OT-RV7 progress report

[Lars]

For the aviation enthusiasts on the board... thanks to Bob Hancock for (a) pestering me to start this thread and (b) providing a good title.

For the last 7+ years I've been dabbling at building an airplane. A Van's RV-7, to be exact. More information on the model here.

After years of unproductive dreaming I was tipped over the edge when I found a partially completed empennage kit (that would be the tailfeathers) plus tools for sale for about 60 cents on the dollar. In a moment of weakness my wife agreed, and even consented to allowing me to store the completed parts under our bed (yes, she continued to sleep in it with me).

Early construction took place in my garage, a time-honored homebuilder tradition. That didn't last, due to conflicts with other valuable machinery, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Not much impressive to look at; the following photos give the idea.





Things got better at the end of 2005. A friend of mine scored a place on the list for new hangars being built at the local airport, and I joined him as a partner. My wife, who by now had realized I was serious, insisted that I do the "Quickbuild" option after realizing how much time it would save. Who was I to argue? Can't have a hangar sitting empty, so I ordered the big parts. They showed up in early 2006.





To be continued...

[SeabeckS]

Lars,

My thanks to you for starting this thread (and to B Hancock for the encouragement) as this is one I will follow with enthusiasm.

As a wanna-be pilot (scuba diver, wind surfer, et al) I really dig the ability to watch other enthusiasts enjoy and develop their dreams.

In summary, keep up the good work!

Cheers, BJ

[turboflyer]

There you go, thats what Im talking about, show some skin baby! Nice.

[AZ-Twin]

A variety of solvents and lubricants,
Power tools,
Nice thick book of instructions,
Axe,
And a Big A$$ roll of duct tape.

You sir are prepared!

Looking forward to this build thread, that is for sure!

[Nitro]

The RV-7 is one of my favorite kit planes ever! Fast, easy to fly, and just a good-looker. What kind of engine are you going to put in it?

[Bob Hancock]

excellent, Lars. Thanks for taking the time to put this thread together. Since I bought my PL-2 complete and flying (it had 125 hours on it), I never had the joy of flying something I had built. As any EAAer knows, it takes skill and incredible patience to do what you are doing....and good on ya! Anyway, I had many enjoyable hours in it over the years. I took my kids upside down when they were little, so they never feared flying thinking that vertical and inverted are normal modes of flight. I finally sold it with about 1300 hours as I prepared to retire.

But the RV-7 is an improvement over the Pazmany in many ways. The speed and graceful lines are two that come to mind. Could you fill us in on some of the basics you're putting in your airplane? Engine, prop, avionics, potential paint scheme....stuff like that? I'll be following this closely...been jonesin' for an airplane so this may just fill the bill and save me money.

And please post pics of the first flight. Do you plan to make it?

[Guest24]

Got a friend that has built this kit. He raves about his RV-7. Stick to it and it'll get done.

[cageyar]

Hey, this kit looks similar to your RV7 kit.
I can't wait to see how it fares in it's shakedown run:

[Bob Hancock]

Hey Ken....do I have to call the bailiff on you?

[cageyar]

Originally Posted by Bob Hancock

Hey Ken....do I have to call the bailiff on you?

I hear he's looking for test pilots. This could be your chance to get back in the air..................maybe.........

[Lars]

Lessee, where was I? Oh yeah, early 2006. The biggest reason this thing has taken me so long (the building record for an RV, any RV, is something like 90 days from receipt of parts to flying airplane) is that I have TMPS: Too Many Projects Syndrome. I added to that list later in 2006, when I bought my R1100S. There went my propeller fund. But 9 years without a motorcycle had been about 8 years, 11 months and 2 weeks too long.

I didn't get too much done that year, though I made progress on the wings. Mark (hangar partner) and I started filling the hangar with stuff too- very important to complete the man cave.

Pics from that period aren't too interesting. I've taken bazillions of photos, documenting the build for the nice DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative) who will eventually inspect the machine, and to remind my of what I did and why (hopefully).

Installed landing lights in the wings:







Lots more on the wings, including installing the (pre-built, because it's a Quickbuild kit) control surfaces, various control rods, etc.



I attended the EAA "Airventure" at Oshkosh in the summer of 2006, for the first time. Made a decision on an engine and placed the order while I was there: A Superior "clone" engine, an experimental-only IO-360. The aviation geeks will probably know what that is.

For the rest, an explanation. Lycoming's horizontally opposed air cooled 4 cylinder engines are by far the most popular for use not only in homebuilts, but most smaller certified light aircraft. Over the years other companies started building parts for them, to the point that you could practically build a complete Lycoming engine without using Lycoming parts. About 15 years ago the certified airplane world was essentially moribund, while homebuilding was really starting to take off (sorry about the pun). More and more people wanted to buy new engines, but Lycoming wasn't interested in homebuilding. Enter Superior Airparts and Engine Components International (ECI). They started building and selling complete engines aimed at the homebuilt market. With no FAA paperwork they were/are experimental only, but that saves money. It also meant they could add cool features such as roller cams, which ironically have found their way into certified engines (Lycoming recently made the switch to roller cam only).

