What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What is a F-4 Raider?

Av8rRob

Well Known Member
I saw in the home built directory of Kitplanes the F-4 Raider from team rocket aircraft. Anybody know about this plane as the website is severely lacking info?
 
Last edited:
Easy!

It's basically a 4cyl F1 with the Sport wing. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm sure Vince will jump in and tell you more about what is happening.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Geez... the website is terrible? We're airplane guys, not Amazon.com tech gurus. I thought that we were doing pretty good just getting a website up while trying to build parts to support the existing F1 Rocket fleet and also to build our own F4 Raider. I'll go beat Blake mercilessly until he gets the website in better shape. :rolleyes:

But to answer your question, the F4 Raider is our response to all of the RV guys who wanted a 4 cylinder Rocket. I'd compare it to an RV-8, but with a more comfortable cockpit (no gear towers in the cockpit).

The Raider uses a stock F1 fuselage. Wings and tails can be obtained from the Van's secondhand market or from us once we get them back into production. The 4 cylinder engine mount keeps the prop in the same place as the stock 6 cylinder Rocket and allows the battery and other items to be moved up front to maintain CG. Externally, it will be very difficult to tell whether you are looking at an F1 Rocket or a Raider.

Larry V. put a 4 cylinder on his HRII to prove the concept. He reports good handling, an empty weight of well over 100# less than the stock HRII, and says he is quite pleased.

There is another, an F8, nearing completion here in Indiana, using an RV-8 tail and wings, with an F1 fuselage. And then there's mine, under construction, using an RV-4 tail and wings.

Currently (December 2016) we don't have full kits available. We do have all of the items that you can see on our "terrible" website at www.f1aircraft.com and quite a few items that aren't listed there. We don't have a set timeline on kits. We know that isn't cool with the instant gratification crowd, but we're in it for the long haul and refuse to: 1) take money for things we don't have in hand or 2) promise things that can't be delivered on time and on budget.

What that means, is that new F1s and new F4s are being built by guys who who how to build and know how to obtain what is needed from various sources, including us. We are assisting, advising, and providing parts as we move forward with these gents.

To reiterate: our #1 priority is to support the existing F1 fleet, #2 assist new starts, and #3 produce more parts with the goal of having full kits again.

To see how a slow-build F1 Rocket or F4 Raider is built, visit www.vincesrocket.com
 
Last edited:
OOPS.... Thanks Mark. I fixed it in my earlier post too. www.vincesrocket.com

Also, I just received an email from Larry V. who says:

Here's what my 4cyl. Rocket does and wt. numbers.
Empty wt. reduced 150 lbs. removed the large 35 lb. battery and cable from behind the baggage compartment and installed a PC680 on the firewall/rudder step. The rest of the wt. reduction came from engine, prop, baffling etc.

Cruise speed reduced 4mph from IO-540 to IO-360. Fuel burn reduced 3.8-4 gph. Typical cruise speed at 8500 ft. DA is 208 mph, 2450 rpm, full throttle @ 9.2-9.4 gph. The best cruise altitude I have found is 10,500 or 11,500. Larry V.


Those are very respectable numbers, and are a good reason to consider a Raider if you're considering a tandem, sport, taildragger!
 
Last edited:
I have a 180 HP engine without a firewall to call home, and I have long considered doing a 4 banger Rocket if the right project comes along.

After spending a bunch of time in both the -8 and the Rocket, I'll say that the ergonomics of the latter are far better. If I was limited to a 4 banger for some reason (thank God I'm not!), then an F-4 would be a clear choice over the -8.
 
But to answer your question, the F4 Raider is our response to all of the RV guys who wanted a 4 cylinder Rocket. I'd compare it to an RV-8, but with a more comfortable cockpit (no gear towers in the cockpit)...

Let me know when you're ready for a tapered wing for it.
 
Just to be clear here for the masses, there are NO Evo (tapered) wings available at this time. If such a wing becomes available again, it will be announced on our websites first and here on VAF about 3 seconds afterwards.

So please, hold your inquiries, comments, and speculation. We get it. Honestly. We get it. But we have a whole bunch of other, higher priority pieces and parts to get produced before any wing options are considered.
 
Just to be clear here for the masses, there are NO Evo (tapered) wings available at this time...

And anyhow, my wing is much better than the Czech tapered wing. It is being developed by Steve Smith, who designed the RV-10 wing profile for Van.
 
