What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The RV-16?

smokyray

Well Known Member
RV's are expensive. Yep, I should know, I've built three of them. Having bugged Van and KK for years about designing a 91 octane capable "budget bush-plane" for the RV crowd that would be perfect in today's marketplace, even augment the RV12 would be awesome. Yet the next new design was the opposite, The RV-14. Like the RV9 many years ago I asked myself, why? Well, of course the answer is $$$, they sell.
What's my point?
Van's aircraft over the past 20 years has pursued the high dollar/big budget builder, IMHO. I built my RV4 in 1995 for $20,000, flying. My current RVX was completed in 2005 for $30K, flying. I doubt many builders these days get out the door for under $85K or higher...

Solution? With AvGas prices and hangar rent reaching unattainable levels for many budget minded flyers, I think this little all metal folding wing gem would have been a perfect RV-16...
Van, you listening?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG0JWK9tKio
Fun personified...
http://lonepalmaero.com/Lone_Palm_Aero/The_Groppo_Trail.html
The Trail
Sure like it...
V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Smokey, and have had the same desire (design something economical for people to build) for a while now. The ideal would be an airplane that could once again be built for that $30K price point (ok even $40K).

I don't think the problem is lack of interest by designers, it is lack of economical power plants.

When the most logical (note, I didn't say only) power plant choice for an airplane of this class costs 1/2 to 2/3's of the finished airplanes desired price point, it makes it pretty much unattainable.
 
Agreed

A high-wing monocoup all metal utility plane (from Van's) would be a perfect addition to the product line. I'm not so gun-ho about the folding wing deal but that option may appeal to some.

Thanks for the link Smokey and the reminder to Van's that there are some who are still waiting....... :)
cj
 
Last edited:
Pick another number...

Smoky,

You of all people should know to pick a different number than RV-16. If there's a "16" in the RV family, it needs to be single-seat, single-engine, fire-breathing, afterburning, 9G, multi-mission capable.

Unless you can design all that for under $30k... Then I'm ALL IN!

:)
 
Pretty nice packages out there for reasonable dough. Such as;
http://www.aeroconversions.com/
http://revmasteraviation.com/

And plenty more "do it yourself" options.

Based on air cooled design spanning some 70 plus years.
Variants have been certified in Europe.
Readily available cores and even complete new engines...
60-100 HP

Not sure what more folks would want in a power plant. My neighbor is loving flying his award winning Fornier Motor Glider.

Does this miss the mark somehow?
 
I don't think the problem is lack of interest by designers, it is lack of economical power plants.

Yes, that is the riddle to which an answer hasn't been found.

Building a good, inexpensive airframe is relatively easy even though the cost to produce and market it would most likely be close to the price point of the RV-4 kit. But the deal breaker is the engine.

There aren't any engines that are mass-produced that would meet the reliability and field history requirements of Vans and cost less than the Rotax 912. My Legal Eagle ultralight got a lot of attention from pilots who were interested in that corner of aviation, but the 1/2 VW (or a full VW) doesn't meet quantity and field history needs of a large manufacturer like Vans. It is a highly fabricated engine built in exceedingly low quantities.

The market for a two-stroke powered Vans aircraft would be very small, and I doubt Vans would even consider it. Personally, I would have no interest in it. I don't think Vans would put their reputation and liability at risk with any of the "auto" conversions.

My present project uses a well-known and respected engine. But used small Continentals are difficult to find in any significant quantity. A major rebuild by an engine shop puts an O-200 back into the Rotax 912 price neighborhood. A new O-235 is about the same price as the 912. The UL-Power engines look good but are also $20K+ engines. Jabiru is available but there has been enough negative press about them to keep Vans from staking their reputation on them.

If Vans geared up for the "inexpensive bush plane", interest would be sky-high but I don't know where a large source of new "inexpensive" engines could be found.

Smokey, do you have a powerplant in mind?
 
Last edited:
inflation

It's easy to forget that since 1995 everything has increased in price due to inflation. But I agree, Lycoming's increases have been way more than that. Only way I see a low cost RV is if Vans gets into the auto conversion business - something he has steadfastly maintained is not economical.
 
Does this miss the mark somehow?

Like Sam mentioned, There is no low cost engine in this HP range that has a proven track record.

The Revmaster brand has been around for way longer than the Rotax 912. If it had actually proven it self by now, even though it isn't a huge company, we would see a lot more more of them regularly flying on airplanes, but that is not the case.

