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?)

LOL.

I'd prefer a Cub-like Van's a/c, but I'd be happy with ANY high wing STOL Van's a/c that I could fly in the hot summer with the windows open in the shade.

;^)

I get you! Van's quality is something to behold!

After I sold my '41 Tcraft I found out you could fly it without the doors on. Had I known that, I would probably still be flying it!

There seems to be a lot of growth in the bush plane market. I liken it to people who buy Jeeps, not because they go offroading but because they can go offroading.

Jay and I were talking about something that can use any four cylinder engine, same as the -7 (150 to 210 hp) with a back seat, if you want. Somewhat down market from the -10 but would allow you to take some friend to dinner or you and a buddy and ALL the camping gear you can stuff in it.

The option of building it with a nose or tailwheel would really increase the market size as you would get all the 172 pilots out there who insist on a highwing AND you would get the wilderness pilots (Alaska and Canada) who need station wagon but either can't afford a 180 or can't find one that isn't trashed.

If Van's came out with that, I would order the tail kit today!

Just my $.02.
 
Hold out

I am still holding out hope for a Vans version of the Wittman Tailwind but with large flaps for high spped cruise and STOL.
 
As I work in my 12is and went shopping for a flying solid rivet plane (7A, 10) I keep coming back around to how many kits would be sold with a pop rivet wide body update of the 9. The 12is is so documented and step by step. The one draw back is the performance and weight limits to keep it LSA. Take that away and set it up for the 915. Yes, it won?t be as fast as the 180-210hp models, but it will build in 1000 hours and do speed up at altitude. Maybe use countersunk pop rivets where the drag matters.

I know the Sling products compete in this space, but you are not likely to find a untapped market in 2 seat kit planes that is viable.
 
Faster to build is the trend

Some Carbon Cubs are being built in 500 hours or less by repeat builders now - including fabric. The quality of those kits is amazing!

Vans is on the right track to keep working towards easier/faster to build - whether its a re-tooled RV-8,9 or 10 or a clean sheet, high wing STOL aircraft or something else. Many people just don't have as much time to dedicate to building as they once may have (virus notwithstanding!)

Vans has an area reserved at the Aurora State Airport for future expansion. Factory RV-12 production? Two-week-to-taxi program? More pre-assembly and faster quickbuild production? Can't wait to see what's next!

http://southendcorporateairpark.com/hangar/build-to-suit/
 
I get you! Van's quality is something to behold!

After I sold my '41 Tcraft I found out you could fly it without the doors on. Had I known that, I would probably still be flying it!

There seems to be a lot of growth in the bush plane market. I liken it to people who buy Jeeps, not because they go offroading but because they can go offroading.

Jay and I were talking about something that can use any four cylinder engine, same as the -7 (150 to 210 hp) with a back seat, if you want. Somewhat down market from the -10 but would allow you to take some friend to dinner or you and a buddy and ALL the camping gear you can stuff in it.

The option of building it with a nose or tailwheel would really increase the market size as you would get all the 172 pilots out there who insist on a highwing AND you would get the wilderness pilots (Alaska and Canada) who need station wagon but either can't afford a 180 or can't find one that isn't trashed.

If Van's came out with that, I would order the tail kit today!

Just my $.02.

If the next RV was basically the same mission as a C-180, I'd be one of the first to order a kit and I'm almost positive my bearhawk would be sold afterwards.

The no useful load cub market is saturated. Above that in the maule/180 realm on the experimental side there's The super rebel/moose which is a good bit bigger, the bearhawk and the wildly overpriced and also no useful load sportsman. The bearhawk and murphys have support and difficultly of build issues. Something as refined as an RV would take the vast majority of that market.
 
Last edited:
If the next RV was basically the same mission as a C-180, I'd be one of the first to order a kit and I'm almost positive my bearhawk would be sold afterwards.

The no useful load cub market is saturated. Above that in the maule/180 realm on the experimental side there's The super rebel/moose which is a good bit bigger, the bearhawk and the wildly overpriced and also no useful load sportsman. The bearhawk and murphys have support and difficultly of build issues. Something as refined as an RV would take the vast majority of that market.

