Rocky Mountain Wings of Nampa, ID is building me my second Ridge Runner. Construction has begun and is expected to be finished by mid-July

It will be a modified version of what I already have, the model 3. My intended use for it will be to use it in a Christian missionary assistance role around jungle covered mountain areas of Palawan, Philippines. On a small scale, I hope to deliver medicine, Bibles, a physician or other disaster relief supplies to places other, larger and more expensive missionary aircraft cannot get into and out of safely.

My existing RR (RP-S49) has outstanding performance and I'm very happy with it. However, since the plane is over-built in some areas, there is room to make adjustments without compromising structural integrity, sufficient to add other features. The builder of my existing RR built it to show quality. I would rather buy a new, enhanced RR than alter the beautiful job Bill Dohm did when he built RP-S49 (much respect to Bill Dohm!). Since having two small, light, economical utilitarian aircraft with folding wings is better than one, the new RR idea was born.

The new RR will have the following enhancements:

1' longer wing than my existing RR model 3
Wingtips (to be anounced)
Aveo Engineering strobe/navigation/position LEDs (model Ultra Aurora)
1' longer flaps than the normal model 3
Halls Bros. VGs on wing LE and horizontal stab in front of elevator
Wing cargo compartments
Underbody cargo comparment (to be anounced)
3 gas tanks (placement of 3rd gas tank to be anounced)
Horizontal Stab/Elevator gap sealed
26" ABW Airstreaks (thanx Wup - pix are coming)
Tailwheel - Either Matco 6" x 2" or 8" x 3"
Special mod for tailwheel (to be anounced)
Matco double-puck disc brakes
Strengthened wheel/brake hub for the increased braking force from the discs
65 hp Hirth w/ 1000 hr TBO (and weighs 1 lb less than my 52 hp Rotax 503 with 500 hr TBO)
Prop (to be anounced)
Back seat controls (Wife says she wants to learn how to fly)
Recovery parachute (to be anounced)

Pix of it's progress will be shown here in the order I receive them from the shop. If anyone is in the Nampa, ID area, feel free to stop by Rocky Mountain Wings (8820 Deer Flat Rd) and check it out! (and take pix)

Has the 3' wing extension been done before?

Do you have to use a larger spar with an extended wing? (My question assumes your extension is all beyond the existing strut attachment point).

With the lighter wing loading are you going to float longer and have a harder time getting down over an obstacle or is the extra 1' flap enough of an offsetting trade to get it back to the original sink rate? Take off should be outstanding.

We need a pilot report on this bird. Good luck.

Awesome RR, I'll be looking forward to the build.

Who will grant your airworthiness certificate? FAA or the civil aviation authority of Philippines?

dirtstrip wrote:Has the 3' wing extension been done before?

Do you have to use a larger spar with an extended wing? (My question assumes your extension is all beyond the existing strut attachment point).

Yeah, me too. Tubular spars are not the strongest (in bending loads) for their weight. Adding three feet to your span will by definition add a greater structural bending moment on whatever part of the spar you are measuring. No matter who says what at the construction and riveting level, this question has to be addressed by someone who is not a party to this modification (i. e. not the guy who is selling/building/suggesting/promoting the wing span increase). You are talking about a light wing loading airplane, with a high lift airfoil, and it will see significant loads from gusts. It may be safe, it may need a thicker tube, it may need Red Bull poured on it... I don't know. All I'm saying is that there has to be a real live degreed structures engineer somewhere in this party.

dirtstrip wrote:Has the 3' wing extension been done before? Do you have to use a larger spar with an extended wing? (My question assumes your extension is all beyond the existing strut attachment point). With the lighter wing loading are you going to float longer and have a harder time getting down over an obstacle or is the extra 1' flap enough of an offsetting trade to get it back to the original sink rate? Take off should be outstanding. We need a pilot report on this bird. Good luck.

Hey Dirtstrip.

Yes, I would expect to float longer with the larger wing and without flaps. But with the extended flaps and VGs I'm also expecting to get the plane to fly slower.

