Anybody want to expound more on the pros/cons of a rocket vs. RV?

Leldon

Anybody want to expound more on the pros/cons of a rocket vs. RV?

Leldon

I''l take that bait.

The RV has cheaper insurance.

Better overall support. Both factory, and from the builder community.

The RV is much less likely to nose over.

The steel gear on the RV versus the titanium gear on the Rocket is much stiffer and less likely to a prop strike from botched landing.

The power on the Rocket can easily get you in a situation where adding power in the flare can cause you to get into a very high angle of attack situation and combined with the soft titanium gear results in expensive landings.

The RV is an effortless airplane to fly and it kind of hits an aerodynamic wall not too far above Vne, the EVO Rocket has no such drag wall, and failing to monitor airspeed or a split-s from cruise speed typically, ~173 KIAS, will put a VERY large number on the airspeed indicator or the G meter, or both.

There have been cases of flutter in Rockets. When you compare the size of the population, There are almost no RV flutter incidents.

The EVO Rocket is a little Aft CG challenged and the Sport wing, and especially the Harmon are forward CG challenged, again contributing to prop strikes.

Running up with either the F-1 Sport wing or the Harmon with ANY tailwind, and no aft pax, cycling the prop is all it takes to stand the airplane on its nose.

I could go on. The point is, it is a MUCH higher performance airplane than a RV, and it demands more attention than an RV which is the best and most forgiving homebuilt ever designed. That isn't a bad thing, it's just a statement of fact.

With all that said, I LOVE my Rocket, but to be clear, it is not an airplane for everyone.

my thought is that this is a strange thing to say - not long ago we were being lectured about how the IV-P was such a tame, slow-flying, grass-runway loving airplane that was just the victim of bad press by inferior pilots. How could anything improve on it ?

I''l take that bait.

The RV has cheaper insurance.

Better overall support. Both factory, and from the builder community.

The RV is much less likely to nose over.

The steel gear on the RV versus the titanium gear on the Rocket is much stiffer and less likely to a prop strike from botched landing.

The power on the Rocket can easily get you in a situation where adding power in the flare can cause you to get into a very high angle of attack situation and combined with the soft titanium gear results in expensive landings.

The RV is an effortless airplane to fly and it kind of hits an aerodynamic wall not too far above Vne, the EVO Rocket has no such drag wall, and failing to monitor airspeed or a split-s from cruise speed typically, ~173 KIAS, will put a VERY large number on the airspeed indicator or the G meter, or both.

There have been cases of flutter in Rockets. When you compare the size of the population, There are almost no RV flutter incidents.

The EVO Rocket is a little Aft CG challenged and the Sport wing, and especially the Harmon are forward CG challenged, again contributing to prop strikes.

Running up with either the F-1 Sport wing or the Harmon with ANY tailwind, and no aft pax, cycling the prop is all it takes to stand the airplane on its nose.

I could go on. The point is, it is a MUCH higher performance airplane than a RV, and it demands more attention than an RV which is the best and most forgiving homebuilt ever designed. That isn't a bad thing, it's just a statement of fact.

With all that said, I LOVE my Rocket, but to be clear, it is not an airplane for everyone.

my thought is that this is a strange thing to say - not long ago we were being lectured about how the IV-P was such a tame, slow-flying, grass-runway loving airplane that was just the victim of bad press by inferior pilots. How could anything improve on it ?

if you're keeping track, he flew two airplanes a year, averaging 8hours a week at 325kts average speed, (52weeks/year), recreationally

but now says a harmon rocket will work

sounds like the mission has changed, though i've never seen one stated on the prior airframes, looks like occasional travel and visiting family, still don't understand where all the time comes from

I fly my airplane regularly, like people use their car, I commute between three cities, and I work full time, I'm seeing half the hours he does and I'm going slower apparently, so there's lots of head scratching here

why not buy a L39? you have 1500 hours in jets now- right? you don't need the four seats anymore, you like to burn jet-a

Hey Brian,

Let me correct you here. 2 airplanes, no. I have a Widgeon (under restoration), IV-P, Rocket, Cessna 500 (this is a side business and not a personal airplane) and a Searey. Most of my flying during a given year is at 90 MPH in a Searey and 5 GPH. I love water flying and have a house on a lake that I enjoy commuting to slowly. My vacation house is on an Airpark and am a CFI so I am blessed to spend most of my free time aviating for myself or instructing 3 days a week. I don't play golf. I seriously considered an L-39 with the Garrett conversion and will do that one day. They are expensive and burn a lot of fuel. You don't need 1500 hrs in jets to fly an L-39; you would certainly qualify with no jet, multi-engine, tailwheel, Rocket, seaplane or IV-P time. Check them out, might be a decent ES replacement for your commute.

