What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Interesting First Flight - the art of experimenting

rv6rick

Well Known Member
My good friend Bill (Popeye) Flaherty from our Ohio Valley RVators alerted me to a new RV4 in our group that had its maiden flight on Wednesday. I believe it's mentioned on Vans site as well.

I love the prop :)!!

Congrats to Micheal Axelrad on a safe first flight :)!!


 
Last edited:
Ok - give a little - we gotta know more about that engine. What's under that cowling?
 
Congratulations Bill!


You Sir are right at the center of what is so wonderful about experimental aviation. Wishing you a safe phase 1 and all the best. The art of experimenting in action!!!
v/r,
dr
 
Looking at the engine run video linked above, it looks like there is metal flexing/vibrating on the inlet lip of the air box below the engine, is that the intake induction? In any case it appears to be riveted sheet and it's vibrating significantly, that will fail over time. Needs a couple stiffeners.
 
Alt Engine

I think it's great. He's sure to learn a lot, and may teach the VAF community a few things as well.

Thanks,
 
I think it's great. He's sure to learn a lot, and may teach the VAF community a few things as well.

Agreed ? without guys like this trying new ideas most of us would be flying C172s or Cherokees or nothing at all. It?s great to be part of it!
 
Congratulations on your build and successful first flight!

Now that's experimenting! Would love to hear more from the builder.
 
Agreed ? without guys like this trying new ideas most of us would be flying C172s or Cherokees or nothing at all. It?s great to be part of it!

Quick...somebody state what new idea is being proven here.
 
Quick...somebody state what new idea is being proven here.

That given enough power even a box can fly?

Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything either until the rest of you piped up. Definitely a case of function over form...

That being said, I wish him a safe Phase 1 and many safe and happy flights thereafter.
 
Yikes

I'm sorry fellows but I don't share the same enthusiasm. I know it's called experimental aviation but come on. This looks terrible, why ruin a great design in the RV-4. This is only my opinion.

Wish you the best of luck with Phase 1.
 
I'm sorry fellows but I don't share the same enthusiasm. I know it's called experimental aviation but come on. This looks terrible, why ruin a great design in the RV-4. This is only my opinion.

Wish you the best of luck with Phase 1.

Maybe the builder wanted to fabricate a "serviceable" cowl to get in the air and do some testing and tweaking before he put the time and effort into making the final revision product?
 
Wow, not a lot of love for the experimenter here. Remind me if I come up with something out of the ordinary to just keep it to myself.

I'm a firm believer in making something WORK first, then once it's working making it pretty. The cowling may not be the most streamlined and pretty looking thing, but it still beats a Pietenpol for aerodynamics. If the guy can get a water cooled auto conversion to work in that application, my hat's off to him and maybe some day we'll see a sleeker cowl. I'm not going to criticize the cosmetic aspects of someone's approach to a problem I wouldn't even consider tackling though.
 
Wow, not a lot of love for the experimenter here. Remind me if I come up with something out of the ordinary to just keep it to myself.

I'm a firm believer in making something WORK first, then once it's working making it pretty. The cowling may not be the most streamlined and pretty looking thing, but it still beats a Pietenpol for aerodynamics. If the guy can get a water cooled auto conversion to work in that application, my hat's off to him and maybe some day we'll see a sleeker cowl. I'm not going to criticize the cosmetic aspects of someone's approach to a problem I wouldn't even consider tackling though.

I second Dale's sentiments. Well said!:)
 
DaleB Nailed it!

Agree with DaleB! It may not be pretty, and it is certainly a deviation from the plans but that is what this is all about.

For all you Nay Sayers out there:

Where would we be right now if the Wright brothers stuck to bicycles?

...if no one ever tried fuel injection?

...if no one ever tried to build an airplane out of fiberglass?

...and yes, if Van himself stuck to that original Stits Playboy?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't be criticizing others while sitting in YOUR RV-XX, you know, the one that is the product of MANY modifications throughout it's design history...
 
Auto Engine on an RV

It is all fun and games until the prop stops in flight. I finally saw the light and have 381 hours on my Lycoming IO-360. I learned if you are not an automobile engineer with lot's of time to fiddle, and want a machine that you can take out of town, it is best to go with a proven product.