The major reason for that is that the VW derivative engine is quite reliable in the 50 HP range but still requires a lot of tinkering (valve adjustments, etc.) which the typical user doesn't want. Once you start pushing the HP output up to wear we need to for a 2 place airplane, the reliability begins to drop off fast.

True, there are certified version (Limbach, etc), but they are not a more economical price point than the Rotax.

If the economical (and dependable) engine question had already been answered, I think the light aircraft kit plane industry would look differently than it does today.
 
I still like the idea of the RV-11 motorglider. A long winged high glide ratio motorglider would be a great addition to their lineup but I understand the market not being there..
 
I agree with Jason above. Motor glider would be my choice.
As far as this bush plane, I LOVE it, however, comma, the Rans folks would be pretty tough to beat in that market segment... And fabric can be "field dressed" with speed tape to get you home...
Just my opinion, I could be wrong... ;-)

DM
 
Mo Power to da people...

Yes, that is the riddle to which an answer hasn't been found.

Building a good, inexpensive airframe is relatively easy even though the cost to produce and market it would most likely be close to the price point of the RV-4 kit. But the deal breaker is the engine.

There aren't any engines that are mass-produced that would meet the reliability and field history requirements of Vans and cost less than the Rotax 912. My Legal Eagle ultralight got a lot of attention from pilots who were interested in that corner of aviation, but the 1/2 VW (or a full VW) doesn't meet quantity and field history needs of a large manufacturer like Vans. It is a highly fabricated engine built in exceedingly low quantities.

The market for a two-stroke powered Vans aircraft would be very small, and I doubt Vans would even consider it. Personally, I would have no interest in it. I don't think Vans would put their reputation and liability at risk with any of the "auto" conversions.

My present project uses a well-known and respected engine. But used small Continentals are difficult to find in any significant quantity. A major rebuild by an engine shop puts an O-200 back into the Rotax 912 price neighborhood. A new O-235 is about the same price as the 912. The UL-Power engines look good but are also $20K+ engines. Jabiru is available but there has been enough negative press about them to keep Vans from staking their reputation on them.

If Vans geared up for the "inexpensive bush plane", interest would be sky-high but I don't know where a large source of new "inexpensive" engines could be found.

Smokey, do you have a powerplant in mind?


Sam,
Great points!
The Groppo Trail website calls for 3 engines, the R-912, Jabiru and oddly enough a certified German VW derivative, Sauer (formerly Limbach).
http://lonepalmaero.com/Lone_Palm_Aero/The_Groppo_Trail_files/US Groppo Trail Brochure LPA_1.pdf

The engine I had in mind is the new Revmaster 2300. It's US made, highly engineered and glowing reports from owners so far. Reasonable price notwithstanding...Of course the argument for used rebuilt certified engines (my technique) is another low-er cost alternative.
http://experimenter.epubxp.com/i/178050-september-2013/33




The Trail being an all metal, bush-plane like design with folding wings offers many options, not to mention LSA. A Van's product of similar design would be very successful, IMHO.


V/R
Smokey

PS: Awesome that you are flying a Legal Eagle...Here in TX they are almost legend...
 
Last edited:
I'm all in with Smoky on this idea. I'm looking at Kitfox S-7 and Rans S-20 types for some backcountry fun in a few years. Something form Vans that do this mission would be wonderful.
 
Smoky,

You of all people should know to pick a different number than RV-16. If there's a "16" in the RV family, it needs to be single-seat, single-engine, fire-breathing, afterburning, 9G, multi-mission capable.

:)

OK brudda, ya got me there....:)

How bout the RV-2?
 
Every time I look at the wing on my -9 I wonder how much it could lift if put on the top and braced with struts. Could it be the soul of a 2+2 powered with engines ranging in size from an O-235 to O-360?
 
I don't think Vans is in the "affordable" market anymore.

I've been tempted on more than one occasion to build a Onex. Can't get over the looks, though.
I think Sonex is the epitome of "affordable performance." Vans not so much. Then, it's all relative I guess.

I can't imagine how much fun the Turbo Onex would be. Those folding wings

Onex_painted_1157.jpg

Reppert_Onex-003.jpg


AeroVee_Turbo_9781_10.jpg
 
The onex has had me excited for quite some time too, although the whole high wing bush design is something I have always been in love with. Something affordable like that has been on my radar for the distant future.
 
