RV-10 Taildragger

[thomasjorgensen]

First post here so hope this works.

First I would like to congratulate you all on an amazing community.

I have been absolutely sold on experimentals ever since i stumbled over a Lancair a few years back. When my father totaled his 182 last year (engine failure), we decided to make the jump to the famed RVs and sourced a nice 7 with 200hp and CS. She's a peach.

Going from a 182 to a 7 was obviously quite a shock in terms of space, and has sparked renewed interest in building a 10. The extra seats and improved access would be much welcomed, especially as my father is not getting any younger. I find the 10 to be quite the ideal aircraft for our purpose.

However, as 98% of the flying is from and to rough farm (dirt) strips, the tailwheel configuration is much valued (the 182?s paint had a hard time, and that was a high-wing). Also, IMO, RV look right with the small wheel at the back.

I know that this has been asked before, but would it be structurally feasible to build a tailwheel RV-10? Are the mains attatched to the wing spar, and would there be a good place to mount them if they were moved forward? I suppose for the third wheel one could "just" mount a tailwheel from another RV and strengthen the tailcone? Just throwing this out there, as i suspect i?m not the only one that has had this thought. I have seen 10?s with v8 engines and whatnot, but how come no one has tried this yet? Is there a good reason?

I realize that this would complicate a build a lot, and that for most folks it just not worth the work. I also realize that Vans would not support you, and i presume that it would be harder to get it inspected (airworthiness) and to get insurance for it. It would probably also have less value, as it would be a possibly wonky one-off. But that wouldnt matter cause we would never part with it.

But my reasons for building it would be partly the need, partly the Engineering challenge (my father is a Mechanical Engineer and i?m an undergrad, and we have great passion for stuff like this), and partly the fact that one would have a truly unique aircraft.

But my question to you guys is can it be done and how would you do it? They are Experimentals after all.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by thomasjorgensen

First post here so hope this works.

Thomas, welcome aboard, yes it worked

Originally Posted by thomasjorgensen

First I would like to congratulate you all on an amazing community.

Thanks, and now the amazing factor has just risen by having you as a part of the community.

Originally Posted by thomasjorgensen

I know that this has been asked before, but would it be structurally feasible to build a tailwheel RV-10? Are the mains attached to the wing spar, and would there be a good place to mount them if they were moved forward? I suppose for the third wheel one could "just" mount a tailwheel from another RV and strengthen the tailcone?

But my question to you guys is can it be done and how would you do it? They are Experimentals after all.

I would love a taildragger 10 also.

The main gear is attached to a weldment that is attached to the spar, and to other fuse structure also. I do not think it would be too hard to re-design the unit to point the gear forward, considering it now points back a bit. No idea what it would do from either a structural or aerodynamic standpoint.

I have used the tail tiedown to pull the nose wheel off the ground before, so I suspect there is enough strength in the aft fuse------but I am not an engineer, so ........my opinion is not worth a lot.

A flat gear like the 8 uses might be easier to re-engineer for the mains----mount forward of the spar, diagonal bracing down to the gear pad???

Again, welcome to VAF

[Toobuilder]

I have to comment on this.

Several years ago at Copperstate I was checking out the "new" -10 demo aircraft at the Vans booth. The Van's employees were very nice and let me sit in it, poke around, etc. This one particular guy (presenting himself as a Van's employee) was very nice and accommodating until I asked him if a tailwheel version was in work, at that point it was like a switch was thrown in the guys head. He went into a tirade along the lines of "why do you taildragger guys want everything your way...'' Blah, blah, blah. His display was actually a little shocking. So, given his reaction, I figured I'd have a little fun. I simply told him that if Van's could not provide me the product I want; I'd just buy a kit and make the required "improvements" myself. He took the bait and his reaction made my whole day.

[rubber314chicken]

I'm sure that if you were to put gear mounts on the tail and engine mount you would easily get the plane to stand and taxi just fine. I'd be concerned about the forces during landing, especially a hard landing, and how the airframe would handle that. a RV-10 coming down at gross making a rough landing is gonna put a LOT of force on those gear attach points, and at the very least I think that running the numbers for all those parts would be a good idea.

[Neal@F14]

I'd be afraid that the -10 probably weighs too much and is too long of a fuselage to employ engine-mount-attached spring gear legs up front, and there's just not enough legroom space in the front footwell area to build gear tower structures like the -8 has to spread the landing loads around. A taildragger -10 would need some kind of load-bearing/load-spreading structure incorporated into the forward fuselage between the spar and the firewall to handle the main gear attachment.

[lancef53]

I would buy one in a heartbeat!! It seems like it would be possible, considering the gross weight is similar to a C-185.

[vic syracuse]

I don't know about this, guys. Besides all of the structural issues, I don't think making it a taildragger is going to solve the so-called "bush operation" issues. The T/W configuration is going to put the trailing edges of the wings and flaps much closer to the ground and more prone to damage from ground objects. And loading the back seat passengers will certainly not be easy, and perhaps even uncomfortable for them to pull themselves up and out. Sure, it might look nice and appeal to a few, but Van's has made a pretty successful business out of understanding the market needs at the right time. I wouldn't expect them to tackle this one any time soon, if ever.

Vic

[Pat Stewart]

Even if you solved the gear and CG issue I would be surprised if the tail cone structure is designed to take on the load that it would be subjected to as a tail dragger.

Pat

[KatieB]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

I simply told him that if Van's could not provide me the product I want; I'd just buy a kit and make the required "improvements" myself. He took the bait and his reaction made my whole day.

What did he say, or is it too vulgar to say here?

I'm on both sides-- I'm about to go sell our LSAs & engines at Sun n Fun. As a commercial aircraft builder and someone close to the kit business, I understand why Van's might not want people to mess with their designs. Frankly it's annoying when you pour your soul into a design and it still isn't good enough for somebody. And you worry about someone making a bad structural mistake and killing themselves in it.

But on the other hand, if Van hadn't listened to people when they wanted to carry more passengers, convert to nose gear, use more power, gain more shoulder room, etc, the only RVs out there would be single place taildraggers. (not that there's anything wrong with that! )

[bhassel]

I like Ken's idea better - about 5:30 in although don't miss the front end either!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb_FB--gSAU

Bob