Bob
I have over a thousand hours on my EVO and I am not sure I would change anything other then maybe moving it aft on the fuselage a tad for weight and balance reasons.
Is your wing flying yet?
 
Bob
I have over a thousand hours on my EVO and I am not sure I would change anything other then maybe moving it aft on the fuselage a tad for weight and balance reasons.
Is your wing flying yet?
 
Interesting statement!

And anyhow, my wing is much better than the Czech tapered wing. It is being developed by Steve Smith, who designed the RV-10 wing profile for Van.

I think all of us will agree that a tapered wing looks better. Those better looks come at a cost - there ain't no free lunch. There are benefits and drawbacks to a tapered design that replaces a non-tapered wing.

The Evo wing is designed to FAR 23 specs for a specific Vne, CG range, and weight. If I recall what the Czech engineer told me, it is good for close to 400MPH, and the gust penetration speed is 175KT at 2600LBS. That is a very robust envelope for a small aircraft. The wing was not designed specificlally for the F1 - it was designed for a very different design with side-by-side seating.

At the weights the F1 Evo flies, the design allows us to load it up like an A-10 - if the gear were stronger, and the empennage/aft fuselage/tailwheel assy were up to the job. Alas, they are not.

So, the robust design of the Evo wing adds a 'bit more' weight than required, compared to a wing set up for the design parameters of the F1. How much more weight? About 115lbs. Yes - that is one hundred fifteen pounds. Generally, the empty weight of the Evos run 1300lbs or so.

A composite wing - that meets the same design requirements - would be much lighter - likely close to the weight of a std RV wing assembly. Attaching the thing to the RV/F1 fuselage is the difficult part; a stub spar seems to be a good plan for the main spar.

Tapered wing Disclaimer: the CG range of a wing is described as two points on the airfoil, referencing the mean chord. If the wing is tapered, the mean chord is smaller, thus the CG range is smaller. This can change the gross weight load distribution slightly, or dramatically. What this means to us in the smaller plane we fly: the luggage capacity might have to be reduced (assuming it is in the aft fuselage), and maybe we can't take Bubba for a ride.

You might say (as Tom suggested): I'll move the engine forward! That would allow for more luggage, and Bubba, but if the design puts the pilot in the front seat, solo flight characteristics will suffer - think heavy elevator forces. The HR2 is known for better control harmony with someone in the back - the F1 has the same setup, but just a bit better due to the different horizontal tail.

We tweaked the elev system in the Evo (less deflection required), and retrofitted the same system to the Sport wing to reduce the heavy elev forces. The Evo has very light elev forces, but that goes hand in hand with the narrower CG range, and smaller aft load capacity.

Note the Extra has the pilot in the back for solo flight, putting the cargo/baggage/passenger on the CG. The load effect on the CG is much more favorable in this design.

So, a tapered wing design will probably be more suited for a side-by-side design as opposed to a tandem (front seat solo), as the CG range required is much smaller in the side by side design. The fwd luggage compartment in the RV8 might also help, but my guess is the airfoil will need to be shifted a bit on the spar to tweak the wing CG range to reflect what is normal to the standard wing. I can almost guarantee that the CG range will be smaller - but I could be wrong!

In any case, it will certainly look better, and it just might fly better. Likely it will also be faster. I can't wait to see it fly!

Carry on!
Mark
 
Solution:

GIII RG with TIO540AE2A! Doing it! Yep I'm aping Jeff Lavell's package....and yes composite & side by side. Did I mention tapered wing???

So clear
HR
 
...
So, a tapered wing design will probably be more suited for a side-by-side design as opposed to a tandem (front seat solo), as the CG range required is much smaller in the side by side design.
...
Well, there's an obvious solution then. Make tapered wings for the -6 instead.

(I may be slightly biased)
 
Talk about thread drift.......

Getting back to the original question.... the F4 Raider is the 4 cylinder engine version of the F1 Rocket. We are seeing very strong interest in this aircraft. Larry Vetterman has proven that the concept is sound with his 4 cylinder conversion of his previously 6 cylinder engine equipped Rocket.

The primary changes to make a Rocket into a Raider:
1) make a longer engine mount
2) move the battery and other stuff to the front
That's it. It's not "Rocket" science. Pun intended.

