Assuming you meant, "engine," not "engineer." Of course the builder could install anything he or she wanted, as long as it wasn't ELSA. But the kits are likely to be delivered for installing a given model/class of engine...if you install something else, you've got to do all the design work and troubleshooting yourself. Van's strongly recommends people don't switch engines.Can’t you pretty well make your own choice of engineer since it’s going to be a kit and experimental??
Every back country pilot I talk to is trying to figure out how to get more power out of the engine they have. I think the 912/915 option would be starting at a disadvantage. That's why Just Aircraft has a big engine option now.Oh, I'm also guessing that it will use Rotax 912 to 915 engine options.
That said, it will be fun to see if I'm right about any of this.
Maybe, and it could make a lot of folks happy. Such a plane would be an aluminum Glasair Sportsman, and like that plane it could have a lot of utility and versatility.I'd bet on a 2+2 (or 2+1) airplane with a big Lycoming - either an O-360 or the IO-390. That could give them and airplane with a dual personality - A true short field airplane with a pilot or a pilot and one passenger, or true cross-country utility with a pilot and 2 or 3 passengers.
Here's the breakdown of engines installed on Van's aircraft, as of 1 January this year.A majority of Van's 10 million customers are familiar with the Lycoming engines, prefer them, have flown with them, and may have one lying around because of a damaged RV-X. That will be on their mind in all likelihood.
|G & N|
Amen to that. You ought to drop by our R & D facility in Fort Worth sometime...What we saw in the proto shop then never came to fruition. I can't tell you about it, but I can say they are not afraid to try out interesting offshoot developments, and not afraid to abandon them if they don't look to pan out.
Wasn't there a guy named Murphy doing this sort of thing?Maybe also look at this from the design engineer's perspective for a second, and think what airplane doesn't exist in the marketplace (or is not easily available), but would serve a useful purpose.
Something that can get in and out of the back country at reasonably short strips (500-700 ft), but also has enough speed and range to go further/faster without having to stop for fuel as often. And something that is more fun to fly than the majority of existing STOL airplanes. But something built out of sheet metal because not everyone loves fabric or wants to be terrified of every thorny bush.
The best airplane that meets the first three requirements is the Bearhawk. It's cleaner and faster than many others, it can operate out of a fairly short strip, and it can go a fair distance. It also handles significantly better than some other bush type aircraft. So if you made a sheet metal equivalent of a Bearhawk, you'd have something fairly desirable to a good number of people.
good looking planes.I think you may be thinking of one of Ole's earlier designs called the Wasp;
View attachment 113608
Which was designed more for the training market, rather than a STOL plane.
It needed a little more development, but fell to the wayside (only five were built) under the number of orders for the Hornet STOL series;
View attachment 113609
And the Hornet Cub, which is a tandem variant;
View attachment 113610
Maybe we can simplify this down to a basic binary of target market. Will Van's go after the Cub market, or the Sportsman market? I think both are viable assumptions and, truth be told, I think they likely have desires to go after both. So, maybe the proper frame of reference is to consider which one they are more likely to pursue first.I'd bet on a 2+2 (or 2+1) airplane with a big Lycoming - either an O-360 or the IO-390. That could give them and airplane with a dual personality - A true short field airplane with a pilot or a pilot and one passenger, or true cross-country utility with a pilot and 2 or 3 passengers.