Still thinking about an RV-14

divergent said:
At some point the paint will break down and painting is your only course of recovery.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on that a bit? Did I misunderstand that if the paint becomes too poor, then polishing is no longer an option? I had assumed that as long as the underlying metal doesn't have corrosion, polishing would always be possible. Either way, your point about ceramic coating is well-taken.
 
Jim K said:
It doesn't look like much, but my RV became a taildragger tonight. Drilling this rear fuselage bulkhead is the first step where the instructions differ between TD and tricycle.

View attachment 137434
Click to expand...
I could never understand utility of low-wing taildraggers … all the downsides of taildragger configuration without any of the benefits …. Now, a taildragger high-wing , thats a different story …
 
Warmi said:
I could never understand utility of low-wing taildraggers … all the downsides of taildragger configuration without any of the benefits …. Now, a taildragger high-wing , thats a different story …
Click to expand...
Yeah, those damned useless P-51 Mustangs. Why didn't they build 'em as a high-wing?! ;)
 
Warmi said:
There were no other options back then …
Click to expand...
Taylorcraft_L-2A_Grasshopper_‘325823’_(N53768)_(50885523216) smol.jpg
Clearly, they had discovered high-wing technology. The question (I ask mostly for fun) is that if there is no advantage to a low-wing taildragger and every advantage to a high-wing, why was virtually every high-performance WW2 fighter a low-wing taildragger? We started out with biplanes and figured out a way to delete one of the wings. They got rid of the top one and left the obviously superior low-wing design, leaving the high wings to the lumbering bombers and low-speed observation pilots.

Indeed, it is through the intense experiences of WW2 fighter aircraft, decades of aeronautical research, and the heroic efforts of countless test pilots that we were eventually graced with the undisputed pinnacle of aeronautical performance and grace: the Piper Cherokee 180. The low wing par excellence.
 
You guys are missing the point big time … it is not about low-wing vs high-wing planes but rather about the point of utilizing taildragger configuration in a low-wing plane where one of the main benefits of the taildragger configuration ( ability to land and maneuver in various difficult terrain scenarios - utilized mostly by so called bush planes ) is already compromised because, well , because it is a low-wing plane to begin with.
 
Jim K said:
It doesn't look like much, but my RV became a taildragger tonight. Drilling this rear fuselage bulkhead is the first step where the instructions differ between TD and tricycle.

View attachment 137434
Click to expand...
In my mind, I see @Jim K reading the instructions “drill hole here”, drilling the hole, and then turning the page and reading “OR, for the tricycle gear version, DO NOT, drill this hole”. :)
 
Warmi said:
You guys are missing the point big time … it is not about low-wing vs high-wing planes but rather about the point of utilizing taildragger configuration in a low-wing plane where one of the main benefits of the taildragger configuration ( ability to land and maneuver in various difficult terrain scenarios - utilized mostly by so called bush planes ) is already compromised because, well , because it is a low-wing plane to begin with.
Click to expand...
Well, I chose the taildragger version for a few reasons.
-It's faster. The demonstrator 14 is a few knots faster than their 14A, even with less horspower (io-360 vs 390).
-It looks cooler. Admittedly a slightly silly reason.
-It's lighter (albeit not much).
-It fits in my garage with the tail on.
-I'd like to build some TW time in case I want to get a C195 or something silly like that some day.

The reality is #2 is the main reason. If I'm going to spend 3000 hours building a plane, I want to love it, to be able to stare at it and smile. For me that's the taildragger.

As far as utility goes, I'd venture that there's not a hill of beans worth of difference between a 170/172 or 180/182. It's not like the wing is any higher. Maybe a tiny bit better on soft fields, but the same can be said in a low wing. The Van's planes aren't built for soft fields anyway.

WRT to TD being the only gear option during WWII, I'd invite you to look at the P39, P38, B24, B25, and B26. Only one of those is a high wing.
 
Warmi said:
I could never understand utility of low-wing taildraggers … all the downsides of taildragger configuration without any of the benefits …. Now, a taildragger high-wing , thats a different story …
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, a low wing aircraft is going to have less frontal area than a high wing. In a low wing, you typically sit on the spar. In a high wing, the wing spar (or carrythrough) is above your head (Cardinals excepted). So low wings are inherently faster...
 
You paused "containerships"...I'd have left too.

Seriously though, awesome they're interested enough to to help dad out.
 
Dave Theisen said:
“That’s one of Jim’s kids”

“How do you know that?”

“Easy, they’re all missing a finger or two”




Glad to see them interested in it.
Click to expand...
A family I know is literally like that. Even the girls are missing a digit....or some appendage. One of the brothers nearly lost a leg from a chainsaw accident. Another brother, after getting yelled at by cops for throwing snowballs at cars grabbed the bumper of the cop car and started skitching as the cop drove away. The third brother made it on Letterman's stupid headlines. He had been arrested for public urination. While in jail he somehow grabbed the sprinkler and flooded the jail. "Man arrested for urination floods jail"

And finally....the old man.... Not kidding, this is him. This guy built our pool.
images (3).jpeg
 
Last edited:
This stage of the project is really fun as you get to see major headway being made pretty quickly. It's when you hit the 90% done, 90% to go phase (ie systems install, wiring, etc) that provides much less visual evidence of progress that it can become much less exciting to the point of being tedious.
 
Jim K said:
Probably won't be much progress for a while with a trip upcoming and switching over to full focus on the IO-540.
Click to expand...
This aged poorly. Did you bang some more rivets today to vent your frustration?
 
Warmi said:
I could never understand utility of low-wing taildraggers … all the downsides of taildragger configuration without any of the benefits …. Now, a taildragger high-wing , thats a different story …
Click to expand...
The RV-14A (tricycle version) has a free-castering nosewheel. You can only steer on the ground with differential braking. The RV-14 (taildragger) has a steering linkage between the rudder and tailwheel, so you can steer with the rudder pedals most of the time (it will break out and free-caster when you need it to). It also looks much, much cooler. There are some planes that are available in both configurations but look a billion times better as taildraggers. Top among them are the Beech 18 and the Van’s RV series.
 
Last edited:
iamtheari said:
The RV-14A (tricycle version) has a free-castering nosewheel. You can only steer on thr ground with differential braking. The RV-14 (taildragger) has a steering linkage between the rudder and tailwheel, so you can steer with the rudder pedals most of the time (it will break out and free-caster when you need it to). It also looks much, much cooler. There are some planes that are available in both configurations but look a billion times better as taildraggers. Top among them are the Beech 18 and the Van’s RV series.
Click to expand...
I mean …looking cooler is obviously in the eye of the beholder and personally to me taildraggers are actually pretty ugly and awkward looking but , yeah , if you are dedicating a few years of your life to build one and thats the look you are after then thats all that matters …
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top