Every time I look at the wing on my -9 I wonder how much it could lift if put on the top and braced with struts. Could it be the soul of a 2+2 powered with engines ranging in size from an O-235 to O-360?

Why struts, at least for a 2 place plane? High wing w/no struts=easy entry/exit, easy to top-hinge the doors & latch them open to the wing in flight, etc etc. I've thought often about buying an unfinished 4/6/7/8/9 wing kit & building a tube/fabric fuselage under it. Only thing giving me pause would be excessive dihedral effect with the stock wing dihedral moved to the top of the plane (or maybe not...). A 7/8 wing derated to normal category would carry a fair load, right?

On the subject of affordable engines, the low hp end of the spectrum is beginning to be addressed by the current crop of industrial V-twins. The larger ones are flying well on planes similar in performance to Sam B's Legal Eagle.
Uh, edit: also like the SD-1; thanks Ross. :)
Most are 90 degree V's, meaning they balance a bit better than the old Harley style engines. They have oversize (longer) PTO-end bearings (like an a/c engine) because they are designed for the heavy bending loads of belt/chain drives. Several companies are already making inexpensive reduction drives complete with effective torsion absorber/decouplers, typically for much less than $2K. The engines can be had brand new, complete, in the crate, for around $2K, as well. Some newer ones come stock with electronic fuel injection. If the engine builders ever up the ante from 1000cc/35-40 HP to 1500cc, we might be talking about a useful engine for a small 2 place a/c.

FWIW,

Charlie
 
Last edited:
Not so far fetched?

An electric motor driven airplane?
Kind of like the Chevy volt or a diesel locomotive.
Small mass produced motor driving a generator, charging the battery, turning
electric motor/prop.
I know, a lot of heavy components but certainly a large number of mass produced engines available to drive a generator.
Batteries are becoming lighter and some have massive capacity.
Electric motors are cheap.
Well, maybe it's too early to look at that:)
 
On the subject of affordable engines, the low hp end of the spectrum is beginning to be addressed by the current crop of industrial V-twins. The larger ones are flying well on planes similar in performance to Sam B's Legal Eagle.
Uh, edit: also like the SD-1; thanks Ross. :)
Most are 90 degree V's, meaning they balance a bit better than the old Harley style engines. They have oversize (longer) PTO-end bearings (like an a/c engine) because they are designed for the heavy bending loads of belt/chain drives. Several companies are already making inexpensive reduction drives complete with effective torsion absorber/decouplers, typically for much less than $2K. The engines can be had brand new, complete, in the crate, for around $2K, as well. Some newer ones come stock with electronic fuel injection. If the engine builders ever up the ante from 1000cc/35-40 HP to 1500cc, we might be talking about a useful engine for a small 2 place a/c.

FWIW,

Charlie

While those engines are attractively priced, the "aircraft" versions are built in very small quantities by tiny shops. But most concerning is their field history is measured in a handful of hundreds of hours instead of hundreds of thousands of hours needed for a large-production "Vans" aircraft.
 
Why struts?

Because a cantilever wing requires a rather robust center section to take the wing bending loads (think RV fuselage).
In most high wing airplanes, this center section would be passing right through the head(s) of the front seat position(s) occupents.

This was dealt with on the Cessna Cardinal by using a wing plan form that has max thickness much farther back than is typical. This allowed for locating the main wing spar further back on the wing. The airplane has a big hump in the ceiling/head liner between the front and back seats.

It is for this reason that just about every high wing airplane ever designed has strut braced wings.
 
I like it, reminds me of the SuperSTOL. As I suspected the trail has a welded main fuselage structure like a cub, though aft of cabin looks like similar rv style riveted aluminum. Smokey this looks easy to design, lets start laying one out in CAD based on your specs. Maybe we can borrow the wings, aft fuselage, and tail from a current vans design. We can call it the Smokey Bush 1.

kit%203%20%285%29.jpg
 
Last edited:
SD-1 Minisport is another attractive option
http://www.sdplanes.com/new/

Sorry - I've stopped by their booth at the big shows for two years - they have made no real progress and don't actually have a kit version - or one in the works (despite what some of their salesmen say). They want to sell completed aircraft.

The May issue of KP has the Trail on the cover if you want to find out about it. Bertorelli thinks it is a nice airplane. Doesn't do what an RV does - but wasn't designed to.
 
