What's new
Van's Air Force

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

An RV for an armless pilot

Moving Forward

So I finally got to sit in an RV-10! My husband, Patrick, and I were limited on time, so we didn't get to go fly yet. But that's next on the list.

Special thanks to Ryan who met us at 6 am!

I'd like to focus the discussion on the RV-10. I'm still open to other aircraft but things seem to point that direction right now.

One thing I like about the RV-10 that I hadn't considered before, is that if moving the panel back towards the engine doesn't work out, the alternative would be to move my seat backward to achieve the same effect. Which can easily be done in the RV-10, even if it means removing one back seat. I also like the space to move my right knee to the side without running into my copilot.

It seems the next phase is to do some tests on what the limits are with my ability to move and hold the controls. My call with Guy pointed out some issues in history when control inputs exceeded the strength of some pilots.

We can also start building prototypes to test some designs. If everything looks good, then we can move forward with actually getting the kit!

I would still like to sit in and fly some other RV models. If you're in Phoenix or Tucson, please let me know!

Please keep the ideas coming. This forum has pushed the ideas of making a custom airplane farther forward than I could have imagined. Thank you to everyone who's contributed!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1196.jpeg
    IMG_1196.jpeg
    266.8 KB · Views: 263
  • IMG_1200.jpeg
    IMG_1200.jpeg
    282.5 KB · Views: 255
Getting some specific numbers is priority. I just got off the phone with Guy Gratton and we have a plan on how to get them.

You posted a lot of other great insights. Thank you! I'm right footed, but my dominance with my foot also lends to using my right foot to make adjustments on the panel, etc. So my left (non-dominant) foot might be better suited to controlling pitch and roll. It will take some experimenting to see for sure.

Good info

If volunteers help me as a team and I built portions of the airplane under 'edcuational purposes', how would that affect the experimental designation? I'd like to avoid the paperwork to travel cross country with the experimental exhibition category, but this is all still new to me. Thanks!

As long as the majority of people involved with the build do it voluntarily and not for pay, certifying as an experimental amateur built should not be a problem.

The complication comes from a situation where you would be having the airplane contract built for a fee.
 
So I finally got to sit in an RV-10!

And the picture is quite helpful with our imagineering!

Break.

Question for the RV-10 owners, and for Scott. How much crab angle will an RV-10 tolerate at touchdown?

Here's why I ask. A rudder/aileron bungee interconnect is trivial to design and install (yeah, sketch available), and eliminating a rudder control requirement really simplifies the rest. We can come back to that subject. First things first...

The net is full of videos with airliners crabbing to the runway. It's something we small airplane drivers typically avoid, but I'm inclined to say the mechanics are the same, and all tri-gear is self-straightening at touchdown. There are two aspects, structural, and control. Scott and the factory crew are best equipped to consider the structural side. On the control side, has anyone actually done a few crabbed landings to see how an RV-10 behaves?

Note the design parameter to maintain a full set of conventional controls on the other side. A mission requiring a predicted crosswind landing in moderate to severe conditions might simply require a copilot. It would not be the usual case.
 
Last edited:
One thing I like about the RV-10 that I hadn't considered before, is that if moving the panel back towards the engine doesn't work out, the alternative would be to move my seat backward to achieve the same effect. Which can easily be done in the RV-10, even if it means removing one back seat. I also like the space to move my right knee to the side without running into my copilot.

I think a section of the instrument panel could easily be moved fwd some amount.

Positioning the seat further aft should not be a problem either and likely wouldn't even require removal of a rear seat.

In an RV-10 when the pilots seat is in the position that the median height adult will typically have it, the leg room knee clearance for the rear seat is huge. If the seat is slid fully back, there is probably still more room than many small cars have for back seat leg room.
 
As long as the majority of people involved with the build do it voluntarily and not for pay, certifying as an experimental amateur built should not be a problem.

The complication comes from a situation where you would be having the airplane contract built for a fee.
Jessica, just to be clear, the requirement is that the majority (51%) of the labor be done by people who are not paid to do it, and this INCLUDES Vans Aircraft. Vans has stated that they do less than 50%. This means that almost all the building of the kit must be done by unpaid "amateurs". But the accounting does not count engine assembly, avionics, painting. Those things can be done by people who work for-hire. Best of luck in this.
 
And the picture is quite helpful with our imagineering!

Break.

Question for the RV-10 owners, and for Scott. How much crab angle will an RV-10 tolerate at touchdown?

Here's why I ask. A rudder/aileron bungee interconnect is trivial to design and install (yeah, sketch available), and eliminating a rudder control requirement really simplifies the rest. We can come back to that subject. First things first...

