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?)

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

There's no reason that pulled rivets have to be "round-head". They make flush pulled rivets too.
 
LP4-3s are incredibly cheap. When I had to replace some countersunk ones, I ordered the same parts from Aircraft Spruce and they were $.50 a piece for the 12 wing. Be a pretty expensive plane if you had to use cherry max. I don't know if there is a less expensive alternative because the 12 kit came with those.
 
This is exactly what Vans needs to make! A pop riveted RV-9.

It’s time for Vans to get really innovative.
I'm opting for a two seat, pop riveted RV Starship with a pressure proof Sikaflex canopy (what could possibly go wrong there) and dual magnetos (for service anywhere in the galaxy).....with a cruise at the speed of light. As you won’t be able to exceed the cruise speed there will obviously be no need for a VNE speed so that will be a big safety factor. ;)
 
Last edited:
I am sure Van's is looking at the two year backlog for kits from Kitfox.

Thousands of RV pilots are getting to the age where they want to slow down. And be able to emergency land almost anyplace, fold the wings in and call a tow truck.

A high wing allows you more room in your hangar. It is also easier to get into and out of. If you did have a flip over during your -40 mph landing, you would be surrounded with 4130 and have the entire wing surface to help you walk away.

Ease of maintenance. Flip the door up and standing on the ground, have access to masters and the entire FW back and under the panel.

Is there a profit to be had? Go price a Kitfox7 and a RV7.

I think it would be quite a challenge to supply an all metal alternative to the Kitfox 7. But if Van's did..........
I WOULD BE ALL IN.

ps. Van's, Please design it to accommodate at least an O320. Many of us still want to fly a trusted easy to maintain LYC.
 
Last edited:
RV-12 not so cheap

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.

The RV-12 trends on the expensive end of the 2 seat Van’s kits and the Rotax is on par for cost with the average Lycoming so I’m not sure where you are loosing the 80 grand.

Yes, the solid rivets are marginally more labor: more investment = higher return, but like I say, the matched hole fixes a lot of that.

On fuel burn it’s always a trade off. Although I recently completed a cross country in an RV-12 (Oregon to Arizona) and averaged upwards of 5gph and around 90-110 knots ground speed.(Rotax 912ULS, Sesnich fixed pitch) I then flew in the Van’s demo RV-9a - 6gph, 150-160 knots over the ground. (Lycoming O-320, constant speed Hartzell)

Van’s did some testing on the -9 with much lower powered engines like the continental O-200 and 0-235 and it still performs like a champ. Fast. Cheap. (Doesn’t sounds like a lawnmower) this sounds like the plane you are looking for!

Happy flying,
 
12 vs 9 vs 14 vs 15

I agree that the 9 can be built for a similar price as the 12. Higher return though? I can get a used 9 for way less than I could currently build one (with a new engine, RV12 avionics).

I was comparing the 12 and 14 from a cost perspective (big difference) because they seem to be the only two kits within my skill set if I'm going to build. That's why I'd like the -15 to land somewhere between them on cost and build difficulty.

If I went the purchase route I think a used 9a is the best deal out there as a low time pilot and also from a miles per gallon point of view.

In the last few years Vans has released the -14, improved the -12 and is in the process of upgrading the -10 kit. Whatever the -15 is will be distinct from those three and will complete the stable of their next generation offerings.
 
Van’s did some testing on the -9 with much lower powered engines like the continental O-200 and 0-235 and it still performs like a champ. Fast. Cheap. (Doesn’t sounds like a lawnmower) this sounds like the plane you are looking for!

Greetings all,

A friend on the forums kindly pointed out to me that my earlier comment in this thread sounded more derogatory than I had intended so I’d like to clarify.

I prefer the sound of a Lycoming over the Rotax, but that is the only downside I have found flying behind one. (Personal preference) The engine is very reliable, excellent power to weight, and good on fuel. (If you get a FEDEC controlled iS model Rotax... INSANELY efficient on fuel) I think it’s the perfect power plant choice for the RV-12.

