[PabloSniper]

Hey everyone,

First off, this is just a brainstorm. I have no intention of convincing anyone to build this, or to push for a kit — just putting the idea out there for discussion and curiosity.

I've been following the modern wave of tandem-seat, Rotax-powered aircraft like the Shark UL, TL Stream, and Flying Legend Tucano-R. These aircraft offer sleek looks, sporty handling, and reasonable operating costs.

It made me wonder: could a 90% scale RV-8, specifically optimized for a Rotax 912, 915, or even 916, fit into this same market niche?

A downsized RV-8, with about 7.1 m span (vs. 7.9 m) and 6.0 m length (vs. 6.7 m), could potentially offer:

- empty weight around ~378 kg (estimated)
- MTOW around ~655 kg (estimated)
- about 250 km/h cruise with a Rotax 912 (estimated)
- possibly 280–290 km/h with a Rotax 915 (estimated)
- fuel burn around 18–22 L/h depending on engine
- great handling and short-field performance
- still with the classic RV fighter-like tandem seating

Here’s a rough comparison with some of the current tandem Rotax-powered designs:

| Aircraft   | Span  | Length | Wing Area      | Empty Wt           | MTOW              | Cruise                                      | Engine            |
|------------|-------|--------|----------------|--------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| RV-8 90%   | 7.1 m | 6.0 m  | ~9.4 m² (est)  | ~378 kg (est)      | ~655 kg (est)     | ~250 km/h (912) / ~280–290 km/h (915) (est) | Rotax 912/915/916 |
| Tucano-R   | 8.41 m| 7.4 m  | 10.5 m²        | 520 kg             | 750 kg            | 220 km/h                                    | Rotax 912/915     |
| TL Stream  | 8.2 m | 6.9 m  | 8.6 m²         | 328 kg             | 600 kg            | 274 km/h                                    | Rotax 912/915     |
| Shark UL   | 8.2 m | 6.9 m  | 9.8 m²         | 297 kg             | 600 kg            | 300 km/h                                    | Rotax 912/915     |

It’s also worth noting that at 90% scale, the RV-8’s dimensions would be very close to the classic RV-4, but with better cockpit ergonomics inherited from the RV-8 — and a structure purpose-built around modern Rotax engines from the start. This could combine the compact footprint of an RV-4 with the comfort of an RV-8, plus Rotax-level operating costs.

Even with fixed landing gear, a 90% RV-8 could still match the cruise speeds of these carbon-fiber competitors — especially when powered by a Rotax 915. And thanks to simpler construction, conventional materials, and Van’s-style engineering, it could come in significantly cheaper than most of them. That alone might make it attractive to many homebuilders.

I'd love to hear opinions:

Would there be interest among RV builders for this?
Could it be structurally feasible while keeping RV-like handling?
Any thoughts on best Rotax fit (912, 915, 916)?

Curious to hear the community’s perspective!

 

[rocketman1988]

Probably very little interest.

It isn’t as easy as just scaling the design to 90%.

Likely zero interest from vans.

 

[mburch]

Could an 8000% scale turbofan-powered RV-8 compete with the 737? Might as well dream big...

 

[DanH]

Curious to hear the community’s perspective!

You should get busy building an established design.

 

[Marlonyoung]

RV8 - 10% =RV4?

 

[fl-mike]

If anything, the 8 needs to be bigger.

 

[Flynjay]

What would a standard RV8 need to look like to have the 916is installed? How far forward would the spinner need to be extended? It's within the design power envelope.

 

[IO390]

Just my 2 cents.. these small Rotax aircraft offer great and appealing performance figures, though the reality isn’t quite so good in my experience. They are light and flimsy. I flew a Shark, yes it’s fast in a straight line but it’s very lightly built, it uses 3d printed parts for the landing gear doors for example, and RC plane plastic linkages on the aileron servo tabs. The ride in turbulence was unbearable. I’ll take my RV any day for a fraction of the purchase price, many times more reliability and robustness and better handling.