The net is full of videos with airliners crabbing to TD. It's something we small airplane drivers typically avoid, but I'm inclined to say the mechanics are the same, and all tri-gear is self-straightening at touchdown. There are two aspects, structural, and control. Scott and the factory crew are best equipped to consider the structural side. On the control side, has anyone actually done a few crabbed landings to see how an RV-10 behaves?

Note the design parameter to maintaining a full set of conventional controls on the other side. A mission requiring a predicted crosswind landing in moderate to severe conditions might simply require a copilot. It would not be the usual case.

I have thought the same thing.
I don't know the answer but some testing could be done and then some specific landing procedures developed to work within the limitations.

My gut feeling (without any real data) is that it could be done but I am not sure that it matters......
The RV-10 has a pretty strong torque induced turning tendency that requires a pretty healthy stab of rudder on take-off (big engine, big diameter prop., large vertical tail influenced by prop spiraled flow, etc.).
With the free castering nose wheel, I am not sure that a properly proportioned rudder interconnect ration would be enough to deal with it, and if it was, it would probably result in far to much aileron input being used for a safe take-off, even without a worse case left cross wind.

But I totally agree... that combined rudder and brake control is likely to be the tougher nut to crack and if a way around that could be found, the rest would probably be relatively easy.
 
Question for the RV-10 owners, and for Scott. How much crab angle will an RV-10 tolerate at touchdown?

.... On the control side, has anyone actually done a few crabbed landings to see how an RV-10 behaves?

Not that I would admit to :).
I suspect the real problem would be after touch down in a strong cross wind. You need substantial rudder input to maintain centerline (no nose wheel steering). With interlinked controls that would tend to raise the upwind wing. Not sure I'd want to try that. Also the interlink is tricky. Strong cross winds call for much more rudder than is ever needed for coordination in flight. Also, there is modest P-factor on rotation and climb out. Electric rudder trim would ease the requirements, but not sure about on the runway in gusty cross-winds.
 
The RV-10 has a pretty strong torque induced turning tendency that requires a pretty healthy stab of rudder on take-off (big engine, big diameter prop., large vertical tail influenced by prop spiraled flow, etc.).
With the free castering nose wheel, I am not sure that a properly proportioned rudder interconnect ration would be enough to deal with it, and if it was, it would probably result in far to much aileron input being used for a safe take-off, even without a worse case left cross wind.

Good point Scott.

Anyone out there with electric rudder trim? If you crank in a bunch of right trim, what does the takeoff roll then require in terms of pedal input?

Along the same lines, it would be easy to add a rudder trim lever to the side of the forward center console, with a bungee link to the right rudder cable. Push it forward before beginning the takeoff roll, and (for example) double the right rudder bias.

A few flight tests should answer the landing crab and takeoff rudder questions.

Why check? Assume a "big Ercoupe" plan..crabbed landings are OK up to moderate conditions, and the takeoff roll can be maintained in a reasonably straight line. Dynamic controls are reduced to stick, brakes, and throttle. A stick module lower and forward of the existing location isn't hard to do. That leaves brake and throttle.

Consider three floor-mounted pedals. Two are left and right brake. They are each a shoe width, but spaced very close together, so they may be treated as one big pedal, or separately merely by shifting the operating foot left or right, or rocking the foot to bias pressure to either while applying both. Dirt simple, two master cylinders, plumbs to the standard braking setup on the other side in the usual manner.

The third pedal is throttle. It is spaced to the right of the brake pedal pair, much like an automobile. It has a toe loop so it can be pressed forward or pulled back. There is no return spring. It is cabled to the fuel injection servo in parallel with the conventional hand throttle, which has a friction lock.

Everything else is button, knob, and switch, using standard stuff. Note the forward stick location allows Jessica to handle the stick with either foot when the pedals need no attention, leaving choice of either for panel operations.
 
Anyone out there with electric rudder trim? If you crank in a bunch of right trim, what does the takeoff roll then require in terms of pedal input?

Yep, that is what I did.

Worked quite well when the prop blast got strong enough----and that happened pretty quick.

Now, think about a yaw damper rigged to the trim tab??
 
I would worry about trying to get out of a spin when my torso is being pushed in the direction of the spin.
By that token, you might be concerned about operating *any* custom control in a spin when your legs are being pushed in the direction of the spin.

You fly an Ercoupe now, that pretty much *can't* spin. I've flown a couple of dozen different aircraft types and now fly an RV-6. I've never been close to a spin in any of them, at least, not without going there intentionally. You don't "just get into a spin" unexpectedly. You have to be well beyond out of control before it happens.
 
