Peter Miller's Vans RV3

[Erfolg]

Have I missed PM's Vans RV3? How could that be?

 

Or is it to come?

 

It has to be a really practical, from a modelling perspective and good looking light aircraft!

 

Erfolg

[Peter Miller]

IT is next but one in the line. I only posted the plans in last week.

[Daniel Cardona]

how about a nice dalotel peter

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Peter's RV-3 is due to be published with the Nov issue.

[Peter Miller]

I have thought about a Dalotel but don't hold your breath. I have three other projects before I can even think of it.

 

I do have 3 views ready to go when and if.

Edited By Peter Miller on 21/09/2010 18:20:44

[kc]

There was a 48 inch Dalotel by David Boddington in RCSQ Summer 1988.  Probably still in the plans service if you cannot wait for Peter to design one.

There was glass fibre cowl avail at the time.

 

Only 1 scale colour scheme available though.......

[kc]

Peters Vans RV3 has already got into the Plans Service as RC 2078.  The write up says it weighs 5 pound 14 ounces and is only 47.5 inch span.  Wing loading of 26.5 oz sq ft.

Can it really be nearly 6 pounds at this span?

Is there a sudden famine of good balsa in South Suffolk or is it a lot chunkier than it looks?

Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 17:17:23

[Erfolg]

Must  be a misprint.

 

Great Planes did a RV 4 park flyer for electric, I imagine that PM's RV 3 would not be a million miles in difference.

[Peter Miller]

The wing loading is about 24 ounces per sq ft. IT has a wide chord. I did wonder when I saw the wingloading figure but no problem

 

The wings are all sheet covered. IT has flaps and the fuselage is pretty bulky.

 

Don't worry, it flies really well and is very forgiving. The stall is a non-event. The glide is excellent as proved in the early tests because there was a problem with the fuel feed.

 

There are some pictures of the full size on the RV3 album.

Edited By Peter Miller on 15/10/2010 18:14:28

[kc]

I think we all accept that if Peter says it flies well then it does.  However his other designs at about 48 inch came in a bit lighter and I was hoping the RV3 would make a good electric model for low power.

 

compare it  to other PM designs.......

 

47.5 inch Vans RV3          510 sq in  5lb14 oz

48 inch Midget Mustang  475 sq in  4lb 12oz

48 inch Lil Mustang          468sq in   4lb 0oz

52 inch Werewolf               520 sq in  4lb 5 oz

53inch CAP21                    477sq in   4lb 3oz

56inch Bootlace                 510sq in   5lb 0oz

51 inch Miss Lizzy              490sq in   4lb 1 oz

 

Maybe its unfair to compare scale with sports models. But its a good comparison because they were all built by the same man ( or did Peter sub contract some? )

 

 

So perhaps I will build a Lil Mustang instead of an RV3 with a white colour scheme. 

( saves being called white Van man too! )

Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 19:26:19

Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 19:32:13

[Peter Miller]

I just weighed the model again. Dead on 5 lbs 15 ounces, Wing area 517 sq. inches.

 

Taking your other examples. Apart from the Midget Mustang they are all very much slimmed down and stretched designs with much lower wing loadings.

 

The Midget Mustang was much nearer to scale while the RV3 is as close to scale as possible.

 

Bear in mind that it is 1/5th scale and the fuselage is almost 5" and over 6 deep and the wings are full sheet covered although that should only add a couple of ounces

 

As I  said, it flies really well and does most aerobatics but don't expect it to perform like the others because they are sports aerobatic models and this one is scale so it is not as crisp or or sharp.

 

The Midget Mustang also flew like the RV3 and could have done with a .52 four stroke.

 

I did subcontract about four models out about 14 to 10 years ago but since one person took three years to build one of them in spite of being provided with all the materials I have said NEVER AGAIN.

 

 

 

Edited By Peter Miller on 15/10/2010 19:41:29

[Erfolg]

KC

 

If like me you are going electric, take the PM design and lighten it.

 

PM has indicated that it is intended for IC, so needs to be more robust particularly  around the engine.

 

I have built the PM Casutts for electric, which is lighter than the original, although not flown. I have built a similarly sized Nobler, with essentially the same size/loading, although only flown once, flies really well.

 

I suspect we will need to become weight watchers.

