What's new
Van's Air Force

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

F-1 status

F1- Status

Yup, Mark is ready to go and start production! All he needs is ten people to pony up for $10,000 each to get started!

:rolleyes:
 
This is great news for all the people still yearning to own a F1 Rocket! I checked the F1 website, however, and there don't appear to be any details.

Will this be slow-build, slow-build pre-punched or QB?

Is the wing still aluminum, or composite?

If $10,000 is the deposit, what's the full price?

Is the kit still designed to accomodate the IO-540, or the IO-550, or both?

Less important, but out of curiosity, where will the kit be produced?

Bp_
 
Floridagator said:
This is great news for all the people still yearning to own a F1 Rocket! I checked the F1 website, however, and there don't appear to be any details.

Will this be slow-build, slow-build pre-punched or QB?

Is the wing still aluminum, or composite?

If $10,000 is the deposit, what's the full price?

Is the kit still designed to accomodate the IO-540, or the IO-550, or both?

Less important, but out of curiosity, where will the kit be produced?

Bp_
Click to expand...

The point was that no one is willing to put up the money for an unseen kit, and the cost is prohibitive for Mark to start the process with out capital given upfront.
 
For the project to proceed Mark needs buyers to plunk some money down. I do not know for sure but it will likely be more then a 10K deposit.
The fuselage will be a slightly modified version of the F1. The wing will be carbon fibre and is planned to be offered as either a retract or fixed gear.
Wing area will be somewhat less then that of the EVO.
It is hoped that the wing can be offered as a retrofit for current aircraft.
The plane will probably have new name as it will be another step ahead in type.
I am excited about the top end potential of this new airplane and if you guys are interested contact Mark directly and put some money down.
 
Why speculate?

BayAreaPilot said:
The point was that no one is willing to put up the money for an unseen kit, and the cost is prohibitive for Mark to start the process with out capital given upfront.
Click to expand...

Fellas:

If you want to know about this project, you can ask me, and I will tell you. I've got nothing to hide regarding this project. The pre-airshow-season-thrash is upon us here, so allow me enough time to respond before you get to thinkin' I'm not listenin': those B25s have a LOT of parts!

We are engineering a few critical areas before we go to our 'list' and ask for funding. The project has acquired momentum - funding in 2Q11 looks possible. If you want to be on this list, please let me know. As you might figure out on your own, a larger production reduces cost per unit, tho the kit will not likely get out of the niche market.

BTW the deposit is far more than $10K, and there are ~40 folks in line; 20 are needed to fund the project to completion. It looks like I just might be back in the airplane bidness soon!

Quick description: composite wing, based on the Evo design; current fuse/emp/fwf will be used (540 or 550); RG option (hopefully); the wings will retrofit onto existing ships. A QB option might be available - this is TBD: I will not spin up a production facility; QB work will be jobbed out.

"Be careful what you wish for!"
Mark
 
Oh Man! If only I were only 65 again

I could borrow the money I think but not the time. I can't think of a better airplane or a person to buy it from.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Time, but light on money

Yea Bob, I'm 65 so hopefully I have the time, but I may have to sell one of the grandchildren, at least one of the boys, but not the girl, to come up with the total price. Just kidding about the grand kids,however I'd come up with the money somehow. Mark does have a pretty good reputation in the industry, so it would probably be money well spent, if this is the kind of build your looking for. Ron
 
I am also interested in this plane. I was looking at the radial rocket which just went up in price 30k to I think 75k! that was very discouraging. what's the nw f1 with evowing and retracts gonna come in around you think?
 
Travalab-

I asked "Carnac" the same question you posed, but he wasn't able to give an answer. Later, I ran across this thread wherein Mark F1Boss himself revealed all... see post #6 in this thread. I then made one call to the F1Boss and he answered all my questions. He's really a pretty cool guy, and a very smart fella.

F1Boss said:
Fellas:

If you want to know about this project, you can ask me, and I will tell you. I've got nothing to hide regarding this project. The pre-airshow-season-thrash is upon us here, so allow me enough time to respond before you get to thinkin' I'm not listenin':<snip>
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sorry Guys!