The strut issue is a very serious consideration. I did inquire about the wing structural integrity and the issue of whether the strut would need extending, but he said it's been calculated and is still within the numbers and there's no need to extend the struts out farther. His normal model 3 wing is only 26'. The wing on my existing RR is 28' with the wingtips. I will request to see the calculations for the 29' wing and confirm this for myself.

The 1' extended length flaps will be new for the wing, as will the in-wing cargo compartments. The flap quadrant's mechanical advantage will be re-engineered as well.These first pix show most of one wing, one gas tank and the beginning of a separate in-wing cargo compartment.

Will definitely provide pilot reports, but it still has a long way to go. First flights will be video reported. For now, all I can do is post pix as the build continues. Thanx for checking it out guys. Comments, critique, constructive criticisms and suggestions are welcome.

Zane wrote:Who will grant your airworthiness certificate? FAA or the civil aviation authority of Philippines?

The Philippines civil aviation authority doesn't regulate home-built aircraft. There is no such designation as "experimental" or "LSA". It is just a "home-built" and there is no construction requirements.

I like all the description except the Hirth engine. No personal experience just not much information out about them actually in use. Okay, thats not constructive, strike it.

I'll try to be constructive with this. Don't let the performance of your RR 3 with the 503 tempt you into skimping on the engine. The new one is going to be heavy with all the mods and intended payload. If at all possible I would want a 100 horses and not old gray mares.

I suspect it can't be regestered Experimental Amateur Built. I am assuming the builder is being paid to build it? There are a number of other Special airworthyness certificate categories such as research and development, market survey and such. I'm pretty sure it will have an N number if the builder does the test flights in the US. That registration probably won't be much use to you if you wanted to bring it back into the US. Something to research and discuss with the builder before he registers it?

tcj wrote: Don't let the performance of your RR 3 with the 503 tempt you into skimping on the engine. The new one is going to be heavy with all the mods and intended payload. If at all possible I would want a 100 horses and not old gray mares.

Thanx for that recommendation. Honestly I have not purchased the engine or prop yet. I have looked into HKS, Rotax 912 and Jabiru, VW conversions, radials and rotary. But my concern with those was that with their extra weight and the weight of the Airstreaks and related hardware, the plane would sink like a rock, requiring a faster, longer landing roll....something I'm trying to avoid. For 2 cycles, Rotax 618 and 582 were natural considerations, also Simonini but again too heavy after install with gear drive. Hirth is the only engine I've found providing more hp than what I have now, with lower weight and a higher (1000 hr) TBO.

I figure if I'm getting 80' take offs and landing rolls with an unmodified plane and 52hp Rotax on a hot SE asian day, then a lighter, 65hp with larger wing and flap area with mod stuff and the right prop should result in much better performance. How much better will remain to be seen.

Interesting project sangko ng Christian, keep us updated!

Progress on the new RR

More info on the wing cargo compartments?
-how are they accessed?
-how far outboard are they? I assume fuel tanks near the root?
-how large & weight capacity?
-have they done this before?

Interesting idea, but how useful would they be in practice? How about hard points for an external removable cargo pod outboard of the strut? Less complex than designing an internal storage locker.

edit shmedit

L-19 wrote:More info on the wing cargo compartments?
-how are they accessed?
-how far outboard are they? I assume fuel tanks near the root?
-how large & weight capacity?
-have they done this before?

Interesting idea, but how useful would they be in practice? How about hard points for an external removable cargo pod outboard of the strut? Less complex than designing an internal storage locker.

They are accessed from the top of the wing.

Fuel tanks are nearest the root. Compartments are just outside of the tanks.

Weight capacity will be contingent on CG requirements and general construction strength of the compartments. Though strong enough for more, I'm estimating 10 lbs per side.

The manufacturer has made them before by request.

The usefulness of the in-wing compartments will be limited to lightweight cargo when other space would be taken up by a backseat passenger. One use could be to store a take-everywhere survival/field repair kit consisting of of 10 lbs per side to help in offsetting the fwd cg from additional weight of the AKBuswheels.. The bulk of other cargo weight would be in the back seat or under-body cargo compartment.