Jessica, just to be clear, the requirement is that the majority (51%) of the labor be done by people who are not paid to do it, and this INCLUDES Vans Aircraft. Vans has stated that they do less than 50%. This means that almost all the building of the kit must be done by unpaid "amateurs". But the accounting does not count engine assembly, avionics, painting. Those things can be done by people who work for-hire. Best of luck in this.

To be more clear, yet: the 51% rule is not predicated on labor (hours), but on representative tasks. Thus, a single wing rib (for example) fluted by the builder is sufficient to represent the "fluting the wing ribs" task. All of the remaining ribs may be fluted by volunteers or even a "pro" shop.

Also, this entire discussion has been about Experimental - Amateur Built rules. There are a number of other certification purposes for experimental airplanes which might be explored if necessary. See here for the FAA's brief definitions:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. This whole endeavor is fascinating and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out. Jessica, you'd be very welcome to fly my -14A should you find yourself in Orlando before it's sold.
 
By that token, you might be concerned about operating *any* custom control in a spin when your legs are being pushed in the direction of the spin.

You fly an Ercoupe now, that pretty much *can't* spin. I've flown a couple of dozen different aircraft types and now fly an RV-6. I've never been close to a spin in any of them, at least, not without going there intentionally. You don't "just get into a spin" unexpectedly. You have to be well beyond out of control before it happens.

We do need to consider that the likelihood of Jessica getting into a spin will likely be much higher than you or I. The possibility of a spin goes up substantially when the rudder is un-coordinated. As we are discussing, a key difficulty here is finding a way for Jessica to keep the rudder coordinated in all flight regimes.

Larry
 
I guarantee an insurmountable obstacle can be found in every control scheme, if we dig hard enough.

Here's reality. Jessica will not be as safe in every possible circumstance as (for example) Patty Wagstaff in an Extra. For that matter, neither am I.
 
Not Quite....

To be more clear, yet: the 51% rule is not predicated on labor (hours), but on representative tasks. Thus, a single wing rib (for example) fluted by the builder is sufficient to represent the "fluting the wing ribs" task. All of the remaining ribs may be fluted by volunteers or even a "pro" shop.

The rules have changed over the years. Currently if you or unpaid volunteers "fabricate" one rib out of 30, you get credit for 3% of fabricating ribs.
The credits come in the form of "points" from 1-10 for each step.
 
To further play devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the goal be to take an existing airplane that generally doesn't need a lot of rudder (like a Cessna 172, with it's land-o-matic gear) and spring-couple the rudders to the ailerons like in an Ercoupe? Carries two people plus lots of stuff for travelling, carries pilot plus two or three people when advocating?

If we're considering Experimental categories other than Amateur-Built, this may be another option. A smaller modification to a well-proven certified design, vs. a major redesign of the control system in a (comparatively speaking) short-coupled and sensitive amateur-built?
 
I think the paper work envolved in making a certified plane capable of doing what Jessica requires would far out weigh the time and energy expended to modify an experimental.
 
To further play devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the goal be to take an existing airplane that generally doesn't need a lot of rudder (like a Cessna 172, with it's land-o-matic gear) and spring-couple the rudders to the ailerons like in an Ercoupe? Carries two people plus lots of stuff for travelling, carries pilot plus two or three people when advocating?

If we're considering Experimental categories other than Amateur-Built, this may be another option. A smaller modification to a well-proven certified design, vs. a major redesign of the control system in a (comparatively speaking) short-coupled and sensitive amateur-built?

That was my thought that a Vans may not be the best option for this pilot and her situation and desires. I would look at a Glastar or maybe the 2+2 Sportsman which gives her the extra space and a much easier plane to get in and out of.

If she picks another plane, we can still be involved in helping Jessica do the engineering and even modifications - probably on another forum but still be involved!
 
I only have about 10 hours in type but the impression I came away with was the need for rudder in the flight regime was no worse than any other airplane. I just don't recall it being an issue and I am pretty careful about always trying to fly coordinated. A local builder had electric rudder trim in his 10. He modified his rudder with a built in hinged tab like elevator trim and not just a control cable connection.

I think maybe to simplify a bit on DanH's brake setup idea is to just have two pedals right together. Think of it as one big pedal split vertically down the middle. Slide the foot to one half or roll the ankle to activate a single brake and then depress both halves at once to get straight ahead braking. The other advantage of a combined/close two pedal set up is you could get on both brakes but bias to one side or the other. Good for X-winds and taxiing etc. If you could somehow incorporate that setup into a push/pull rudder you could get full vertical axis control with one foot.