Apologies if I misled anyone.
 
A few months ago AOPA published a fly-off where the RV-10 came out ahead of a “similar mission” aircraft. I would very much look forward to such a wing to wing comparison of the RV-15 vs...oh, perhaps the Rans S-21?

Jumping to conclusions here...wouldn’t it be lovely if accurate.
:rolleyes:
 
Van gives a big hint.

Richard Van Grunsven appeared today on a SocialFlight Live Webinar hosted by Jeffrey Simon. When asked by Simon what the future might hold for Vans Aircraft Van's response was interesting. He replied: " There seems to be a desire for simpler flying...for outback flying". I've just given up hope on the RV15 being a pop riveted intergalactic starship. :D
 
Last edited:
Van's response was interesting. He replied: " There seems to be a desire for simpler flying...for outback flying"

That answer did catch my attention and may increase the odds that there could be another RV build in my future. My interest is just what Van described.
I am looking for a simple sport outback flying kit airplane for my next build. Something like the Rans 21 Outback or the Bearhawk Patrol.
 
Last edited:
If the Rotax 915 iS at 141 HP wasn't so expensive compared to a Lycoming 235 or 320, I'd think it's the perfect mate for Van's to offer in a 9A or a newer model, like the 12, but Vne higher rated and more #'s /sq ft of wing, in an AB build. Must have EFIS and ADSB In and Out, in the kit. The airspace on west coast is very busy these days, ADS-B is a safety factor.

Time to build is always a consideration. Pop rivets, if they work, don't smoke and have longevity without failure.
 
Last edited:
If the Rotax 915 iS at 141 HP wasn't so expensive compared to a Lycoming 235 or 320, I'd think it's the perfect mate for Van's to offer in a 9A or a newer model, like the 12, but Vne higher rated and more #'s /sq ft of wing, in an AB build. Must have EFIS and ADSB In and Out, in the kit. The airspace on west coast is very busy these days, ADS-B is a safety factor.

Time to build is always a consideration. Pop rivets, if they work, don't smoke and have longevity without failure.
I wonder if Vans could use their considerable pull in the market to help one or more alternative (and cheaper) engines gain the traction,volume, and track record required to really compete with Lycoming/Continental/Rotax. Aeromomentum, for example, have a FWF kit for the RV-12 and their AM15 engine, so the engineering's been done. And Viking have similar kits.
 
OK when is this thread going to die?

Just saying.

John, I'm not sure why you want to have long running threads permanently closed when it is obvious that people have an interest in the subject and want to keep posting. This is not the first time you've pushed to have a major thread closed. Have you become the self appointed arbiter of when a thread has run its course? I say let the members of VansAirforce decide with their typing fingers when a thread has run its course...when they stop posting the thread will inexorably recede into the archives. There is no need to close any thread that is being conducted in good spirit and does not break any of Doug's rules.

When a thread is permanently closed it is consigned to the graveyard along with all its intrinsic information. People can never revive it by adding comments down the track when further relevant information becomes available or further queries arise.

I think it's bad practice and totally unnecessary for moderators to permanently close threads for whimsical reasons and I trust that they will reject your advice in this instance.
 
Last edited:
John, I'm note sure why you want to have long running threads permanently closed when it is obvious that people have an interest in the subject and want to keep posting. This is not the first time you've pushed to have a major thread closed. Have you become the self appointed arbiter of when a thread has run its course? I say let the members of VansAirforce decide with their typing fingers when a thread has run its course...when they stop posting the thread will inexorably recede into the archives. There is no need to close any thread that is being conducted in good spirit and does not break any of Doug's rules.

When a thread is permanently closed it is consigned to the graveyard along with all its intrinsic information. People can never revive it by adding comments down the track when further relevant information becomes available or further queries arise.

I think it's bad practice and totally unnecessary for moderators to permanently close threads for whimsical reasons and I trust that they will reject your advice in this instance.


