Group Project: Designing the RV-13

[David Paule]

Originally Posted by lockeed

....I'm reffering to an STOL aircraft, simply to get access to grass strips and short runways safely.....

Except for off-airport locations and private strips, many of those are quite accessible for RVs. In fact, the first two RVs I ever saw were up in the Idaho back country.

C'mon, folks, the RVs are entirely adequate for most of the bush flying needs expressed in this discussion. All it takes is a bit of practice and some specialized knowledge. The planes are fine.

Dave
P.S. Regarding the photo in the previous posting, in my old line of work we'd call that a structural canopy. And we'd wonder if the spar had a cut-out for the pilot's head, or whether the pilots head had a cut-out for the spar. Pretty picture, though, got to admit!

[drycreek]

I would really like to see a high wing RV as well. It would have to be available as a tail-dragger though.

[NickAir]

I have seen a taildragger that had RV wings and it was an overhead wing configuration. It has been done, although I have only ever seen one and that was a for sale ad. It was an aerobatic wing. I think a RV9 wing would be best for a bush plane of the wings available now. We need an aluminum sportstar.

[Phlyan Pan]

Originally Posted by lockeed

I'm reffering to an STOL aircraft, simply to get access to grass strips and short runways safely.

STOL stands for Short TakeOff and Landing right?

An RV-9 with 118 hp engine can take off and land in less than 550 feet at gross weight. How much shorter do you want? Where I come from if there is a grass strip shorter than 550 feet, we call that a back yard.

If you want a bush plane for landing on gravel bars and unimproved tundra, then that's cool but you can't say you want a plane capable of getting you into grass strips and short runways because it already exists.

[Moondog]

Van doesn't build boring aircraft. This is how I picture the future RV-13.

Yes, it's a jet. Even if you scoff, you know you'd like to fly it.

[blahphish]

I'm with Moondog. When I saw this thread my first thought was that I want a jet

[drycreek]

Specifically, for the next RV, I would want a high wing, tandem seats, an RV-9 airfoil, beefed up landing gear, Super Cub like performance on the low end, and a decent cruise speed. I'm not sure if it would be achievable, but you can always dream.

[RudiGreyling]

Like a Onex but Vans Quality. Cheap Aerobatic Capable Single Seater.

[rgmwa]

The question that has long been asked about the mysterious RV-13 has now been answered. It seems that the formerly top secret design has now been declassified by Van's Skunkworks and quietly added to the current plans lineup. Looks like a top performer! No word yet as to when production will commence, most likely because the factory is still busy clearing their stocks of obsolete RV-14's and older models before officially announcing the latest quantum leap in total performance.

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

As long as we're brainstorming here, did anyone else see the "Snap!" at Oshkosh? it spent most of the time in front of the IAC HQ, but started out in the LSA area becasue, well, it's an LSA that looks liek an Extra!! Supposd to be availabel in 2012, made in france - LSA, but fully aerobatuc, single seat. The bad news - they are projecting a price of $180,000!! Silly....don't you think Van could do a kit for much less?

So...a very light, fully aerobatic LSA - no travel capability, inverted airfoil, +/-9 G's....it'd be better than an RV-3 for pure Acro - and would complement that electric Motorglider that I want for the peaceful times.....

Paul

I went back and looked at the last few pages of this thread (never kept up with it back when it was active).

Paul's post caught my eye; it triggered an idea that combines parts of both his wish-planes: an electric acro LSA. Short flight time fits both the acro mission and current art in electric propulsion. Batteries distributed along the wing spars would mean lower structural loads, lowering overall weight. No requirement for an inverted fuel system, lowering weight. Torque curve slanted to the lower rpms, increasing low speed performance with fixed pitch prop. Etc etc.

And *really* cheap operation. Right now (retired), my biggest impediment to daily afternoon flights is seeing a $20 (or $50) bill disappearing every time I crank the engine on my already-paid-for RV-4. Seeing that shrink to maybe $5 would make me fly a lot more often.

It's financially irrational, but for me, once a toy is paid for, it is no longer an expense. But *using* the toy triggers a real, easily countable expense that's coming out of current (limited) income. So minimizing direct operating costs while maintaining the fun factor would mean a lot to me.

Charlie