For lateral and longitudinal axis controls, I was thinking, remove the left stick then modify and connect to the under floor stick interconnect to build up a platform with a stirrup arrangement towards the middle of the aircraft to operate the pitch/roll/power controls with a right leg while operating rudders/brakes with the left. I envision something that would be close enough to the engine controls that they could be retained in standard fashion to allow others to fly the aircraft from the right seat. Obviously anything that allows my center platform idea to work would have to not create an ingress/egress problem for either seat occupant.

It has been long enough since I have seen the guts of an open 10 that I don't really recall where all the parts are so some of my ideas may not be feasible but from a design and engineering standpoint it is an interesting challenge.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all again for the wonderful words of support and your creative ideas. If you're attending AirVenture, you may want to stop by one of my speeches. I may share something you will find interesting ;)
 
Update from Jessica

Hi everyone,

I'm Patrick, Jessica's husband. We have good news! Thanks to a generous sponsor, Jessica will receive a complete QB RV-10 kit. The tail section will arrive in about a month.

A team of volunteers will help build it for her.

I'm putting a team together to evaluate the practicality of the final control scheme design. If you have engineering experience and would like to add your input, let me know.
 
Quick update on building and modifying the RV-10 for Jessica Cox.

First, construction has begun! The tail kit arrived. It has been inventoried, sorted, and the first parts are coming together. (see picture)

QB wings should arrive in October.

Second, we saw several of you at Oshkosh. It was great to meet you!

For those that weren't there, we have a few leading designs going in for testing. I'm trying to figure out how to make a video out of it for Jessica's YouTube channel, so stay tuned.

We're currently 3D printing models for preliminary testing and will eventually load them into a formerly airworthy fuselage for final checkout. This fuselage will also be hooked up to a flight sim. If all goes according to plan, we'll tow it to OSH 23 and let you jump in and try it out. For a small donation to the project, of course ;)

If you've been sitting on an idea for modifications Jessica, we're still open to them!

Third, here's what we have lined up so far
  • IO-540
  • Dynon panel (IFR, specifics TBA)
  • Custom fadec constant speed prop with additional electronic toe buttons (so Jessica can control the prop without taking her feet off the controls)
  • Three-axis trim
  • Auto pilot
  • AC
  • Paint scheme by Aircraft Design Studio
More in the works

Finally, a team in Tom's River, NJ, has volunteered to help Jessica with some of the labor assembling the -10. Bob and the EAA chapter there get a lot of our thanks. Their help will get The Impossible Airplane in the air far sooner than we could have on our own.

Thank you all (and the search button) for the wealth of knowledge.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6353.jpg
    IMG_6353.jpg
    405.4 KB · Views: 92
Here is the latest update on Jessica's Impossible Airplane.

The tail is complete! :D

QB Wings have arrived. QB fuselage is expected as late as October.

If you are attending AirVenture 2023, come see our sim in the Homebuilders Hangar. Flight controls designed by students from the University of Arizona will be on display. An automatic door designed by students from Oregon Tech has been incorporated into a test fuselage.

We look forward to seeing you all there!
 
Sim

Got to meet Patrick at the their sim display. I was very impressed with the automated door for the RV-10. He offered me a chance to fly the simulator that uses a rudder peddle controller that has been modified to be on a slide. Move slide up, nose down, slide back, nose up. Throttle quadrant also mounted on slide.

It took me only a few moments to get used to it then I landed without crashing. NO HANDS!! This of course would be a fly by wire set up coupled to the pushrods somehow.

I was skeptical at first about this project. It's amazing enough that Jessica can fly an airplane solo with no arms but an Ercoupe is way less complicated than an RV-10 but I now believe it WILL happen.

Nice meeting you Patrick and thanks for bringing your project to Oshkosh. I look forward to your progress.
 
Unless I missed it, everyone is focused on use of body parts mechanics. This incredible lady also has a voice so let’s think how it can be used.

As in think “Hey Siri”.

Some applications would be extremely well suited to voice commands. A company like Garmin would even benefit from that technology. Imagine adding a voice command module to the G3X. What a great project that would benefit Jessica and financial incentive for a company to make it happen even if it doesn’t ever go into production and is just a part of R&D. And we have that technology. Even my 2009 Lexus has voice command function that activates when a momentary switch is pushed.

HEY GARMIN - Transponder Squawk four six six seven
HEY GARMIN - Radio one swap frequency
HEY GARMIN - Auto pilot on
HEY GARMIN - Radio two tune one two two point eight zero
HEY GARMIN - Navigator direct to KLEX
HEY GARMIN - Lights wigwag on

You get the idea. Each unit would have a set of commands. If the G3X suite can control it, a voice could control the G3X. It can be any company. I just used Garmin for the example.
 