We will continue to support the F1 Rocket, a GREAT aircraft, while developing the Raider.

Tapered wings, 100% pre-punched parts, and quickbuilds, are not on the table at this point. Slow build kits for both the F1 and the F4 are coming, but we're not guaranteeing a timetable.

If you can't wait, we have all of the important parts now. You just have to mesh some other popular kit parts in with the parts that we can supply. HRII builders have done this for years. Like I said, it's not Rocket science.
 
Hey Vince,

How are the F1 fuselage parts provided? Do you have kits for them? I can source the wings and empennage.
 
Randy! You're at it again? You just can't quit building! You're work is top quality, so no complaints---just wish I had your energy.


Lee...
 
Just delivered the RV-12 to its new owner in Arizona. Just looking at some possible projects. The F-4 intrigues me.
 
Slow build kits for both the F1 and the F4 are coming, but we're not guaranteeing a timetable.

If you can't wait, we have all of the important parts now. You just have to mesh some other popular kit parts in with the parts that we can supply. HRII builders have done this for years. Like I said, it's not Rocket science.

Randy,

Contact me offline, if you like, and we can discuss the above in more detail! Since you're so close by, and since you're so experienced, we may be able to coordinate some things that lesser builders, er... normal humans, er.... mere mortals..... aw heck... other builders, couldn't do. :D

Thanks,
Vince
[email protected]
 
There is another, an F8, nearing completion here in Indiana, using an RV-8 tail and wings, with an F1 fuselage.

So...if someone wanted to do an F8, just start with regular RV-8 tail and wings? Any mods?
 
Last edited:
Parts is parts...

Just delivered the RV-12 to its new owner in Arizona. Just looking at some possible projects. The F-4 intrigues me.

Randy,
It can be done!
When I brainstormed the RVX I was staring across the hangar at my HR2, my RV4 parked next to it. In the rafters of my hangar were a set of completed RV4 wings and tail along with an untouched RV6 fuselage kit still in the crate. Standing beside me was my late friend and RV guru Arvil Porter.
"You've got a nice airplane here, just need to put it together."
That's all it took. I grabbed my Rocket, RV4 and RV6 plans and Arvil and I started taking measurements of the RV4 and HR2. It would work!

The combined RV4/6/HR2 turned out to be a marvel, and it all started as parts.
Just do it!
V/R
Smokey

PS: Kevin, this might be a better/easier option for the RV8...
http://www.showplanes.com/ecom-prodshow/FB_8.html
 
Last edited:
4 cylinder turbo normalized motor for F4

Hey Vince,
Thought I'd ask this question on the website. Maybe some engine guru's would offer some advice. My F4 is coming together, but I need advice on just which engine would be the better choice.

I've decided I like the idea of flying up around 15-16,000', with O2, and get long range cruise, hopefully at 70-75% power. There are lots of turbo'd air cooled engines to choose from, but the question is which might be best for the F4 Rocket?

Considerations are: 1) weight, including turbo and required waste gate and exhaust. 2) Horsepower at 14, 15, 16 thousand feet
3) Fuel Burn Using a TN-4 cylinder should result in fuel savings over the 6 cylinder normally aspirated Lycoming 4) Cost maybe I should have put this first.

I'd like to see HP of around 210 (75% of that T-normalized at altitude) but what about configuration and weight? If it ends up to about the same weight as a 6 cyl Lycoming in weight all in, I wonder if I would be better off doing a 6 cyl normally aspirated Lyc?
Ron
 
I would be one of the last persons to ever question going fast, but my first concern with your plan would be: 75% of 210 hp = 157.5 hp. 157-ish horsepower at 15,000' with a could well produce an indicated airspeed in the neighborhood of 170+ knots and a TAS of 215+ knots or so and very close to 250 mph true. These calculations are just off the top of my head, so somebody who knows what they are talking about should chime in here, but that is basically the Rocket Vne (these days). For this airframe, that is Vne---in cruise!

You'd be riding the edge in ordinary flight and potentially would have to "slow down, to come down". Lovely problem to have...some of the time... but even without your engine and configuration considerations, I would be concerned first of all with this, assuming my thinking is approximately correct.


Lee...
 
Well,...

Lee is very close to correct with his power/airspeed calculations - the Evo 550 will touch 215KTAS at 17500 on 50% power (~160hp) - I see this number when I get up that high regularly. I doubt you could do this with a sport wing, tho I can ask one customer about that and get back to you.