What kind of difficulties?
 
What kind of difficulties?

The Murphy basically doesn't have factory support. They won't answer or return a phone call. Even if you want to buy a kit. The guys that used to own it are doing a thing with them, but they're not the factory.

The bearhawk Qb kit is a glorified pile of metal with no instructions in comparison to an RV kit. If you don't have significant fabrication and intuition on how things should go you'll have all kinds of issues. There more or less isn't a build manual. Just a few documents that a couple other guys have put together that kind of show how a bunch of it goes, certainly not all of it. The "plans" don't even match what you get 100%. And then you'll be putting something together and ask why it doesn't fit. Turns out it's a known issue but published nowhere.
It's a good airplane, but not remotely for the first time builder or someone not well involved in aircraft maintenance and fabrication.
Also, if you don't personally buy the kit from the factory, the factory won't be of much help or support - their policy. This means second hand kits and buying a flying airplane are both mostly unsupported.
There's a reason there's not 100s of them out there and it's not because it's a bad airplane.
 
You'd save time and money if you simply bought a C-180 in that case.

Dave
RV-3B working on the canopy
C-180 flying

Ya but then I'd have a 60 year old certified airplane. Something I really don't ever want.
And by the time it's ready to do real bush duty I wouldn't be a penny ahead in the cost of mods. Also the gear boxes.
Also, I don't want van's to build me a 180 kit. I want something with the same mission profile. 4 seats, 1000lbs useful, 230-260hp, high wing, tailwheel, built to take some abuse, float fittings, 130-140mph cruise, 40mph stall, 7 hours of fuel gross weight takeoff in less than 500ft. All aluminum quickbuild.
 
Last edited:
You'd save time and money if you simply bought a C-180 in that case.

Dave
RV-3B working on the canopy
C-180 flying
180's are either really in poor shape (ridden hard and put up wet) or are in showroom condition. Either way, they are overpriced for what you get. .

What kind of difficulties?
A friend built a Murphy Super Rebel, while a good (not great) flying airplane, he laughs at one line in the instructions which apparently read, "Now would be a good time to think about a fuel system." No instructions, nothing. He contacted an engineer at Cessna who described the 289's fuel system and all the changes they made over the years. In addition, the kit wasn't well sorted out and he had to fabricate a number of himself, without drawings.
 
Cessna fuel system...

When they built the 172, they started with the fuel valve and built the airplane around it...Ask anyone who has had to replace or repair that valve!
 
What has the highest market share

While I admit that if Van?s developed a Cessna 180 clone, I?d probably be one of the first getting a tail kit. But what kind of airplane is going to tap into the biggest market share?

Look at the difference between a RV 7,8,9 and the RV 10 in overall price for the builder. It?s a decent jump, and that alone weeds some people out.

Vans whole business is built on this concept. It took some time for the RV 10 to be made, a decision Van himself had a hard time getting behind. While it?s successful, it wasn?t the first in the lineage, but part of the natural progression.

The 2 place STOL market is huge, with lots of competition. But if you make a better mouse trap in a market that big, $$$$$.

Honestly I think whatever they do will be a success!

Randy
8A 0-360 Dual PMags 9.5 to 1?s Catto 3 Blade
 
If the next RV was basically the same mission as a C-180, I'd be one of the first to order a kit.....

You'd save time and money if you simply bought a C-180 in that case.

I owned a Cessna 180 for 22 years. Wonderful airplane. But I sold it because I got tired of having to scrounge for parts, pay dearly for them when I found them, and always wondering when the next AD would come along.

That's the beauty of a homebuilt "180". Brand new airplane, open source parts, and way less chance of a wallet-draining AD cropping up.

The Rans S-21 is really appealing, but for some reason it's just not quite "there" for me, if you catch my drift. A Van's product might just be the ticket.
 