Sorry i meant this as a joke. I was setting it up for Vans to say, “ March 2021” but they didnt bite.

Next time when I tell a joke, I will raise my hand. Sorry if I offended anyone, no harm meant.
 
If only the next RV could be a full size hole, pre-punched, and pre-dimpled RV-4 redo.

The perfect seating position, check cowls, rod gear, tip over canopy, awesome visibility over the nose, light weight, and with a modern kit would be a winner. :D
 
Last edited:
Comparison to Rans S21

For those that keep wondering if Vans puts out a plane that may compare to the S21, I can just bet about bet you a year salary that they could do that in their sleep. Speaking from experience, the S21 Outback build process is a bit of nightmare for new builders. I know some folks here that have built planes before have bought the S21 kit and started to make great progress because they have experience building, but for new builders I think it's a huge challenge. The kit starts out strong and moves quickly but once the big items are built, progress comes to a crawl. The instructions and illustrations don't hold a candle to Vans, not even some of the earlier RV models. When you call for support, if you aren't on the "friends list", then you better prepared to be practically ridiculed for asking your question. How dare you ask a question that is clearly in the illustration drawn by a 5th grader... well that's what it looks like anyway. We've even asked to go to the factory and see some of their own build in hopes to answer our own questions, but it seems thats too much to ask too.... It was suggestion that we come during their "fly-in" with hundreds of others...no thanks.(sorry didn't mean to go down that rat trap)

I'm just saying, if Vans comes out with a high wing, STOL capable plane and went after the Cub, KitFox, Rans market, it would be game over for a couple of them, I truly believe that. If they release an all metal high wing and specifically went after the S21 market, well I think we all know what would happen.

I knew the the RVs were incredible airplanes which is why I looked and looked until I found a good build, because I didn't want to spend time building, just wanted to enjoy flying one. I bought the plans for my RV so I could better understand how to modify and maintain the plane. I expected to find details that are in the plans and never thought much about it until I started looking at another kit from a different company. Wow what a difference.

Net Net, If Vans releases a high wing STOL plane, I don't care what they call it.. RV15, RV16, RV18, RV21, whatever... I'm putting in my order that day.
 
I am nearing completion of my S21 and am a first time builder. (My RV10 I bought flying) I disagree that it is especially hard for a first time builder but agree that the plans can be lacking in detail compared to Vans. I have the full build instructions for the 10 for comparison. Randy himself handles the S21 support calls which is both good and bad. You get to talk directly to the designer for support but his personality can be a bit off-putting at times. He can sometimes treat your questions as no big deal but far from the ridicule of your concerns. And improvements are being made to the kits all the time. A current kit has many changes that make the build go better/faster than my early kit. YMMV
 
We went out to RANS to evaluate the S21 before placing an order for a kit. The airplane flies absolutely beautifully. I was extremely impressed, and my bar is extremely high, considering I have owned and flown two different RVs.

The parts quality so far has been excellent. The parts are machined instead of punched, so edge quality is great and minimal deburring has been required thus far.

RANS is building these as ready to fly SLSA aircraft also, so since there are always new ones being constructed at the factory, we builders benefit from a constantly evolving and improving kit.

The instructions are different than those that VANS provides, as you have to flip back and forth between several manuals. However, this is just a different mindset to get used to when building.

In addition, there is aftermarket product support for builders looking to customize their aircraft. Aerosport is building some beautiful products for this aircraft, and we are working on a variety of different fuel system options.

I am certain that the RV-15 will be a great aircraft, whatever iteration it ends up being in the final version. We don't yet know if it will be high wing, low wing, speed, bushplane, etc.....

However, the S21 is available for sale now. There is a reason that it has exploded in popularity, and is worth giving a very close look to even if other options become available.
 