The Rockets are so last century!

How about one of these? Some of my avionics products are installed in this aircraft and I'm sure we can organize a group buy! :)

One can dream...

Vern

003.jpg


076.jpg


www.flsmicrojet.com
 
Composite vs aluminum

Just curious: what's the benefit of the composite wing over the aluminum Evo wing?

M
 
My guess would be weight, manufacturing uniformity, ease of completion & cool factor; but certainly not in a position of authority on the matter.

I'm sure you could find an equally sizeable list for and against.
 
composite wing vs aluminum wing:

no rivet bubbles in the paint. easier to make curves and complex shapes across the whole wing. a little easier to make fuel bays in composite wing

really in a production setting the composite airplanes are usually heavier, they tend to make them look really nice and use a lot of flox/ micro to do many transitions that aren't needed.

nowadays you can make a wing that is pretty much structurally complete, minus the top skin and various plumbing, control, electrical connections in a composite wing and still be 51%. You end up sanding on nearly everything to prep for bonding. no confusing ribs
 
I may be interested in the new F1. What's the final cost going to be? I would lose interest fast if we are talking $90k. A little info would be great! Maybe some preliminary design drawings?

As for the retracts. Are we talking tricycle or staying with the conventional gear?

Also Mark are you going to be at Airventure this year?
 
Last edited:
ronschreck said:
A tricycle gear F-1? That's just too ugly to contemplate!
Click to expand...

Totally agree!

I am not sure even a conventional retract would look better than the fixed gear look. Sure is a pretty airplane.

On a side note. What type of baggage space does the Rocket offer? Will it fit a small suitcase or a duffel bag? Or just a shower kit? ;)
 
The fuselage will be basically the same. In my plane I can carry a total of 280 pounds of passenger and baggage. Big guy means not much luggage, with my wife in the back we can take quite a bit of baggage.
It will be offered with the conventional gear with an optional retract. Contact Mark Fredrick, Team Rocket, for details.
 
Tom Martin said:
The fuselage will be basically the same. In my plane I can carry a total of 280 pounds of passenger and baggage. Big guy means not much luggage, with my wife in the back we can take quite a bit of baggage.
It will be offered with the conventional gear with an optional retract. Contact Mark Fredrick, Team Rocket, for details.
Click to expand...

Smooooooth :D
 
Retract ??

I have heard that a retractable under carriage actually doesn't increase speed by much at all unless your going ridiculoys speed and increases weight by a fair amount.

Does anyone know much about this?

I personally think it would look like one of the coolest planes ever but thats not physics, just ego.

I spoke to Mark today and things are coming along. Decision on Comp vs Aluminium wings to be formulated very soon. (pronounced Alu-MINI-um, not ALOO-minum, Queens English ...geesh)

Cost of kits will be closer to the Lancair Legacy price.

Mark will possibly be doing a counter of the number of people signed up on the website.

Did say that at least plans would be needed before I can hand over the cash.

Not that I wouldn't trust Mark, he is a great guy but things happen and businesses stop even when people know what they are doing.
 
ronschreck said:
A tricycle gear F-1? That's just too ugly to contemplate!
Click to expand...

I can't help but agree, but there are a couple of compelling advantages to retract tricycle gear.

For one, it lets you put the entire main gear aft of the station of maximum depth on the wing. And that gives you a good chance of maintaining laminar flow on that part of the wing back to where the gear doors are.

On a retract conventional-gear airplane with the gear tucked into the ahead of the spar, there is pretty much no chance you can maintain laminar flow behind where the gear doors or gear openings are. There just isn't any way to make the gear door closures tight and smooth enough so they don't trip the flow.

With the gear legs back behind the spar, you can realistically maintain an extra dozen square feet of laminar flow on an airplane the size of the RV-8, and that is nothing to sneeze at. It's worth at least a couple of knots.

Of course, you might lose a bunch of that due to the nose gear weight and installation drag, so it might just be a wash from a speed perspective.

