kkmarshall
Well Known Member
You just described a Rans S21 except it has 120lbs baggage.
Still voting for an RV-Prime
Full disclosure,I just unpacked & inventoried my S21 fuse, tail, & wing kits. So far I am pretty impressed with the quality of the parts.
Still voting for an RV-Prime
Full disclosure,I just unpacked & inventoried my S21 fuse, tail, & wing kits. So far I am pretty impressed with the quality of the parts.
I've been looking seriously at this one myself, my next airplane... someday.
This dated bulletin May 21-2018 does NOT get into detail on Vans website. Called Vans yesterday and was on hold for 33 minutes and never got answered, guesss they are busy after Oshkosh. This pertains to a plug on the fuel spider of injected 320-160hp. Can?t fly until I check it. Has anyone gone through the check? What would I be looking for? Thanks
Ron in Oregon
RV9A flying
The high wing idea has been mentioned many times so there seems to be support for it in the community. I'd also like to an RV-14 version of the 9; roomier cockpit plus all the nice features of the 14 build.
Bob
I?m with Doug on this one. I would love to have a Van?s High wing bush plane.
Think about this. The Cessna 170 / 172 is the most popular airplane ever. It?s under powered. If Van?s offered a design that would be similar to a 170, have plenty of power, and be easy to build? I would be the second to buy the kit.
This would be designed as if a Super Cub and C170 had kids. All metal, O-320 to IO-390 Lycoming. Nose wheel or tail wheel. 2,200 Gw. Big baggage door.
I built a North Star Bush plane in 2004. I still fly it. I put my money down. I love this type of flying. I would want to own, promote, fly, a Van?s product like this if it was available.
PS:
My North Star has a O-360, and 31? Alaska Bush Wheels
Isn't the RV-14 the RV-14 version of the RV-9?
I?m with Doug on this one. I would love to have a Van?s High wing bush plane.
Think about this. The Cessna 170 / 172 is the most popular airplane ever. It?s under powered. If Van?s offered a design that would be similar to a 170, have plenty of power, and be easy to build? I would be the second to buy the kit.
This would be designed as if a Super Cub and C170 had kids. All metal, O-320 to IO-390 Lycoming. Nose wheel or tail wheel. 2,200 Gw. Big baggage door.
Not to be too tongue-in-cheek, but the product of which you speak is called the Glasair Sportsman. It matches all of those criteria quite nicely, save for the pre-punched, all aluminum build. The success of the Sportsman really tells us that Jay isn't the only person in the world who wants this kind of utility aircraft. I can't argue with Jay because I built a Sportsman.
The utility of the aircraft was a huge selling point for me, as was its crashworthiness, thanks to its 4130 steel "cage" around the cockpit. I don't think I would want to give up that cage in favor of all-aluminum construction.
No its the RV-14 version of the RV-7...
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)
Just to be clear on the terminology, the RV-9(A) uses a John Roncz custom airfoil. The RV-10 and the RV-14 share the same custom airfoil (by a VAF contributor) but this is a different airfoil from the RV-9(A).
This morning 0800 at the ?remote office? 3n.m. east of my home field in the shared Cub - a 2 1/2 minute flight and maybe a cup of fuel. Dried up part of a creek/lake that some of us have started calling ?Denton Creek Regional Spaceport and Tire Care Center? (DCRSTCC). When it starts raining this all goes away, but while it?s 90*F at 0800 here in the south, we pick our outings carefully and plan on shade. RVating needs to be done by 0800 here this time of year. The open door Cub not so much.
A WiFi puck, iPad and I?m working with an office view to get excited about. 30 minutes out here under the wing, not on a runway or airport, allows my brain to decompress and gives me the mojo to take on the day. Note VAF on iPad?.I?m working on picking stories for the next day?s edition.
Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-v2C6fJb/0/fd9ff651/5K/IMG_9799-5K.jpg
Here?s a better pano with the FOV slightly elevated?.
If I had an RV that would do this it would be on the front page of VAF all?the?time. I don?t mind working on emails and stuff if this is the view.
Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jTrVhVh/0/27e2c0d2/5K/IMG_9800-5K.jpg
The next pic showing that even with the wheel pants off, the RV would have a tough time of it. The cracks are big and you need bigger tires than what comes on the RV. The DCRSTCC aerodrome is too short for the current RV models anyway. It would probably be too short for 2 people in the Cub - 65hp and no flaps after all.