Looks like the OP was written using an AI chatbot too :/

 

[PhatRV]

If anything, the 8 needs to be bigger.

I think a Rocket fits this description.

 

[BoydBirchler]

An RV12 with fairings on the wheels and perhaps a few other places, add a constant speed prop and you got a 145MPH/238 KPH plane at 5 Gallons per hour. I have flown one on a turbulent day and it's not too bad. The room inside is close to my RV7.

 

[PabloSniper]

An RV12 with fairings on the wheels and perhaps a few other places, add a constant speed prop and you got a 145MPH/238 KPH plane at 5 Gallons per hour. I have flown one on a turbulent day and it's not too bad. The room inside is close to my RV7.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea, but I’d go further — I’d consider adding other smaller and thinner wings, like those on the RV-4.

 

[Taltruda]

What would a standard RV8 need to look like to have the 916is installed? How far forward would the spinner need to be extended? It's within the design power envelope.

A longer nose would increase the surface area forward of the CG.. may impact yaw stability and spin recovery without a bigger vertical stab or an addition of a dorsal fin.

 

[Capt]

I’ve owned both the 8&4, the 4 is the best design of all the Vans, anything smaller would be too limiting. Whilst I own both Lyc & Rotax donks I prefer the ‘truck’ type Lyc donk for outright simplicity

 

[PabloSniper]

What would a standard RV8 need to look like to have the 916is installed? How far forward would the spinner need to be extended? It's within the design power envelope.

I tried to sketch an RV-8 with the Rotax 916, based on the RV-4 equipped with the Rotax 915iS built by the German Robert Haag.




And as you can see here, yes, the engine had to be mounted further forward.



Link to Kitplanes article about it: https://www.kitplanes.com/rotax-anyone/


Not to mention it turned out really sexy.

I believe that if it's built with the same effort and dedication as this RV-4, the RV-8 could turn out even better than it already is — lighter and more efficient.
As a friend of mine likes to say: 'The only thing an RV doesn't like is weight.'

A longer nose would increase the surface area forward of the CG.. may impact yaw stability and spin recovery without a bigger vertical stab or an addition of a dorsal fin.

I understand your point of view, especially since this was done on the RV-9 with a Rotax engine.
But in the case of the RV-8, I assume that if the RV-4 had no issues recovering from a spin,


the RV-8 certainly wouldn't either, since it has a larger rudder and vertical stabilizer area than the RV-4.
Not to mention that we can work with relocating the batteries and other components to adjust the CG.

 

[ronrapp]

I think a Rocket fits this description.

He said "bigger", not "faster, sexier and almost un-insurable".

(Joking! I'm only joking...)

--Ron

 

[ronrapp]

Not to mention it turned out really sexy.

Perhaps just a contrarian opinion here, but to my eye, it looks a lot less appealing from a purely aesthetic standpoint than a Lycoming powered RV-8. I think it might be because the lower cowling has a large curve to it, while the upper cowling is almost flat.

The best looking RV-8 I ever saw was Brent Owen's airplane, which was largely polished and had an F-1 canopy bow. I don't know how it might have affected the glare or whatnot through that transparency, but it sure looked sexy.

As a friend of mine likes to say: 'The only thing an RV doesn't like is weight.'

He's right. But I think that's true of every aircraft.

--Ron

 

[PabloSniper]

An RV12 with fairings on the wheels and perhaps a few other places, add a constant speed prop and you got a 145MPH/238 KPH plane at 5 Gallons per hour. I have flown one on a turbulent day and it's not too bad. The room inside is close to my RV7.