It looks like I'm in the minority:
I want a 3 or 4-place XC machine like the RV-10
But that's been designed for a JET-A reciprocating engine.
Because right now, there's nothing like that on the market. (You may argue the DA40NG fits that, but there's nothing in the _experimental_ segment)
That can be built to meet the certification level of "flight through known icing." There's very few experimentals I've seen with as much de-ice capability as the DA-62. (if any. And I mean to say "Designed with it in mind, supported by Vans, and included in the plans "as applicable" ")
...long story short I want a DA-62, but I've only got RV-money. (and no multi-engine) or more specifically, I want to build a great plane, and then perform minimal maintenance. Lead just causes so many issues I'm not interested in learning about.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I'm stuck between a Glastar and an RV9A but the availability of local build help is what has me on the Vans side as well as the difficulty finding a good deal on a Glastar kit since it is out of production.

If Vans would build an all aluminum bird that would perform like a Glastar they would really put a dent in Kitfox, Rans, and Murphy business.
 
Honestly I'm stuck between a Glastar and an RV9A but the availability of local build help is what has me on the Vans side as well as the difficulty finding a good deal on a Glastar kit since it is out of production.

If Vans would build an all aluminum bird that would perform like a Glastar they would really put a dent in Kitfox, Rans, and Murphy business.

They did! The RV-9 (original was a tri-gear, it wasn't intended to offer as a tailwheel) was Vans answer to the original 2 seat Glastar. The Glastar originally had a C-152 engine (O-235) and Vans decided they could design/build a better airplane. The RV-9 has a higher cruise, and lower landing speed with the same engine as the Glastar. The original Glastar performed poorly on the O-235 and they kept putting bigger and bigger engines in it to get better performance. The RV-9 was offered with the O-235 and O-320 engines although most are built with the O-320.

Check the performance specs with the same engine.
 
There is the Sling TSI high wing in development that will compete in this space. Mojogrip has a interview on YouTube with the designer. Designed around the 915 with a pre done Carbon Fiber main fuselage section and the rest is metal. It will have a tail wheel version.
 
They did! The RV-9 (original was a tri-gear, it wasn't intended to offer as a tailwheel) was Vans answer to the original 2 seat Glastar. The Glastar originally had a C-152 engine (O-235) and Vans decided they could design/build a better airplane. The RV-9 has a higher cruise, and lower landing speed with the same engine as the Glastar. The original Glastar performed poorly on the O-235 and they kept putting bigger and bigger engines in it to get better performance. The RV-9 was offered with the O-235 and O-320 engines although most are built with the O-320.

Check the performance specs with the same engine.

I think you are mixing the Glastar with the Glasair. The Glastar is the high wing, STOL, 2 seat, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage covered in a fiberglass shell. it evolved into the sportsman that has a 4 seats and the kit/completion costs grew significantly
 
There is the Sling TSI high wing in development that will compete in this space. Mojogrip has a interview on YouTube with the designer. Designed around the 915 with a pre done Carbon Fiber main fuselage section and the rest is metal. It will have a tail wheel version.

I'm not a fan of the Rotax 915 at 37k for 141hp at 186lbs. Thats big motor money for one that really doesn't do a whole lot more than say a UL350is at 22K for 130hp at 173lb. Unless you're at high DA and need the forced induction. Too spendy a powerplant for my budget.
 
I think you are mixing the Glastar with the Glasair. The Glastar is the high wing, STOL, 2 seat, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage covered in a fiberglass shell. it evolved into the sportsman that has a 4 seats and the kit/completion costs grew significantly

No I am not. The 2 seat high wing Glastar was one of the aircraft that inspired the RV-9. Yes I know, high wing vs low wing, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage with fiberglass shell vs all aluminum structure. Each company used its own design philosophy. At the time of introduction of the Glastar, Vans looked at it and decided they could build a better airplane to compete with it. And they did.
 
