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 tailwheel?

Try doing a search on the topic, it has come up in the past.

While it could be done, you would have to modify the tail structure and figure out where to move the main gear and how to attach those.

Since this is an EXP airplane, I say, "Go for it!" and post pictures.
 
PS. While you are at it, why don't you add a 400 HP IO-720 up front, clip the wings, and strengthen a few key parts. :D
 
Cuatro said:
could a RV 10 be built with a tail wheel?
Click to expand...

You could add one to protect against those nasty tail cone strikes.
On the other hand having the plane function like a properly designed conventional gear plane would take some doing. You would need the main gear moved up to the firewall for starters. Keep in mind that the last plane Van's designed to be a taildragger was the RV-8.
Next I suppose folks will want it to be high wing as well.
 
Working on it

Cuatro said:
could a RV 10 be built with a tail wheel?
Click to expand...

Cuatro, I'm working on gear design for my RV-10 tail dragger. I'm still crunching numbers, and I need to take a look at a real example to confim they are correct. I think it sounds pretty promising.

I also have been tossing around a few ideas for which gear to use. If you email me drect we can swap ideas.

Jason
 
Me too

I recently bought an RV-10 empennage kit and looked seriously into making it a tail dragger. Concerning the center of gravity: assuming the gear on an original RV-10 is located near the center of gravity, the need to put that same gear on the firewall will make it nose heavy. BUT, the removal of the nose wheel and items associated with that should get it pretty close to neutral again. The addition of the tail wheel will have an affect on center of gravity, as well. The builder would have to add reinforcement to the tail (weight) to handle any additional forces to the tail during landings and consider vibration induced from the tailwheel to the rear of the plane.

I contacted Martin Hollman at Aircraft Designs, here is what he said to me

"Hi Andrew, yes I can design it for you at a cost of $4,000. This incudes the legs and the attachment as a fixed gear. Let me know if you want my help. Martin Hollmann"

From what I have learned, there could be two main advantages.. One, you might get a little more speed from the absence of the nose wheel. Two, you would have a unique RV-10 that everyone would talk about. :)

I would be willing to chip in some money for Martin to properly design the RV-10 to make it a tail dragger.

Any other thoughts?

-Andrew
Reno, NV

Others I asked brought up insurance and how that change might affect the price. Others stated it would be more expensive to insure.
 
Change the Name

Interesting idea...
Just don't call it an RV-10.
In fact anybody considering major modifications to a recognized kit plane
ought to call it by another name.
This would ensure that builders can exercise their creativity without infringing on a manufacturers product as well as determining the
price of insurance for a one of a kind airplane.
Kind of like a Harmon Rocket, its really a modified RV4 but it is called a
Harmon Rocket and registered as well as insured as such.
I love the freedom we enjoy to do just about anything we can think of to any experimental airplane and would never discourage anyone from trying something new.
I hold the same view for all other major modifications to any recognized kit plane.
 
N427EF said:
anybody considering major modifications to a recognized kit plane
ought to call it by another name.

This would ensure that builders can exercise their creativity without infringing on a manufacturers product
Click to expand...

What??? How are you infringing on a bunch of parts??? And how do you define "major modification"? Just playing devil's advocate.
 
I think strictly speaking, the only RV's in existence are those built by Van himself. All the other 7,000+ are purely unique creations. The fact that we identify the customer built product as a "Vans RV" is just a matter of convenience, not legality.
 
Professional courtesy

I am in no way insinuating a legal change in naming your Kit plane creation,
I think we have more than enough legalities to deal with.
You certainly don't infringe on a bunch of parts until you put them all together and then call it an RV-10.
Especially for the purpose of insurance and accident statistics it would be helpful to keep those airplanes in different name categories which are drastically altered from its original design. When an "RV-10" with a Kubota
engine crashes or you roll your tail wheel "RV-10" up in a ball, it reflects badly on those RV-10's that are built as designed.
Besides if you have the skills to successfully alter the landing gear configuration of an RV-10, wouldn't you proudly want to call it something with your name on it?
Let's say you are successful and start selling a few parts so others can copy your tail wheel 10 or call it Cuatro 10 for example.
In the unlikely event that one of these customers where to collapse a gear leg on landing who do you think would get the call, Van or Cuatro?
Not putting your name on something like a landing gear configuration change or installing a Kubote engine
is capitalizing on someone else's good name and reputation.
John Harmon got it right, he used an RV4 kit made major changes and put his name and reputation behind it.
 
