What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-Jet?

oy-rvc

Member
I now have my RV8 flying for almost 10 years. Its a great plane, no doubt. What I like the most about that airplane is the sport properties. But now I just came across the new two seat Sonex Jet and it made me think why Vans does not have something like this?? Yes its more expensive than pistons and uses more fuel, but its a notch up on sport properties: faster, smoother and sounds better. And with the new smaller FADEC jets like the TJ-100 Im guessing it has come into practical use and reach for the experimental sport GA market. Could be sort of a top-of-the line product from Vans too.

What do you think?? Is the market too small for these micro jets that we will ever see an RV jet?
 
I imagine there is a nitch market for a jet, don't know it would be universal enough to warrant a RV jet model.
One quality I like about RVs is that they are all traveling machines. Did you note how many stops Paul made flying home from OSH?
 
No sorry hasn't seen the trip you refer too with Paul, but it sounds like it was a lot of fuel stops :) A turbojet eats a lot of fuel especially down low... But looking at the usefull load and range that Sonex posts on the 2 seater, Im thinking it might be possible to do a design with more touring range?... Maybe Im mistaken. The engine is very light compared to a piston setup and this weight saved could in theory at least be used for additional fuel. I think they post something like 50 GAL which is not much more than standard RVs...

Yes RVs are great for travel too. Economic on the fuel, carries alot of baggage, can land and start on grass ect. Its hard to beat for allround utility.
 
I think the 2-seat Sub will be a dog, but understand the training and baggage issues with the single.
That being said, I proposed an A-10 layout for a two-seater with two engines.
Totally impractical, but sounded neat!

And, Van's is very "practical" minded when it comes to designs. I don't see any jet coming from Van's.
 
A lot to think about when proposing a jet.....

1) Yes, with the Subsonex, I figure that leg lengths of about 220 nautical miles is comfortable, 250 and you better be dang sure you land on the first approach.

2) More fuel? Well I’m at MGTW with me and full fuel already - so sure, there is probably margin, but you have to figure out where to put it. Volume just isn’t there, external tanks are problematic because it is already so low to the ground. And climb performance is not outstanding anyway (1500 FPM, unlike the R-3 at 3,000 FPM), and increased weight causes a direct hit on that.

3) The two-seater? Not enough information yet on that to be sure. I think it will make a good transition trainer, but doubt it will exceed current performance AND increase range.

4) Is there a market? It’s a pretty expensive (and very fun!) toy to be honest. Yes, I flew it from the west coast to Oshkosh. Used up 20 hours of a 300 hour engine inspection interval doing it, and probably wont have a need to do it again. The Subsonex has been for sale about four years now, and my serial number is 0021....so how long will it take for them to recover development costs? And if someone else enters the market?

5) Awesome fun, great little airplane...but a two seater would have more apppeal. It also has more complications - annual proficiency checks are required if you have more than one seat, or more than one engine. And of course, add another engine, and you need a MEL rating....oh, and the engine package is $60K (I bet they don’t give you a discount for two....).

It would be very cool if the RV-15 turns out to be a jet, but I wouldn’t put my money on it!

But I think I’ll go burn a little kerosene.....

Paul
 
Not trying to hijack your thread and I would love a jet by the way but 1st things 1st.

I would vote for a 6 place single engine turboprop with 600-800 mile range. would be close enough to be called a jet in my little world.
 
Some years back I ran some basic numbers on building an RV-8A based jet. Keep in mind, I am not an Aero Engineer, so my numbers were VERY rough.

The reason for the "A" is to keep the jet exhaust from burning up a runway. Then there was the debate about an "ARG". More weight and complexity. I ultimately decided that there isn't a huge drag penalty up at 17.5 to offset the weight of retractable landing gear.

It came down to thrust and fuel burn. To get three hour legs plus reserves, it would have to carry a boat load of fuel! More weight than an RV can support on the ground. (IIRC, I was plugging in 90 gallons and that still wasn't enough.)

I didn't have a good understand of the fuel consumption to thrust of "jet" engines at the time. What surprised me is the only real way to fly them is how Paul flies; takeoff, climb like crazy, cruise, and land. If you want to play around down low like the military does, you can't lift enough fuel.