Lee does mention the problem with getting down from 17500 - I have to pull back to 2000RPM to stay below the 240KTAS Vne - until I get to about 14000 or so where the MP available will allow a different sort of power management (keep it squared up at about (2100/21"/10GPH).

Of course, my plane has the TCM 550 in it to start with, so that is not what you might see with a straight valve 540. The 550 has an extra 50hp and 100 lbs/ft when compared to the 260hp 540; weight is very close to the same.

So, you could plan for about 160hp at altitude to get very close to your target - this would not be recommended with the 4cyl setup as you would be nearer to max power than desired for max engine life. I might suggest a 75% power setting for normal cruise as a max number (150hp from a 200hp engine), or ~200hp from a 300hp engine. BTW the 6cyl engines get kinda thirsty above 200hp - same as the 4cyls do above 140 or so.

I am building another Evo with RG and a 7.5 compression supercharged motor. I have made several mods to the aft end of the aircraft to make sure the parts stay attached and intact. I am looking at a 280KTAS Vne on this one, tho it might be OK going faster. When you get closer to 300KTAS things get very interesting in terms of structure..

I'll be happy with this ship if I can get fuel specifics close to what is expected with the stock 350hp TSIO-550, and if that does happen - I'll be looking at the TAS closely to make sure I am within my personal envelope. I expect that descending from the available power setting (about 220HP) I will still need to power back before pushing over. Keep in mind I can touch 215KTAS with the stock motor @50% and fixed gear; the additional 60hp might change things more than I expect.

Summary: yes, you can get what you want. No - you should not do it with a stock airframe. You should expect to need a set of Evo wings for this mission profile. RG is not a requirement for this particular mission; it is just possible to do it with a stock engine (550 Continental). Forced induction will help with the power equation, but this addition skews the aircraft mission profile upwards about 5000'. Yes - you will need an oxygen refill station.

Sorry for the thread drift again, Vince!

Carry on!
Mark
 
So...if someone wanted to do an F8, just start with regular RV-8 tail and wings? Any mods?

Yes, that is correct. A well known RV builder from Colorado is making the necessary spar carry through to mate the wings to the F4 fuselage. No other mods to do except for all of the other mods that you'll do. :rolleyes:

The tail shouldn't require any serious surgery. The wing roots, particularly the tanks, will require some surgery to mate the F4's slightly different fuselage.... so don't rivet the roots/tanks until you have the fuselage on hand.
 
Vince at the risk of thread drift criminal status I must emphatically state this is fabulous! You guys are gettin down and dirty after what I feared was rocket death. Mark & Vince here is the new (?) mission statement:

"Make the Rocket Great Again"

OK I'll be good, back to making way faster......oh well skip it. CU next year:) It was good to see u at OSH Vince.

Carry On
HR

PS Randy go build another show stopper, we only live once. Be brave, go back to your glass roots!? Grass Roots? Plus in this forum a guy can let his inner child out, in the Beechtalk forum one must be mature.
 
Typical cruise speed at 8500 ft. DA is 208 mph, 2450 rpm, full throttle @ 9.2-9.4 gph. The best cruise altitude I have found is 10,500 or 11,500. Larry V.

Back to performance. What sort of 4-cyl is Vince flying above?

Not to be the Grinch, but a fella can get those numbers with a RV-8, on less fuel. Here's LOP back in June of '15, 390 on a well worn set of Slicks:

 
Not to be the Grinch, but a fella can get those numbers with a RV-8, on less fuel. Here's LOP back in June of '15, 390 on a well worn set of Slicks:
Um... That's about 30 knots slower. Hardly the same numbers?
 
This is all very good news.

Dan, don't make me post a picture of my RV-8 or yours with my F1 Rocket. :)
 
I don't know all of the details of how Larry V. measured his speeds or fuel flow, so let's not get too knotted up over it. These are all great planes and we're all blessed to be flying them. Let's leave all of the "who is fastest" questions for Reno.

Now, if you want to talk about which plane has the best cockpit, I can sit cross-legged, both legs, aka "indian style" in my Rocket and I'm almost 6' tall. Try that in your RV-8.

And for style.... well... both are pretty, but the Rockets...mmmmmmm.
 
