VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #631  
Old 10-26-2020, 04:47 PM
terrye terrye is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 870
Default Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by memberberries View Post
Honestly I'm stuck between a Glastar and an RV9A but the availability of local build help is what has me on the Vans side as well as the difficulty finding a good deal on a Glastar kit since it is out of production.

If Vans would build an all aluminum bird that would perform like a Glastar they would really put a dent in Kitfox, Rans, and Murphy business.
They did! The RV-9 (original was a tri-gear, it wasn't intended to offer as a tailwheel) was Vans answer to the original 2 seat Glastar. The Glastar originally had a C-152 engine (O-235) and Vans decided they could design/build a better airplane. The RV-9 has a higher cruise, and lower landing speed with the same engine as the Glastar. The original Glastar performed poorly on the O-235 and they kept putting bigger and bigger engines in it to get better performance. The RV-9 was offered with the O-235 and O-320 engines although most are built with the O-320.

Check the performance specs with the same engine.
__________________
Terry Edwards
RV-9A (Fuselage)
2020/2021 VAF Contribution Sent
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 10-27-2020, 07:00 AM
enterprise enterprise is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 28
Default

There is the Sling TSI high wing in development that will compete in this space. Mojogrip has a interview on YouTube with the designer. Designed around the 915 with a pre done Carbon Fiber main fuselage section and the rest is metal. It will have a tail wheel version.
__________________
Matt
RV-10 Owner
RV-12is Builder
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 10-27-2020, 10:04 AM
memberberries memberberries is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Skiatook, Oklahoma
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrye View Post
They did! The RV-9 (original was a tri-gear, it wasn't intended to offer as a tailwheel) was Vans answer to the original 2 seat Glastar. The Glastar originally had a C-152 engine (O-235) and Vans decided they could design/build a better airplane. The RV-9 has a higher cruise, and lower landing speed with the same engine as the Glastar. The original Glastar performed poorly on the O-235 and they kept putting bigger and bigger engines in it to get better performance. The RV-9 was offered with the O-235 and O-320 engines although most are built with the O-320.

Check the performance specs with the same engine.
I think you are mixing the Glastar with the Glasair. The Glastar is the high wing, STOL, 2 seat, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage covered in a fiberglass shell. it evolved into the sportsman that has a 4 seats and the kit/completion costs grew significantly
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 10-27-2020, 10:41 AM
memberberries memberberries is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Skiatook, Oklahoma
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enterprise View Post
There is the Sling TSI high wing in development that will compete in this space. Mojogrip has a interview on YouTube with the designer. Designed around the 915 with a pre done Carbon Fiber main fuselage section and the rest is metal. It will have a tail wheel version.
I'm not a fan of the Rotax 915 at 37k for 141hp at 186lbs. Thats big motor money for one that really doesn't do a whole lot more than say a UL350is at 22K for 130hp at 173lb. Unless you're at high DA and need the forced induction. Too spendy a powerplant for my budget.
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 10-27-2020, 11:40 AM
terrye terrye is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 870
Default Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by memberberries View Post
I think you are mixing the Glastar with the Glasair. The Glastar is the high wing, STOL, 2 seat, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage covered in a fiberglass shell. it evolved into the sportsman that has a 4 seats and the kit/completion costs grew significantly
No I am not. The 2 seat high wing Glastar was one of the aircraft that inspired the RV-9. Yes I know, high wing vs low wing, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage with fiberglass shell vs all aluminum structure. Each company used its own design philosophy. At the time of introduction of the Glastar, Vans looked at it and decided they could build a better airplane to compete with it. And they did.
__________________
Terry Edwards
RV-9A (Fuselage)
2020/2021 VAF Contribution Sent
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 10-27-2020, 12:17 PM
memberberries memberberries is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Skiatook, Oklahoma
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrye View Post
No I am not. The 2 seat high wing Glastar was one of the aircraft that inspired the RV-9. Yes I know, high wing vs low wing, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage with fiberglass shell vs all aluminum structure. Each company used its own design philosophy. At the time of introduction of the Glastar, Vans looked at it and decided they could build a better airplane to compete with it. And they did.
I'm not quite sure that I see where they compete other than 2 seats and at the time of the Glastar, similar price points. I haven't seen a single RV9 on floats(one of the leading design goals of the Glastar) or landing in the backcountry. Yes the RV9 is faster but it has 150lb less baggage weight capacity and 100lb less full fuel payload.

They are both great airplanes but they have very different missions. I think Vans could design a great plane with a mission similar to the Glastar and if they did I would build it.
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 10-27-2020, 02:21 PM
rockwoodrv9 rockwoodrv9 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,678
Default

I love the Glastar. They are reasonably fast, MUCH EASIER to get in and out of - especially if upside down, carry more, and land 10mph slower than the 9 I just finished. It is a great plane and if Vans could come up with something similar, I would be very interested. If I could still buy a Glastar kit, I probably would.

With the Rans 21 and Kitfox getting so expensive, it would be nice to have a Vans high wing with similar specs.
__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Flying N376E
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 10-27-2020, 02:47 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,472
Default

Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe.

4. Ease of entrance and egress (added after the comments in post #640 and on).

The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.

Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.

Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying

Last edited by David Paule : 10-27-2020 at 04:32 PM. Reason: Added a fourth point in favor of high wings.
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 10-27-2020, 03:22 PM
gasman gasman is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 3,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe.

The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.

Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.

Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying
1. More clearance in the hangar with the wings folded and still room for your current RV aircraft.... it's not getting sold!

2. Flying slow, you are more likely to look down.... No wing there= better visibility.

3. Struts allow a lighter wing (main spar) and allows the wings to be removed with the simple removal of a very few bolts. It also allows the wings to be folded back for storage or transportation.

You are looking at a 120 mph aircraft. Most likely have BIG tires and will be very draggy. So strut drag is just part of the design. This is a slow landing, slow flying aircraft. And is not intended to compete with the RV9. Two different aircraft, two different missions.
__________________
VAF #897 Warren Moretti
2019 =VAF= Dues PAID
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 10-27-2020, 04:11 PM
jnorris's Avatar
jnorris jnorris is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oshkosh
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe....

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.
Dave,

You missed one BIG issue - ease of getting in and out. A high-wing design offers a certain ease of entry and exit that no low-wing airplane can offer. This goes for loading people as well as baggage. This is especially true with a cockpit/canopy design of the RV-9 (and any other RV other than the -10). You don't have to climb UP and out of a high-wing design. You just step out.

More than a few potential customers, especially those who were on the older end of the age spectrum, found this to be an issue when I worked at Sonex. The old legs and body don't really care to have to lift/stand UP to get out. Getting in (assuming stepping up on the wing wasn't an issue in the first place) wasn't a problem. Getting OUT was.

Add that to the look-down benefit (which is my personal reason for liking high-wing better) gives a clear advantage to the high-wing configuration for many pilots.
__________________
Cheers!

Joe
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:25 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.