Out of all the topics I discuss, I always try to learn something — and this one was no different.
I initially started by focusing on high-performance tandem two-seaters using Rotax engines.
However, I realized that there are also high-performance side-by-side aircraft using Rotax, such as the VL-3 — although it's quite expensive.
So I started thinking: if we already have the RV-12, why not improve it?
Sure, the LSA version has to comply with specific rules, but the Experimental version doesn’t have those restrictions.
Also, the RV-12 features removable wings, which actually supports the idea I'm proposing.
What if, instead of spending a lot of money developing a brand-new aircraft, we had the option of a shorter, thinner wing for the RV-12?
Maybe even use a Rotax 914 UL with 115HP? It’s not much more expensive than the 912 iS, and it comes with a turbocharging system that would maintain performance even at higher altitudes.
An RV-12 cruising at 140 knots doesn’t sound bad at all

 

[rocketman1988]

Out of all the topics I discuss, I always try to learn something — and this one was no different.
I initially started by focusing on high-performance tandem two-seaters using Rotax engines.
However, I realized that there are also high-performance side-by-side aircraft using Rotax, such as the VL-3 — although it's quite expensive.
So I started thinking: if we already have the RV-12, why not improve it?
Sure, the LSA version has to comply with specific rules, but the Experimental version doesn’t have those restrictions.
Also, the RV-12 features removable wings, which actually supports the idea I'm proposing.
What if, instead of spending a lot of money developing a brand-new aircraft, we had the option of a shorter, thinner wing for the RV-12?
Maybe even use a Rotax 914 UL with 115HP? It’s not much more expensive than the 912 iS, and it comes with a turbocharging system that would maintain performance even at higher altitudes.
An RV-12 cruising at 140 knots doesn’t sound bad at all

So you think it’s just a simple matter to bolt on a set of shorter thinner wings?

As I stated awhile back, you need to do some reading on aircraft design…

 

[Mel]

Out of all the topics I discuss, I always try to learn something — and this one was no different.
I initially started by focusing on high-performance tandem two-seaters using Rotax engines.
However, I realized that there are also high-performance side-by-side aircraft using Rotax, such as the VL-3 — although it's quite expensive.
So I started thinking: if we already have the RV-12, why not improve it?
Sure, the LSA version has to comply with specific rules, but the Experimental version doesn’t have those restrictions.
Also, the RV-12 features removable wings, which actually supports the idea I'm proposing.
What if, instead of spending a lot of money developing a brand-new aircraft, we had the option of a shorter, thinner wing for the RV-12?
Maybe even use a Rotax 914 UL with 115HP? It’s not much more expensive than the 912 iS, and it comes with a turbocharging system that would maintain performance even at higher altitudes.
An RV-12 cruising at 140 knots doesn’t sound bad at all

If changing a design were that simple, I would have had a taildragger RV-12 a long time ago! Unfortunately aircraft design just doesn't work that way.

 

[Amadeus]

So you think it’s just a simple matter to bolt on a set of shorter thinner wings?

On the -12 it would be pretty simple given the removable wing design. Many sets of wings could be built and easily switched out.

However consideration to the -12 maximum speed design and the effects on flutter, etc. must be given. It may not be safe to change the design in this manner.

 

[PhatRV]

No one has mentioned the Panther LSA aircraft yet. This airplane is sized slightly larger than the RV3 and i think it is about the size of the RV4.

 

[Low Pass]

No one has mentioned the Panther LSA aircraft yet. This airplane is sized slightly larger than the RV3 and i think it is about the size of the RV4.
View attachment 91375

This ^^^. I’m surprised/disappointed they haven’t caught on more.

 

[Auburntsts]

This ^^^. I’m surprised/disappointed they haven’t caught on more.

This is exactly why these brainstorming sessions are entertaining but ultimately doomed for serious consideration with respect to Van's and RVs. The Panther and similar planes fill that niche and market share yet their popularity remains seemly lukewarm resulting in zero chance Van's would have any interest. Although a builder under E-AB certification is free to design their own better mouse trap by creating their own design using various RV parts, there are way easier paths to obtaining the desired end state. As stated earlier, there's more to aircraft design than simply photoshopping various model components into a picture.

 

[rocketman1988]

On the -12 it would be pretty simple given the removable wing design. Many sets of wings could be built and easily switched out.