Homebuilt 180....yeah, its called the Dream Tundra. All metal, hauls a bunch, pre-punched, quick build options.... Big engine on it and have fun. Perfect, huh? Well, they sold 38 kits before they basically went fallow - lots of advertising, but they just didn’t sell. Yup, we’ve had some issues with ours, but that’s because there have only been a few built - first adopters always find the problems - you have to sell a few thousand to make them trouble free. But where are all the buyers that would “buy a tail kit today”?

Truth is, if you want one, the entire program is up for sale - I was told that for $600K, you can have all the rights, parts, IP, a complete slow build kit, a complete QB kit, and one flying airplane! Maybe Van’s just needs to go shopping for the RV-15, what with the demand and all.... ;)

The airplane kit business is...complicated....
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think whatever they do will be a success!

It certainly will - because Vans will be very careful to roll out a model that will be in demand, not something that already has 27 variants in the market.
 
Homebuilt 180....yeah, its called the Dream Tundra. All metal, hauls a bunch, pre-punched, quick build options.... Big engine on it and have fun. Perfect, huh? Well, they sold 38 kits before they basically went fallow - lots of advertising, but they just didn’t sell. Yup, we’ve had some issues with ours, but that’s because there have pinky been a few built - first adopters always find the problems - you have to sell a few thousand to make them trouble free. But where are all the buyers that would “buy a tail kit today”?

Truth is, if you want one, the entire program is up for sale - I was told that for $600K, you can have all the rights, parts, IP, a complete slow build kit, a complete QB kit, and one flying airplane! Maybe Van’s just needs to go shopping for the RV-15, what with the demand and all.... ;)

The airplane it business is...complicated....

I looked at the tundra before I started my build but they were already more or less gone at that time. The issue it has is it's around 250-300lbs less useful load than a 180. That's a lot. It's also down 30-50hp.

There's only 2 airplanes currently in the 180 market. Not a single 2 seat bush plane will do what a 180 does. They're not in the same category.
 
The Murphy Moose is currently the only real option out there. Good performance especially with the O-540. Build price comparable to RV-10.

The two place option, the Rebel has a huge following in Canada and performs well on floats. They also have the Radical ? you?ve probably seen it as the bicycle carrier.

But, forget your 200 mph cross country speeds. My Super Rebel (precursor to the Moose) flies comfortably at 145 mph no matter the load. It also performs very well at KPSO, elevation 7660 ft. I?m generally at 10K plus when leaving the pattern. Mine is O540-A1D5 carburated. 1650 empty and 3000 GW. The Moose is rated to 3500 GW and has approx another 110 # metal in airframe.

Just don?t expect the customer service you get from Vans. It?s a much smaller company but has been around a long time. Vans should consider a Murphy acquisition.
 
The Murphy Moose is currently the only real option out there. Good performance especially with the O-540. Build price comparable to RV-10.

The two place option, the Rebel has a huge following in Canada and performs well on floats. They also have the Radical ? you?ve probably seen it as the bicycle carrier.

But, forget your 200 mph cross country speeds. My Super Rebel (precursor to the Moose) flies comfortably at 145 mph no matter the load. It also performs very well at KPSO, elevation 7660 ft. I?m generally at 10K plus when leaving the pattern. Mine is O540-A1D5 carburated. 1650 empty and 3000 GW. The Moose is rated to 3500 GW and has approx another 110 # metal in airframe.

Just don?t expect the customer service you get from Vans. It?s a much smaller company but has been around a long time. Vans should consider a Murphy acquisition.

That is a good aircraft. I wrote this article for KitPlanes on one.

While a good plane, there are a few issues that I'm sure Van's could address; 1. The engine, it takes and expensive six cylinder engine and as the owner of that plane said, the cost of an IO-540 was less than an O-360 when he started building. Then Van's announced the RV-10 and the cost of the IO-540 jumped $10K over night. That's why I advocate more of a 170 sized plane that can use any engine from 150 hp to 210 hp, similar to the RV-7.

2. The builder support isn't that great and they only do batch production runs. Meaning they wait until they have X number of orders before the churn out kits.

