What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

RV-15

I'll throw in a wager just to see how it turns out in a few years.

Just seeing how the product line is evolving recently, the 12 tapped the LSA and now the trainer market (what an excellent ship to learn to fly in), the 14 largely split the difference between the 7 and 10 and the 10 continues to age and sell well in its more lucrative market segment.

For me that leaves the most room for the RV-15 to bridge the gap between the 9 and 12. Something that builds like a 12 but more closely resembles the mission profile of the 9.

So many of us, me included, have had that 9 vs 12 debate. The 9a fits my mission profile over the long term, but building the 12 seems more compatible with my liberal arts degree. The 9 likely surpasses my aptitude and persistence thresholds.

Regardless, I'm excited to see what comes next. I love the tread towards easy to assemble yet incredibly capable craft for those of us who would rather paint by numbers.
 
I'll throw in a wager just to see how it turns out in a few years.

Just seeing how the product line is evolving recently, the 12 tapped the LSA and now the trainer market (what an excellent ship to learn to fly in), the 14 largely split the difference between the 7 and 10 and the 10 continues to age and sell well in its more lucrative market segment.

For me that leaves the most room for the RV-15 to bridge the gap between the 9 and 12. Something that builds like a 12 but more closely resembles the mission profile of the 9.

So many of us, me included, have had that 9 vs 12 debate. The 9a fits my mission profile over the long term, but building the 12 seems more compatible with my liberal arts degree. The 9 likely surpasses my aptitude and persistence thresholds.

Regardless, I'm excited to see what comes next. I love the tread towards easy to assemble yet incredibly capable craft for those of us who would rather paint by numbers.
I’m close to your desire; I would want a step between the 12 and a 10. Basically a 3 or 4 place RV-12.
 
I'll throw some logs on the fire since it's such a fun thread.

I built a Sonex, sold it to buy a 9A. Loved my 9A but by the time I was done spending money making it my own, I priced it out of my own budget :D and since have sold it. I, like many, had the 12/9 debate. The 12 is just too slow and buzzy for me, but something I would build with no worries. I want fast and cheap for 2 people.

So...why has no one come up with a Pulsar SP100 equivalent? That would have been a perfect plane and I search every day for one. I wish the company was never sold. :(

170kt cruise
1,250nm range
5.5gph
44" wide cabin
500hr build time

Find me another plane in the $70k range new that can do that. Leveraging a Lycoming Thunderbolt IO-235 in a small, wide and light plane would be fantastic. Great reliable engines with low operating costs without the buzz of a Rotax.

Ok, time to flame me. :D;)
 
I'll throw some logs on the fire since it's such a fun thread.

I built a Sonex, sold it to buy a 9A. Loved my 9A but by the time I was done spending money making it my own, I priced it out of my own budget :D and since have sold it. I, like many, had the 12/9 debate. The 12 is just too slow and buzzy for me, but something I would build with no worries. I want fast and cheap for 2 people.

So...why has no one come up with a Pulsar SP100 equivalent? That would have been a perfect plane and I search every day for one. I wish the company was never sold. :(

170kt cruise
1,250nm range
5.5gph
44" wide cabin
500hr build time


Find me another plane in the $70k range new that can do that. Leveraging a Lycoming Thunderbolt IO-235 in a small, wide and light plane would be fantastic. Great reliable engines with low operating costs without the buzz of a Rotax.

Ok, time to flame me. :D;)

If it was REALLY that good, it would still be produced........ That's why Van's is still here!
 
I'll throw in a wager just to see how it turns out in a few years.

Just seeing how the product line is evolving recently, the 12 tapped the LSA and now the trainer market (what an excellent ship to learn to fly in), the 14 largely split the difference between the 7 and 10 and the 10 continues to age and sell well in its more lucrative market segment.

For me that leaves the most room for the RV-15 to bridge the gap between the 9 and 12. Something that builds like a 12 but more closely resembles the mission profile of the 9.

So many of us, me included, have had that 9 vs 12 debate. The 9a fits my mission profile over the long term, but building the 12 seems more compatible with my liberal arts degree. The 9 likely surpasses my aptitude and persistence thresholds.