Personally, I think that retractable gear is out of place on a recreational airplane, even a very fast recreational airplane like an RV. It adds a level of operational seriousness that I think is out of place in the RV, and doesn't increase performance or utility commensurately with its added expense, complexity, and risk.

Feel free to point up the apparent hypocrisy in my designing and developing a recreation sailplane with retractable gear. I defend it thus: In a sailplane, a gear-up landing is usually an embarrassment but not a serious problem; depending on the landing surface you might even do so little damage that you can fly again that day. In an airplane, it more often than not constitutes a total loss for the insurance company.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Bob Kuykendall said:
IPersonally, I think that retractable gear is out of place on a recreational airplane, even a very fast recreational airplane like an RV. It adds a level of operational seriousness that I think is out of place in the RV, and doesn't increase performance or utility commensurately with its added expense, complexity, and risk.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Last weekend, I was standing by my RV. I think it's pretty good looking. Then a friend with his F1, three blade prop & pointed chrome spinner shows up. His makes my RV look slow! Then a Lancair Legacy (trigear) retract,...... that just set a coast to coast speed record, taxi's up. Now the F1 looks slow..!

That Lancair sure was good looking, as well as fast looking! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Laminar flow top vs bottom

My glider experience tells me that the critical region for laminar flow is over the top of the airfoil. It's particularly critical not to trip the flow over the forward portion of the top surface, but the lower surface is much less critical.

I agree that gaining performance with retracts on an RV is a tough proposition, but if they offered the Lancair Legacy in a retractable tailwheel version, I doubt I'd have ever bought a rivet gun.

M
 
foka4 said:
My glider experience tells me that the critical region for laminar flow is over the top of the airfoil. It's particularly critical not to trip the flow over the forward portion of the top surface, but the lower surface is much less critical...
Click to expand...

The laminar flow on the lower surface is normally thought to be less critical since it usually operates in a positive pressure gradient, and is therefore more robust and less prone to tripping over into turbulent. As I understand it, it also tends to trip straight to turbulent flow, without forming a draggy separation bubble. However, something as big as a gear door seam will trip it.

The surface condition on the wing upper surface is more critical, since it has a negative pressure gradient, and the laminar flow there is touchier and more prone to tripping and separating. But it's really only critical back to about the station of maximum depth; the flow usually goes turbulent around there regardless of surface condition.

Just because the laminar flow on the lower surface is more robust doesn't mean that it is any less important. Every square foot of laminar flow is a small but measurable reduction in drag over the same area of turbulent flow, regardless of whether it is on the top or the bottom of the wing. And as you're aware, on a well-designed and well-built sailplane wing, you can often hold laminar flow on the bottom wing surface all the way back to the control surface hinge line, and with good hinge line sealing you might hold laminar flow onto the control surface.

The counterintuitive thing is that loss of laminar flow on the lower surface can cause more loss of performance than it does on the upper surface. If you trip the flow on the upper surface at the 15% chord station, you lose laminar flow between there and about the 40% station, where it would have tripped anyway. So you'd lose about 25% of the chord's laminar flow. But if you trip the laminar flow on the lower surface at the 15% chord station, you lose laminar flow between there and about the 80% chord station where the control surface hinge is. And that's the loss of about 65% of the chord's laminar flow.

That counterintuitive bit is why it is a bit odd that some glider owners moan about the spar mirroring through on the upper surface, but don't seem to care much that it shows through on the lower surface. In fact, it matters relatively little on the top, since the spar is about where the flow would trip anyways, and it matters a bunch on the bottom, since that threatens the laminar flow between about the 40% chord line and the 80% chord line.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Bob,
Thanks for the very interesting explanation. Having built a few R/C gliders, I've often wondered why the guys with the super slick composite wings tended to get better overall performance than the guys with the film covered balsa wings did, even though the composite was heavier. This helps explain it.


Bob Kuykendall said:
The laminar flow on the lower surface is normally thought to be less critical since it usually operates in a positive pressure gradient, and is therefore more robust and less prone to tripping over into turbulent. As I understand it, it also tends to trip straight to turbulent flow, without forming a draggy separation bubble. However, something as big as a gear door seam will trip it.

