What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 with Harmon Rocket Wings

jeffwhip

Well Known Member
Ok, I'm wondering if anyone has attempted this yet but my understanding of the Harmon Rocket is that they shorten the wings one rib length and then use the same amount of ribs for the shorter wing.

Has anyone attempted this with an RV-10? Has anyone shortened the wings by one rib and then used the same amount of ribs? Has there been any flight testing done on this?

The reason I'm asking is because if Continental's CD-230 turbo diesel is a success then I see a scenario where the RV-10 could cruise at FL200. From what I've read, the big downside of flying an RV-10 with a turbo is that it could easily exceed 200 KTAS Vne.

I'd appreciate any and all thoughts.
 
Last edited:
The reason I'm asking is because if Continental's CD-230 turbo diesel is a success then I see a scenario where the RV-10 could cruise at FL200. From what I've read, the big downside of flying an RV-10 with a turbo is that it could easily exceed 200 KTAS Vne.

I am not sure I understand how shortening the wing by one rib bay is going to help with that...

And since the Cont is 30 HP down from the ideal Lyc choice, with the shorter wing you would be giving up even more take-off and climb performance than the reduction in HP would cause.
 
The entire airframe would be subject to the higher TAS. You would be constructing a completely new aircraft which might look like an RV 10. I doubt Vans would endorse such a project and likely would decline to support it although they might be willing to sell you RV 10 parts. I would strongly suggest consulting an aeronautical engineering firm prior to proceeding.
 
The path to high altitude flight does <not> lead you to reducing the span...

And I do not think anyone has contemplated shortening the RV-10 wing, but there's a lot more to increasing VNE than shortening the span.
 
Last edited:
The path to high altitude flight does lead you to reducing the span...

And I do not think anyone has contemplated shortening the RV-10 wing, but there's a lot more to increasing VNE than shortening the span.

The RVs already have a bad cord/length ratio for altitude (not - 9) so why would this help? [Not a bad thing, its a sport wing perfect for most of what we do]

So, wing stiffness, ailerons, flaps, aft fuse torsional stiffness, HS, elevator, vs and rudder all have to be addressed for higher Vne? Or at least knowing the contribution of each to the overall systems response.

So what does a ground vibration test, followed by a flight test cost anyway? $10k? 2X, 4X?
 
And I do not think anyone has contemplated shortening the RV-10 wing, but there's a lot more to increasing VNE than shortening the span.

Oh it has been contemplated! ;)

There is a lot more to it than just shortening the wing when expanding the VNE. Like stated above. Start thinking about evaluating all aspects of the design.

Quite a bit of your time will be consumed determining if anything will flutter at the higher TAS.

If you peruse such adventure a lot of time needs to be spent in testing and documenting to prove the modifications.

I like the idea but be prepared for lots of criticism here :eek:
 
Last edited:
yep!

Yep, expect criticism. However, also be aware of the huge pool of experience and knowledge available here. From an engineering standpoint, I agree with the previous post...there is a TON more to increasing the Vne beyond wing structure, and shortening the wings isn't going to get you where you want to go.

It seems to me that you may want to define your mission profile and see where it takes you. If you want to go high and faster than 200 ktas, you may have other options that are already designed to do that mission...

When it comes to flutter analysis, the TLAR approach is NOT the way to go. Do the research, the life you save may be your own...:eek:
 
Rocket wing on 10

World war 2 military planes used an extended wing span for higher altitudes.
RV9A Bill
 
The reason I'm asking is because if Continental's CD-230 turbo diesel is a success then I see a scenario where the RV-10 could cruise at FL200. From what I've read, the big downside of flying an RV-10 with a turbo is that it could easily exceed 200 KTAS Vne.

Why would you want to cruise at FL200? You'd be the slowest person up there, and under positive control. Guess who would get vectored so that the "heavy iron" could cruise past you....

John
 
The RV-10 wing, of course, has been shortened, and sold as the RV-14 wing. This is all pretty much an academic discussion, as has been pointed out, but if you want to fly high, you need to go longer, not shorter. FWIW a light, clean, stock RV-10 does OK cruising at 20,000. ;-)
 
Thanks for all your input. For the record, I have no aspirations of being a maverick. I would be foolish to try and design an RV-10 all by myself. I noticed that the harmon rocket had undergone some modifications that allowed it to increase Vne and was wondering if anyone has done the same testing to "safely" increase Vne on the RV-10.
 
I've started flying trips for the Flying Samaritans in Baja Mexico. Among other rewards and pleasures, those trips have really caused me (and others) to really appreciate the design genious of the RV10. The trips are seven legs over three days including three landings on unpaved strips. We are always very near gross with every seat filled. I've done trips in "competition" with C182trs, T210's, C310's, C337's, V35's, A36's Barons, Mooney's, Saratoga's, even a Navajo.
My total flight time after a trip is shorter than most, but the statistic that stands out is total fuel burn cost per passenger where I am consistently less expensive per passenger than anyone else, by a long shot. $20-$60 per person per trip less depending on the airplane.

The RV10 is near perfect combination of speed, payload, strip access, and cost for the missions it was designed around which didn't include 200+ in the flight levels. There are better aircraft for that mission like a Lancair1VP or an Evolution, etc. (Albeit at multiples of acquisition and operating costs).
 
Myron,
Thanks for the input. The big picture I'm trying to address is that if the Cont CD230 is a fit for the RV-10, then it may be possible to cruise at FL200. If there was something that could be done to increase Vne we could increase the safety margin. I don't have my RV-10 flying yet but I've flown my dad's RV-7A and know from experience that when you push forward on the stick, the RV really picks up speed.
 
Back
Top