If I was going to make the 10 a taildragger, then I'd go to the trouble of putting the wings on top. At least then, it would be a "practical" taildragger. ;)

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
N427EF said:
I am in no way insinuating a legal change in naming your Kit plane creation...
Click to expand...

However, at what point do you consider it a "change" and therefore no longer representative of the fleet? We have no type certificate so EVERY RV is unique... I'd suspect that even those built strictly to plans are differentiated from each other in a way that is as statistically significant as a tailwheel conversion. Heck, even in the certified world, a Tri Pacer with a tailwheel conversion is still a TriPacer - as is a 150, 172, etc.

I don't think there's much danger in polluting the pool of statistical data on E-AB aircraft at this point... We're already far past that.
 
The number of people interested in a Tailwheel 10 continues to amaze me ... sign me up too! Now a 10 with the new showplanes cowl, a 3-blade prop and a tailwheel .... hmmmm :cool:
 
Last edited:
I'd say make it a highwing tailwheel too, that could haul 4 aboard with baggage, camping gear and fuel, and still get in and out of 1500' grass strips, and be able to cruise at 170 kts... all on about 12-14GPH. And be just aerobatic enough to handle rolls and "gentleman's acro" when loaded lightly.

Call it the RV-18 (in honor of the C180) :D
 
Why not amphibs while you're at it...?

I don't understand why someone would go to all of the trouble to convert the RV-10 to a tail dragger. Especially when Vans design is already excellent the way it is. If you are going to go through all of that re-design, stiffening the tail, re-locating the gear mounts, modeling the flight characteristics, revising weight and balance, etc, I think you should put it on amphibious floats, like Trey did with that RV-7. Now THAT would be unique!:eek:
 
ppilotmike said:
... If you are going to go through all of that re-design, stiffening the tail, re-locating the gear mounts, modeling the flight characteristics, revising weight and balance, etc, I think you should put it on amphibious floats, like Trey did with that RV-7. Now THAT would be unique!:eek:
Click to expand...

That would be cool, but the loss of 500 pounds of payload and 50+ MPH would be a downside to some.
 
looks like one more for the list...

Just talked to a buddy who took a demo flight in the -10 at Osh... As much as he liked the airplane, he's really interested in a taildragger version.
 
A taildragger RV-10 is dumb. If you are looking for something like that, get a Bearhawk kit - same weights, same engine....

John
 
dumb? bearhawk??

Too bad the Bearhawk looks like an old, outdated turd with wings. The RV-10 taildragger would have the looks to go along with the performance.

-Andrew
 
johngoodman said:
A taildragger RV-10 is dumb...
Click to expand...

Many, many people will say the same thing about building your own airplane and be able to back up the opinion with sound reasoning.

Some people might say the same thing about hanging metal wings on a Stitts Playboy...

...All that is moot when you realize the customer is always right.

Sometimes you just want what you want.
 
Last edited:
"Dumb"

This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.

Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.

A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.

Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?
 
Toobuilder said:
This is what cracks me up about this site – no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you’d all lap it up like manna from heaven.

Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models – including his low powered “trainer” – the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he’s lauded as a visionary.

A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY “cooler” on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I’m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means – and it is a huge leap to go from “does not make business sense” to “dumb idea” at the technical level.

Without justification or explanation, the comment “dumb” is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically “dumb” as a flying aircraft?
Click to expand...

I normally don't post "I agree" type responses, but I can't help myself this time. Right on the money, Michael! When I bought my kit, I would definitely have chosen a tailwheel option if it had been available, and I said so at the time. But, it was not a choice and I am still delighted with my airplane.:)It was, no doubt, a business decision on Van's part, and a good one based on the number of kits sold.
 
Last edited:
Taildragger plus's

I can see two advantages to having a tail wheel on the 10. Three, if you count personal preference as a valid reason.

1. Gets the nose wheel assembly out of the lower cowl, which should improve cooling airflow. Seems a lot of tens have cooling issues.