S S Anderson
Lafayette, La.
 
Skip the philosophy lesson. (1) I've been known to experiment, and (2) I may be the only person here with a Gold Lindy for an auto conversion.

It's a straight, literal question. What new idea is being proven here?
 
Skip the philosophy lesson. (1) I've been known to experiment, and (2) I may be the only person here with a Gold Lindy for an auto conversion.

It's a straight, literal question. What new idea is being proven here?

I think I understand your point, Dan, but if you're going to limit the concept of "experimentation" to discovering completely novel approaches to problems, then powered aviation hasn't been experimental since the first jet engine was used for aircraft propulsion. There is room for incremental improvement in experimental aviation.

On the other hand, a lot of what gets covered under the common definition of experimental aviation tends to belong under the heading of "tinkering" rather than "innovation."
 
Last edited:
Skip the philosophy lesson. (1) I've been known to experiment, and (2) I may be the only person here with a Gold Lindy for an auto conversion.

It's a straight, literal question. What new idea is being proven here?
Whether or not this particular auto conversion design can be made to work.
 
Skip the philosophy lesson. (1) I've been known to experiment, and (2) I may be the only person here with a Gold Lindy for an auto conversion.

It's a straight, literal question. What new idea is being proven here?

None that I can tell -- it's an auto conversion. However, but I don't understand the purpose of your question. Experimentation is not synonymous with a new idea. Although this could be a first attempt with this particular engine model--don't know and don't care but I applaud the effort even if it's not for me. I'm not into experimentation -- yes I built and fly an RV but lets be real, the only really experimental thing about it is the word on the airworthiness cert.
 
Agree with DaleB! It may not be pretty, and it is certainly a deviation from the plans but that is what this is all about.

For all you Nay Sayers out there:

Where would we be right now if the Wright brothers stuck to bicycles?

...if no one ever tried fuel injection?

...if no one ever tried to build an airplane out of fiberglass?

...and yes, if Van himself stuck to that original Stits Playboy?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't be criticizing others while sitting in YOUR RV-XX, you know, the one that is the product of MANY modifications throughout it's design history...

Rocketman,
We applaud the builder's effort to "do his own thing", but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and marvel at the "Emperor's New Clothes".

Functional isn't necessarily ugly.
Ugly isn't necessarily functional.

We won't know for sure until the airplane gets some flight time on it, but it's very possible all of the sharp edges at the front of the "functional" cowl radiator inlet might disturb airflow enough to interfere with cooling the engine properly. Which would make the cowl somewhat less than "functional".
 
I guess I am just too old. To me, this is what it is all about, experimenting with any engine available. I cannot understand and am ashamed of all the negative comments when we should be applauding his efforts.
 
Agree with DaleB! It may not be pretty, and it is certainly a deviation from the plans but that is what this is all about.

For all you Nay Sayers out there:

Where would we be right now if the Wright brothers stuck to bicycles?

...if no one ever tried fuel injection?

...if no one ever tried to build an airplane out of fiberglass?

...and yes, if Van himself stuck to that original Stits Playboy?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't be criticizing others while sitting in YOUR RV-XX, you know, the one that is the product of MANY modifications throughout it's design history...

I would say if these guys didn't do what they did, someone else would have for sure and not very long after either. With the kind of numbers we see in terms of population and the current state of opportunity, technology, desire for challenge, fame, and profit, etc etc, one can never stifle experimentation. And good thing cause we all benefit from it. We live in the most amazing time of history.

Bevan
 
It's Called Manners

So, let's say the builders wife happened to be in the background of the picture and she is a beautiful woman except for one thing...she has a giant nose. Would the people making fun of the cowling think it is acceptable to make fun of her nose?
 
I guess I am just too old. To me, this is what it is all about, experimenting with any engine available. I cannot understand and am ashamed of all the negative comments when we should be applauding his efforts.

Well experimentation is not everybody's cup of tea (I'm one of those). My plane may be E-AB but for me it was simply a means to an end. I do applaud the effort, but just the effort as I have no particular interest in the outcome whatsoever. Of course I would me appreciative of something game changing and marketable, but otherwise it's just a curiosity in my book. Folks are going to experiment for their own reasons regardless of what we post on an internet forum whether pro or con.
 