Unless I missed it, everyone is focused on use of body parts mechanics. This incredible lady also has a voice so let’s think how it can be used.

As in think “Hey Siri”.

Some applications would be extremely well suited to voice commands. A company like Garmin would even benefit from that technology. Imagine adding a voice command module to the G3X. What a great project that would benefit Jessica and financial incentive for a company to make it happen even if it doesn’t ever go into production and is just a part of R&D. And we have that technology. Even my 2009 Lexus has voice command function that activates when a momentary switch is pushed.

HEY GARMIN - Transponder Squawk four six six seven
HEY GARMIN - Radio one swap frequency
HEY GARMIN - Auto pilot on
HEY GARMIN - Radio two tune one two two point eight zero
HEY GARMIN - Navigator direct to KLEX
HEY GARMIN - Lights wigwag on

You get the idea. Each unit would have a set of commands. If the G3X suite can control it, a voice could control the G3X. It can be any company. I just used Garmin for the example.
Great idea.

This can be done today quite easily for about $20 of hardware and a bit of coding. Almost any IoT hobbyist could code this up on a weekend.


The question is if the device being driven has a serial or canbus interface that can receive these commands after the esp32 or stm32 or arduino has converted them from voice to a serial command.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XbnzfBjmZk
 
Unless I missed it, everyone is focused on use of body parts mechanics. This incredible lady also has a voice so let’s think how it can be used.
As in think “Hey Siri”.
Some applications would be extremely well suited to voice commands. A company like Garmin would even benefit from that technology. Imagine adding a voice command module to the G3X. What a great project that would benefit Jessica and financial incentive for a company to make it happen even if it doesn’t ever go into production and is just a part of R&D. And we have that technology. Even my 2009 Lexus has voice command function that activates when a momentary switch is pushed.
HEY GARMIN - Transponder Squawk four six six seven
HEY GARMIN - Radio one swap frequency
HEY GARMIN - Auto pilot on
HEY GARMIN - Radio two tune one two two point eight zero
HEY GARMIN - Navigator direct to KLEX
HEY GARMIN - Lights wigwag on
You get the idea. Each unit would have a set of commands. If the G3X suite can control it, a voice could control the G3X. It can be any company. I just used Garmin for the example.

I can just hear it now!

Pilot.......Hey Garmin - Change course to one eight zero degrees
Garmin...Did you say call home?
 
Garmin GMA35c

Garmin already has a voice command audio panel that has several hundreds of command using their "Telligence Voice Command" technology. Look at the GMA35c and how it will control COMS etc. all with voice. I believe it also interphases with the GTN750 with commands as well. It uses a separate PTT button called PTC (Push to Command) to enable the voice feature. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Got to meet Patrick at the their sim display. I was very impressed with the automated door for the RV-10. He offered me a chance to fly the simulator that uses a rudder peddle controller that has been modified to be on a slide. Move slide up, nose down, slide back, nose up. Throttle quadrant also mounted on slide.

It took me only a few moments to get used to it then I landed without crashing. NO HANDS!! This of course would be a fly by wire set up coupled to the pushrods somehow.

I was skeptical at first about this project. It's amazing enough that Jessica can fly an airplane solo with no arms but an Ercoupe is way less complicated than an RV-10 but I now believe it WILL happen.

Nice meeting you Patrick and thanks for bringing your project to Oshkosh. I look forward to your progress.

Thanks for coming by! We still have a long way to go. And I'm sure a lot of people are skeptical when they hear about Jessica's goals, but at least one convert makes us happy (though I think we had more than a few coverts, including one person in particular at Vans ;))
 
Garmin already has a voice command audio panel that has several hundreds of command using their "Telligence Voice Command" technology. Look at the GMA35c and how it will control COMS etc. all with voice. I believe it also interphases with the GTN750 with commands as well. It uses a separate PTT button called PTC (Push to Command) to enable the voice feature. Hope this helps.

You all are on the right track with voice commands. We don't want something that controls primary systems, but certainly, controlling aspects of the avionics is possible. I spoke with someone last year, and one of the challenges is not just programming a system but making it robust enough to be reliable, all while not using cell tower communications.

The rumor is that Garmin isn't supporting their voice system on new devices. What I've been told previously is that a specific pair of nav devices enable the voice commands. It might be the combo you mentioned above (I can't remember).

Either way, we are moving forward with Advanced Flight Systems with (hopefully) an Avidyne nav. Going forward, I will keep my ear to the ground and something may turn up!

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Please keep them coming!
 
Back
Top