2. No more destroyed rudder bottom fairings-----at $53 or so each, plus shipping:eek:

And the optional item 3. I like taildraggers.
 
Toobuilder said:
This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.

Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.

A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.

Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?
Click to expand...

We need a "like" button for times like these :p
 
Bearhawk? thats a completely different airplane

All the people I know who are building 10?s (myself included), have chosen it because it is the best performance+payload+economy combination that they can operate out of their relatively short airfields. All these fields are dirt, where a taildragger would add another great benefit, protection from small rocks chipping your paint and propeller (which is a major PITA where I fly), making the 10 even more perfect. :cool:
 
If you want a 10 tail dragger bad enough do the engineering and build it. There is nothing stopping you. If guys can put retract gear on a 4 and 8 then certainly this can be done. No need to sit around and dream about it online while hoping that maybe, just maybe Van and his team will do the hard part.

I suspect one day someone will do the work and sell a mod kit to make it happen.
 
I've also been thinking about a RV-10 with a Tailwheel. I had the pleasure of meeting Martin twice. Once on a flight out of Osh and another time at his office in Monterey. He knows his stuff.

I wonder what the level of interest is in taking up a collection to cover the 4K design cost? Perhaps a kickstarter is in order?

http://www.kickstarter.com/start

Having recently gotten married, any project I undertake will have to include space for little ones.
 
Toobuilder said:
This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.

Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.

A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.

Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?
Click to expand...

Post of the year right here!:D
 
Rocket FWF

Having flown a 10 in and out of my 1500" strip, I too thought it would be a great TD. I took measurements of my HR2 FWF and it would bolt right on the RV10.
Hmmmmm...

Smokey
 
I have a 1958 Bellanca Cruisemaster. (makes me feel sad for the rest) :rolleyes:
It's a low wing, tailwheel, 4 seater with a Continental O-470. It's got retracts too.
It's weights & powers are equal to a Cessna 182, but the performance is superior. Looks better too.
When Van was asking what we would like in a 4 seat kit, I included references to the Cruisemaster, because it flies so well, and with Van's touch, well, you all know how the RV-10 turned out.
I just think it would have been nice to have RV-10 and RV-10a offerings.
If you check out the link to my EAA chapter gallery page, you can see the Cruisemaster to get a general idea how an RV-10TW would look...or not. I guess it's all in your mind's eye...
 
Last edited:
TD 10 yes please

I'm building a 10 but would rather it had a tail well like my RV7.
I debated on getting a Cessna 180 but I think the running costs on the 10 will be better.
90% of my landings are on grass fields.

Peter
 
There seems to be stated interest in a tailwheel RV-10 (as well as in other similar threads).

My question is how would Vans react to design drawings (professionally done) being released into the community? How have they embraced modded RVs (other engines, mixing different tails, retracts, F1s, Rockets and so on)?

Obviously a tailwheel builder would not receive support for the landing gear portion of the build, but would you be blacklisted and prevented from purchasing the remainder of the kit? Would they turn a blind eye to the process? Perhaps they'd be supportive and encouraging? ;)

Thanks for your comments and opinions,

Jeff
 
Vans might be colaberative.
If you want it and are willing to pay for the engineering, Van has probably already done the preliminary design review, and possibly has some parts drawings.
Vans already has a product liability waiver on the kit. If you mod it, the kit becomes less like a Van's, and less likely to breach the boilerplate.
If you want to use a profesionally engineered TW conversion to Van's RV-10 kit, I see a few choices:
1; Call Van and ask if you (or your group) can pay to have him do it.
2; Hire a builder in good standing who has your confidence (credentials whatever) to contact Van and present your groups proposal for Van's review.
3; Hire a designer and go it as an individual or group without Van.
4; Do It Yourself and wow us at the fly in.
And of course; The American answer, "All of the Above" :rolleyes:
All of those roads have been travelled.
1) The RV-9 was not initially offered. Van designed it due to oral demand, but said that so few were sold that it didn't pay for the effort.
2) Van gets some requests to check out mods to his plane, like the tip up/slider canopy, etc.
3) I'm thinking of the Rocket, Harmon and Fredricks.
4) Fastbacks, Retracts, alternate engines etc.
 