Last edited:
Bush Plane

Rans definitely need some competition in this segment of the market. Vans are way ahead of them in terms of ease to deal with, how they present themselves to the market and their pricing.

To the people that think a "bush plane" needs to be fabric covered for ease of repair, while the Super Cub is the greatest bush plane in history and is fabric covered, the second greatest is the Cessna 180 which is all metal. If you disagree with me on the second greatest and think the Beaver is, (or that the Beaver is the greatest! :) that is also all metal. So to the Helio Courier, Pilatius Porter and so on.

Not all bush plane ops result in damage either. In all my years flying Super Cubs more damage as been done to the planes getting them in and out of the hangar than there ever has in the field.

Go Vans - economic "bush plane".

Andrew.
 
Three pages of discussion about a lack of choices in bush planes and no mention of the Zenith line. Is there something Van's builders don't like about these planes? They can be built for less than the cost of an RV-12 and have many engine options.
 
RV4 # 538 bought from barn all in orig containers 6-7 yrs ago ..Check back & bug me in about a year....Going with Subaru 2.5 engine, Air trikes PSRU, 3 blade Kool Prop, SDS ignition/fuel control.. Stock 2.5 is 165 HP and weighs 25 lbs less than 0-320 lyc, with rad & water will be about same...For my $.02 opinion, most problems with auto conversion, are hot rod mentality, which kills reliability, as well as many USA unreliable PSRU out in market place...With this package (used of course) I will hope to prove "Smokeys " idea of inexpensive flying on auto gas and reliability.Tom
 
good luck

I dont begrudge anyone for experimenting with auto engine conversions, but I want my airplane to be as safe and reliable as possible. Finding an auto engine conversion set up that does what you think it will do is probably a fantasy.

Good luck with that...I encourage you to talk to folks who have done it.

Cm
 
Three pages of discussion about a lack of choices in bush planes and no mention of the Zenith line. Is there something Van's builders don't like about these planes?

Yeah, they're uglier than a Vans shipping crate.
 
There was a story circulating around that before the designer of the 701 Zenith came up with the plans for that plane, he was in his basement one day and hit his head on a furnace pipe.

He looked up and said "wow, that could be a fuselage"!!
 
Let me kick this off....

It seems like loyal Van's customers who already own an RV are looking for a low and slow, short range bushplane for fun trips to the sandbars, beaches and mountains.

Given that this is for fun rather than transportation, I would be very interested in an electric or hybrid bushplan with a 1.5 hour flight range. Even the all electric version could carry a Honda generator for recharging at a destination, if necessary.

With Elon Musk fully committed to driving the cost of vehicle batteries down and capacity up, we are very close to this being feasible.

My guess is that this could be cost equivalent to a Rotax based design.

I have a background in electrical vehicle power systems from many years ago, and I am ready to be the first customer for this aircraft... If Van's made it. It's the totally opposite mission of existing RVs and would expand Van's market. The first market would be to existing customers, which is a great go to market strategy.
 
I have a friend with a Zenith 750 that flight plans for 85 with the Jabiru 3300. He's definitely not a happy camper about his cruise speed. He was expecting more...

Bob
 
I have a friend with a Zenith 750 that flight plans for 85 with the Jabiru 3300. He's definitely not a happy camper about his cruise speed. He was expecting more...

Bob

I was very close to building a CH-750 STOL. I actually bought a nice core O-200 and overhauled it and was about to buy the kit when some of the early customer builds started flying and the real performance numbers started coming out. Zenith fudged the takoff and cruise performance numbers quite a bit. I did fly a CH-750 with a Rotax 912S and was pleased with the handling and cabin size. The other issue I had with the CH-750 was glide performance, it glides like a brick unless the nose is pointed down at least 30 degrees. This is to be expected with the fixed LE slats, but on the other hand, one would expect the takeoff performance to be phenominal with the slats and it just does not do anything that a Rans S-7 or S-20 will do except cruise slow. Looking at the performance numbers it appears that the CH-750 Cruizer may be a much better all around plane. It has takeoff and landing performance that is very similar to the STOL model, but cruises quite a bit faster and should actually glide if you needed it to due to an engine out scenario.

I agree that the biggest issue with an affordable aircraft of this size/weight is the powerplant. I am a fan of the Rotax 912 series, and had a 912S in a Rans, but the initial purchase price and parts costs are insane now days. I remember when you could buy a 912 for around $8,000.
 
