What's new
Van's Air Force

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

My realistic proposal for the next RV(16)

2+2

If Van would create a Sportsman style 2+1 (or +2) kit plane that could be built
for the same cost as the 7/8/9 (with a 9 wing on top and a front
baggage compartment for balance) I think it would be very popular.
As in the Van's current kits, be available as a tricycle or conventional gear
configurations. It would appeal to both the bush and flying SUV crowd.
Make it a tad wider than the 7/9 with 40+ gal of fuel, 900 lb useful and
140 knot cruise speed. Realistically most if not all of the current
Van's 2 place airplanes build costs are pushing 100K with all new components
(including the 12) and paint. Not an easy hill to climb for most. Just imagine
not having to use UPS to ship your stuff to and from OSH ;)
 
Last edited:
Rans has sold so many S-21s their orders today are going to ship in 12-15 months.. I still think Vans is REALLY missing the boat on the high-wing STOL-ish market. I would order a kit TODAY if Van's announced a 2-place side-by-side high-wing Bush(ish) plane.

Word is Rans now has nearly 130 orders for the S-21.. There is definitely demand for this kind of airplane.
 
I don?t know any details on the orders but the bearhawk patrol is now being introduced as a side-by-side

Just another reason for Van's to make a 2+2 C170/172 that uses any four cylinder engine and performs like a -9(A).

The market is already saturated with two place bush planes.
 
Just another reason for Van's to make a 2+2 C170/172 that uses any four cylinder engine and performs like a -9(A).

The market is already saturated with two place bush planes.

Exactly. Btw.: Sling announced at AirVenture a 4-seat high wing, which is expected to be only a few knots slower than the Sling TSI, what means that it will cruise at +150 kts. They are planning to have it at AirVenture next year.

While I never understood why, besides of Glasair, nobody made a modern, fast, experimental version of the most successful line of aircraft of all times (Cessna), I am particularly puzzled that Van's simply leaves this huge piece of the market to others.

Few people need STOL, most pilots want to go reasonably fast and lots of them prefer high-wing. That's why Cessnas are so popular.

Not sure what's going on at Van's, but it certainly seems like that the hunger to grow the company is gone and that they rather want to play it safe and simply milk the cow. Heck, we don't even see any serious upgrades of the existing lineup, while others take good chunks out of their business with easier to build, pulled rivet kitplanes.
 
Sling

Yeah, it will likely be just as small as the low wing ?four? seat version...and like the 172, hardly a four seat aircraft...
 
Yeah, it will likely be just as small as the low wing ?four? seat version...and like the 172, hardly a four seat aircraft...

Few pilots actually want to put four adult into a 170 / 172 / 180 / 182. It is usually more about having the space and the useful load to carry 2 persons + maybe a child or a dog and luggage.

Btw.: The Sling TSI also has a useful load of +1,000 lbs and it seems to do just fine with four adults in it, in case somebody wants to use it this way.

The S-21 doesn't even have a rear seats but instead tons of space for luggage. Plus, it uses pulled rivets and is cleverly designed to make it as easy as possible for the builder to put it together. Apparently, this is a recipe which is very appealing to many potential builders.
 
Not the point

I said nothing about the useful load. The point was, at only 44? wide, you are going to be really tight with anything but lightweight adults. I instruct in a 172 that is the same width and it is a four seat aircraft for small adults or children...regardless of the useful load...
 
This discussion seems to be describing an airplane that already exists, the Murphy Yukon.
https://www.murphyair.com/detail/yukon.html

Not quite as fast as some people might like, not quite as inexpensive as some people might like, but 4 seats, 1100 lbs useful load, 180-210 hp, prepunched.

Regarding Cessna's success with high wing aircraft, I wonder if the popularity has more to do with (from the 1950s to the late 1970s) Cessna's Pilot Centers, marketing expertise, wide availability, commonality of handling between the C-150, C-172, C-182, C-210 and the ability to "trade up", than any intrinsic qualities of the design? In certain situations (blazing sun, high wing providing shade) and applications (float plane high wing clearance to docks) there are advantages, but there are lots of advantages to a low wing too outside of those situations and applications.
 