However consideration to the -12 maximum speed design and the effects on flutter, etc. must be given. It may not be safe to change the design in this

On the -12 it would be pretty simple given the removable wing design. Many sets of wings could be built and easily switched out.

However consideration to the -12 maximum speed design and the effects on flutter, etc. must be given. It may not be safe to change the design in this manner.

Two different topics here.

Mechanically attaching different wings can be done easily but that isn’t the point.

The design engineering and analysis is not so simple…and you are correct in that it DEFINITELY may not be safe for the average builder to make a change like this.

 

[AeroEngineer]

The market for tandem airplanes is relatively small. We all agree that they look beautiful, but when it comes time to build or buy an airplane, the majority of pilots want the other person (spouse, instructor, friend, child...) sitting next to them, not behind them. Flight instructors (at least a few that I know) don't like sitting in the back. And it's a crowded market too. Like you said, there already is the Tucano, the Shark, the Stream... not to mention scaled-down P-51s and Spitfires... and the Sam LS was not a huge success... and Hummel is currently working on a tandem two-seater, as is the company that makes the Panther (they call it the Cougar). If any other company invests in the development of a tandem two-seater, this would result in limited sales at best.

What if, instead of spending a lot of money developing a brand-new aircraft, we had the option of a shorter, thinner wing for the RV-12? Maybe even use a Rotax 914 UL with 115HP? It’s not much more expensive than the 912 iS, and it comes with a turbocharging system that would maintain performance even at higher altitudes. An RV-12 cruising at 140 knots doesn’t sound bad at all

Now THERE is a good idea. Even if Mosaic retains its 54-knot VS1 requirement, at the very least it would allow for an RV-12 with more horsepower and a little more weight. Modifying a 912-powered airplane to take a 914, stiffening up the structure to raise VNE, and maybe reducing the wing area to increase the cruise speed (now that the clean stall speed can be 54 instead of 45), would all be far easier modifications than all the crazy ideas than you've had so far If the Mosaic stall speed requirement does not change, I would bet on Van's developing a "super" RV-12 (unless they decide that developing a slower-stalling wing for the RV-10/RV-14 would be easier and/or have a better ROI. I wonder. They do already have an RV-12 factory up and running...)

You have to remember that Van's is generally not into super-fuel-efficient, super-lightweight airplanes. The 12 is very different from the other RVs in many ways. My guess (and I could be wrong) is that Van's only developed the RV-12 because the Light Sport rules introduced a practical path to a certified airplane - a path which required developing an efficient and lightweight airplane - and following that path would allow Van's to become a "real" airplane company. (And then the RV-14 was a return to what Van's does best: aerobatics, lots of speed, lots of power, combined with moderate landing speeds and - of course - ease of assembly).

Edit: The RV-9 is the closest to your vision of a fast and efficient Rotax-powered cruiser (and it is not exactly the most popular RV). Especially now that Lockwood has developed a 915/916 package for the 9, I have a hard time imagining that Van's would invest into developing an airplane that would only be slightly superior to the Rotax RV-9. (And along similar lines: Do we know if the German guy is planning on offering plans and/or selling parts for the Rotax installation on the RV-4?)

 

[Mel]

You have to remember that Van's is generally not into super-fuel-efficient, super-lightweight airplanes.

He WAS originally. Everything else is customer driven.

 

[PabloSniper]

Do we know if the German guy is planning on offering plans and/or selling parts for the Rotax installation on the RV-4?

Yes, he sells the parts to adapt the Rotax 915 or 916 to the RV-4, but his kit includes a 17 kg ballistic parachute (which apparently is mandatory in Germany)
https://www.planeworx.de/

Agora, EIS uma boa ideia.

Thank you

Actually, I mentioned the 115 hp Rotax 914, but there are already many builders using the 120 hp Jabiru 3300 and getting much better numbers than with the original Rotax 912.


I asked the AI to generate a top view of an RV-12 with RV-4 wings, and it doesn’t look bad at all.