[kc]

Peter, thanks for the info.  As usual a really informative answer.   Did the RV 3 need any lead?

As all the models I mentioned were within 5 to 10 percent of each other in terms of wingspan and area I thought it made an interesting comparison considering they were all built by the same person and mostly covered in Supershrink Solarfilm.

 

Someone in my club has built a Miss Lizzy for electric and it seems a great model.  I just wanted to make something different to him!  It would seem the RV3 is a bit too heavy & chunky for the low power electric I had in mind. ( I want to use 2200Mah lipos )

 

 

 

( at least I got the Caucasian male vehicle driver quip in before anyone else! )

[Peter Miller]

I think I had to add a little lead in the tail. Sorry. I have designed and built another two models since then plus another two plans drawn up and another started. I lose track of what has gone before.

 

While there is plenty of room in the model There seems to be little sccope for lightening it. As you know, I don't build models any heavier than I have to.

 

I can't comment on electric power. If it doesn't make a noise and belch out oil and smoke I don't know anything about it.

 

And before anyone asks. A Fun Fly, a Wittman V-Witt racer both built flown and coming out., a Fournier RF-7, A Mauboussin M40 Hemiptere and an experimental model that will be interesting for the gadgetry.

Edited By Peter Miller on 16/10/2010 13:54:49

[Dan Hedges]

Looks like a cool little model. My father came up a couple of weeks ago and "borrowed" my Harmony plans so I now have some wood waiting for something to build... might have a go at this.

 

Anyone fancy trying this as a spray job

[ajreynolds]

So, has anyone started on this one yet?  I'm still waiting for the issue to arrive here in the US.  I'm particularly interested in the electric conversions that have been mentioned.  Any suggestions on changes made to lighten up would be appreciated.

 

Andy

 

[Peter Miller]

Well, you could save a bit by covering the wings with film behind the D box rather than all sheet covering.

 

Engine mounting box could be lightened and use 1/8 ply for F-1. Use much lighter wood to tail parts.

 

Not using flaps might save an ounce or two but would be a shame as they really work well.

 

Possibly   an electric motor would be lighter than a .52 four stroke.

[Tim Hooper]

Posted by Peter Miller on 10/11/2010 08:14:12: 

Possibly   an electric motor would be lighter than a .52 four stroke.

 

 Now go and wash your keyboard off with soapy water........

 

tim

[Peter Miller]

Unfortunately we are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, creed, intelligence, sex or any other strange differences or the thought police will come and lobotomise us.

 

For this reason I merely suggested that an electric motor might be lighter. Of course to provide the equivalent power it may be three times as heavy. I wouldn't know and have no intention of finding out.

 

 

 

 

Edited By Peter Miller on 10/11/2010 18:19:41

[ajreynolds]

No worries, those of us who have been enlightened won't hold it against the old slimers set in their ways. 

 

Thanks for the tips by the way.  I look forward to seeing the plans in about a month.  The "Special" issue with the Spitfire plans has just arrived here in the States.

 

Andy

 

[Peter Miller]

Luckily I can forgive a lot, including insults, to people who actually build models, especially if they build my designs. I don't forgive people who only fly ARTFS 'cos they aren't modellers

 

Oh dear! I suppose that is discrimination too.

[Martyn Garrett]

I'm just about to start building but have one question before I do.  The plan shows no engine side or down thrust.  Is this correct or should I build some in?

 

I'm planning on using my existing Saito FA-62 which (just about) fits in the cowl.  I'm sure it's a little heavier than the 52 recommended but Hey Ho, it's sitting in the workshop looking for a home!

[Mark R]

Hi Martyn, started buiding also, tho very slowly.  No engine thrust is required on the build, think in top right hand corner of one side of the plan gives this.

Lots of pics if you can martyn, gives me a helping hand

[Martyn Garrett]

Nope can't see any mention on the plan at all!  Will try to post a few pics when I can.  What wire should I use for binding the undercarriage to F1.  On previous models I've used polyester thread and epoxy rather than wire and solder, which seems to have worked OK so far.

[Mark R]

Ooops sorry Martyn its on pg 71 of RCM&E mag. As to the wire, not sure myself, was thinking of using the fuse wire you can buy.  Hopefully someone will suggest summit.