Regardless, I'm excited to see what comes next. I love the tread towards easy to assemble yet incredibly capable craft for those of us who would rather paint by numbers.

How about a 9 - 9A kitted like the 12 and assembled with blind rivets. O320 and fp prop.... same panel as the 12. You could build this for the same price of a 12.
 
If it was REALLY that good, it would still be produced........ That's why Van's is still here!

Actually, the company was sold to a business in South America. The new CEO had a customer in their ‘simplified’ variant and killed both in a crash. Company folded and all was lost. Of the 10 or so in the US, and several abroad, reviews seem to indicate the specs were very close to accurate.
 
How about a 9 - 9A kitted like the 12 and assembled with blind rivets. O320 and fp prop.... same panel as the 12. You could build this for the same price of a 12.

Better hurry. Rans is putting an IO340 on their S19.
 
I'll throw in a wager just to see how it turns out in a few years.

Just seeing how the product line is evolving recently, the 12 tapped the LSA and now the trainer market (what an excellent ship to learn to fly in), the 14 largely split the difference between the 7 and 10 and the 10 continues to age and sell well in its more lucrative market segment.

For me that leaves the most room for the RV-15 to bridge the gap between the 9 and 12. Something that builds like a 12 but more closely resembles the mission profile of the 9.

So many of us, me included, have had that 9 vs 12 debate. The 9a fits my mission profile over the long term, but building the 12 seems more compatible with my liberal arts degree. The 9 likely surpasses my aptitude and persistence thresholds.

Regardless, I'm excited to see what comes next. I love the tread towards easy to assemble yet incredibly capable craft for those of us who would rather paint by numbers.


That‘s exactly what I mentioned when VANS made the survey on Facebook a couple of months ago and the reason I havn’t made a decision yet.
Anyway, I‘m somewhat afraid that they concentrate on the high-end market. right now.
The improvements on the 10 kits to final size holes and the even more expensive engine option for the already very expensive RV14 let me doubt there will be an RV15 in the price range of the 12 or 9.
But nevertheless I‘m also excited about the release.
 
How about a 9 - 9A kitted like the 12 and assembled with blind rivets. O320 and fp prop.... same panel as the 12. You could build this for the same price of a 12.

Then I'd be making space in the garage. From this thread, it seems like there is a market for something that takes the build simplicity of the 12 beyond the constraints of the LSA (or to their new limits if ever they are updated).

I think that would leave Vans with a pretty nice portfolio in the 12, 15, 14, and 10 that stay true to their roots, but open the doors for more buyers/builders. Like others, I also fear they'll just double down on the upper end of the market.
 
I want electric! Something 2 seater, 150kts, 3 hour endurance, 30 min recharge time.

I bet Vans will let others try and fail in this space for a few years. Some incredible things could happen if Mr. Musk's batteries eventually flew in a Vans airframe. Give it a decade or so.
 
Trouble with Electrics

I saw an article about a 150KW electric motor made by Yamaha...that's around 200hp...just sayin'...

The trouble with electrics is the takeoff weight is the same as the landing weight. Let that sink in a little bit and you will discover what it really means.
 
The trouble with electrics is the takeoff weight is the same as the landing weight. Let that sink in a little bit and you will discover what it really means.

True, but at least you do not have the C/G going out the aft end of the envelope ;)
 
After seeing Paul Dye’s beautiful jet, it seems a 2 place jet will be really impractical. The range will seem to be the limiting characteristic. I cant see a 2 place net have greater than 250 mile range.

250 mile range for a 2 place jet? Seems low to me. This one has two seats and a 3,450 mile range.
 

Attachments

  • Capture2.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    64.9 KB · Views: 249
They are? With all the effort they're putting into the S21 it seems like they've all but forgotten about the S19.

They'd have to up the VNE too to make that a viable solution. The S19 is a great platform, but anything that big on it would be economy cruise at VNE. I'd consider an S19 with an O-320-IO-340. I looked online and couldn't find anything on this. Any links available?
 
They'd have to up the VNE too to make that a viable solution. The S19 is a great platform, but anything that big on it would be economy cruise at VNE. I'd consider an S19 with an O-320-IO-340. I looked online and couldn't find anything on this. Any links available?

