The quickest way to flight is to find a flying one already on Barnstormers and write a big check...Originally Posted by Auburntsts
You have to build because you want to build. Though I agree with Auburn - if the goal is eventually to fly DO NOT VARY FROM THE PLANS. If you're still keen on the idea of the modified tank - I agree with you, the packaging looks to make better use of space, and the cg change with fuel burn may be reduced (though it may be more forward in the range to start with - not good if you are attempting to pair that with a 13+ pound heavier engine) - but keep an eye on that guy as you go through the years of building. See if that tank cracks. See if it leaks. See if other people build it. Best yet, see if the factory takes it on as an option - sometimes they see stuff like this and make their own version (with a good bit more engineering behind it).
Though I also agree with Steve - in a payload-limited airplane, there's not much point to more "baggage space" if there's no weight capacity to go with it. (Depending on what you really want to do, this might not be the right airplane...)
The whole discussion of fuselage tank vs. not is not relevant to this thread. The RV-12 is what it is. They made a LOT of compromises for quick-remove wings. To that end, you may not want to pay for all those compromises - pitot through the gearbox, surface contacts for the wing lights, handles in the wing tips, fancy fittings where other aircraft simply use bolts for wing attach - and probably others involving the position of the seats/spar (and obviously the fuel tank) - there's other designs out there that haven't done so much in the direction of quick-remove wings - though no doubt Van's has a very complete, thought-out, well made kit with a lot of experience behind it.
Reply With Quote