VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #51  
Old 11-28-2011, 12:48 PM
DonFromTX's Avatar
DonFromTX DonFromTX is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,822
Default

Very well said! Most of us know by now that auto engnes won't fly anyhow, don't we?
__________________
A&P, PP-SEL, Pathological Flier, EAA Technical Counselor
EAA Chapter 595 President,http://www.595.eaachapter.org/index.htm
Retired US Army Officer
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:05 PM
Cadstat's Avatar
Cadstat Cadstat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Greeley, Colorado
Posts: 199
Default One of a kind

Some of us will go to the extremes to have a one of a kind but this is an accident waiting to happen.
An amazing effort but don't you think Van considered building kit twins and thought better of it... I hope it ends up a static display before it becomes a deathtrap.
__________________
John D. Artz, EAA 71811, 100+ Young Eagle flts
Adopted Dave's 6A
MXL Ultralight, only bleeding after 3 landings
Scorpion Two Helicopter, big mistake
PA-28 and 210E Centurion
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:24 PM
Bob Kuykendall's Avatar
Bob Kuykendall Bob Kuykendall is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
...Projects don't need to be especially practical or efficient, just fun and educational...
Ross, that is an excellent point, and there are many other gems of wisdom in your post.

However, in my thirty or so years dabbling in experimental airplanes, the cases where a builder really is experimenting, and is not interested in practicality or effectiveness are a pretty tiny minority. If this is indeed one of those cases, then it's all good. I admit to my preconceived notions about how it will turn out, but I will be as interested as anybody in the results.

I have seen too many homebuilt airplanes result in a lot of heartache in the very real sense of the word. I have seen people put a lot of work and time and money into machines that, while fascinating in and of themselves, did not nearly achieve the return on investment intended.

In the majority of the cases where I have seen unusual innovations, it is people thinking that they know of a shortcut between where they are and where they want to be, which is zooming around and boring holes in the sky. And too often those shortcuts turn out to actually be the long way around. And just as often, some critical thinking and a few flips of a slide rule would be all that is required to reveal the potential pitfalls ahead.
__________________
Bob Kuykendall
HP-24 kit sailplane
EAA Technical Counselor
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:50 PM
philip_g philip_g is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: somewherville
Posts: 160
Default

Move this thread enough times and we're sure to not get any more updates.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:54 PM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
Default

Hopefully the builder has the technical savvy or resources to ensure that it is done properly. I seem to recall a lot of adulation for an RV on floats. Surely if that was a "whatever floats your boat" effort, so can the twin.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-28-2011, 02:10 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
Default

This has to be one of the coolest projects yet and I don?t understand why this community is not more supportive.

Had this forum been around when John Harmon first started talking about putting an IO-540 on an RV-4, I wonder what the response would have been?

This is not an RV by any stretch of the imagination. As for the person who wondered what Van would think, if asked; Van probably would simply say it is not an RV, same as a Rocket is not an RV.

My thoughts on Twins or the multiple alternators, batteries, etc. builders put in their RV's is the same; you have twice the risk of a failure.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-28-2011, 03:53 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Kuykendall View Post
Ross, that is an excellent point, and there are many other gems of wisdom in your post.

However, in my thirty or so years dabbling in experimental airplanes, the cases where a builder really is experimenting, and is not interested in practicality or effectiveness are a pretty tiny minority. If this is indeed one of those cases, then it's all good. I admit to my preconceived notions about how it will turn out, but I will be as interested as anybody in the results.

I have seen too many homebuilt airplanes result in a lot of heartache in the very real sense of the word. I have seen people put a lot of work and time and money into machines that, while fascinating in and of themselves, did not nearly achieve the return on investment intended.

In the majority of the cases where I have seen unusual innovations, it is people thinking that they know of a shortcut between where they are and where they want to be, which is zooming around and boring holes in the sky. And too often those shortcuts turn out to actually be the long way around. And just as often, some critical thinking and a few flips of a slide rule would be all that is required to reveal the potential pitfalls ahead.
I'd say dreamers are not confined by notions like "return on investment" to any great degree and that is a big thing that separates them from the rest. Most projects don't get this far without some critical thinking being done. There will certainly be problems to solve during and after construction and that is the challenge and satisfaction of projects like this. Will it have good single engined performance? Unlikely to be much better than most other light twins out there but there are tens of thousands of those flying perfectly well.

One thing for sure, the builder will learn a LOT more than someone pulling rivets on an RV12 and following the plans. He may also learn he should have never started at some point but without exploring new ideas, nothing new is ever developed. He is doing this because he wants to, simple as that. I'll give him the nod of encouragement and be interested to see how it all turns out- safely I hope.

It's safe to say that Van's does not support this or even most minor mods to their designs as can be understood and expected in their position. Van's also couldn't support floats, retracts and Rockets using their components but we have them anyway. The builder has purposely distanced himself from Van's which is a fair thing to do.

Dreamers have a place in this world, as this is where the new ideas come from. We wouldn't have incredible designs like David Algie's LP-1 coming through the pipeline if everyone was just a drone, satisfied with existing designs.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 441.0 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm


Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-28-2011, 04:24 PM
islandmonkey's Avatar
islandmonkey islandmonkey is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 538
Default

I have to agree with Bob in post #47. I do laud the true spirit of "Experimental" that the builder/modifier is bringing into this project but I question the decision to use Corvair engines as that is bringing in another departure from the normal tried and tested aviation engine options that are available. Single engine aircraft have a much better safety record than light twins. Some say the purpose of the second engine is to take the aircraft to the scene of the crash. I also question the choice of airframe. Maybe cost is a factor. I would be applying my efforts to an RV-10 airframe rather than a 6A. When the project is finished what will be the resale value be? A 10 fitted with two 200hp engines would command a better resale price, have two extra seats and is a more realistic conversion IMHO.
__________________
Anthony Johnston
Brit working in Zurich, Switzerland.
1500 hour pilot and ex instructor and examiner.
RV-4 s/n 4572 Emp Kit.
RV-3B s/n 11460 Emp Kit. (In storage).
Anthony's RV-4
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-28-2011, 05:07 PM
Bob Kuykendall's Avatar
Bob Kuykendall Bob Kuykendall is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by islandmonkey View Post
...I question the decision to use Corvair engines as that is bringing in another departure from the normal tried and tested aviation engine options that are available...
That goes along with what I've heard suggested: Keep your variables manageable. If you're experimenting with engines, use a proven airframe. If you're experimenting with airframes, use a proven engine.
__________________
Bob Kuykendall
HP-24 kit sailplane
EAA Technical Counselor
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-28-2011, 05:40 PM
brianwallis's Avatar
brianwallis brianwallis is offline
VAF moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In Walter Mitty's dreams
Posts: 947
Talking twin engine

I have to give this guy credit, he is putting the E in experimental. The tail was swapped for a -9 tail and 40 inches were added to the wings. No matter who says what.... you have to give the guy his due for doing such radical changes and wanting to fly it. I'd love to hear what changes were made as far as engineering to the airframe. BEST OF LUCK!!!!
Best
Brian
__________________
Brian Wallis
(Exempt AND VAF dues paid 02 FEB 16)
Callsign: VOODOO sold RV3 to pay for ratings !!!
AP/IA COM/Multi/IFR/350 type
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:01 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.