The surface condition on the wing upper surface is more critical, since it has a negative pressure gradient, and the laminar flow there is touchier and more prone to tripping and separating. But it's really only critical back to about the station of maximum depth; the flow usually goes turbulent around there regardless of surface condition.

Just because the laminar flow on the lower surface is more robust doesn't mean that it is any less important. Every square foot of laminar flow is a small but measurable reduction in drag over the same area of turbulent flow, regardless of whether it is on the top or the bottom of the wing. And as you're aware, on a well-designed and well-built sailplane wing, you can often hold laminar flow on the bottom wing surface all the way back to the control surface hinge line, and with good hinge line sealing you might hold laminar flow onto the control surface.

The counterintuitive thing is that loss of laminar flow on the lower surface can cause more loss of performance than it does on the upper surface. If you trip the flow on the upper surface at the 15% chord station, you lose laminar flow between there and about the 40% station, where it would have tripped anyway. So you'd lose about 25% of the chord's laminar flow. But if you trip the laminar flow on the lower surface at the 15% chord station, you lose laminar flow between there and about the 80% chord station where the control surface hinge is. And that's the loss of about 65% of the chord's laminar flow.

That counterintuitive bit is why it is a bit odd that some glider owners moan about the spar mirroring through on the upper surface, but don't seem to care much that it shows through on the lower surface. In fact, it matters relatively little on the top, since the spar is about where the flow would trip anyways, and it matters a bunch on the bottom, since that threatens the laminar flow between about the 40% chord line and the 80% chord line.

Thanks, Bob K.
Click to expand...
 
L.Adamson said:
...His makes my RV look slow! Then a Lancair Legacy (trigear) retract,...... that just set a coast to coast speed record, taxi's up. Now the F1 looks slow..!

That Lancair sure was good looking, as well as fast looking!...
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree that retractable gear looks totally cool! And I completely agree that at those higher speeds the retracts make for a huge performance improvement.

It's just that for the typical RV, and even most atypical ones, I think that the expense, complexity, and risk of retracts is just not worth the improvement in performance and aesthetics. My belief is that the ongoing issues with A-model noseovers is nothing compared to the carnage we'd see if all RVs had retracts.

That said, I sure would like to see an RV or a Rocket do something good in Sport or Super Sport pylon racing. And that is not happening without pick-em-up-the-feet. But that is a different kind of flying altogether.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Bob Kuykendall said:
Oh, I completely agree that retractable gear looks totally cool! And I completely agree that at those higher speeds the retracts make for a huge performance improvement.

It's just that for the typical RV, and even most atypical ones, I think that the expense, complexity, and risk of retracts is just not worth the improvement in performance and aesthetics. My belief is that the ongoing issues with A-model noseovers is nothing compared to the carnage we'd see if all RVs had retracts.

That said, I sure would like to see an RV or a Rocket do something good in Sport or Super Sport pylon racing. And that is not happening without pick-em-up-the-feet. But that is a different kind of flying altogether.

Thanks, Bob K.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious; what do you mean when you say "is nothing compared to the carnage we'd see if all RV's had retracts"?
 
L.Adamson said:
I don't know about that. Last weekend, I was standing by my RV. I think it's pretty good looking. Then a friend with his F1, three blade prop & pointed chrome spinner shows up. His makes my RV look slow! Then a Lancair Legacy (trigear) retract,...... that just set a coast to coast speed record, taxi's up. Now the F1 looks slow..!

That Lancair sure was good looking, as well as fast looking! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...


I'll be honest. I am torn between an F-1 and a Legacy. I want the F-1 for fun. But the wife would like to sit next to me. Decisions decisions... :confused:
 
When....

.... I was flying in the airforce, we had a saying:

There's only two types of pilots flying RG-planes: those who have landed gear up, and those who will.... :D
 
I have been flying rockets for 13 years now and just love my EVO. It is very fast, quite practical and my wife likes the ride. But everyone wants to go faster and last weekend there was a very nice Legacy at a local flyin. My wife was with me and so I asked the owner if she could sit in the plane and see how it felt. The cockpit was larger then I expected and looked quite comfortable. I am not sure how I would like the semi reclined seating as I really do like the upright rocket seats. I asked the owner how much runway he needed and he responded 2500 feet for comfort and never, never, landed on grass due to the high nose wheel weight. My wife and I looked at each other; my runway is 2400 feet of grass.
They are a beautiful plane but based on race results only 25 to 30 mph faster then my dependable fixed gear and I would sure hate to give up the sunday morning grass fly-ins.