I dont begrudge anyone for experimenting with auto engine conversions, but I want my airplane to be as safe and reliable as possible. Finding an auto engine conversion set up that does what you think it will do is probably a fantasy.

Good luck with that...I encourage you to talk to folks who have done it.

Cm
Then I'd strongly suggest that you sell your -4 and get a real airplane. You do know the safety record of experimentals (including RV-x's) compared to certified planes, don't you?

Just sayin'....

Charlie
Thorp T-18 bought/eaten by tornado
RV-4 bought/sold
BD-4 bought/sold
RV-4 bought/flying
RV-7 FWF in progress (Mazda Renesis)
 
I still like the idea of the RV-11 motorglider. A long winged high glide ratio motorglider would be a great addition to their lineup but I understand the market not being there.

Rutan learned this the hard way with the Solitaire kit.
 
The Sonex really is the cheap alternative to the RV these days. I looked at the kit seriously before going with the RV instead, I still think it would be possible to use Vans-style construction techniques to build a Sonex (or even better, a Waiex)... Flush rivet the airframe rather than pop- or round-rivets, etc. Doesn't answer the original demand for a bush plane, mind you...
 
No one's mentioned the Glasair Sportsman 2+2 ... From afar, looks like a great plane. Stupid expensive though ... Wish Van's could do something along those lines, but more affordable ...
 
JF - as a Sportsman builder I agree with your sentiment on "stupid expensive". The other side of the coin is the Sportsman is a very capable plane that caters to a highly flexible mission profile, doing both Cub-like back country work while still offering decent cruise speeds AND carrying a half a ton of stuff over a great distance.

It's definitely not in the "basic airplane" category.

Now if Glasair would offer their Merlin LSA in an inexpensive kit form, we'd be looking perhaps at something more affordable. For me, affordability doesn't mean a cost that's six figures to the left of the decimal point. If/when I need to move into the truly affordable zone, I'll be looking for an older classic that's registered in the Owner Maintenance category to keep the total cost of ownership under control. (Sorry, guys and gals, O-M is a uniquely-Canadian category that allows owners to effectively de-certify their airplane, but it comes with a cost since these airplanes can't be flown into the US).

As for an RV-16 (or RV-2), I think the kit pricing of the RV12 tells a story since the LSA airplanes were supposed to be "affordable". When I see their completed prices north of $80K I realize Van isn't looking to pursue the "affordable" market. Something along the lines of a Bearhawk patrol, scaled down slightly to work with 100hp-class engines, would benefit from Van's design rigor and manufacturing/marketing capabilities.
 
Have you guys heard about Rutan's Skigull? Actually, search on the site turned up nothing. Amazing. I am waiting to see how this ends up. If this were anyone else but Rutan, i would say yeah right. However, who is going to bet against Burt Rutan?

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...-up-way-up-the-burt-rutan-story/posts/1178225

Float/ski plane. can land on paved, rough, grass, water, and snow.
2400nm range from Hawaii to Calif without ferry tanks.
60 mpg
foldable wings, trailerable
Rotax and electric motors

I can't wait!
 
Have you guys heard about Rutan's Skigull? Actually, search on the site turned up nothing. Amazing. I am waiting to see how this ends up. If this were anyone else but Rutan, i would say yeah right. However, who is going to bet against Burt Rutan?

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...-up-way-up-the-burt-rutan-story/posts/1178225

Float/ski plane. can land on paved, rough, grass, water, and snow.
2400nm range from Hawaii to Calif without ferry tanks.
60 mpg
foldable wings, trailerable
Rotax and electric motors

I can't wait!

You may need to wait a long time. Burt most likely won't release this in any form to the public. But, it might just get other designers to think.
 
There are a lot of cool bush-type planes currently available and no doubt more designs to come. But the original poster (Smokey) started this thread about Vans offering an inexpensive (~$30K) light bush-type plane (RV-16??).

And so far, nobody has suggested a plane that meets Smokey's criteria. As has been stated previously, the lack of a mass-produced, field-proven, low-cost powerplant is the deal breaker. Anything with a Rotax 912 won't meet Smokey's requirements.
 
Last edited:
I emailed Glassair about the Merlin and the possibility of an affordable kit right after the announcement. They said (at that time) that anything could be considered, but what did I consider affordable? I told them what I was paying for the RV-12 kit. They just couldn't go there. You could almost hear the laughter in the email. Let's face it Van's has that down.