It is a great dream and will probably remain a dream until someone comes out with a really efficient engine package.
 
The reason for the "A" is to keep the jet exhaust from burning up a runway.

Another reason for tricycle gear on a jet was proven with the original "tail dragging" ME-262. Without prop blast on the rudder, direction control is minimal during early take-off roll. This would also provide a need for nosewheel steering.
 
so...

"...If you want to play around down low like the military does, you can't lift enough fuel..."

So maybe we need an RV tanker, too!:D
 
Another reason for tricycle gear on a jet was proven with the original "tail dragging" ME-262. Without prop blast on the rudder, direction control is minimal during early take-off roll. This would also provide a need for nosewheel steering.

That was also on my mind when I was doodling the options. However, I have always wondered how much of that was the gear geometry?

I should have known someone would know that story.
 
I know this is a fanciful fun thread, but a jet is about the most opposite thing to Van think that you can come up with.
 
Have to admit that I did think of converting an RV-8(A) to jet power. It would have had two jet engines mounted outboard of the fuselage on struts like a Cri-Cri. Bigger engines, of course, and sized to be about the same weight as the current recip ones.

cricri-mc10.jpg


It was fun to think about it and hopefully that's as far as it goes.

Dave
 
I like that idea Dave:)
While building my wings I thought it would be cool if someone, not me, mounted two small jet engines on the top of the wings like the HondaJet..,or if they preferred the 737 look, under the wings.
 
"Mudfly I like that idea Dave
While building my wings I thought it would be cool if someone, not me, mounted two small jet engines on the top of the wings like the HondaJet..,or if they preferred the 737 look, under the wings."

Yeh, a RV-262!
 
The viperjet is a pretty cool plane, but probably not something that falls in the category of homebuilds that a single average person can built themselves in a few years. And to my knowledge not produced anymore. It?s more in category with L-39s and the operating costs are very much higher.

What is interesting about this jet from Sonex is that it?s coming from a company with a concept similar to Vans. Simple sport airplanes of aluminum constructions in the experimental market that can actually be built by a single person within a reasonable amount of time. While Vans concept is simplicity and keeping cost down its not really how many RVs are built anymore. Garmin flatscreens, C/S props, fancy paintjob, leather interior ect. I bet many RVs are north of 100K$ before they every roll down the runway.
 
Something along the lines of a Tutor would make sense... Tail-cone mounted engine, intakes on either side of the cockpit...

snowbirdsphoto.jpg
 
Another reason for tricycle gear on a jet was proven with the original "tail dragging" ME-262. Without prop blast on the rudder, direction control is minimal during early take-off roll. This would also provide a need for nosewheel steering.

If I remember correctly that was actually a problem with the engine exhaust creating strange airflow around the tail..
 
The smaller the turbine engine, the worse the fuel specs. Turbojet, prop, whatever. Any very light airplane powered one ends up being not much more than a toy. Fun for sure, but not much more.
 
Awesome thread---especially for a dreamer like me. So yes the problem of lack of range because you cant carry enough fuel is a handicap. Paul proved that. Even a turbine RV isnt 'economical' because of fuel burn. But certainly sounds cool. ( anyone watched the Pocket Rocket You Tube?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tisl1IU3KSY&t=321s
Just wayyyyy cool. But not practical.

The thing that I cant get past getting the Vne up to where a turbine or a jet 'might' work----if other things can be solved. I'm sure you engineers can come up with ways to increase the Vne of the airframes, no matter what prowerplant is installed. (Retract RV10 or RV14A with something to cruise at 200+.) Small turbine of 350 SHP---that neither Rolls nor Pratt is going to develop, and isnt available in the surplus market, and would be expensive anyway. But, you have to admit----it sure would be cool AND you could carry stuff!!

WE actually talked with a turbine development company on a RV14A project for a client, but that was 3+ years ago, and I dont know if its going to happen or not. The PBS TP100 at 241 HP might have been a good start---but I understand that development issues held it back---as well as engine/prop costs to the the eventual builder.

But cool to think about--

Tom
 
If I remember correctly that was actually a problem with the engine exhaust creating strange airflow around the tail..

Thats what I remember, I think the test pilot had to tap the brakes to get the tail up. The wings were blanking out the H stab and elevator.
 
Back
Top