F4 Rocket rumors?

[jetdrivr]

$$$

I'm just curious- how is the fiel burn "friendlier"?

Referring to the assumption that the fuel burn will be "friendlier" on the wallet with a 4 cylinder vs. a 6 cylinder. However, I have my doubts on that one. I believe there have been several discussions on here comparing the two engines on a RV-4 airframe (or similar).

In fact, here is a link to one such discussion back in 2007:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=23918&highlight=540+fuel+burn

 

[jetdrivr]

Figured it out

I'm just curious- how is the fiel burn "friendlier"?

Disregard my previous post. Just saw that you are the same guy that is just finishing up your own Rocket. You have obviously figured it out. Good luck with the inspection.

M

 

[prporter]

Disregard my previous post. Just saw that you are the same guy that is just finishing up your own Rocket. You have obviously figured it out. Good luck with the inspection.

M

From what I gather, the F1, when throttled back to slow down for the RV's, burns the same amount of fuel.

 

[smokyray]

Fueled discussion

Guys,
I put 1000 hours on my 96" HR2 over six years. LyCon IO540 C4B5 with 10.1 flow matching, GAMI injectors, Electroair ignition. Lots of trips around the country and around my home patch to see some real numbers. If you're talking cross country, sure Rockets burn the same fuel as an RV at equal speeds. I routinely attained 10.5 GPH LOP at 180 Knots True with big tires, caked mud and all. However comma, short trips and flying acro around the home airpatch was much more costly. Six cyllinders burn more fuel than 4, trust me.
Larry's whole point was flying qualities more than HP or fuel burn. Now he has Rocket amenities at a much lower weight and comparative performance with the RV8 but much better looking
It all depends on what you like to do and can afford. Personally, I loved my HR2 but I couldn't justify having a $100K+ six cyllinder 2 place airplane in my hangar, when there are more constructive things financially I could be doing.

Half that cost and power easily does what I need to do and still puts a huge grin on my face.
Questions?

My 2 cents...
Smokey
www.fly-4-life.com

 

[bryanrene]

230hp 4 cylinder rocket lite

I, like many others obviously, like the idea of a rocket lite.

I've got a rv4 and had a rocket... loved the take-off and cruise speed, the roomy cockpit, the beautiful lines but didn't like the nose heavy feel. The elevators felt out of balance with the ailerons. I'm thinking the recently announced O-408 at a projected 230hp with the rocket airframe might give very close performance with a better feel. I doubt it will save much fuel over the 540 however.

I also assume the loss of some of the payload to remain in CG... no more "large" guys in the back and aerobatics. I'd guess the rear seat weight limit should not be too different from the rv4.

I am really looking for a pumped up rv4 that is a little more comfortable so maybe this is the answer.

Question: HR2 is about the same amount of $ and time to build as RV4, right? 540 maybe a little more than 360, prop, etc. RV4's are selling for 40-50K, rockets are still 85-95K, will they come down to 50-60K?

 

[smokyray]

Closer to home...

Bryan,

My buddy JJ and I have both owned Rockets and sold them for similar reasons. JJ always liked my original 4 way back when and he owned several RV4's before building his masterpiece FB4. It is what I consider is THE most bang for the buck, Rocket Lite/Fastback 4 etc. With the pumped up 0-360 and BA Hartzell it posts nearly the same numbers as an HR2 for less cost.

If someone could build a pre-punched/QB kit of this airframe with a bit more cockpit room I believe it would sell, even in the current market.

My Dos Centavos.
Smokey



PS: For the type flying I prefer, I better start saving my pennies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljpMnCwN32c&feature=relmfu

 

[rocketbob]

I've got a rv4 and had a rocket... loved the take-off and cruise speed, the roomy cockpit, the beautiful lines but didn't like the nose heavy feel. The elevators felt out of balance with the ailerons. I'm thinking the recently announced O-408 at a projected 230hp with the rocket airframe might give very close performance with a better feel. I doubt it will save much fuel over the 540 however.

I also assume the loss of some of the payload to remain in CG... no more "large" guys in the back and aerobatics. I'd guess the rear seat weight limit should not be too different from the rv4.

I am really looking for a pumped up rv4 that is a little more comfortable so maybe this is the answer.

Question: HR2 is about the same amount of $ and time to build as RV4, right? 540 maybe a little more than 360, prop, etc. RV4's are selling for 40-50K, rockets are still 85-95K, will they come down to 50-60K?

The heavy nose can be corrected with a modification to the elevator bellcrank. I came up with this mod and a friend put it in his F1 and his elevators are perfectly balanced with the ailerons. The harmony is perfect and its a true joy to fly. Not for the ham-fisted however!

My $.02...I like a loafing, underworked 540 much better than I do an overworked 360. Fuel burn is simply a function of throttle position and even though its hard to resist having all that HP up front its pretty easy to manage. I've flown MANY x/c trips with my friend Jim Winings and he has always beat me at fuel stops on using less fuel so, again, fuel burn is manageable and I would argue a 540 rocket does better based on my experience.

CG is a non-issue in a rocket and I would hate to lose all that baggage space.