Rockets and RVs rule!
 
T51 Pilot said:
I'm just curious; what do you mean when you say "is nothing compared to the carnage we'd see if all RV's had retracts"?
Click to expand...

I meant in the sense of mechanical carnage: A bunch of forgetting to put the gear down, having the gear not come down, or having it not lock down so that it collapses. Also, the design of retractable gear invites compromise such that it is often a less robust than its fixed counterparts, and there is likely to be greater incidence of damage in upsets that the fixed gear would have absorbed.

There might not be many of each of these types of incidents, but my thinking is that given how many RVs there are they'd add up fast. Insurance companies would take note, as might other officials.

Also, it's easy to sit back and think that if we all had good gear warning systems, we'd all always put the gear down and never put belly to tarmac. But the Air France accident shows that even with the very best intentions and the best automation money can buy, bad things still happen. Given conflicting information and a cacophony of aural alarms even a seasoned professional can become distracted and confused enough to do the wrong thing all the way to the deck.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Bob Kuykendall said:
I meant in the sense of mechanical carnage: A bunch of forgetting to put the gear down, having the gear not come down, or having it not lock down so that it collapses. Also, the design of retractable gear invites compromise such that it is often a less robust than its fixed counterparts, and there is likely to be greater incidence of damage in upsets that the fixed gear would have absorbed.

There might not be many of each of these types of incidents, but my thinking is that given how many RVs there are they'd add up fast. Insurance companies would take note, as might other officials.

Also, it's easy to sit back and think that if we all had good gear warning systems, we'd all always put the gear down and never put belly to tarmac. But the Air France accident shows that even with the very best intentions and the best automation money can buy, bad things still happen. Given conflicting information and a cacophony of aural alarms even a seasoned professional can become distracted and confused enough to do the wrong thing all the way to the deck.

Thanks, Bob K.
Click to expand...

It might be worthwhile to talk to some of the spam can flyers, and see how they are able to cope with retractable gear.
 
RG Plan A

Here's my plan: make the gear speed low enough that it requires the operator to slow to gear speed - dramatically. I'm thinking of maybe 120KIAS or so. This requires the operator to plan ahead - WAY ahead, which just might help raise the percentage of wheels-down landings.

Plan B might involve a switch on the throttle lever to turn on a red light on the glare shield below some particular setting (the 'please don't land' light).

Try as you might, you are not gonna talk me out of an RG system. If the hull insurance is too high, well....it's not a requirement!

Carry on!
Mark
 
Hey Mark, My old Long-EZ had limit switches installed on the throttle and the gear leg. If you retarded the throttle and the gear was up, it triggered a warning light.

Of course, it didn't prevent me from landing once with the nose gear retracted. Fortunately, all it did was wear down the rubber nose bumper. Since that's my once "those that will" experiences, I should be golden for the F1 retract.
 
Good news!

f1rocket said:
Hey Mark, My old Long-EZ had limit switches installed on the throttle and the gear leg. If you retarded the throttle and the gear was up, it triggered a warning light.

Of course, it didn't prevent me from landing once with the nose gear retracted. Fortunately, all it did was wear down the rubber nose bumper. Since that's my once "those that will" experiences, I should be golden for the F1 retract.
Click to expand...

Hey Randy:
Not many of us could shrug off a gear up landing! Glad to hear you got that out of the way. Maybe we can figger out how to add some hockey puck thingies to the bottom of the new design?:rolleyes:

I'd like to see how those limit switches were set up, so I don't have to depend on a couple blocks of nylon...

I'm off to Reno for PRS tomorrow - will meet with another wing engineer while I'm there, and I'm hoping for some good news this time.