Now, if you want to talk about which plane has the best cockpit, I can sit cross-legged, both legs, aka "indian style" in my Rocket and I'm almost 6' tall. Try that in your RV-8.

Ummm....ok.

Actually, I'm a little over 6-2, with size 14 shoes, and I do sit cross-legged in the -8. Knees are well aft of the gear towers. What I'd really like is a bit more overall cockpit length so the seatback could recline some, without cramping the GIB. For that I need to try on a Rocket. And yes, a Rocket looks great. Mark will confirm that I was hot for one some years ago.
 
Ummm....ok.

Actually, I'm a little over 6-2, with size 14 shoes, and I do sit cross-legged in the -8. Knees are well aft of the gear towers. What I'd really like is a bit more overall cockpit length so the seatback could recline some, without cramping the GIB. For that I need to try on a Rocket. And yes, a Rocket looks great. Mark will confirm that I was hot for one some years ago.

I sit cross-legged in the -8 as well, but the Rocket is still more comfortable and "roomy".

So am I to understand you have not flown a Rocket yet Dan?

I'd delay that ride as long as possible because I suspect your -8 will be for sale the next day. ;)
 
Size??

I fly a -4 and a Rocket. It feels like you could sit 2 side by side in the Rocket compared to the -4. :D
 
HR II

Flew a 6 for 15 yrs, a 4 for 3 yrs....now a Rocket for the last 6 months.
Absolutely no comparison between the Rocket & prev 2 birds.
Seems like I'm in an auditorium vs a closet.....couldn't be happier!
Good luck Vince in your endeavors..........

Marvin
 
O.k. Guys, sorry about the "terrible website " comment, I've corrected to "severely lacks information " in regards to the Raider. That being said, this thread is great and full of good information. I will look for too seeing what '
You guys bring to Oshkosh this year and in the future. Always loved the Rocket.
 
We're continually updating the website and feel that we have a pretty good handle on "what's an F4 Raider" in there. Even have a photo of Larry V's converted HRII, which is our basis for the design claims. Another RV-8 based "Raider" should fly soon right here in Indiana.

Just to recap for those who popped in late to the conversation:

We're resuming F1 Rocket, and F4 Raider, parts production. There will eventually be kits, fuselage first, then the rest of the sub kits. QBs are NOT available now, but should be after we have all of the sub kits available again (duh!).

In a nutshell, the F4 is just an F1 with a different engine mount. The rest of the airframe is the same.

Fleet support is our primary mission right now, however, we have had a of couple intrepid builders get an early start on a new construction project with a mix of RV and TR parts.

I'm building an F4 Raider with a 200+ HP Titan engine. My F4 airframe will be identical to the F1H Rocket (see www.vincesrocket.com) that I built back in 2004, except for the extended F4 engine mount.

It is possible to use a mix of Van's parts with our TR parts, either because you got a screaming deal on them, or because you can't wait until we have everything available.

Currently, the entire fuselage is in process, actively being put back into production, with many pieces available now. I hope to have an entire NEW construction fuselage at Sun n Fun, but I'm at the mercy of the production schedule just like everyone else. Surely, by Oshkosh I'll have it....

We could go faster, but have chosen to pursue parts that won't require a lot of hand work, fluting, etc. to fit properly. Yes, it does take longer and, yes, it will be more expensive than some options.

Check the website (below) or email me for specific info. Please don't email me asking for the price of QB kits... that question is getting kinda old.... same for EVO wings... no EVO wings at this time... read the web site for updates!
 
RV-14 wing?

I currently fly an RV-6 and just about to start construction on a Rans S7S. I see there are F4?s being built with RV-4 wings, RV-8 wings, and?? Could an F4 be built with RV-14 wings? I have not flown an RV-14, but I suspect it will do all the acro I am capable of and care to do. And mostly due to where I live, I commonly cruise at higher altitudes. My most common cross country (KPNA-KSHR) includes climbing to 14,500 for terrain clearance. On occasion to 15,500-17,500. While the 6 wing does ok, it is really out of it?s element at the higher altitudes. At least from what I read, it seems the -14 air foil should be better in those conditions.
 
WyoDave,

While anything is possible, we haven't done any work on adapting that wing to our airframe. That's about all I can say because we don't have any RV-14s nearby that I'm aware of, so I can't readily check out the wings.
 
Back
Top