The Tail Wheel Myth

I personally have very little nose wheel time. Maybe 10% of my total flying has been nose wheel. With that said, I sure do like nose wheels. I have flown other RV's with nose wheels and really like them better than tail wheels. What I really like isn't taking off and landing, but taxiing. My plane is scarry to taxi because of visibility. My Super Sixe's nose is a few inches higher so I have no visibility to the right or over the nose. I have even had a few encounters where I came too close to a plane that I couldn't see. I thought about making my plane a nose wheel, but that would have been too much work with re-engineering the main gear, and I already had an engine mount set up for a tail wheel.

If anyone is looking for a practical reason for converting a 10 to a tailwheel, check with the Missionary Flying organizations and ask why they converted to 206 Cessnas from their 185's.

Now with all that said. I personally have no problem with the homebuilders spirit to change, modify make faster etc.. Just know that if a 10 is made into a tail wheel you will give up some things that are the great features designed in to the 10.

A few items to consider are;
To check the oil you will probably need a step stool.
For normal maintaince the engine will be at an odd angle.
Visibility to the right while taxiing will be poor.
Will be hard to see over the nose while taxiing.
You will probably still have to install those ugly steps.
Insurance will be hard to get and expensive.
A very high percent of new tail wheel pilots have an incident.
It will NOT be easier to get in to short narrow strips, unless you are very experienced.
Resale value may be affected as well as being easy to sell.
More chance of a passenger slipping while walking on the wing.
May be difficulties loading and unloading.
Engine mounted landing gear may or may not be practical.
A fuselage mounted landing gear may take up too much room for a side by side.

Steve Barnes "The Builders Coach"
 
Steve Barnes said:
I
...Just know that if a 10 is made into a tail wheel you will give up some things that are the great features designed in to the 10.

A few items to consider are;
To check the oil you will probably need a step stool.
For normal maintaince the engine will be at an odd angle.
Visibility to the right while taxiing will be poor.
Will be hard to see over the nose while taxiing.
You will probably still have to install those ugly steps.
Insurance will be hard to get and expensive.
A very high percent of new tail wheel pilots have an incident.
It will NOT be easier to get in to short narrow strips, unless you are very experienced.
Resale value may be affected as well as being easy to sell.
More chance of a passenger slipping while walking on the wing.
May be difficulties loading and unloading.
Engine mounted landing gear may or may not be practical.
A fuselage mounted landing gear may take up too much room for a side by side.
Click to expand...


Are these issues any different than the 6,7,8, and 9? It's not like we don't have a track record to look to.
 
Prop clearance

When you raise the nose for prop clearance, it really affects everything, but mostly visibility. Whereas the original design always has given good over the nose visibility.

Steve
 
I'm not sure about this one, but I was reading about a deadstick landing into a tall grass field, due to an engine fire.
The owner Ted Chang, included pictures.
The RV-10 involved crashed in the most perfect way, I hardly believed it.
The nose wheel went UP to the cowl. The main gear rods bent back, the wheels canted and became like anchors.
The slide was short, no splat.
I liked that. An RV-10TW would look cool, but would it be as safe in the one kind of bad landing that really matters? The unplanned off field adventure?
I'm just askin'
 
Last edited:
thomasjorgensen said:
All the people I know who are building 10?s (myself included), have chosen it because it is the best performance+payload+economy combination that they can operate out of their relatively short airfields. All these fields are dirt, where a taildragger would add another great benefit, protection from small rocks chipping your paint and propeller (which is a major PITA where I fly), making the 10 even more perfect. :cool:
Click to expand...

I fly out of a rough strip (8NC8) and surprisingly find the trike '10 to be the right configuration. I've been flying a tail wheel Maule (aka 'Certified Turd') out of this same strip for a dozen years. I consider it a great 'mudder' but the tilted prop wash kicks up stuff, the main gear kicks up stuff all over the stabilizer, chips the paint, and due to the fact that the wheels are pant-less, it kicks up mud all over the underside of the wing. When i go visiting, there's no doubt that I fly out of a rough grass strip.