Carry on!
Mark
 
F1Boss said:
I'd like to see how those limit switches were set up, so I don't have to depend on a couple blocks of nylon...
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, the gear horn in some certified aircraft uses a manifold pressure switch, not a throttle position switch. Possibly less to go out of adjustment.

mcb
 
For what it's worth...

Mark,

For what it's worth, I was able to safely remember to put my wheels down (by myself) in the F-16 for 3000+ hours. I don't think limiting your design to fixed gear due to fears of liability is the big issue. My insurance agent informed me Rocket insurance was high due to big engine, poor forward ground visibility and conventional gear(ground loop) accidents. Having retracts would be a good question for him, I will ask and get back with you. I agree with Tom, it may not be worth the cost and complexity for 20 knots.
I loved my HR2 simply for the fact of utility, and amazing bang for the buck as Tom clearly pointed out. My HR2 was the fastest airplane I could safely operate off my short, rough grass strip. I haven't seen anything yet that could match or exceed that capability.

If you offered retracts, that wouldn't "de-tract" from my interest :)

Smokey
 
Last edited:
Tom Martin said:
My wife and I looked at each other; my runway is 2400 feet of grass.
They are a beautiful plane but based on race results only 25 to 30 mph faster then my dependable fixed gear and I would sure hate to give up the sunday morning grass fly-ins.

Rockets and RVs rule!
Click to expand...

Tom a friend of mine with an 2600 foot strip has a flyin every year, and a guy with a Legacy always makes it in with lots of room to spare. And it is not a smooth strip by any stretch of the imagination. Legacy's are neat but simplicity rules in my book however and that's why I have no desire to own or maintain a retractable gear airplane.
 
If I could get a retract on the EVO that would still allow me the same landing speeds that I have I would certainly consider it. This might get me close to Legacy speeds at the top end and still allow me to keep the plane at home. The best of both worlds.
 
Possibly...

Tom Martin said:
If I could get a retract on the EVO that would still allow me the same landing speeds that I have I would certainly consider it. This might get me close to Legacy speeds at the top end and still allow me to keep the plane at home. The best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Hey Tom:

The new wing will be 90SF (100SF now) so with no other mods, the approach speed will rise a bit. This brings the stall speed up too, which brings the maneuvering speed up along with cruise up to the critical altitude (where you run out of HP). The engineer will tell me what is what, but I'm aiming for a lower critical altitude than what the 100SF wing offers (about 15000MSL).

For the low speed end, the airfoil we are using is very aggressive, as long as you don't mind the pitch attitude! It is possible to get an Evo down and stopped in less than 300', but it takes practice, and a good breeze.

We might have to develop optional wingtips to bring the span back to ~25'/96SF - not very difficult to do, really. These would bring the speeds and capabilities mentioned above closer to what we have now, if needed for short field, or maneuvering, mission profile requirements.

I'm thinking of a split flap design to keep the wing & control system simple to design and assemble, and for less stuff sticking out in the breeze (drag). Think Spitfire flap design, with its 70MPH approach speed, but that ship had a lot of wing area (excellent for maneuvering, as we all know).

The wing will retrofit onto existing ships, but I am not sure what the attachment will look like, as a std composite spar design does not look anything like what out current spar looks like. We might have to use a centersection fitting that looks more like arms sticking out of the fuselage with the wing panels attaching to that 3rd member - I'm OK with that, if it's the best approach.

The gear will have to be tough enough for the strip here, so it will be OK for your place too. The 3rd member centersection could help with the rough strip loads....

Demand might require that I ramp up to 100 units - good news, as this will bring the price down.

The above is what I want in the new design - I will have more reliable data in the next couple of weeks.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Yes.

Hi Gus,

Thrush and Air Tractor both went to turbine engines and also doubled the cost of the airplanes.

My bet is that this RR engine alone, will be more than the cost of any completed F-1. Notwithstanding engineering for a new, longer engine mount and cowling/CG issues.

Best,
 
I am all for the retract option, but the danger of the retract option is not a gear up landing....