I have friends with Sonex but boy is that cabin tight, with 2 skinny people. I don't fit that category. There's the Bearhawk LSA you could throw a Corvair engine in but its tandem. I really prefer side-by-side and so does the wife. Pegazair might fit. There are two in the chapter talk about STOL with a good cruise speed!

I would definitely consider a Corvair engine or a Revmaster VW. I've often wondered how the Revmaster would work with that Aero-Vee turbo.

For now I'll keep saving my pennies for the Rotax on my 12.

Bob
 
Question re powerplants

I don't know much about Sonex, or the Aerovee engine in particular. Does anyone know about the reliability of the Aerovee in service? The price is certainly attractive compared to a new Lycoming, even if only at 80HP. Just curious.

Thanks,

Fernando
 
I recently had the opportunity to check out a Rutan VariEze for sale locally.

This is a canard aircraft with unusually good performance on a low horsepower engine. How is this performance obtained?

1. The fuselage is very tight, with in-line seating for two. Very little cargo room.
2. The main and canard wing combined have very high wing loading, nominally 19 lb./sq.ft. (And folks often fly over gross.)
3. Typical powerplants are Continental C-85 or O-200, 85-100 hp.
4. Cruise speeds exceeding 150 kt are typical on only 5.5 gph, with good climb rates.

The aircraft has swept main wings that are complex and unnecessary, requiring "vortillons" and strake plates to fix main wing outboard stall issues.

The drawback to this design is that it has no flaps and a high wing loading, hence the landing speeds are extremely high, 65-70 kt. (Typical problem for all canard aircraft with no flaps.) VariEze flying qualities are "very sensitive".

So what would I propose for an RV-1X?

A properly engineered redesign of the VariEze or canard concept, perhaps solo - a new RV-3 if you will - high performance yet economical:

1. Tractor propeller using either an auto engine or Rotax 912is in the 100-115 hp range.
2. Wing loading around 16 lb./sq.ft. with straight, easy-to-build wings.
3. A larger, more ergonomic cabin with better visibility forward.
4. This is key: Do the hard work to design a flap mechanism that deploys large flaperons on main and canard wings in sync, requiring minimal trim change. Similar to Peterson STOL kit for Cessnas. Target more reasonable stall speed in the 45 kt range.
5. It may prove necessary to have a main wing + canard + rear stabilator in order to have good flying qualities. Perhaps the two smaller wings are identical pieces of hardware. Or, the main and canard are same hardware cut to different lengths.

Such an aircraft could potentially have 150 kt+ cruise speed on ~5gph, but with cabin comfort, and good flying and landing qualities that the Vari-Eze lacks.

-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH
 
Probably in the minority here. . . but. . .

I would like to see Van's revisit the top and bottom of the tandem line.

Time to do a 3 refresh. This would serve the budget minded builder nicely. Bring the single seat line up to the build quality of the -14. Make it big enough to fit the modern humanoid and maybe even a couple of wing and powerplant options like the Panther.

Next, I would really like to see Ken Krueger and Sky Designs Sky-2 get developed.

Cheap? Doubtful. . .

Cool? Very!

I know, I'm going against the grain with retractable gear and all. If it had the build qualities of the RV-14, It looks like it could be a solid replacement for the 8.

Aluminum, tandem, maybe a Rocket style sliding canopy, fastback, full controls front and back. Wing looks suspiciously speedy. It also looks quite roomy and the back seater has a better view of the world.

Not sure it would be possible, but maybe offer it in 3 landing gear choices. TD, fixed tricycle, and RG.

Maybe by the time I'm done pouring stupid money in to my beautification project. Somebody will bring this baby to market. Then, I'll have someplace else to throw stupid money.

Ducking for cover!
 
Such an aircraft could potentially have 150 kt+ cruise speed on ~5gph, but with cabin comfort, and good flying and landing qualities that the Vari-Eze lacks.
Have you ever flown one? Because it doesn't sound like it.

The Vari-Eze isn't significantly more "tight" than an RV-3 or RV-4. It's extremely comfortable to sit in while flying. And the flight characteristics are very nice. It's extremely stable, with slightly higher stick forces than my RV-6, but that's to be expected when the pivot point for the stick is only about 2 inches below your wrist.

The landing speed is higher, yes, but landing is quite easy... There's little to no bounce on touchdown, and it wants to track straight down the runway with very little rudder or brake input.

Overall, the only fault I have with it in general is the lack of baggage space.
 
Back
Top