3. As mentioned above, because so few are built, each one is slightly different. I spoke to one writer for the magazine and he said he had flown three different SR2500's and each flew differently. This was because they made slight changes with each kit. (I know my friend replaced the aileron bell cranks because they came out with a new design.)

This comes down to "trust" and the kit plane market trusts Van's to put a well engineered, fully documented, and easy to build kit. Heck, even the single digit kit's are better documented than many of their competitors, despite some builders requesting step-by-step instructions like on the double digit kits.
 
If you want to blow your stimulus check

And even better still....

A gyrocopter...with a Subaru auto conversion. :D

If you want to blow your stimulus check, just send it to Steinair and tell them it is for whatever I need. Let me spell my name for you so you get it right......
 
The Murphy Moose is currently the only real option out there. Good performance especially with the O-540. Build price comparable to RV-10.

The two place option, the Rebel has a huge following in Canada and performs well on floats. They also have the Radical — you’ve probably seen it as the bicycle carrier.

But, forget your 200 mph cross country speeds. My Super Rebel (precursor to the Moose) flies comfortably at 145 mph no matter the load. It also performs very well at KPSO, elevation 7660 ft. I’m generally at 10K plus when leaving the pattern. Mine is O540-A1D5 carburated. 1650 empty and 3000 GW. The Moose is rated to 3500 GW and has approx another 110 # metal in airframe.

Just don’t expect the customer service you get from Vans. It’s a much smaller company but has been around a long time. Vans should consider a Murphy acquisition.

The problem I had with Murphy when I was looking at kits is there was nothing I could do to get them to answer or return my phone call. To talk about buying a kit. I had to conclude that it is a more or less orphaned design and I didn't want the hassle that comes with that by looking for a partially built as it was clear there was no way I'd get a new kit.

That is a good aircraft. I wrote this article for KitPlanes on one.

While a good plane, there are a few issues that I'm sure Van's could address; 1. The engine, it takes and expensive six cylinder engine and as the owner of that plane said, the cost of an IO-540 was less than an O-360 when he started building. Then Van's announced the RV-10 and the cost of the IO-540 jumped $10K over night. That's why I advocate more of a 170 sized plane that can use any engine from 150 hp to 210 hp, similar to the RV-7.
A really good experimental 170B already exists, it's called the glasair sportsman. The original or the 2+2. And they are popular. A four place with a load neither of them are though. The +2 part is 2 small children. Just like a 170.
 
Last edited:
...
A really good experimental 170B already exists, it's called the glasair sportsman. The original or the 2+2. And they are popular. A four place with a load neither of them are though. The +2 part is 2 small children. Just like a 170.
No, the Sportsman is not an RV and it takes an IO-390 engine and a CS prop, both of which are stupid expensive. For the price of an IO-390, you might as well put in an IO-540.

Bush planes need to be dirt simple, preferably with a carb as they are easy to maintain in the bush.

That's why I stipulated any engine from 150 hp to 210 hp. Then those who want to put in an O-320 with a FP prop can do and so can those who put in an IO-390 and CS prop can do it, if they want.

The cost of entry for some of the new kits, while selling well, are leaving a lot of people behind. My fear is that Van's is going the way of LancAir.
 
No, the Sportsman is not an RV and it takes an IO-390 engine and a CS prop, both of which are stupid expensive. For the price of an IO-390, you might as well put in an IO-540.

Bush planes need to be dirt simple, preferably with a carb as they are easy to maintain in the bush.

That's why I stipulated any engine from 150 hp to 210 hp. Then those who want to put in an O-320 with a FP prop can do and so can those who put in an IO-390 and CS prop can do it, if they want.

The cost of entry for some of the new kits, while selling well, are leaving a lot of people behind. My fear is that Van's is going the way of LancAir.

I'm quite aware a sportsman is not an RV. That's what I called it a glasair. The original version took an O-320, the newer one takes a 320 360 or 390.
Mission wise, it's the same as a 170B though. Only a bit better. Not a 180 though. I'm just saying there's no reason to go make another plane with the same exact mission as a sportsman. It already exists and it's doing well.

