Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1861466
gaznav wrote:
I saw this on a Vans forum a while back. It is photoshopped but shows effectively a RV7 with the wing up top and some bigger wheels.


What a pretty little aeroplane that makes.

Who needs doors anyway?

Rob P
User avatar
By Rob P
#1861472
I suppose if it followed current RV practice the canopy would tilt forward. The trouble is that the wings might then become very effective sails :shock:

Rob P
User avatar
By Rob L
#1861501
PeteSpencer wrote:The Wittman is fugly and I never liked the RV 'trailing in the wind' undercarriage legs .

They always looked like they were inviting a nose-over..... :roll:


The WittmanTailwind is a stunning performer, however. I only flew one (from Hucknall) and it had no tendency to nose over at all).

Rob
User avatar
By kanga
#1861559
High wing would make floats easier*, but concomitant drag might presumably compromise the Vans' stable's "high speed for installed power" USP

*no difference in the air, but a lot easier at the dockside/beach :)
User avatar
By gaznav
#1861870
Not if you don’t put the fuel tanks in the wings? Or make a provision built in the aircraft to climb up to fill the wing tanks? I guess it’s one of the design challenges that need to be worked through.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1861872
PeteSpencer wrote:The Wittman is fugly and I never liked the RV 'trailing in the wind' undercarriage legs .

They always looked like they were inviting a nose-over..... :roll:


I always liked the later Tailwinds - in some ways more than some RVs. The thing that I didn’t like about the Tailwind was the awful control stick configuration and instrument layout.

Image
#1861876
Someone years ago built a bushplane of composite. Could have Rutan's Grizzly. Some Alaskan pilot commentated that as all bushplanes get crashed the only sensible form of construction was tube and fabric. You could just fly in your gas bottles and patch them up.