The Lycoming opposed 4 cylinder 360 cubic inch engine is easily the most popular engine ever, in the experimental world. There are a few permutations, including induction, parallel or angle valve heads- the difference being nominally 180 vs. 200 HP, the latter costing a lot more money- and other features not worth noting. Mine is a 180HP parallel valve updraft mechanically fuel injected variety. When I ordered, a roller cam was an option. That was a no-brainer since flat tappet cams on Lycomings were always that design's Achilles Heel. I also went with dual electronic ignitions instead of traditional magnetos. That's somewhat more controversial, but I'm ok with my decision.

In January 2007 a big box was delivered to my hangar.



Here's a look inside.

[BMWRider]

wowow....this is gonna be an awesome thread!

[Nitro]

Good choice on the engine! A buddy of mine has over 1000 hrs on a Subaru 2.5L turbo on his RV and he swears by it. You need a reduction gear for it tho. I know of another builder who's set on a 3.5L IL6 BMW twin turbo diesel! I love the experimental market! I'm planning to build a Pitts 13 from plans with the crazy Russian radial but before I got to figure out a way out of dire poverty!

Keep it coming Lars!

[SergioK]

You know we'll ALL want a ride in this beast when you're done, right??? TripleCrown Airport Ride 2011??

[Bob Hancock]

Lars I'm guessing from the shape of the wing that your IO-360 does not have inverted capability. Fuel injection yes, but no inverted oil? Also, I notice the conformity and beauty of the ribs. I assume they were part of the quick-build kit. Your airplane is a work of art. Great thread!

[Lars]

Originally Posted by SergioK

You know we'll ALL want a ride in this beast when you're done, right??? TripleCrown Airport Ride 2011??

Uhhh, right, Sergio!

Originally Posted by Bob Hancock

Lars I'm guessing from the shape of the wing that your IO-360 does not have inverted capability. Fuel injection yes, but no inverted oil? Also, I notice the conformity and beauty of the ribs. I assume they were part of the quick-build kit. Your airplane is a work of art. Great thread!

Thanks, Bob (and everyone else that's interested in my little diversion).

The ribs are integral with the QB wing, but had I done the slow build option that's how they are stamped from the factory. Van's aluminum parts are things of beauty. A long way from the crude cutouts that comprised the kits of 25-30 years ago.

You are right on inverted capability. Though I could've built flop tubes into the QB wings if I wanted to, and for that matter inverted oil could've been built in as well, if I was interested. Negative G flight won't be part of the regimen for me. I've spent some time upside down and have done a few outside loops. Enough to know that I'm ok without the capability

[Markus from Oz]

Now this is an OT thread worth following!! Good onya, Lars. Life's too short not to try projects that stimulate and excite.

Now a question about the undercarriage and parasitic drag. I realise that most light aircraft don't have retractable landing gear - I suppose, too expensive, added weight and no room for it to fold into. You can probably add to that, one more thing to go wrong, added complication, etc.

My question is about how the aircraft design compensates for the significant parasitic drag produced by the fixed under carriage (even with the faired wheel cowlings). How the design compensates to enable neutral and balanced flying and light feel on the controls?!?

Or am I over thinking it?

Keep posting photos, Lars...

[Markus from Oz]

Have you decided on a sliding or tip-up canopy?

[Lars]

Originally Posted by Markus from Oz

Now this is an OT thread worth following!! Good onya, Lars. Life's too short not to try projects that stimulate and excite.

Now a question about the undercarriage and parasitic drag. I realise that most light aircraft don't have retractable landing gear - I suppose, too expensive, added weight and no room for it to fold into. You can probably add to that, one more thing to go wrong, added complication, etc.

My question is about how the aircraft design compensates for the significant parasitic drag produced by the fixed under carriage (even with the faired wheel cowlings). How the design compensates to enable neutral and balanced flying and light feel on the controls?!?

Or am I over thinking it?

Keep posting photos, Lars...

Markus, answering your second question first... slider. As you shall see in photos I'll post eventually. Gotta go to a friend's wedding tomorrow in San Francisco. Likely about 36 hours of party so I'm not sure when I'll be in good condition to put up more pics

As for the gear, below 200-ish miles (that would be the British version) per hour, retractable undercarriage carries a lot of penalty in complexity without a significant gain in performance. Witness some of the recent designs such as aircraft from Cirrus and what used to be Lancair/Columbia, now Cessna. They motor right past similarly powered and equipped Beechcraft Bonanzas. For a plane like I'm building, the lack of complexity is a major selling point.

I recommend that you never accept a ride in any Vans Aircraft product. Especially if you enjoy control harmony and a sweet, balanced feel. Because if you do, you are likely to see your bank account wither quickly. Ask me why I know

[SergioK]

So if I'm following you... this thing is like an R1100S while a Cessna 152 is about the same as an EX500. About right?