I can only hope, but does anyone think that Vans will ever sell a "Rocket" kit? I would buy it right now if it became available. Do others feel the same?
I don't think that Van's will do this .... A Rocket is a specialized, relatively high performance aircraft that has a limited potential market.
Is it your opinion of what Van's should do.. or your desire The above seem a little contradictory.My personal opinion is that they should revisit the RV-3-- upping the gross weight, fully quickbuild ... Such an aircraft would give you Rocket performance at an affordable price.
The RV-3 sector apparently has tiny market potential - when compared to the RV-4/6(A) - both designs having similar design / construction issues. This is despite it being, for a period, the only RV on sale - it has taken since 1973 to sell and build those 269 RV-3s.Listed by Model
RV-3 269
RV-4 1332
RV-6/6A 2425
RV-7/7A 1019
RV-8/8A 1034
RV-9/9A 653
do you know any / would you be happy in flying a fully aerobatic (+6g) type with folding wings?<maybe> folding wings
Vern...
Just some quick thoughts...
Is it your opinion of what Van's should do.. or your desire The above seem a little contradictory.
Limited Potential Marker You quote this as a reason they won't do the Rocket, yet you think they could do a revamped RV-3. From completions:The RV-3 sector apparently has tiny market potential - when compared to the RV-4/6(A) - both designs having similar design / construction issues. This is despite it being, for a period, the only RV on sale - it has taken since 1973 to sell and build those 269 RV-3s.
If you now look at the RV-7(A)/8(A)/9(A) numbers, and of course, many more "in build", there might be an indication of the market size required to justify the QB / matched hole / CAD design?
Finally do you know any / would you be happy in flying a fully aerobatic (+6g) type with folding wings?
As I say, just my thoughts from the market seemingly out there (or not).
Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-3B in s l o w build
RV-8tors
....I think mark sold over 230 F1 kits and there's got to be a hundred or so Harmons...QUOTE said:That's interesting data that supports my argument about a QB RV-3. The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.
So a marketing guy would say, the HR-II isn't selling much, why do another one? Well, Mark Frederick was a visionary who decided that there was a market for this type of aircraft if you make it easy to build. Too bad he had to suspend production due to the supply problems from the Czechs.
Nevertheless, the total Rocket market is still quite small compared to the Van's models.
I changed my mind, my next aircraft will be a turbine Legend .
f1rocket said:....I think mark sold over 230 F1 kits and there's got to be a hundred or so Harmons...
That's interesting data that supports my argument about a QB RV-3. The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.
That was why I compared the RV-3 with the RV-4/6(A) since they are similar build technology....supports my argument about a QB RV-3... The HRII and the F1 are quite similar, but the F1 sold much better because it was a QB, while the HR-II is more akin to an RV-3 in build challenges.
So, yes, Vans could design and market a QB / matched hole single seat "RV-3C". But would people be willing to pay RV-7/8+ (maybe RV-10?) type prices for the kit? When they can get the current one for 1/3 the price?
So how do we assure Van that the market is there...that is the question!
Paul
I really like the stubby straight wings. They fit through a garage door and have a much longer CofG envelope vs the tapered EVO wing.
...side by side is kind of defeating the purpose of a rocket. Well for my purpose anyway, to each his own.
...While they are a delight to fly, the stability and stable feeling of the EVO wing, in my opinion, is an advancement of type. (not to mention a 10 knot slower landing speed)
...We might still have F1 QB kits available new today if the cost and complexity of the taper wing had not raised the cost of production...
...One thing not mentioned previously is the advantage that the taper wing holds with altitude. Up to 8000 feet there is not much difference but above that the EVO really starts to pull away from the Sport wing. At altitudes above 12,000 the sport wing will burn up to 25% more fuel trying to keep up. We found this out coming home from Colorado a year ago.
I might have to disagree with ya there , though I do "jones" for a tandem and a right-hand stick occasionally. But for fun, we could settle the debate at a SARL race or at high noon at 5,000', somewhere over....
well that would be no fun for ya because you'd straining your eyes to my tail.
well that would be no fun for ya because you'd straining your eyes to my tail.
...For me however it is. Everything has it's purpose.
Better climb, more speed, more noise. Whats not to like? Maybe F-1 boss will chime in an let us no of any progress.
The Harley crowd has a nice saying..."if you have to explain it, they wouldn't understand." Fits nicely in terms of rocket ownership.
Someone mentioned that a side-by-side rocket would defeat the purpose of the Rocket. I thought the purpose was to climb and cruise like you're the Bandit and Smokey is on your tail. All-out speed, with a little increased roll-rate thrown in for kicks. Oh, and the growl of the 540 vs. a 4-banger.
I do understand all that. But given the comparison between the -4 and -6, and between the -8 and -7, I suspect a side-by-side Rocket wouldn't be much slower at all. If at all. And having your passenger beside you would help with any CG issues. Wouldn't it?
Mark, are you the person to whom an unnamed RV4 pilot/builder of Rocket with EVO wings talks about? I suspect that you are and I am trying to get him down to a SARL race in that area this year.
Guess I should state he is at Meadow Lake airport in Colorado.
I have always known what my next airplane would be, but since I bought the EVO Rocket, I have no idea what my next airplane would be... It really is at the limits of what can be done in a S/E airplane with a reasonable stall speed....
The only way I can see making it better is to but a turbo-normalizer on a -550 to increase the high altitude cruise speed and move the CG forward.....
Until that happens, it looks like I am stuck with Ole '84. There is really no where to go from here for my mission.....
But one thing someone mentioned makes sense, " if Vans builds a Rocket it would take away from 8 sales "
And just this statement alone has convinced me Vans will never build a Rocket and has answered my initial question. So I patiently await Mr Fredricks................
To the gentleman that wrote the above quote, don't forget that you can still build a new Harmon Rocket. The HR II offers loads of safe and proven performance. Check out his web site.
Factory Glassair test pilot Jack Kane told me, "If you want to fix airplanes, build a retractable. If you want to fly, build a fixed gear." I know why Tom and Mark like the taper wing and if Mark gets his new airfoil just right it will go faster. Not all of us want higher or faster. For me the sport wing is enough, and it's way beyond excellent. But it will fun to watch just how fast Tom can go if Mark ever ships him a new set of wings.
Bob, are those Rocket speeds in knots?