Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
2+2 Seating
- Thread starter RobinHou
- Start date
pazmanyflyer
Well Known Member
Hi Robin,
Other than building a -10 there are no mod's to my knowledge. All Van's models (beside the -3 and -10) are 2 passenger ships.
Other than building a -10 there are no mod's to my knowledge. All Van's models (beside the -3 and -10) are 2 passenger ships.
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
Yes, but that was a modified -6. The guy streatched to make room for the extra seats. That is not easily done with a -7 or -9 pre-punched kit.
Steve Barnes
Well Known Member
2+2 / 2+1
Robin, This has been done and both cases that I know of they were stretched and I.O. 540 powered. I looked into doing it myself and base on safety concerns would never do it or recommend it. The two main concerns are quick evacuation of the 2 rear seats in the event of an event. The other is the main reason and that is, the passenger/s would most likely have to be rear facing for CG reasons and that would put their body mass right at the back of the two front seats. In the case of a frontal impact their body mass would shove the front occupants into the instrument panel. It would be nearly impossible to build in safety features for rear occupants and still have an RV.
Steve Barnes "The Builders Coach"
Robin, This has been done and both cases that I know of they were stretched and I.O. 540 powered. I looked into doing it myself and base on safety concerns would never do it or recommend it. The two main concerns are quick evacuation of the 2 rear seats in the event of an event. The other is the main reason and that is, the passenger/s would most likely have to be rear facing for CG reasons and that would put their body mass right at the back of the two front seats. In the case of a frontal impact their body mass would shove the front occupants into the instrument panel. It would be nearly impossible to build in safety features for rear occupants and still have an RV.
Steve Barnes "The Builders Coach"
KCBerner
Well Known Member
2 + .5
I ran across this thread a while back. Kindof a 2 plus a half.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=90570
I ran across this thread a while back. Kindof a 2 plus a half.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=90570
N941WR
Legacy Member
More like 2.25.
At 4 years-old he is just about done riding back there. Mama said it is time to start on a -10. Oh bummer!
rleffler
Well Known Member
N941WR
Legacy Member
If only I could built it as a tail dragger! Who knows, I might sell the -9 and buy something that starts with a "C" and has the little wheel in back.
rv7charlie
Well Known Member
Noooo! *Build* something that starts with "Bear-"; it will automatically have the little wheel in back, and the designer will be really close to you.
Charlie
Canadian RV-6 Plus
My first post on VAF (after introducing myself by posting an in-flight self-portrait) was about this. I saw an RV-6 at a fly-in that was modified to include two rearward-facing seats where the luggage usually goes, and I came here to ask whether anyone knew more details (including, ideally, whether there were any similarly modified RV-7s out there). I included the best results of my Google searches on the topic, which did reveal some other documented cases of "RV-6+"s, even someone passing around a flyer in Oshkosh 97 (or was it 96) selling extensive documentation on how to do the mods. Check it out here.
Maybe I'll find some pictures and post them here. Stay tuned.
My first post on VAF (after introducing myself by posting an in-flight self-portrait) was about this. I saw an RV-6 at a fly-in that was modified to include two rearward-facing seats where the luggage usually goes, and I came here to ask whether anyone knew more details (including, ideally, whether there were any similarly modified RV-7s out there). I included the best results of my Google searches on the topic, which did reveal some other documented cases of "RV-6+"s, even someone passing around a flyer in Oshkosh 97 (or was it 96) selling extensive documentation on how to do the mods. Check it out here.
Maybe I'll find some pictures and post them here. Stay tuned.
I was at the Arlington 2012 fly-in and saw this RV-6, among many other RVs. Initially only noticed the extra long nose, which I presumed (correctly) to contain an O-540 like a Harmon Rocket.
Closer inspection revealed that the canopy was extra tall. On my RV-6, the top of the canopy does not rise much higher than the top of the windscreen. But this one had a lot more bulge to it. I often wish that my RV-6 had better visibility over the nose, so I started to wonder how this guy got that extra height out of his canopy.
The builder showed up and gave me (and some other interested people) a tour of his airplane. When he opened the canopy, it became clear that the luggage section was much longer than on a normal RV-6. Clearly the fuselage had been stretched!
Not only had the fuselage been stretched, but also, two aft-facing seats had been added to the back. They're small seats, for kids, their backs going against the backs of the front seats. The seat bottoms can fold up to go flat against the backs of the front seats (as shown here). The bulkhead (not shown here) has holes so that the backseaters' legs can go into the tail cone.