I did consider the external, removable cargo pods outboard of the strut as you mentioned, but decided against them. I didn't want additional weight to be put so far out on the wing, and I didn't find them aesthetically appealing.

tcj wrote: Don't let the performance of your RR 3 with the 503 tempt you into skimping on the engine. The new one is going to be heavy with all the mods and intended payload. If at all possible I would want a 100 horses and not old gray mares.

Sorry for the late reply on this. I'm estimating the empty weight of the new RR to be around 430 lbs, 20 lbs more than my existing RR's empty weigh of 410 lbs. But this is only an estimate. In any case, I have decided on the 65 hp Hirth because it is 15 hp more power than the Rotax 503 twin carb, but weighs 1 lb less, fully equipped. Hirth is the only engine I could find to get more power with less weight. With power/weight improvements, a 500 hr longer TBO as well as other mechanical and technological improvements over the Rotax, the Hirth appears to me to be a reasonable decision for this particular aircraft.

I considered the higher hp engines like Rotax 618, 912, Simonini and Jabiru, but with the extra weight up front on such a small plane as the RR, I think the sink rate would be significantly higher. I want to land short and get off the ground short. A heavier, higher hp engine on this plane would just require a faster landing approach speed (and thus, longer landing roll-out), something I'm trying to avoid.

Hoy pare, looking good!

svanarts wrote:Hoy pare, looking good!

Thanks Svanarts, but I regret to inform that I had to remove those two photos of the partially built plane with the AKBushwheels mounted on it. It wasn't my plane. The builder evidently sent me pix of some other plane, with my wheels on it. In the over one year's time since I paid for the entire project in it's entirety, in advance, the only pix of the new build that I have received are two blurry pix of a partially built wing 7 months ago. I must say that I'm none too happy about this recent turn of events.

I wonder what the deal is over there lately. I have been having difficulties getting the right parts for my kit sent to me IE beulding it a section at a time, I've ended up missing parts, calling, and either getting the wrong one sent to me or not getting at all with a "We forgot" answer when I call. I hope this is a temporary hiccup, as I have a good deal of money invested and still don't have the fuselage bought yet. Not as much as you do there, RR, hope the company can get its act together, for the sake of your project and for what seems like a good little company.

pdknight wrote:I wonder what the deal is over there lately. I have been having difficulties getting the right parts for my kit sent to me IE beulding it a section at a time, I've ended up missing parts, calling, and either getting the wrong one sent to me or not getting at all with a "We forgot" answer when I call. I hope this is a temporary hiccup, as I have a good deal of money invested and still don't have the fuselage bought yet. Not as much as you do there, RR, hope the company can get its act together, for the sake of your project and for what seems like a good little company.

Hi PD. I'm surprised to hear that you're having customer service/parts issues. Stace was very responsive when I needed a new bungee strut sent overseas on short notice.

It's a US-made, family operation with a fantastic product, the kind of business I'd like to support. I just wish I could get more than two pix a year out of him on a project that's already paid for. Just seems odd.

I really hope there are no issues with Stace or the company as I have ordered a kit as well. I have purchased a "0" time 503 SCDI with a "C" gearbox { 3:1 ratio geraset} and really want to know more information on the two blade prop that you are running on the RR2. Please let me know the diameter and pitch as my climate and field elevation will be very similar to your operating areas.Thanks in advance....

OK Guys and gals...Stace delivered my kit on 14 December. I have unpacked and looked things over. I found a lot of welds that had to be re-worked with my Maxstar 150 and found 2 incomplete weld on the longerons. The main spar tubes had weldments on 3 of them and have been sanded all over from end to end. All the guys that have looked at it are well....less than amused. One of the guys, A&P-I/A said to not use the spar tubes at all. He is afraid of what really happened to the tubes and the reason for sanding and welding on them. Anyway...I have most of the kit...no build manual and no fabric. It took 4 months from the initial go-ahead and sending deposit to get it here at this point. They did have some problems with the cowling guy..has health issues I was told.
I have called the three numbers I have and e-mailed daily to try and obtain a resolve for these issues and have yet to get a reply. I just need to find someone who would lend me or allow me to obtain a copy of the build manual. I can get the spar tubes. I hope that all this gets resolved soon. I guess I could cobble it together without a manual...I have the Avid manual to get close.