Brian,
What is your obsession with his flight time? Even if he was exaggerating who cares? Your comments come across as” he has more flight time than me, but but but I fly my airplane a lot.” Anytime he posts you jump on him. We get it. You don’t like him. Even my third grader knows to just move on.
Please, add something productive to the thread, or take a hike.

The IVP is a safe airplane when flown correctly and everything is working.
Problem is if the engine quits and you have to find the softest place to crash.
Michael has pointed out most of the fatal accidents in the Lancair are not the former. Most are pilots crashing perfectly airworthy, engine running aircraft. He believes his flying experience somewhat protects him from many of the stupid pilot tricks that have killed many in the Lancairs. I tend to agree with him. But I’m guessing the feeling of single engine invincibility has waned some after flying a twin turbojet that is more reliable than the eclipse. Couple that with having a kid and the risk tolerance level drops. I’m guessing riding an L39 to the ground after an engine failure might not have a high survivability level either.

I want a rocket bad.

I flew several flights in a buddy's Staudacher s600f
see here - tandem 300+hp taildragger

http://www.acrodesigns.com/S600F.php
&
https://www.flickr.com/photos/acrodesigns/sets/72157644851906291/

Everything they say is true about 300hp and < 1200 lbs. Acceleration is incredible. >3000 FPM climb TAS 200s just incredible mind blowing. S600 roll rate was well in excess of 360 per second however, way more than it needed for sport flying.

The staudacher was however too much of a purpose built competition plane for him so he sold it. It was built by staudacher for him at the time and his tastes just changed.
It was an absolute animal with no refinements, no insulation no mufflers loud hot stinky animal. I miss flying it with him. A rocket with some refinements but similar performance is at the top of my wish list for personal fun airplane after experiencing his.

I can't wait to hear more about MT's adventures in his.

double post

Todd, I do have fun pointing out his exaggerations, he's all over the place with his claims, and has been for years, he flew his citation for 100+hrs and owned for around 10 months- and in the same 10 months he put 150hours on his IVP apparently, so I take a mental note of that- I'm sorry if you breeze past it and say, "yeah, that sounds right!", for the record I have 1000 hours on the hobbes in my ES

Add something productive? okay! If I ignore who posted the question, and his post history, and just look at what is being asked, I think the answer is NO, It's not going to meet your needs. For some reason the mission has changed to 1-2 people now, which invalidates all of his previous "gotta have a family traveling machine" posts, okay- I won't inquire there, let's just go with that being the case

My last airplane was a souped up RV4, I tried to fly it as a primary commute/travel machine, and it fell short in just about every respect. Range was a primary concern, especially when accounting for IFR reserves, comfort was a big one- it was not comfortable, water was an issue, sun/UV was an issue, not being able to stretch out, having limited baggage space, dealing with rough air with those stubby wings and aggressive roll rate, etc- I could probably go on

Add 150hp to it and does it change? No, not for me. It would be fun to get up into smooth air quicker, it would be fun to fly, but in the same way some people enjoy those little turbo Mazda Miatas- for short periods at a time. The RV4 was very similar to a motorcycle in that it was a completely different experience when you put someone "on the back", as in, not as much fun for the driver.

Some people enjoy them as a primary plane though, but most of those people are not flying 60,000miles a year in them from what I've observed. When my RV7 is finally finished I'm going to struggle with the decision to keep it for all of the reasons I've mentioned above, even as a a side-by-side, it just doesn't compete with the Lancair for utility.

The Rocket 3 points beautifully, and anyone flying most tailwheel airplanes should be proficient in both types of landings. The titanium gear was for weight, but it also transmits less stress to the heavier airframe. The only danger in a 3-point is adding power in the flare and getting into a high alpha situation. I practice power off 180's all the time. Yes the engine barks and there is a little afterfire, but, the training is worth it. Power off abeam the fixed distance markers to a 3pt on the fixed distance markers consistently should be every pilots goal.

Just be very careful to be into the wind with the stick full aft for ALL run-ups. I was taxiing in some tall grass (being marshalled by the CAP and just as I brought up the power to turn around, I fell into an invisible puddle of mud, and was instantaneously on my nose. It is REALLY easy when you have that much power.

Do you have a preferred downwind airspeed before you pull power abeam?

When do you like to bring in flaps?

The builder's 'POH' in mine shows a Vfe well above 100kts, but the former owner placarded the top of the white arc close to 90kts.

Do you have a preferred downwind airspeed before you pull power abeam?

When do you like to bring in flaps?

The builder's 'POH' in mine shows a Vfe well above 100kts, but the former owner placarded the top of the white arc close to 90kts.