The stretch becomes obvious when you look at the region where the trailing edge of the wing meets the fuselage. In the cockpit region, the fuselage has a rectangular cross-section. Where the flap meets the fuselage, the edge of the rectangle starts tapering and rounding into the tail cone. The fuselage was stretched in this region where it has a straightforward rectangular cross-section. The spot where the rectangle corner starts becoming more rounded has been moved aft and is now about a foot aft of the flap trailing edge. So this foot of extra edge along the bottom of the airplane, which you see here, is the stretch. How did the canopy stretch so much further back? Well, you can see here that the piece of metal that arches along the aft edge of the canopy is a little wider than usual, so that gets you a few extra inches. The remaining extra inches come from the canopy itself. Apparently when it comes out of the mold, the canopy has a few extra inches sticking out to each side, and that extra material gets cut off before the canopy is shipped. This builder got in touch with the manufacturer and managed to get his hands on a canopy with all the extra material out of the mold, un-cut. This gave him several extra inches of canopy, enough (along with the wider metal arch) to bridge the space from the windscreen to the tail cone. It also gave him an extra couple inches of height! Very cool.
Here's the info that was taped to the prop, with the details of the builder, year, weights, etc. The registration is C-GZII.
Closer inspection revealed that the canopy was extra tall. On my RV-6, the top of the canopy does not rise much higher than the top of the windscreen. But this one had a lot more bulge to it. I often wish that my RV-6 had better visibility over the nose, so I started to wonder how this guy got that extra height out of his canopy.
The builder showed up and gave me (and some other interested people) a tour of his airplane. When he opened the canopy, it became clear that the luggage section was much longer than on a normal RV-6. Clearly the fuselage had been stretched!
Not only had the fuselage been stretched, but also, two aft-facing seats had been added to the back. They're small seats, for kids, their backs going against the backs of the front seats. The seat bottoms can fold up to go flat against the backs of the front seats (as shown here). The bulkhead (not shown here) has holes so that the backseaters' legs can go into the tail cone.
The stretch becomes obvious when you look at the region where the trailing edge of the wing meets the fuselage. In the cockpit region, the fuselage has a rectangular cross-section. Where the flap meets the fuselage, the edge of the rectangle starts tapering and rounding into the tail cone. The fuselage was stretched in this region where it has a straightforward rectangular cross-section. The spot where the rectangle corner starts becoming more rounded has been moved aft and is now about a foot aft of the flap trailing edge. So this foot of extra edge along the bottom of the airplane, which you see here, is the stretch. How did the canopy stretch so much further back? Well, you can see here that the piece of metal that arches along the aft edge of the canopy is a little wider than usual, so that gets you a few extra inches. The remaining extra inches come from the canopy itself. Apparently when it comes out of the mold, the canopy has a few extra inches sticking out to each side, and that extra material gets cut off before the canopy is shipped. This builder got in touch with the manufacturer and managed to get his hands on a canopy with all the extra material out of the mold, un-cut. This gave him several extra inches of canopy, enough (along with the wider metal arch) to bridge the space from the windscreen to the tail cone. It also gave him an extra couple inches of height! Very cool.
Here's the info that was taped to the prop, with the details of the builder, year, weights, etc. The registration is C-GZII.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I have a friend who built an IO-540 powered Murphy Super Rebel and all I have to say is, "That is a lot of fuel to go that slow!"
FYI - That is not how you want to anchor your shoulder harnesses. In the event of an accident, that setup will cause significant spinal compression. There is a reason that seat belt shoulder harnesses are attached aft of the passenger and not looped over their shoulders and down. Now, if there was a bar up high that the belts looped over, then this would be a good setup.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
seatbelts....etc.
...if the bar is actually strong enough to withstand 20 g + impact loads.
I've seen a few that can't be called more than 'decorative'!
Interesting how some RV derivatives have the gross weight at 4 or 500 lbs over the typical.
I know you can do a calculation and prove the wing will lift it, thereby getting 'approval'........but hopefully some structural engineers looked at all the other parts affected.
...looks like this fellow has been airborne for over 6 years, so that's a good sign!
...if the bar is actually strong enough to withstand 20 g + impact loads.
I've seen a few that can't be called more than 'decorative'!
Interesting how some RV derivatives have the gross weight at 4 or 500 lbs over the typical.
I know you can do a calculation and prove the wing will lift it, thereby getting 'approval'........but hopefully some structural engineers looked at all the other parts affected.
...looks like this fellow has been airborne for over 6 years, so that's a good sign!
Thanks...
Thank you to all who replied.
Bernardo, I found this link with more photos of Bengt's Super 6 (see post no. 16):
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=37426&highlight=Bengt&page=2
I printed out interior dimension for RV-14, RV-10 & RV-4 from Vans website. I used my copy machine to enlarge/reduce them so they are all about the same scale. I was able to superimpose RV-4's seating arrangement within RV-14's interior dimension. However, I think if one could build up-right front seats (i.e. RV-10) for RV-14, that may provide rear passengers enough leg room under the front seats. Of course, the front seats need to be mounted atop the spar, and seat ribs need to be modified to provide a flat floor for rear passengers.