And the easy to maintain a carb and mags in the bush is just a bunch of bs. I operate in the bush and if I need a carb or a mag overhauled literally no one stocks parts and they have to be ordered or the unit sent off. Even the local aircraft spruce has become pretty bad at stocking things. You're actually wildly more likely to be able to get a coil pack for an SDS system in an Alaskan village at the auto parts store then you are anything at all for a magneto. And you're not going to find anything for a carb or injection. You're just sol. Get the inreach out and have a buddy fly parts out. A fuel servo is no more difficult to swap then a carb.
Weather run you out of fuel and you had to land at a village strip? Well there's no 100LL at virtually any of them. Better be able to dial the timing back to run 87 or you'll be paying someone to ferry avgas to you.
 
Last edited:
STOL mentioned during Van?s webinar.

Anybody else notice how many times STOL was mentioned during the EAA webinar the other day with Vans Aircraft? Hmmmm
 
I found this on an thread from 2016.

This is pretty much what Jay Pratt and I have been discussing, only it needs a backseat.

Doesn't it exist? lol

RV%2BBush%2B2.jpg
 
RV-15

+1 for a 6 seater. I sold my Cherokee Six, bought an RV-8, and now looking for another Cherokee Six/Saratoga/Bonanza A36... or build an RV-15.:)
 
+1 for a 6 seater. I sold my Cherokee Six, bought an RV-8, and now looking for another Cherokee Six/Saratoga/Bonanza A36... or build an RV-15.:)

Think of all the planes that take 4 adults + golfclubs or camping gear on weekend getaways.
 
RV-15

If Van's won't do a Bush type plane, then do something that will haul a$$. Look at the Bellanca SkyRocket II. Back in the late 70's they came out with that 6 seater and it smoked. Of course you can't run a GTSIO-520 and make 435hp for very long and expect it to last. However, the newer IO-580's can make around 400hp and probably weight less than the Cont. IT would be expensive but man is that an airplane that can haul a load and go fast in style! Do an aluminum lower canoe and an upper fiberglass top like the RV-10 to get the curves right. A metal wing and tail. IT would cost 200k to build but what airplane out there can carry 6 adults, go 1400 miles and do 330mph? Turbo A36 or Saratoga? Nope. Malibu? Close. You are getting into turbine territory and we know that is over 750k.....
 
GTSIO-520

I had a C-421 with the GTSIO engines. According to one of the designers of that engine, it was DESIGNED to be run hard. Babying that engine is worse.

I flew that 421 to TBO and the guy that bought the airplane flew it 900 hours PAST TBO with no issues...
 
I love my F1 EVO. I bet Vans could sell a lot of them if they wanted to. Awesome airplane and lands easier than my 200 hp 7 did. Flat gets it on especially at altitude
 