You have to remember that Van's is generally not into super-fuel-efficient, super-lightweight airplanes.

And this could be concerning for fans of the brand, financially speaking, since the world is moving toward energy efficiency and away from Muscle Cars — or should I say, Muscle Planes

 

[PhatRV]

This ^^^. I’m surprised/disappointed they haven’t caught on more.

One builder at Corona bought a project that the original builder gave up. The fuselage is interesting. It is built like the Glasair Sportman where the internal structure is chromoly space frame and aluminum covering skin. The spar carry-though is also chromoly and there is plenty of space to insert the wing bolts. The wings are assembled with pop-rivet. The current builder has too many projects on his hand to make any meaning progress on it. He had planned to power it with the 0-320 engine.

 

[TS Flightlines]

One builder at Corona bought a project that the original builder gave up. The fuselage is interesting. It is built like the Glasair Sportman where the internal structure is chromoly space frame and aluminum covering skin. The spar carry-though is also chromoly and there is plenty of space to insert the wing bolts. The wings are assembled with pop-rivet. The current builder has too many projects on his hand to make any meaning progress on it. He had planned to power it with the 0-320 engine.

this sounds like my crazy idea of a RV10, retract, and turbine. Looked cool on paper, bet it would fly great, but the engineering involved would be multiple nightmares. Then I woke up from my nap.

 

[PabloSniper]

No one has mentioned the Panther LSA aircraft yet. This airplane is sized slightly larger than the RV3 and i think it is about the size of the RV4.
View attachment 91375

I saw some videos of the Panther, but with a Corvair engine single seat.

 

[AeroEngineer]

He WAS originally. Everything else is customer driven.

It's all relative. The RV-3 and RV-4 were "compact", sure, but the g limits and the horsepower-to-weight ratios were still quite a bit higher than most single engine airplanes. I stand by my claim that they are not "super-fuel-efficient, super-lightweight".

And this could be concerning for fans of the brand, financially speaking, since the world is moving toward energy efficiency and away from Muscle Cars — or should I say, Muscle Planes

Maybe, but maybe not, I don't know for sure (but I do hope so). Europe moved there a long time ago. Meanwhile in the US, Cirrus sells a lot better than Diamond, Van's sells a lot better than Sonex. There has always been a contingent in the US that loves fuel efficiency - see the RV-9, and of course the EZ and Cozy and Quickie and so on - but it is not the majority. Who knows, maybe the latest batch of Rotax engines (and airplanes well-optimized for them such as the four-seater Slings... and the slow but probably inevitable demise of 100LL) will help grow America's preference for high MPG.

 

[PabloSniper]

Van's sells a lot better than Sonex. There has always been a contingent in the US that loves fuel efficiency - see the RV-9, and of course the EZ and Cozy and Quickie and so on - but it is not the majority. Who knows, maybe the latest batch of Rotax engines (and airplanes well-optimized for them such as the four-seater Slings... and the slow but probably inevitable demise of 100LL) will help grow America's preference for high MPG.

Since you mentioned the Sonex (in relation to what would be a competitor to it),
I found photos of a KR-2 with an 80hp Rotax 912 engine, also built by a German. Apparently, it’s very well put together and has a higher cruise speed than many LSAs using 100hp engines. I must admit I’m not a fan of that design since I prefer aluminum-built aircraft, but it does seem to be an extremely efficient two-seater.

 

[Low Pass]

I saw some videos of the Panther, but with a Corvair engine single seat.

There is a Panther and a Cougar. Single seat and tandem two seat (still in development per the website). Engine options from Corvair to Lycoming. Folding wings, quicker construction. I turned my RV nose up at it initially. After looking closer, it is very appealing for the nimble, RV-lite mission. A Panther with a 180-hp engine would be a screamer.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

The KR is a tiny airplane.....barely waist high.......

 

[PabloSniper]

The KR is a tiny airplane.....barely waist high.......

