5yrs down the road if at all, that was 3yrs ago. I had a feeling at the time that most LSA's were becoming side by side, tricycle gear clones. More for training and ease of flying than looks and if Van could offer something different, ala RV-4/8 in looks, he would have a hit amongst those clones. I still feel that to be true, especially after reading a thread such as this one.
 
Last edited:
Tailwheel Cherokee!

How would that work? Frank, do you have a picture? Anyone? Did the mains attach to the wing or the fuselage? The fuel tanks are forward of the wing spar immediately in front of the main gear attachments, so simply adding structure to the wing and moving the gear forward would seem to be out.

Many years ago I mowed the grass runway (Ford 9N) at a private strip open to the public. I had to keep a sharp lookout for landing airplanes. I got to watch many landings from a close vantage. I noticed that many nosewheel airplanes were landed three point (kerplop) and then, at least initially until the airplane slowed down, most of the weight of the airplane was on the nosewheel. The airplane would go whistling by with the nose gear oleo completely collapsed. Many times there was daylight visible beneath the mains! When I was a new instructor I had a few renters I was checking out land and just let go of the wheel. Good way to start a ground loop. As has been written, land the nosewheel airplane with the stick all the way back and then hold it there. That should keep the nose wheel off the runway. If it doesn't, throw a tool box in the baggage to move the cg back.
 
Spar?

gasman said:
SO........ if you don't have the spar there, and the motor mount is too forward, then what do you mount the gear to?
Click to expand...

I had a Nobler u-control stunt plane back when the earth was cooling and I mounted the gear legs to the spar (ala P-51) for better looks, after I beefed it up with thin plywood. Seems to me that the spar may well be a good attach point if a steel box was fabbed. The fore-aft loads would somehow have to be carried as well as side loads....very challenging.

Regards,
Pierre
 
tailwheel cherokee

I took a picture of this years ago at sun and fun with my trusty KodaChrome but the photo is tucked away in a box somewhere.

Actually if you google "Cherokee Taildragger" there are some pictures up on the web. Looks like they built extra structure into the wing ahead the spar which (as Mel suggested earlier concerning the RV-12) "adds more weight".

Frank
 
I find it amusing that all these modifications adding heavier engines and different landing gear configurations, most of which add weight are suggested under the topic of "How to keep it light, simple and safe."
BTW, On the Cherokee Taildragger, if I remember right, it sported a chrome name plate from a Jeep Cherokee Chief.
 
It appears many of the posters want the RV-12 to be a clone of one of the existing RV's. I don't understand why they are not building a 7, 8 or 9? It is obvious that Van's wants to build a new model that is a complete departure from those heretofore. Embrace this model or build something else. MAYBE 1% of those posting here have as much aeronautical design experience as Van.

I have half a mind to get on the Rans site and post about how great the RV-12 is. ;)
 
Nitro and Castor Oil

pierre smith said:
I had a Nobler u-control stunt plane back when the earth was cooling and I mounted the gear legs to the spar (ala P-51) for better looks, after I beefed it up with thin plywood. Seems to me that the spar may well be a good attach point if a steel box was fabbed. The fore-aft loads would somehow have to be carried as well as side loads....very challenging.

Regards,
Pierre
Click to expand...

Pierre,

Now your're talking! I started my flying career on a Carl Goldberg Ringmaster with a Fox 35! Now there's an airplane! Thought I was in "HOG HEAVEN" when that thing fired up! What smells better than nitro methane and castor oil! Couldn't afford RC, we was poor folk.
 
Ringmaster

Hi John,
I still have a Fox 35 mounted in a Ringmaster. The engine was bought in 1964 and when my teenage son wanted to build a balsa airplane about six years ago, I took the engine out of mothballs and the Fox factory sent me a new needle bar and piston. The engine had worn out two noblers and several Ringmasters. Later on I built a Qwik Fly 3 radio cont and assembled a Heathkit 4 channel system and got into radio cheap.......aaaaah the good old days when we mixed our own nitro/benzine/castor oil. We'd come home and Mom would say, "I smell you've been flying again, eh?" :)

Pierre
 
Flown lots of Ringmasters. Actually, I think it flew better with a Fox .29. Do you remember the Thunderbird? Similar to the Nobler exept for elliptical wing, upright engine and the landing gear in the wing. I still have a Precision Aerobatics trophy from the AMA Championships in Abilene, TX in 1956.
I was 13 years old.
 
Mel said:
Flown lots of Ringmasters. Actually, I think it flew better with a Fox .29. Do you remember the Thunderbird? Similar to the Nobler exept for elliptical wing, upright engine and the landing gear in the wing. I still have a Precision Aerobatics trophy from the AMA Championships in Abilene, TX in 1956.
I was 13 years old.
Click to expand...

That's cool Mel! Don't remember the Tbird, but I do remember the Nobler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top