Fuel capacity will be an issue as well. Strapping a 150-180 hp motor on a platform that only holds 24 gallons doesn't seem like the best idea. And increasing fuel capacity would take some pretty significant redesign of the wing and/or fuel system.
 
They'd have to up the VNE too to make that a viable solution. The S19 is a great platform, but anything that big on it would be economy cruise at VNE. I'd consider an S19 with an O-320-IO-340. I looked online and couldn't find anything on this. Any links available?

Unwilling to cross-link to promote a competitor. Here’s the quote:

From the Oracle Himself:

“We invested deeply into the 19 program. 4.5 years developing the design, testing and so on. What we ended up with was a plane that many who have built RV's claimed is easier to build with better manuals. That was 2008. The plane has had almost zero AD's, and has been the most trouble free program to date. We have plans to add some spice when and what that actually entails is still being debated. One obvious offering may be the Titian install kit, since the S-19 and S-21 share the same firewall, and the S-19 would balance out nicely with this engine. One customers is flying a 360 on a 19,and it is really impressive! We invested deeply into the 19 program. 4.5 years developing the design, testing and so on. What we ended up with was a plane that many who have built RV's claimed is easier to build with better manuals. That was 2008. The plane has had almost zero AD's, and has been the most trouble free program to date. We have plans to add some spice when and what that actually entails is still being debated. One obvious offering may be the Titian install kit, since the S-19 and S-21 share the same firewall, and the S-19 would balance out nicely with this engine. One customers is flying a 360 on a 19,and it is really impressive!”

QED
 
Last edited:
Unwilling to cross-link to promote a competitor. Here’s the quote:

From the Oracle Himself:

“We invested deeply into the 19 program. 4.5 years developing the design, testing and so on. What we ended up with was a plane that many who have built RV's claimed is easier to build with better manuals. That was 2008. The plane has had almost zero AD's, and has been the most trouble free program to date. We have plans to add some spice when and what that actually entails is still being debated. One obvious offering may be the Titian install kit, since the S-19 and S-21 share the same firewall, and the S-19 would balance out nicely with this engine. One customers is flying a 360 on a 19,and it is really impressive! We invested deeply into the 19 program. 4.5 years developing the design, testing and so on. What we ended up with was a plane that many who have built RV's claimed is easier to build with better manuals. That was 2008. The plane has had almost zero AD's, and has been the most trouble free program to date. We have plans to add some spice when and what that actually entails is still being debated. One obvious offering may be the Titian install kit, since the S-19 and S-21 share the same firewall, and the S-19 would balance out nicely with this engine. One customers is flying a 360 on a 19,and it is really impressive!”

QED
I'll be curious to see it if it ever happens. But I won't hold my breath. From what I can tell, if you're not looking to pretend to be a bush pilot in an S21, they aren't all that interested in talking to you these days.
 
Just say when

When Vans comes out with their version, they wont know what hit them. 40 gals, o235 to io360, 2 seats, high wing, 200 kt cruise, 25 kt stall speed, lands and takes off in under 100 feet, builds in 500 hours ( slow build). Cost less than 100k with engine.
 
When Vans comes out with their version, they wont know what hit them. 40 gals, o235 to io360, 2 seats, high wing, 200 kt cruise, 25 kt stall speed, lands and takes off in under 100 feet, builds in 500 hours ( slow build). Cost less than 100k with engine.


Now that's funny...

It will be made of Unobtainium...
 
ETA?

Whatever it is, any guesses on when the -15 comes out? Perhaps 2023 when the FAA MOSAIC package is expected?
 
The trouble with electrics is the takeoff weight is the same as the landing weight. Let that sink in a little bit and you will discover what it really means.

I thought about this and it occurred to me that, with regard to training aircraft doing circuits for example, many tens of thousands of take offs and landings are performed with little change in the weight of the aircraft.

So what issue would this actually cause for appropriately designed GA type aircraft?
 
Whatever it is, any guesses on when the -15 comes out? Perhaps 2023 when the FAA MOSAIC package is expected?

Considering the success of the RV-12 (coincidentally using a Rotax 912) I think the -15 would pair nicely with a Rotax 915. Perhaps Vans could do a slight airframe update to the 9/9A, make it with more pulled rivets and final sized holes, and upgraded to the 10/14 front gear. I for one find the -12 might not be enough for my mission, but don't have the budget for the -14. Pilots lucky enough to live in the mountains might really enjoy the turbo engine too.

