Glass Goose Flip Wanted

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

vh2q

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
10
Location
texas
Looking at buying one of these .. but wanted to take a flip in one first. If there is any member who has one, somewhere between Abilene and Dallas, and is willing to have me along on a short flight from either tarmac or water, drop me a line russ at vh2q dot the usual. And comments on the practicality of this kit plane would also be welcome, as would leads to planes for sale. Any thoughts on the use of the mazda rotary engine? I think they burn a lot more fuel than the recommended Lycoming. Needs around 150HP apparently. Subaru diesel?
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,128
Location
Pocahontas MS
I'd suggest digging back through magazine archives from the 1990s for articles about the model & its issues.

On the rotary issue: Are you a 'gearhead'; willing to spend a lot of development time tinkering? Do you have a reasonably strong engineering 'bent' (degree'd or not)? If the answer to either question is 'no', then the universal advice is to stick with the engine recommended for the airframe. Having said that, the rotary's fuel efficiency is within the data collection 'background noise' of a Lyc. I've flown a couple of cross countries in a Lyc powered RV4 with Tracy Crook's rotary powered RV4, and in each case, he burned *roughly* 10% more fuel than me. BUT: he could burn the cheapest, lowest octane mogas available, while most Lyc drivers are afraid to run anything but avgas. Additionally, I lean aggressively, which most Lyc drivers won't do. So for a typical Lyc driver, he'd burn the same amount of fuel, and pay almost twice as much for it. For more info, start a new thread over in the rotary section.
Charlie
RV7 Mazda Renesis installation in progress
 
Last edited:

vh2q

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
10
Location
texas
One of the planes I located for sale has the mazda engine installed. I have seen one other (in Canada) offered with the same engine. So it seems to be a fairly common choice.

The other factor is time between major overhauls. I don't think rotaries last that long before losing compression. But they are probably cheaper to rebuild. I would think a diesel version would go longer but maybe too heavy for flight.

I was not aware that the design of the plane was flawed. There isn't much info out there but the couple videos on youtube shows the aircraft in flight so at a minimum, it does fly!

I am an engineer and a gunsmith but not an airplane expert ... don't even have a PPL ... but I do have a second home in the Bahamas:)
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,314
Location
Memphis, TN
The first iterations had problems. I believe one of the kit buyers figured out fixes and ended up buying the company. It’s always been cool to look at. They are fairly complex and are not for beginner pilots. It’s something about determination. It’s not going to be a buy and forget about it airplane.
 

vh2q

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
10
Location
texas
Yes that was Tim Scott ... his company Quikkit appears to be defunct with no working contact info.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,128
Location
Pocahontas MS
The other factor is time between major overhauls. I don't think rotaries last that long before losing compression.
Another long-lived myth. Originated with owners of the cars neglecting oil changes & doing 'grocery runs' all the time. The car injects crankcase oil into the apex seal path to lube the apex seals, and it tended to coke up in the apex seal slots in the rotors. Aircraft users (and smart car users) either inject 2stroke oil, or mix 2stroke oil with the gas at ~1/2 ounce per gallon. Then seals never stick.

But they are probably cheaper to rebuild.
You definitely have that one right; most rotary overhauls are about the price of one Lyc cylinder.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,772
Location
Canada
One problem was poor bonding between wing spars and wing skins. That problem was addressed by better quality control during assembly.

Another problem was turbulent airflow around the back of the cabin pylon. That problem was solved with vortex generators.

Poor planning was solved by adding extra sponsons (aka. water wings) similar to Taylor Coot.

As for engines ... how does the weight of a new 140 horsepower Rotax 915 compare with older Continentals and Lycomings?
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,128
Location
Pocahontas MS
Sea Hawker/Glass Goose

Sea Hawker was the original name, IIRC. I actually looked at a partially built kit down in New Orleans back when I was a student pilot, but decided to pass on it. Pretty sure the problems I read about were discovered during the Sea Hawker days. The airflow issues on the aft fuselage caused some rather nasty stall characteristics, IIRC.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,772
Location
Canada
Gary LeGare built the original Sea Hawker back in 1982. It is rumored that LeGare had some assistance from Burt Rutan in structural design. Gary LeGare sold the rights to Aero Composites and AC made a few improvements, mentioned in my earlier post above.
 
Top