No I am not. The 2 seat high wing Glastar was one of the aircraft that inspired the RV-9. Yes I know, high wing vs low wing, aluminum wing, steel tube fuselage with fiberglass shell vs all aluminum structure. Each company used its own design philosophy. At the time of introduction of the Glastar, Vans looked at it and decided they could build a better airplane to compete with it. And they did.

I'm not quite sure that I see where they compete other than 2 seats and at the time of the Glastar, similar price points. I haven't seen a single RV9 on floats(one of the leading design goals of the Glastar) or landing in the backcountry. Yes the RV9 is faster but it has 150lb less baggage weight capacity and 100lb less full fuel payload.

They are both great airplanes but they have very different missions. I think Vans could design a great plane with a mission similar to the Glastar and if they did I would build it.
 
I love the Glastar. They are reasonably fast, MUCH EASIER to get in and out of - especially if upside down, carry more, and land 10mph slower than the 9 I just finished. It is a great plane and if Vans could come up with something similar, I would be very interested. If I could still buy a Glastar kit, I probably would.

With the Rans 21 and Kitfox getting so expensive, it would be nice to have a Vans high wing with similar specs.
 
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe.

4. Ease of entrance and egress (added after the comments in post #640 and on).

The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.

Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.

Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying
 
Last edited:
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe.

The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.

Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.

Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying

1. More clearance in the hangar with the wings folded and still room for your current RV aircraft.... it's not getting sold!

2. Flying slow, you are more likely to look down.... No wing there= better visibility.

3. Struts allow a lighter wing (main spar) and allows the wings to be removed with the simple removal of a very few bolts. It also allows the wings to be folded back for storage or transportation.

You are looking at a 120 mph aircraft. Most likely have BIG tires and will be very draggy. So strut drag is just part of the design. This is a slow landing, slow flying aircraft. And is not intended to compete with the RV9. Two different aircraft, two different missions.
 
Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe....

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave,

You missed one BIG issue - ease of getting in and out. A high-wing design offers a certain ease of entry and exit that no low-wing airplane can offer. This goes for loading people as well as baggage. This is especially true with a cockpit/canopy design of the RV-9 (and any other RV other than the -10). You don't have to climb UP and out of a high-wing design. You just step out.

More than a few potential customers, especially those who were on the older end of the age spectrum, found this to be an issue when I worked at Sonex. The old legs and body don't really care to have to lift/stand UP to get out. Getting in (assuming stepping up on the wing wasn't an issue in the first place) wasn't a problem. Getting OUT was.

Add that to the look-down benefit (which is my personal reason for liking high-wing better) gives a clear advantage to the high-wing configuration for many pilots.
 
Egress

Just wondering something.... what's the appeal of a high wing? I only see these factors:

1. More ground clearance in a crosswind.

2. Potentially better visibility.

3. With struts, a lighter airframe.

The visibility of the RV-12 is considerably better than ANY high wing airplane I've flown over the last 56 years, including mine. If visibility were a major factor please tell the manufacturers that.

Yes, #1 is a real factor, but can be addressed easily enough in the design process, so it doesn't by itself govern.

Yes, #3 is a real factor, but so many of the experimental airplanes I've seen or heard of are overweight, tarted up with goodies, that this can't be a driving reason.

So what is it, folks? I'm honestly curious.

Dave
RV-3B now working on the canopy
Cessna 180 flying

Add for high wing:

4. Easier to get into and out of, and load/unload.

5. Sit in the shade both in the air and outside on the ground.

6. Less risk of getting trapped upside down if it flips in a crash.
 
There are excellent folding wing designs for cantilevered low-wing designs. Look at U.S. WW II carrier aircraft for examples. Pull a pin or flip a lever and push the wing back.

As I mentioned above, the RV-12 has better visibility than any, repeat any, of the high-wing aircraft that I've flown, and I've flown a bunch of them. So it can quite clearly be accomplished. Still, if you really want good visibility, the engine can't be in your line of sight, although the RV-12 does a pretty decent job of making that a non-factor.

I'll add ease of entry and exit, since that's a valid point.