The retract airplane is going to be VERY slippery.... My EVO requires diligence when descending from altitude... Vne is a TAS number and at high altitudes it is very easy to push 240 KTAS with fixed gear.

I can't wait to fly one! but this airplane will be like flying a Jet. It will be cruising very close to Vne and require strong discipline when coming down...

Maybe a Mach Bell!!! How cool would that be?

Tailwinds
Doug Rozendaal
 
Doug is right on about this issue. On Monday I was 90 miles out from my destination, Chatham MA, at 9500 feet, with a TAS of 213 and a 22 squared power setting. A 500 fpm descent gets the TAS to 230 knots in short order. While this is happening flight service, cancels my flight following on the edge of Boston airspace. A few exchanges with Boston gets me back in the system but it would be very easy to get distracted and bust Vne.
The biggest challenge in last year's AVC race was trying to calculate the right distance out to start a descent from 17,500 without busting Vne. I forget exactly what the number was but it was a long way back, 125 miles? These speeds get the attention of controllers and most certainly require constant monitoring by the pilot.
 
Of course its another complication but some speed brakes (ala the one's Mooney uses) might be called for....
 
Increasing Vne?

I know this topic will get people saying I am nuts but...

Decreasing its flutter tendencies and raising its Vne is possible.

A Carbon Emp kit would increase stiffness without increasing mass which, together, has the tendancy of reducing the surface entering into flutter harmonics. It gets struck into flutter less and it has reduced momentum to keep it there if it does start.

I know its a sacred topic for any rivet banger out there but it does solve issues.

Either that or the airbrake. Like lancair use, I think that is the same kind used by the mooney? (never flown one)

Anyway, not that I am an engineer but since this is a forum built to discuss stuff brough up by your average Joe...
 
Slicker n' snot on a door knob...

Mark,

First, great news on the promise of going into production, again. Being a big fan of small business, I applaud your tenacity.

As far as VNE goes, Tom and Doug both bring up great points, my query is testing. Once completed, will you explore "the envelope" physically, mathematically, both? My old Rocket even with big tires, caked mud and peeling clearcoat would approach 250 True in the descent easily. Your Rocket NG, looks alot faster on paper. A 250 Knot airplane operating off a rough grass strip is exemplary. Test flight data might be a nice sales tool, as if you needed one :)

Needless to say, I want one.

Smokey

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTFZNrTYp3k
 
Last edited:
Promise? PROMISE? uh,...

smokyray said:
Mark,

First, great news on the promise of going into production, again. Being a big fan of small business, I applaud your tenacity.

As far as VNE goes, Tom and Doug both bring up great points, my query is testing. Once completed, will you explore "the envelope" physically, mathematically, both? My old Rocket even with big tires, caked mud and peeling clearcoat would approach 250 True in the descent easily. Your Rocket NG, looks alot faster on paper. A 250 Knot airplane operating off a rough grass strip is exemplary. Test flight data might be a nice sales tool, as if you needed one :)

Needless to say, I want one.

Smokey

Hey Smokey:

1st, you and any other qualified pilots will be welcome to take 'er up for some 'testing', but you gonna have to come to Texas to do that. Fair 'nuf? The current airframe is good to 245KTAS, and getting 'er that fast was an accident, which only serves to affirm Doug's warnings about nose-down flight in one of these ships. Maybe looking into a composite rudder might be a good plan, as long as it can be made lighter. Hey -- why not a fabric rudder? Those are well tested on very fast moving prop driven planes over the past 70 years or so...and it certainly would be lighter!

I did hear the CLANG of the warning bell when I read the posts mentioning the need for speed brakes, so those are gonna be part of the design moving forward. I'm no big fan of the add-on type that slides up out of the wing at about mid-span/mid-chord - I'll take any suggestions as to alternate designs!

Also, I gotta add here that this production run is not yet a promise, but it sure is gaining momentum, and I am pleased to see the obvious interest in the design. I can only hope it doesn't run smooth over me.

Like Budd Davison said in his flight test report of my HR2 back in '97: "Not everyone needs a Rocket. Some folks, however, shouldn't live life without one. You know who you are." :D

Carry on!
Mark
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top