could a RV 10 be built with a tail wheel?
could a RV 10 be built with a tail wheel?
anybody considering major modifications to a recognized kit plane
ought to call it by another name.
This would ensure that builders can exercise their creativity without infringing on a manufacturers product
If I was going to make the 10 a taildragger, then I'd go to the trouble of putting the wings on top. At least then, it would be a "practical" taildragger.
I am in no way insinuating a legal change in naming your Kit plane creation...
... If you are going to go through all of that re-design, stiffening the tail, re-locating the gear mounts, modeling the flight characteristics, revising weight and balance, etc, I think you should put it on amphibious floats, like Trey did with that RV-7. Now THAT would be unique!
A taildragger RV-10 is dumb........get a Bearhawk
Too bad the Bearhawk looks like an old, outdated turd with wings
A taildragger RV-10 is dumb...
A taildragger RV-10 is dumb. If you are looking for something like that, get a Bearhawk kit - same weights, same engine....
John
This is what cracks me up about this site – no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you’d all lap it up like manna from heaven.
Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models – including his low powered “trainer” – the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he’s lauded as a visionary.
A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY “cooler” on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I’m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means – and it is a huge leap to go from “does not make business sense” to “dumb idea” at the technical level.
Without justification or explanation, the comment “dumb” is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically “dumb” as a flying aircraft?
This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.
Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.
A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.
Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?
This is what cracks me up about this site ? no consistency. If Van comes out with a tailwheel version tomorrow, you?d all lap it up like manna from heaven.
Van offers both gear configurations on most of his models ? including his low powered ?trainer? ? the -9. For this versatility and broad appeal, he?s lauded as a visionary.
A taildragger -10 is going to be faster, with more useful load, more versatile, and WAY ?cooler? on the ramp than the stoic, spam can look alike that it is now. That said, I?m sure the marketing decision to produce only the current version is the correct one from a business perspective because of an admittedly small customer base, but that does not mean a tailwheel -10 is without technical merit by any means ? and it is a huge leap to go from ?does not make business sense? to ?dumb idea? at the technical level.
Without justification or explanation, the comment ?dumb? is not only worthless, but pretty rude in polite company. Aside from the additional engineering and fabrication required to convert the existing design, is there any reason why such a configuration is technically ?dumb? as a flying aircraft?
I
...Just know that if a 10 is made into a tail wheel you will give up some things that are the great features designed in to the 10.
A few items to consider are;
To check the oil you will probably need a step stool.
For normal maintaince the engine will be at an odd angle.
Visibility to the right while taxiing will be poor.
Will be hard to see over the nose while taxiing.
You will probably still have to install those ugly steps.
Insurance will be hard to get and expensive.
A very high percent of new tail wheel pilots have an incident.
It will NOT be easier to get in to short narrow strips, unless you are very experienced.
Resale value may be affected as well as being easy to sell.
More chance of a passenger slipping while walking on the wing.
May be difficulties loading and unloading.
Engine mounted landing gear may or may not be practical.
A fuselage mounted landing gear may take up too much room for a side by side.
All the people I know who are building 10?s (myself included), have chosen it because it is the best performance+payload+economy combination that they can operate out of their relatively short airfields. All these fields are dirt, where a taildragger would add another great benefit, protection from small rocks chipping your paint and propeller (which is a major PITA where I fly), making the 10 even more perfect.
I fly out of a rough strip (8NC8) and surprisingly find the trike '10 to be the right configuration. I've been flying a tail wheel Maule (aka 'Certified Turd') out of this same strip for a dozen years. I consider it a great 'mudder' but the tilted prop wash kicks up stuff, the main gear kicks up stuff all over the stabilizer, chips the paint, and due to the fact that the wheels are pant-less, it kicks up mud all over the underside of the wing. When i go visiting, there's no doubt that I fly out of a rough grass strip.
OTOH, the pants on the '10 along with the more rearward mounting seem to keep debris from the main gear from hitting much of anything including the flaps. The stabilizer is so high that nothing can hit it except for an badly secured door. And the trike attitude would seem to keep the prop blast from kicking up stuff that would hit the airframe.
Of course pants would be fitted onto a tail wheel '10 but my guess is that you would end up with some debris impact on the flaps and possibly on the tail.
I'm a tail wheel guy but I've always felt it is inferior to a trike even if it is great fun. Sort of like a stick shift compared to a modern automatic trans. Actually I'm a glider guy who is still wondering why I need that vibrator up front on a nice sunny day, but I digress.....
The '10 is the best plane I've ever flown and may be a better 'mudder' than my beloved Maule. I'll defer to Van's judgement with regard to 'supported' configs.
Shields up!
Maule Driver
Also, what do you mean its a better mudder than your Maule??