Yes, it is quite low.
Here in my city, a builder produced 3 units of a modified KR-2S, with 1 meter more wingspan, 20 centimeters more in length, and a wider cockpit, using a 120hp Jabiru engine.
To this day, people still look for him to build more units, but he is already quite old and won't be producing any more.





But following the same line as the KR-2, the Saberwing seems like a really interesting project, don't you think?





Well, but going back to the subject of a faster RV-12.
Suppose we put RV-4 wings on the RV-12, with fuel tanks in the wings, like in the RV-4
Considering we would remove the RV-12's fuel tank from behind the cockpit, we could move the seats further back, right? And maybe make them more reclined, which would allow for a more aerodynamic plexiglass canopy.




ChatGPT didn’t do exactly what I intended, but I think I managed to get the idea across

 

[g zero]

I don’t get all the Fast Looking Composite Planes with a Rotax … Americans Want Fast / Big HP .
200 plus Knots …
Sold my RV8 …. New bird has a 580

 

[PhatRV]

I saw some videos of the Panther, but with a Corvair engine single seat.

It's experimental and it's up to the builder to choose the powerplant. The builder I know wants to add a lot of performance so he choose the 0-320 with 160HP engine. The picture was captured from the Panther website and it says 180HP. It makes this Panther an equivalent of the Rocket Panther. I like the name.

 

[Auburntsts]

So why not clean sheet a design that meets your desired performance goals that’s based on the same construction materials and techniques used by Vans verses trying to cobble together an RV Frankenstein-plane? I get trying to shortcut the process by using existing components but chances are that path will not yield anything successful.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

So why not clean sheet a design that meets your desired performance goals that’s based on the same construction materials and techniques used by Vans verses trying to cobble together an RV Frankenstein-plane? I get trying to shortcut the process by using existing components but chances are that path will not yield anything successful.

But then there wouldn't be any AI-generated content to post to VAF.........

 

[newt]

It made me wonder: could a 90% scale RV-8, specifically optimized for a Rotax 912, 915, or even 916, fit into this same market niche?

Dunno. But it's Experimental, so why not build it and test it and get back to us later about how it turned out?

(it seems to me the RV-8 is already competing with the Shark, Stream and Tucano-R)

- mark

 

[rocketman1988]

But then there wouldn't be any AI-generated content to post to VAF.........

EXACTLY.

 

[rocketman1988]

So why not clean sheet a design that meets your desired performance goals that’s based on the same construction materials and techniques used by Vans verses trying to cobble together an RV Frankenstein-plane? I get trying to shortcut the process by using existing components but chances are that path will not yield anything successful.

Because a clean sheet design would take effort and knowledge...more than asking AI to draw a picture.

 

[N8DAV8R]

So why not clean sheet a design that meets your desired performance goals that’s based on the same construction materials and techniques used by Vans verses trying to cobble together an RV Frankenstein-plane? I get trying to shortcut the process by using existing components but chances are that path will not yield anything successful.

Because that would not be nearly as effective as the engagement farming that works for this guy over and over here.

EXACTLY.

Yet people keep falling for this weird engagement farming he is doing here.

 

[rocketman1988]

Because that would not be nearly as effective as the engagement farming that works for this guy over and over here.

Yet people keep falling for this weird engagement farming he is doing here.

"engagement farming"

See, I learn something new on VAF every day.

 

[PabloSniper]

Yet people keep falling for this weird engagement farming he is doing here.

"engagement farming"

See, I learn something new on VAF every day.

Strange engagement strategy for what? For what reason?
I'm sensing a tone of mockery in this thread.
Even though I'm polite and respectful to everyone here on the forum, there's always someone who misinterprets my intentions.
With every idea I bring, I learn from your opinions, and that's my only interest.
I haven’t been sharing any videos from my channel here on the forum, and I’m not a Rotax dealer either.
I’ve learned a bit of English from video games, and I use some help from Google Translate or GPT.
I don’t have an RV yet, but I dream of owning one, and I know I’ll achieve that someday.
I’ve had at least two threads closed here, including one where I spent over a week editing images and videos.
Please, let’s maintain cordiality and gentlemanly conduct, because no matter what part of the world we’re in, politeness is essential.