I keep thinking about a 2+2 RV because I fly mostly alone or with only one passenger, but I do need 4 seats once in a great while. I figure there must be other builders like me who have the occasional need for 4 seats. The idea is not to make another RV-10, but a 4-cylinder RV with 2+2 seating and keep the RV handling and aerobatic when carry 2 people. I mean, if Grumman Tiger with 180 hp can move 4 people at 139 knt (148 top speed), why not a 2+2 RV with better performance than a Tiger? Isn't that what TOTAL PERFORMANCE is all about?
If enough builders are interested, may be Vans can revise RV-14 design to provide a 2+2 option?
Thank you to all who replied.
Bernardo, I found this link with more photos of Bengt's Super 6 (see post no. 16):
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=37426&highlight=Bengt&page=2
I printed out interior dimension for RV-14, RV-10 & RV-4 from Vans website. I used my copy machine to enlarge/reduce them so they are all about the same scale. I was able to superimpose RV-4's seating arrangement within RV-14's interior dimension. However, I think if one could build up-right front seats (i.e. RV-10) for RV-14, that may provide rear passengers enough leg room under the front seats. Of course, the front seats need to be mounted atop the spar, and seat ribs need to be modified to provide a flat floor for rear passengers.
I keep thinking about a 2+2 RV because I fly mostly alone or with only one passenger, but I do need 4 seats once in a great while. I figure there must be other builders like me who have the occasional need for 4 seats. The idea is not to make another RV-10, but a 4-cylinder RV with 2+2 seating and keep the RV handling and aerobatic when carry 2 people. I mean, if Grumman Tiger with 180 hp can move 4 people at 139 knt (148 top speed), why not a 2+2 RV with better performance than a Tiger? Isn't that what TOTAL PERFORMANCE is all about?
If enough builders are interested, may be Vans can revise RV-14 design to provide a 2+2 option?
Neat! I had not seen that thread. Very interesting.
Indeed. I think most people who own two-seat airplanes (and some who ended up with four-seaters) had to make this decision at some point. In my two years of carrying passengers in 172s, I had three or four people in the airplane only on a handful of occasions. So when it came time for me to buy an airplane, I asked myself whether it was worth sacrificing speed and aerobatic capability for the sake of carrying four people, and the answer in my case was "no". I can still rent a Cessna if I want to, especially since my tailwheel instructor gives me a great deal on renting his 170. Only once in the year since I bought my RV-6 have I wished that I could have carried more than one passenger in it.
But when I saw this "Six Plus" at Arlington, I had the same thought. Just imagine! RV-6 speed and handling most of the time, with the ability to carry someone in the back when you want! (at the expense of flying aerobatics during that flight, I imagine, due to the high weight and aft CG). Total performance, total flexibility. That's why I posted what I posted. If it's possible to do this with a -7 (or, now, a -14), then I would start planning on it. (But as it turns out, with the pre-drilled holes, it would not be easy).
N941WR
Legacy Member
One thought for you...
If you are going to add back seats to an RV-14, you might want to stay away from the "A".
I suspect, but don't know, that you might have an issue with the thing doing a tail squat, if you put two people in the back of an "A". Ask anyone with a -6A, -7A, or -9A what happens when two people try to board at the same time.
I am one of those who were disappointed by the RV-14. I was keeping my fingers crossed for a 2+2.
If you are going to add back seats to an RV-14, you might want to stay away from the "A".
I suspect, but don't know, that you might have an issue with the thing doing a tail squat, if you put two people in the back of an "A". Ask anyone with a -6A, -7A, or -9A what happens when two people try to board at the same time.
I am one of those who were disappointed by the RV-14. I was keeping my fingers crossed for a 2+2.
Tail Squat
I'm paranoid about tail squat on my -7A, never been an issue but I don't ever want it to be an issue... I saw the RV-14A at Copperstate end of October, two guys taking it out to do high temperature performance testing, it was 87F at the time which is not high temp for Arizona but much higher than normal for Oregon.
Two full size guys (170lbs?) were climbing up and down with no apparent concern for tail-low condition, when I commented about it being better than the -7A they showed no concern, probably just wanted the whacko to go away.
I'm paranoid about tail squat on my -7A, never been an issue but I don't ever want it to be an issue... I saw the RV-14A at Copperstate end of October, two guys taking it out to do high temperature performance testing, it was 87F at the time which is not high temp for Arizona but much higher than normal for Oregon.
Two full size guys (170lbs?) were climbing up and down with no apparent concern for tail-low condition, when I commented about it being better than the -7A they showed no concern, probably just wanted the whacko to go away.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Trade
It's easier to find someone with a -10 you can trade with, from time to time, than re-engineer a two-place RV...and safer too.
I'd like to find an MX-2 or Extra once in a while and they could use my -10
Best,
It's easier to find someone with a -10 you can trade with, from time to time, than re-engineer a two-place RV...and safer too.
I'd like to find an MX-2 or Extra once in a while and they could use my -10
Best,
