RV-10 with tailwheel?

[thomasjorgensen]

All the people I know who are building 10?s (myself included), have chosen it because it is the best performance+payload+economy combination that they can operate out of their relatively short airfields. All these fields are dirt, where a taildragger would add another great benefit, protection from small rocks chipping your paint and propeller (which is a major PITA where I fly), making the 10 even more perfect.

[Jamie]

If you want a 10 tail dragger bad enough do the engineering and build it. There is nothing stopping you. If guys can put retract gear on a 4 and 8 then certainly this can be done. No need to sit around and dream about it online while hoping that maybe, just maybe Van and his team will do the hard part.

I suspect one day someone will do the work and sell a mod kit to make it happen.

[jeffk]

I've also been thinking about a RV-10 with a Tailwheel. I had the pleasure of meeting Martin twice. Once on a flight out of Osh and another time at his office in Monterey. He knows his stuff.

I wonder what the level of interest is in taking up a collection to cover the 4K design cost? Perhaps a kickstarter is in order?

http://www.kickstarter.com/start

Having recently gotten married, any project I undertake will have to include space for little ones.

[KirkGrovesRV8]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.

Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.

A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.

Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?

Post of the year right here!

[smokyray]

Having flown a 10 in and out of my 1500" strip, I too thought it would be a great TD. I took measurements of my HR2 FWF and it would bolt right on the RV10.
Hmmmmm...

Smokey

[SHIPCHIEF]

I have a 1958 Bellanca Cruisemaster. (makes me feel sad for the rest)
It's a low wing, tailwheel, 4 seater with a Continental O-470. It's got retracts too.
It's weights & powers are equal to a Cessna 182, but the performance is superior. Looks better too.
When Van was asking what we would like in a 4 seat kit, I included references to the Cruisemaster, because it flies so well, and with Van's touch, well, you all know how the RV-10 turned out.
I just think it would have been nice to have RV-10 and RV-10a offerings.
If you check out the link to my EAA chapter gallery page, you can see the Cruisemaster to get a general idea how an RV-10TW would look...or not. I guess it's all in your mind's eye...

[lancef53]

I love the idea of a 10 TD, and would order one up in a heartbeat. If this get serious, count me in!!

[kiwipete]

I'm building a 10 but would rather it had a tail well like my RV7.
I debated on getting a Cessna 180 but I think the running costs on the 10 will be better.
90% of my landings are on grass fields.

Peter

[jeffk]

There seems to be stated interest in a tailwheel RV-10 (as well as in other similar threads).

My question is how would Vans react to design drawings (professionally done) being released into the community? How have they embraced modded RVs (other engines, mixing different tails, retracts, F1s, Rockets and so on)?

Obviously a tailwheel builder would not receive support for the landing gear portion of the build, but would you be blacklisted and prevented from purchasing the remainder of the kit? Would they turn a blind eye to the process? Perhaps they'd be supportive and encouraging?

Thanks for your comments and opinions,

Jeff

[SHIPCHIEF]

Vans might be colaberative.
If you want it and are willing to pay for the engineering, Van has probably already done the preliminary design review, and possibly has some parts drawings.
Vans already has a product liability waiver on the kit. If you mod it, the kit becomes less like a Van's, and less likely to breach the boilerplate.
If you want to use a profesionally engineered TW conversion to Van's RV-10 kit, I see a few choices:
1; Call Van and ask if you (or your group) can pay to have him do it.
2; Hire a builder in good standing who has your confidence (credentials whatever) to contact Van and present your groups proposal for Van's review.
3; Hire a designer and go it as an individual or group without Van.
4; Do It Yourself and wow us at the fly in.
And of course; The American answer, "All of the Above"
All of those roads have been travelled.
1) The RV-9 was not initially offered. Van designed it due to oral demand, but said that so few were sold that it didn't pay for the effort.
2) Van gets some requests to check out mods to his plane, like the tip up/slider canopy, etc.
3) I'm thinking of the Rocket, Harmon and Fredricks.
4) Fastbacks, Retracts, alternate engines etc.