An RV-Super Cub, with 60* fowler flaps and slats and 31? tires would make for a nice way for two RV folks to enjoy a picnic RV breakfast or RV lunch. Uncharted RV territory......off road!
Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-n8z8w7z/0/5c9c6157/X5/IMG_9797-X5.jpg
Back in the Cub, engine running and about to take off. Time for one more pano?
Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jPSk3dR/0/4a80614e/5K/IMG_9802-5K.jpg
This is the stuff I?d LOOOOOVVVVEEEEE to do in an RV, if there was such an offering. Like I said in an earlier reply: I?d build it. I?d promote it. The Cub would be gone in a heartbeat. I?d fly an RV-Super Cub often?especially in our four months of hot, hot weather.
I?ll shut up now, as you're probably sick of me begging for this thing. ;^)
v/r,dr
Just to be clear on the terminology, the RV-9(A) uses a John Roncz custom airfoil. The RV-10 and the RV-14 share the same custom airfoil (by a VAF contributor) but this is a different airfoil from the RV-9(A).
The RV14 was my eleventh and last plane. I would however be very interested in a high wing, NO strut, aluminum RV. Tail wheel of course. The RV14 gear would be perfect but I would want a heavier tail wheel and aft fuselage. Something able to handle rougher terrain. A 540 option would be awesome.
A fuseage half way between a 14 and a 10 would be perfect if it had a decent size aft door. What the heck, while you are at it make the main cabin doors removable!
With no struts I cannot see any reason why this could not be a 150 to 175 knot airplane.
Can you tell us why two different airfoils were used for the RV-9 vs. RV-10?
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)
I'm a Dynon guy - all in. And I'd like the option of buying a complete Dynon system which has actually been assembled and all of the wiring including the wiring that we place inside the structure of the airplane having been trial assembled and tested on the bench by Dynon. This would cost more but I'll bet it would be a good seller for Dynon. Yeah, I'm as sissy builder but a tested avionics system that I could simply install into my RV-9 would be nice to have. I will have a complete Dynon system in my 12 and the actual wiring of it has consumed many, many hours. I'd like a plug and play full avionics system that is fully tested at Dynon that I could simple install into my airframe, plug in, verify, and fly.
Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons
[...] The S21 from Rans caught my attention. Something like this from VANS and optimized for Rotax 912is or 914 at reasonable costs. I?d pull the trigger. Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons
...Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons
Wait, what? Now just one minute sir .. that's crazy talk
Idunno? Van?s has most of the market covered from the bugsmasher RV-12 to the School Bus RV-10. Bush aircraft are not represented, but frankly that small market is already saturated with excellent homebuilts. I cant see Van?s improving the performance, kit manufacturing process or price point over what exists today. The only possible discriminator I see is the ?brand recognition? of Vans Aircraft. Unfortunately this cuts both ways because the number of illogical buyers who will build ?just because? it?s a Van?s product will be offset by an equal number of illogical customers who will avoid a Van?s product just out of principle. It?s a zero sum game.
So one market for exploitation is the ?really? high performance segment ? the ?Grand Touring? segment. I?m envisioning a 230+ TAS cruiser for the mid teens which has 5+ hour legs and a comfortable tandem cockpit layout. It?s a personal airliner that can cross state lines in a single bound. I?m spending a great deal of resources trying to make my Rocket fit in the ?personal airliner? box, but as great an airplane as it is, John really designed it to be a light, simple ?hotrod? airplane. The design decisions are showing through. A clean sheet airplane designed for big fuel, high altitude wing, roomy rear cockpit and most of all ? a heavy engine (Big bore Conti or AV Lyc) would be a winner. Yes, there are some fast glass airplanes that fit this market, but they are few and far between. Additionally, they generally trade off too much low speed handling in exchange for all out speed and that renders them undesirable for a lot of places I want to go (my own runway, for example). The Rocket is perfect on the slow side of the envelope ? I?d like to have another 30 knots on the top end.
So one market for exploitation is the “really” high performance segment – the “Grand Touring” segment. I’m envisioning a 230+ TAS cruiser for the mid teens which has 5+ hour legs and a comfortable tandem cockpit layout. It’s a personal airliner that can cross state lines in a single bound.
Sounds...expensive.