What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Open cockpit ideas seen at OSH '11

DeltaRomeo

DeltaRomeo

doug reeves: unfluencer
Staff member
As some of you know, I am building a slightly modified RV-3B as my second aircraft. I want it to be exactly the opposite of my RV-6 - just the absolute bare minimum of instrumentation, a low-power engine, and a wood prop for local, slow flying. But, most importantly, I want it to be open cockpit. Like a Pitts. Leather helmet, goggles, the whole works.

Anywho, on Thursday of last week while walking around the grounds at Oshkosh I came across the Nuvite tent and saw a single hole Ryan that they were using as a test article for polishing.

This is almost exactly what I want my RV-3B to look like. The order for the fuselage was placed last week and I am looking forward to progress during the cooler temperatures of fall and winter. I thought I would post a couple of the pictures I took of that Ryan so you could get an idea of what I'm hoping to end up with.

IMG_0242.JPG


IMG_0241.JPG

IMG_0239.JPG


And for reference, here is an open cockpit RV-3 in Hawaii:
2rzys2d.jpg

Update 8/4:
A BEAUTIFUL picture of a flat panel windscreen taken by Dan Horton that would, I'll admit, look amazing on a -3B.
adkg9f.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gorgeous airplane.

Didn't someone build an open cockpit RV8? Thought I saw a pic or two previously.
 
You don't want no stinkin' bubble! Segmented windshields have class.

I took these photos just for you, the first being Mark Gilmore's perfect biplane, and the second on a Waco in Vintage:

x3wn4k.jpg


adkg9f.jpg

[ed. That is gorgeous. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hey I recognize that WACO, Dennis G of Bozeman flew that 1929 WACO to a SARL Class win in the Big Sky Air Race. Beautiful piece of flying history.
 
A buddy of mine had an open 'pit RV-4 and it really flew poorly and was very limited in speed (almost couldn't go fast enough to stay cool). Disturbed airflow at the tail is a huge consideration.
 
This -4 was a "convertable"... The standard bubble could be replaced with a two hole, double windscreen deal in a matter of minutes. The difference in speed and handling was dramatic, and the bubble was on 99.9% of the time. Drawing from that experience, in my opinion, if you want slow and open cockpit, there are lots better alternatives - A Pitts S1C, for example. If anyone is going to go open cockpit on an RV, then I'd suggest it be made easily convertable back to the "standard' configuration. You don't want to have a bunch of time wrapped up in building a slow, poor flying airplane that has no utility or resale value.
 
A two-hole is a different deal....they tend to flow air in one and out the other.

Contact the owner of 177TT and ask about flying qualities.
 
The Marquart Charger

Mark Gilmore's spectacular Marquart Charger, a former champion, is one of the finest examples of a plans built plane I have seen and my idea of the perfect open cockpit airplane.
 
DanH said:
A two-hole is a different deal....they tend to flow air in one and out the other.

Contact the owner of 177TT and ask about flying qualities.
Click to expand...

True, but the point remains that this is a SIGNIFICANT aerodynamic change, and the same caution offered to anyone else on this forum should apply. Even if this other RV-3 flies relatively nicely, that does not mean that the next version will. Even the type of windscreen (bubble, flat wrap, segmented, etc.) may have a substantial effect on the tail. This is not a simple modification to be taken lightly.

And to another point, the question of "mission requirements" comes into play. Just as this group would not recommend a modified RV to serve as a bush plane flying off a sand bar in Alaska, a Red Bull air racer, or 4 place, 250 knot, pressurized people mover, we must also recognize that there are FAR better slow, single place, open cockpit airplanes out there. Perhaps the sweetest flying airplane ever conceived by man was even mentioned by Doug himself - the Pitts. A simple little S1C project can be had for next to nothing, and would with almost absolute certainty fly better than any modified RV for Doug?s stated mission.

On the other hand, if the "mission requirement" itself is to modify an RV until it fits the mission just for the sake of doing so, then all the caution that is given to the alternative engine/turbo crowd, or any other systems modifications (remember the "speed brake" discussion?) also applies. If this is the case, you're a test pilot, and you should at least be mentally prepared to be disappointed in the end result.

I'm just saying, don't go into this lightly.
 
Last edited:
Stock RV-3?

Hi All,

The stock RV-3 with a sliding canopy should do exactly what you want without any modifications.

Canopy closed - maximum airspeed 210 mph ias

Canopy open - maximum airspeed 110 mph ias

These were the original limitations as I remember them.

Jim Ayers
RV-3 sn 50
Sometimes these things are overthought.
 
Toobuilder said:
True, but the point remains that this is a SIGNIFICANT aerodynamic change, and the same caution offered to anyone else on this forum should apply. Even if this other RV-3 flies relatively nicely, that does not mean that the next version will. Even the type of windscreen (bubble, flat wrap, segmented, etc.) may have a substantial effect on the tail. This is not a simple modification to be taken lightly.

And to another point, the question of "mission requirements" comes into play. Just as this group would not recommend a modified RV to serve as a bush plane flying off a sand bar in Alaska, a Red Bull air racer, or 4 place, 250 knot, pressurized people mover, we must also recognize that there are FAR better slow, single place, open cockpit airplanes out there. Perhaps the sweetest flying airplane ever conceived by man was even mentioned by Doug himself - the Pitts. A simple little S1C project can be had for next to nothing, and would with almost absolute certainty fly better than any modified RV for Doug?s stated mission.

On the other hand, if the "mission requirement" itself is to modify an RV until it fits the mission just for the sake of doing so, then all the caution that is given to the alternative engine/turbo crowd, or any other systems modifications (remember the "speed brake" discussion?) also applies. If this is the case, you're a test pilot, and you should at least be mentally prepared to be disappointed in the end result.

I'm just saying, don't go into this lightly.
Click to expand...

You know what they say- if man was meant to fly, he would have wings......!
 
I'd love to see a -3 or -4 modified with a ROTEC radial on the nose. Now that would get some attention at the fly-ins....

The Skywalker on their web page provides inspiration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top