 

[RVbySDI]

Pablo,
I have read all of your posts in all of your threads. I am failing to understand your purpose for your speculative posts suggesting someone else (Vans Aircraft) design another RVXXX that meets some imagined criteria of your thoughts. As many people have stated. Everything you are discussing is within the experimental realm in the US. So, you have dreams? You make them happen! Once you do, we will applaud your ingenuity and design prowess. I am pretty sure (I would say 110 percent sure) Vans would not ever go down any of the roads you suggest they go, not because they might not work. They will not do so because of the great expense involved in designing something of the like; the amount of time and effort it takes; the risk of being able to sell enough to make the effort profitable.

You have presented a great many ideas you think will work. Choose one of them and build it! We look forward to seeing the end result!

Live Long and Prosper!

 

[PabloSniper]

Pablo,
I have read all of your posts in all of your threads. I am failing to understand your purpose for your speculative posts suggesting someone else (Vans Aircraft) design another RVXXX that meets some imagined criteria of your thoughts. As many people have stated. Everything you are discussing is within the experimental realm in the US. So, you have dreams? You make them happen! Once you do, we will applaud your ingenuity and design prowess. I am pretty sure (I would say 110 percent sure) Vans would not ever go down any of the roads you suggest they go, not because they might not work. They will not do so because of the great expense involved in designing something of the like; the amount of time and effort it takes; the risk of being able to sell enough to make the effort profitable.

You have presented a great many ideas you think will work. Choose one of them and build it! We look forward to seeing the end result!

Live Long and Prosper!

Hi Steve!
Thank you for your words, but I have no intention of having someone else do it.
In fact, I just think about how things could be, share the idea with you all here, and analyze the feedback — nothing more than that.
I enjoy reflecting on ideas. In fact, we have a saying here that goes something like this:
‘Intelligent people talk about ideas, average people talk about daily events, and mediocre people talk about other people’s lives.’

Live Long mate!

 

[RVbySDI]

Although this is a forum that is filled with much talk, the truth of the matter is, the talk is about people “DOING”! So you are “talking about ideas” to an audience of analytical thinking engineers! We are basically about talking about what it takes to build something.

Speculating about imaginary out of the box ideas; an engineer is most likely to leave that to the philosopher or the graphic artist!

 

[PabloSniper]

Although this is a forum is filled with much talk, the truth of the matter is, the talk is about people “DOING”! So you are “talking about ideas” to an audience of analytical thinking engineers! We are basically about talking about what it takes to build something.

Speculating about imaginary out of the box ideas; an engineer is most likely to leave that to the philosopher or the graphic artist!

I partially agree, as we will address some of the planes I discussed:
RV-4 with Rotax 915 engine = At least two examples are flying in Germany, and the adaptation kit is available for sale.
RV-4 with Rotax 912 engine = At least one example exists in Italy, but there is no further information about it.
RV-9 with Rotax 915 or 916 engines has been an ambitious project being worked on in the USA.
An RV-12 with a 120hp engine already has several examples with the Jabiru 3300; I just added the idea of a smaller wing, or perhaps a wing from the RV-4 (if possible), and a more aerodynamic plexiglass.

Although the Jabiru 3300 has a lower price, I think the Rotax 914 UL with 115hp would be a better fit, because even though it's turbocharged, it still uses carburetors, isn't much more expensive than a 912 iS, and it's lighter than the Jabiru 3300.

 

[MacCool]

Because that would not be nearly as effective as the engagement farming that works for this guy over and over here.

Yet people keep falling for this weird engagement farming he is doing here.

Really easy on this site to just skip over posts or threads that one doesn't want to read, and even easier to just click the "ignore" button for individual posters. "Engagement farming'" thus becomes irrelevant to any given member's ability to enjoy this forum.