So, let's say the builders wife happened to be in the background of the picture and she is a beautiful woman except for one thing...she has a giant nose. Would the people making fun of the cowling think it is acceptable to make fun of her nose?

What's not beautiful about a big nose? :cool: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This could quickly get worse than primer wars. :eek:

Bevan
 
What's not beautiful about a big nose? :cool: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This could quickly get worse than primer wars. :eek:

Bevan

Agreed. To be fair, the Wright Flyer wasn't such an elegant or aerodynamic design either... And Burt Monro's Indian motorcycle was seemingly held together with home-made parts, door hinges and twine... Heck, even Rutan's Spaceship 1 and White Knight are odd-looking and non-traditional. I, for one, salute the experimental spirit of this project, even if I don't necessarily understand the goal behind it...
 
It is all fun and games until the prop stops in flight. I finally saw the light and have 381 hours on my Lycoming IO-360. I learned if you are not an automobile engineer with lot's of time to fiddle, and want a machine that you can take out of town, it is best to go with a proven product.
I agree. I would guess this builder's goal is not to build a rock solid cross country machine, but to see if he can explore what an inexpensive auto conversion can do. He paid for his kit just like the next guy, I'm not going to tell him what he can or can't do with it. It's not like the guy defaced Mt. Rushmore (which itself really irritated a lot of people, I'm sure).
 
As long as the post is civil and not libel, what's wrong with saying it's ugly? Are we only allowed to post if we agree with one group's position/opinion?
 
Perhaps the builder simply wanted to adapt that engine to that airframe. Nothing wrong with that, it's every bit as valid a goal as hanging a Lycoming on it. It's merely a different goal, and the builder gets to make the decisions.

Personally, I'm very glad we have the freedom to do this.

I'm also glad to see that it did indeed fly. I wish the builder well and hope that his testing proceeds safely.

Dave
 
I guess I am just too old. To me, this is what it is all about, experimenting with any engine available. I cannot understand and am ashamed of all the negative comments when we should be applauding his efforts.

Agreed. I honestly expected better from this crowd.

Is it beautiful? Maybe not to us. But it's still HIS airplane, built the way HE wanted it. Live and let live.
 
I like it. Sort of. After reading this thread, I hope he puts matching box wheel pants on it!

-jon
 
OK, apparently we all agree there is no noteworthy advancement of the art.

Perhaps the builder simply wanted to adapt that engine to that airframe. Nothing wrong with that, it's every bit as valid a goal as hanging a Lycoming on it.

As a good engineer, I'll bet you own a copy of Raymer. If the propulsion package won't fit a reasonable form factor, meet the weight targets, or provide the necessary thrust, it's just bad design. All of those things can be determined up front, in the conceptual stage, without experimentation.

If I show up with a C7 Cat on my RV-8, would be a Good Thing? The answer is of course "No". There is a very large gap between "can" and "should".

Personally, I'm very glad we have the freedom to do this.

Me too...but philosophy lifts nothing but the spirit.
 
Flip the situation 180 degrees and imagine the question is not "what is the best engine for this airframe?" but "can I make this engine fly? I wonder what airframe has the best chance of getting this engine airborne?"
 
I keep looking at the photos and I keep thinking a cowling somewhat like the P-40 might work on this installation.
 
I keep looking at the photos and I keep thinking a cowling somewhat like the P-40 might work on this installation.

Or...

dhm2199.jpg


from http://www.military-art.com/
 
The important thing is that we have the freedom to make our own design or development decisions, and with a bit of oversight in the direction of safety, even fly it. If we didn't, then advances such as Rutan's would also not be possible.

We can't expect that every airplane will give us a step forward in the evolution. We can't even expect that they will suit our personal idea of grace or beauty. All we can hope for - and sadly, hope is all we can expect - is that these projects meet, to them alone, whatever goals their owner had wanted them to meet.

Another thing we can't expect is good design, even in concept. There are too many examples of bad design all around us, from cars to governance, to expect that. But the opportunity to try is what's precious.

Dave
 
RV4

I for one think its cool but sadly what are the chances of him posting the numbers like speed and fuel burn here now.
Bob:(
 
Back
Top