Personally, I wouldn't expect that Van's would have a 120 mph kit for sale unless it were something to broaden their entry into the LSA market, such as tandem or taildragger RV-12 derivative. The sort of airplane that's been debated in this thread accepts those speeds but probably would not be in that current weight class. As has been pointed out, there's a lot of competition is that Supercub class. If it came from Van's, I'd expect a faster cruise speed.

Dave
 
Add for high wing:

4. Easier to get into and out of, and load/unload.

5. Sit in the shade both in the air and outside on the ground.

6. Less risk of getting trapped upside down if it flips in a crash.


7. Ability to enter and exit the aircraft in heavy rain without getting drowned...or getting the interior soaked. An advantage not to be underestimated.

8. Vastly superior wing clearance in off-field or forced landings.

Personally I don't think a low wing aircraft ticks the crucial boxes for a bush plane. I would be very surprised if Vans would design such a folly.
 
Last edited:
Van's is sitting and waiting for the new LSA rules..............

Van, make it tall enough to walk under the wing and not get the Cessna forehead tattoo.
 
Last edited:
Speed is key

Vans has a winner with the RV9 in the sense that is has a slow stall speed but a high cruise speed. I hope Vans doesnt change this total performance. But a tall gear is fine except if it slows the plane down, I would take the higher cruise and the “Cessna Stars” anyday. Just gotta learn to duck.
 
I'm not a fan of the Rotax 915 at 37k for 141hp at 186lbs. Thats big motor money for one that really doesn't do a whole lot more than say a UL350is at 22K for 130hp at 173lb. Unless you're at high DA and need the forced induction. Too spendy a powerplant for my budget.

The main advantage to the turbo is getting to keep that 141hp up to cruise altitude and having a fuel efficient motor when you get there. If we are comparing apples to apples with a RV-9 with a brand new IO-320, I don't think the cost delta will be that large.

The UL power engines are very impressive. When I picked the RV-12is project, the other choice for me was a Zenith 750 cruiser with the UL 350. I like the idea of a modern ECU controlled purpose built engine.
 
John S, according to that table https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=182926&highlight=Comparison+table speed ratio wise places the -9 in 3rd position...

-3B with 4.06
-4 with 3.93
-9 with 3.92
-8 with 3.81
Etc.

All those being taildraggers.
The worst of all, a nose dragger:
-12 with 2.96

As a personal note, I’m no fan of the -9, but having a speed ratio as large as possible for a future aircraft will always be a plus.
Looking at the history of Van’s models, the contrary is happening...
 
Last edited:
RV-8 Plus

Having just gone through the process of engine selection for my RV-8, I selected the IO-390 despite cons of weight, forward cg, etc,etc....however, I do not appear to be alone as others on this forum are also going through this process of engine selection. I just had an epiphany! What if Van’s developed an RV-8 “plus” kit to help offset some of the cons associated with using this engine. Maybe a shorter engine mount, cowl mods, other ways to move the cg aft that would restore the good handling of the O/IO-360 equipped 8’s. I am already making adjustments to help with cg like aft mounted battery, Sky Designs alum gear (saves 15 lbs), Hartzell composite prop (Saves 10-15 lbs), anything else that might help. I believe Van’s might have a market for this.
 
Having just gone through the process of engine selection for my RV-8, I selected the IO-390 despite cons of weight, forward cg, etc,etc....however, I do not appear to be alone as others on this forum are also going through this process of engine selection. I just had an epiphany! What if Van’s developed an RV-8 “plus” kit to help offset some of the cons associated with using this engine. Maybe a shorter engine mount, cowl mods, other ways to move the cg aft that would restore the good handling of the O/IO-360 equipped 8’s. I am already making adjustments to help with cg like aft mounted battery, Sky Designs alum gear (saves 15 lbs), Hartzell composite prop (Saves 10-15 lbs), anything else that might help. I believe Van’s might have a market for this.

I would be first in line for this.
 
Back
Top