Thinking about the evolution of the line of airplanes from Mr. V, I see it this way:
The RV-3 was a game changer for performance in a (very) personal airplane. Conventional construction of monocoque aluminum and a trusty Lycoming. People loved it so much Dick had to design something that could share the fun...enter the -4.
Never one to accept the status quo, he knew folks really wanted a side-by-side seating configuration and some even wanted a wheel up front instead of a tailwheel. Enter the -6/6A.
I view the -7/7A as a refinement upon the 6. More vertical area in the empennage group for better spin recovery, slightly different ship dimensions etc. A real winner.
Ultimately people were starting to realize there wasn't much room for error in an aft loaded -4 for aerobatics (you know, with a friend back there or something). Dick must've realized that these airplanes were truly being used per his vision to craft an all-around ship. So the -8/8A was a natural progression to expand upon the market for an aerobatic tandem with truly useable cross country capability.
At this point I see a pattern or even an organizational chart of really just a couple of core concepts that are then refined or scaled up. The -4 and -8 in the tandem camp, the -6 and -7 in the shoulder-rubbing camp.
The -9 stands out to me as a pretty apparent clue as to the things Dick pays attention to in the market. Certainly you could use any of these airplanes for real traveling, but there must have been substantial data that pushed him to design the -9 to be a traveling machine and opting not to make it aerobatic like every single design to that point. There must've been a serious cadre of pilots looking for a ship to use for A to B that didn't want to play fighter pilot on the weekend. They wanted to get to their weekend destination and do other things.
Expanding on that very concept, it was perfectly sound decision making (IMHO) to develop the -10. The market was sick of overpaying for 40 and 50 year old "four seaters" that were beleaguered by parts availability issues and weren't really capable of taking four realistic people on board with enough fuel to go anywhere with bags. So he pulled the pin on that grenade and offered a real serious 4-place.
Keeping up with the times, the -12 seems a bit more of a jump onto the bandwagon to me. Get in while the getting is good when the whole light sport thing came about. Could write a whole article on why light sport doesn't even matter anymore, but I digress.
So when the -14/14A was introduced in 2012 (I think) it was more of an evolution than anything. Dick hadn't revisited the side-by-side aerobatic plan form since the -7/7A. It was just simply time for an update in that sector.
What I think people love about Vans (among many many other things) is that the designs are truly representative of what people actually want. They listen to their customers. So certainly it made sense to design something with a little more room, some refinements in airframe, and bringing the build process into the modern era with as much CNC smarts as possible. A truly streamlined build process. I think the 14 was used as an opportunity for the company to gain competencies in-house more than it was to offer something new.

So now that the competencies have been honed, the question is: show a little love to the tandem category again, to the side-by-side group, or an update of the load hauler -10? Personally, I think the hype of the bush plane sector is exactly that: hype. There are a TON of options in the kit world for bush planes. Bearhawk, Glasair Sportsman/Glastar, Kitfox, Highlander, Zenith, an a$$ load of Cub spin-offs, and more. Frankly, I don't see why Dick would want to compete in that market since his design ethos is monocoque and those are all tube steel or composite with the exception of the Zenith. The customers looking for a rugged bush machine aren't likely willing to pony up the coin to cover the cost of engineering and manufacturing a kit from Vans with all the high-end CNC capability.

I'm skeptical we'll see a clean-sheet design in a new market area rather than a refinement of an existing plan form.

Since we've seen Vans go after certified airplane segments with good success, my prediction is that they will take a stab at the kneecaps of the "high performance" singles that cost $1mil (looking at you, Cirrus). A refinement of the -10 with advancements in the build process, options for turbocharging, o2 system, and maybe even ice protection.

But even more likely...

Remember how they actually tested the -14/14A airframe to the drop standards of FAR 23?? When was the last time someone brought a certified two-place airplane to market? The overwhelming opinion of people with 4-seaters is that they only ever use the front two seats 90%+ of the time. Maybe the number of people that are more interested in flying vs building have finally convinced Vans to offer a factory-built option. A certified -14/14A would actually be a smart offering to get people out of those ratty old 182s, Mooneys, and Bonanzas and into something zero-time, with bountiful parts support, modern avionics, and a resale value that isn't predicated upon the old owner's insistence that their airplane is worth more than they paid for it. I wouldn't put it past them to have actually done the same testing on the -10 but kept it hush hush. So a factory-built -10 might come to fruition as well or instead.

Sure is fun to think about. But I definitely don't see the bush thing happening. I'll be happy to eat my words if it does happen, and I'm sure whatever is coming will be another winner.

All I have to figure out is do I wait and see or do I order up my -14/14A kit?!
 
Last edited:
Cessna Market

I see the Cessna market as ripe for the picking. A high wing that is easy to get into. Others are pushing this to mean a bush plane, but I am not convinced Vans needs to go that far. A two seat 172 that is easy to get into and fast. Pilots and family financial officers are getting older.
 
Just curious, what you think the benefits of a high-wing might be?

I ask that question as a long-time owner of an excellent high-wing airplane, a C180. Yes, the high wing has benefits but they are relatively minor compared to the airplane's other (excellent) attributes. So if there's a characteristic that I'm not weighing properly, I'd like to know of it.