Depending on MOSAIC rules the -15 with a 915 might fit really well in there.
 
Considering the success of the RV-12 (coincidentally using a Rotax 912) I think the -15 would pair nicely with a Rotax 915. Perhaps Vans could do a slight airframe update to the 9/9A, make it with more pulled rivets and final sized holes, and upgraded to the 10/14 front gear.

I'd buy that and from the looks of things others would too. FWIW.

Not sure how much MOSAIC has to do with their timeline or how much COVID has knocked them off of it. Whatever it is and whenever it comes, it'll be awesome. I'll set the over/under at OSH2022 for the unveiling of the -15.
 
I would love to se a high wing, no strut, 4 place with a tailwheel option. Something like an all metal, flush riveted (solid rivets) sportsman 2+2 and use up to the IO-390. Having a cantilevered strutless wing should have speeds similar to current RVs, perhaps better because high wing aircraft don’t need as much dihedral. Maybe use some slotted Fowler flaps and a little cuff on the leading edge to get the STOL landing slower. Use the one piece grove or Sky designs airfoiled gear for strength.
 
Okay, here's my guess. The RV-10 airframe kit just got an update… it's the sort of customer-focussed action Van's does in the life of product improvement, but I wonder if there's more to it and there's some parts shared with the future -15?

Then there's the new 215hp engine and cowl for the RV-14. Again, great product improvement, but…

So I'll take a guess on an IO-390-EXP-119 powered 4-seater. Not a heavy-hauler like the -10, but something that sits between that design and the -14.

No composite cabin top - it will use a -14 style tip-up canopy and tilt-forward front seats to provide access to a simple four-seat cabin.

While I think the Rotax 915iS is a great engine, I'm not sure it's as good a value proposition as a Lycoming when sold at the Van's OEM deal prices. That said, if Van's had a great OEM deal in the works with Rotax for that engine, then it might pave the way for a bigger -9 style 2+2 aircraft…

Like I say, just a guess :)
 
My guess is the next thing will be a the -16. A tandem using the -14 wing and the newer style kit. Seems in keeping with the sort of small, incremental stuff Vans does.
 
So I'll take a guess on an IO-390-EXP-119 powered 4-seater. Not a heavy-hauler like the -10, but something that sits between that design and the -14.

If you're suggesting a 2+ style four seater like an older Archer or Warrior then I would build and fly the snot out of something like that, and I think a lot of others would do.

An experimental to fill that same mission as an Archer would sell like hot-cakes.
 
The Sling Tsi is already in the small 4 place market with a 915. I realize it is not a Van's product. If they want to build an airplane around the 915, I think a wide cabin, pop rivet construction 2 seater with performance similar to the 9 fits in with Van's formula better than a 2+2 design. The drag penalty from the pop rivets will be a bit less up at altitude or just use the more expensive counter sunk cherry max for highest drag inducing areas.

If they can get the build time close to the same as the 12is with some of the same level of completion options like interior and avionics packages, but with more capability, you could have a winner there.
 
When

I think all the contest entries have been submitted, when are we going to see the winner?

And I think the winner should be eligible to be first in line.
 
I think all the contest entries have been submitted, when are we going to see the winner?

And I think the winner should be eligible to be first in line.


You really don't want to be first in line...........

If you're first in line, you're the BETA tester.

:eek:
 
Late to the discussion

I've read most of the thread. There is a common theme echoed by many. 1) Customer loyalty 2) Van's watches the market 3) Constantly improving the product.

With those thoughts in mind, how many RV owners have something or are building something else like a high wing, a Cub or STOL plane? I know several. It is a wildly popular segment of aviation right now. Most of the planes are relatively simple to build and cost effective. (Unless you get into a Mike Patey type plane)

The S21 has been very popular. I know a couple of guys that built one in under a year. Lots of build issues along the way. As others have said factory support is lacking at best.

So, assuming all three of the qualities mentioned in the opening are considered, I'm going for a simple high wing, 2 place side by side with either a Rotax or up to 360 Lycoming. The plane would be highly engineered to insure a fast build. This type of plane would have improved properties over the S21 with solid company support.