OTOH, the pants on the '10 along with the more rearward mounting seem to keep debris from the main gear from hitting much of anything including the flaps. The stabilizer is so high that nothing can hit it except for an badly secured door. And the trike attitude would seem to keep the prop blast from kicking up stuff that would hit the airframe.

Of course pants would be fitted onto a tail wheel '10 but my guess is that you would end up with some debris impact on the flaps and possibly on the tail.

I'm a tail wheel guy but I've always felt it is inferior to a trike even if it is great fun. Sort of like a stick shift compared to a modern automatic trans. Actually I'm a glider guy who is still wondering why I need that vibrator up front on a nice sunny day, but I digress.....

The '10 is the best plane I've ever flown and may be a better 'mudder' than my beloved Maule. I'll defer to Van's judgement with regard to 'supported' configs.
Shields up!

Maule Driver
 
I'm still working on my tailwheel mods for the -10, but I'm not getting much done from Afghanistan.

If anyone out there is finished with their -10 could loan me their plans for a few months it may help me get a bigger picture than just the empenage plans.

I have several ideas for the main gear and have a plan to strengthen the tailcone. I'm still interested to hear any ideas that anyone has about how, and where to's.
 
MauleDriver said:
I fly out of a rough strip (8NC8) and surprisingly find the trike '10 to be the right configuration. I've been flying a tail wheel Maule (aka 'Certified Turd') out of this same strip for a dozen years. I consider it a great 'mudder' but the tilted prop wash kicks up stuff, the main gear kicks up stuff all over the stabilizer, chips the paint, and due to the fact that the wheels are pant-less, it kicks up mud all over the underside of the wing. When i go visiting, there's no doubt that I fly out of a rough grass strip.

OTOH, the pants on the '10 along with the more rearward mounting seem to keep debris from the main gear from hitting much of anything including the flaps. The stabilizer is so high that nothing can hit it except for an badly secured door. And the trike attitude would seem to keep the prop blast from kicking up stuff that would hit the airframe.

Of course pants would be fitted onto a tail wheel '10 but my guess is that you would end up with some debris impact on the flaps and possibly on the tail.

I'm a tail wheel guy but I've always felt it is inferior to a trike even if it is great fun. Sort of like a stick shift compared to a modern automatic trans. Actually I'm a glider guy who is still wondering why I need that vibrator up front on a nice sunny day, but I digress.....

The '10 is the best plane I've ever flown and may be a better 'mudder' than my beloved Maule. I'll defer to Van's judgement with regard to 'supported' configs.
Shields up!

Maule Driver
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that. I/my father had a nosewheel cessna where the prop was quite close to the ground and small stones were a major pain (wheel pants were removed as well). Looking at the 7 in the hangar, its obvious that the tail is very exposed in tricycle mode, but thankfully it raises quite quickly on takeoff! So it hasn't really been a problem on the RV. But Knowing that the nose wheel models are good in the rough makes me much happier that I?m building a nosedragger, as now it only comes down to a matter of aesthetics. At least the tail on the 10 sits higher than on a 182, right?

Also, what do you mean its a better mudder than your Maule?? :confused::)
 
thomasjorgensen said:
Also, what do you mean its a better mudder than your Maule?? :confused::)
Click to expand...

Noun 1. mudder - a racehorse that runs well on a muddy racetrack

Believe it or not, except for the weight, my '10 is proving to be as easy and quite a bit less messy operating out of my field (8NC8) than the Maule.

At light weights and with the big IO540 fan upfront I have all the power needed to keep it moving and to get up and out.

The tires are proportionately bigger but no advantange there - disadvantage at higher weights.

But the key advantage is that the plane isn't covered in mud after a single wet field operation. That has a lot to due with wheel pants - the Maule has none. The high tail and aft main gear contribute. The Maule has mud under the wings, all over the strut and all over the horizontal stabilizer which is low even when up on the mains. The open wheels also occassionally sling debris into the prop.

I also don't have to worry too much about nosing the '10 over if I get stuck.

Just get it moving before full throttle (actually ease it in for the first 200+ feet) and the prop stays clear of debris independent of how low to the ground it is.

Bill "just returned from 4500 NM trip - wow!" Watson
 
Good to know.
Although my conditions are mostly very dry loosely packed uneven dirt (southern europe). NC seems to be quite humid.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top