Dave
RV-3B, now building the canopy assembly
 
Keeping up with the times, the -12 seems a bit more of a jump onto the bandwagon to me. Get in while the getting is good when the whole light sport thing came about. Could write a whole article on why light sport doesn't even matter anymore, but I digress.

Most of your observations seem pretty valid but I think you're a bit off with regards to the 12. The GA pilot population in general is getting older. If we don't find a way to control the cost of training new pilots, we will get to a point where Vans won't have much of a market to sell their other kits to.

I think the 12, being the only factory built Vans product one can buy, was an attempt to speak to that.

At Airventure last year, I wanted to try the 12 on for size and see how my wife and fit in it. We had to wait because Van himself and a few other principals from the company were standing around the display 12 talking to a group from the FAA. I eavesdropped that conversation a bit. From what I could hear, the gist of it was one of the roles they designed the 12 for was the flight school market and while they accomplished that goal with it, they could hit that goal much more effectively if some of the LSA specs were loosened.

That doesn't mean I think the 15 will end up being compliant with whatever the LSA spec eventually becomes, but if and when LSA is changed to allow heavier and faster aircraft, I would expect the next Vans model will be designed to take advantage of the maximum allowed by the spec.
 
9 Upgrade?

For selfish reasons I'd like to see Van's upgrade the RV-9 kit. Modern CNC layout like the 12 and 14. Maybe add and bless the inclusion of a little more fuel and a 360/IO360 options.
 
But even more likely...

Remember how they actually tested the -14/14A airframe to the drop standards of FAR 23?? When was the last time someone brought a certified two-place airplane to market? The overwhelming opinion of people with 4-seaters is that they only ever use the front two seats 90%+ of the time. Maybe the number of people that are more interested in flying vs building have finally convinced Vans to offer a factory-built option.

I'd give that a zero percent chance of happening, honestly.

Designing and testing your airplane to meet Part 23 standards is one thing. I believe Van's can do that.

Showing the FAA that you did so, the way the FAA wants to be shown, is quite another. It's a process you need to start well before you start cutting metal, it involves mindblowing levels of paperwork, and brings in a whole raft of FAA dictums regarding how you run the company.

That doesn't even get into the production side, where the FAA needs to approve your processes, your quality controls, your data management...


Van's won't touch certified airplanes with a 100ft pole.

Now, if some of the rumored changes in the MOSAIC proposal come to pass, I could see SQB (super quick build) kits, or possibly a factory-producted option if there's a way to do so like they already do with the RV-12. But a standard-category, Part 23 certified airplane? No way.
 
For selfish reasons I'd like to see Van's upgrade the RV-9 kit. Modern CNC layout like the 12 and 14. Maybe add and bless the inclusion of a little more fuel and a 360/IO360 options.


+1 - This would be awesome! Would love to build a tri-gear version.
 
For selfish reasons I'd like to see Van's upgrade the RV-9 kit. Modern CNC layout like the 12 and 14. Maybe add and bless the inclusion of a little more fuel and a 360/IO360 options.


Not being negative or anything but why isn't this a 14A?
 
Not being negative or anything but why isn't this a 14A?

Because it can't make book numbers without an incredibly hard to find 200hp engine or a 210 hp engine that requires really expensive replacement cylinders?

The -9 was build to produce impressible performance from engines that were relatively cheap to buy and fly and maintain. You cannot say that about the 14.
 
but...

But the demographic for the 14 (and the 10) is somewhat different than the other RVs.

I think most folks that choose the 14 or 10 want dream machines, and know that those type of airplanes come with a significant price tag...
 
Jet Trouble

I’m holding out for a two-place jet.

Chris
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.
 
But Ken Balch mentions in the post below that the single place SubSonex is "effectively uninsurable". A two-place jet might not be insurable at all.


So as not to give people the wrong idea, a Subsonex is quite insurable for liability. Hull coverage is not available for a price anyone seems interested in paying, but to make a blanket statement that they are “uninsurable” is not correct.

We now return you to your speculation on Van’s business plans....;)

Paul
 
Back
Top