I know lots of RV owners that would love to have a high wing "fun" plane but don't want a Cub, or one of the many off shoots. And, they don't want to learn a new company. The loyalty factor. The existing RV owners are the first market and all others that would like to have something like this but are unsure of the product or the company.

In any event, I just wish they would come out with it!!
 
So, assuming all three of the qualities mentioned in the opening are considered, I'm going for a simple high wing, 2 place side by side with either a Rotax or up to 360 Lycoming. The plane would be highly engineered to insure a fast build. This type of plane would have improved properties over the S21 with solid company support.

I know lots of RV owners that would love to have a high wing "fun" plane but don't want a Cub, or one of the many off shoots. And, they don't want to learn a new company. The loyalty factor. The existing RV owners are the first market and all others that would like to have something like this but are unsure of the product or the company.

I'm relatively new to the Van's world (building since late 2019), but it is quite apparent to me how similar all the Van's planes are. Yes, some are single seat, some are tandem, some are side by side, and some are 2x2 - but the basic design is very similar in all the planes. Low wing. Straight wing. Aluminum. So similar that many of the parts are shared among various models. Heck, the RV-10 and the RV-14 have identical wings, except for the length of the wing. My Aveo wingtips fit either a -10 or -14 since they have the exact same cross section.

My point is that whatever Van's builds next will have the same DNA. Aluminum. Low wing. Straight wing. Single engine. Maybe it will be a sportier 2x2 than the -10, or a bigger -14 with more cargo room, or a stretch version of the -10 for 5 or 6 places. Or a +/-9g version of a single seater for harder acrobatics. But no matter what it is, there is about a 99% chance that it will look like an evolution of some other very successful product.

People hoping for a Van's carbon fiber six seat VTOL 1500 mile range pressurized retractable twin engine jet that can be built with pop rivets in under 500 hours really need to just sell their house and buy a Cirrus Jet or a V-22 Osprey.
 
Last edited:
My point is that whatever Van's builds next will have the same DNA. Aluminum. Low wing. Straight wing. Single engine.

Yep, it is just a matter of what DNA they choose to mutate. Thankfully the kits are becoming easier to assemble and I'm sure the RV-15 will be no exception.

I think the collective anticipation of this thread has built long enough and it is time for Vans to pull up the curtain!
 
How about something with a more advanced wing that is mostly factory built. A tapered wing an eliptical wing or washout in the wing.
 
Loose the pop rivets

As a guy that has worked on more RV-12s than any sane person should, I can say with absolute confidence that the pop rivets are not all they are chocked up to be.

A few months ago I helped a buddy buck rivets (first time!) in the -14 he was working on... piece of cake. It’s really not that hard.

As far as build time check out the differences between the RV-12 and RV-14 and note how close the times are. In my opinion it’s all about the matched hole assembly. (Matched hole RV-3B please!)

Solid rivets look incredibly better and you’ll be thanking yourself during paint when you’re not painstakingly masking around hundreds of rivet heads.

And yeah, nothing yells “I’m captain cheapo” more than a pop riveted airplane.
 
As a guy that has worked on more RV-12s than any sane person should, I can say with absolute confidence that the pop rivets are not all they are chocked up to be.

A few months ago I helped a buddy buck rivets (first time!) in the -14 he was working on... piece of cake. It’s really not that hard.

As far as build time check out the differences between the RV-12 and RV-14 and note how close the times are. In my opinion it’s all about the matched hole assembly. (Matched hole RV-3B please!)

Solid rivets look incredibly better and you’ll be thanking yourself during paint when you’re not painstakingly masking around hundreds of rivet heads.

And yeah, nothing yells “I’m captain cheapo” more than a pop riveted airplane.

I could not agree more!
Carl
 
Captain Cheapo

“I’m captain cheapo” more than a pop riveted airplane.

If saving eighty thousand dollars, hundreds of hours of time, and thousands over the years on fuel by building a -12 over a -14 makes me Captain Cheapo then I'll gladly wear that yoke.

I do, however, wish there was a middle ground between the two in terms of build time, cost, ease of construction and performance. Hopefully the -15 occupies that space.
 
Back
Top