Just my 2 cents...Most companies that concentrate on the products they stand for and in which they have expertise are more successfull on long run than others.
Vans stands for absolute performance. Airplanes that can do everything good. Everbody knows that. Of course there is always the temptation to get a slice from another cake.
But they already have a great selection of kits.
Leave the bushplanes and ultra-high-speed kits to the other companies and concentrate on challenges that are more important in the future.
Shorter build times as people get busier and busier, easy construction, more efficiency or even alternatives (electric?) in powerplants and most of all keeping the costs in a reasonable range.

Maybe a ?pop rivet? RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case I?m afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited.
How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?
 
Just another reason for Van's to make a 2+2 C170/172 that uses any four cylinder engine and performs like a -9(A).

Sling TSi...

The way I see it, Vans needs to one up their game in the XC cruiser 4-seat category. But differentiate...slightly. General aviation needs a viable, modern replacement for all the Cessna 172s out there!!!

A high-wing 2+2 with the 915iS would allow the pilot to sit AHEAD of the wing. A low dash with the Rotax could provide GREAT visibility in ALL directions. Think of a Cardinal 177...but better. More forward visibility. Less fuel burn. Shorter fuselage. Smoother wing. Lower empty weight.

Think weights around 1100 lbs empty and 2200 lbs gross. Yes, that's totally realistic if you take out the tractor engine and put in a new Rotax! You wouldn't want to carry around 50 gal of fuel either, as 30 gal would be more than sufficient for 4 hour legs with the Rotax 915 iS. Incredible speed and economy at FL200 too, if you're willing to breathe through a mask!

Speed, economy, visibility, efficiency...Design such a plane and watch the kits fly off the shelves!!
 
Just my 2 cents...Most companies that concentrate on the products they stand for and in which they have expertise are more successfull on long run than others.
Vans stands for absolute performance. Airplanes that can do everything good. Everbody knows that. Of course there is always the temptation to get a slice from another cake.
But they already have a great selection of kits.
Leave the bushplanes and ultra-high-speed kits to the other companies and concentrate on challenges that are more important in the future.
Shorter build times as people get busier and busier, easy construction, more efficiency or even alternatives (electric?) in powerplants and most of all keeping the costs in a reasonable range.

Maybe a ?pop rivet? RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case I?m afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited.
How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?
 
Maybe a ?pop rivet? RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case I?m afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited. How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?

Lately I?ve been think that this will be the new thing new model, essentially an easier-to-build RV that slots in between the 12 and a 14, especially performance-wise.


  • Could be available with Rotax 912iS (standard version) or 915iS (high-performance model)
  • Easier build could perhaps attract new customers to experimental aircraft category
  • Rotax engine fitment would appeal/attract new customers in overseas markets, especially Europe
  • In the U.S., model would appeal to first-time builders; those concerned about the future of 100LL, etc.

Call me crazy, but I think a new model like this might be popular. Heck, I know I would probably be interested in it
 
It may have been mentioned before but I didn't see it - is it possible the next RV will be a certified aircraft?

Someone mentioned Vans would like to tap into the training market, and as Vashon with their Ranger R7 have been discovering, that's hard to do with an LSA - probably because we are all 200+ lbs fat people now, myself included. Everyone has been holding out for an increase to the LSA gross weight limit, but that dream seems to have evaporated.

With GA costs going up and up, it's antidotal but I wouldn't be surprised if flight training made up the vast majority of light aircraft flights these days. And consequently, the vast majority of new GA aircraft sales. Cessna is still riding this and Piper seems to be tapping into it. Perhaps certifying the RV-9A, RV-10, or RV-14A would open up flight school sales opportunities?
 
It may have been mentioned before but I didn't see it - is it possible the next RV will be a certified aircraft?
...
Perhaps certifying the RV-9A, RV-10, or RV-14A would open up flight school sales opportunities?

I'd bet Van's would collectively run away screaming at the mere thought of trying to certify to Part 23. The paperwork and bureaucratic headaches would be staggering (and likely bankrupting). And to try and certify any of the existing designs would mean basically starting over from scratch, as the FAA would want to be involved from the very beginning and the entire process would have to take place under Part 21 and all the associated FAA dictates over how you do everything. In the end I'd bet the resulting airplane would gain a bunch of weight and share only a handful of common parts with the original.

The much-ballyhooed Part 23 rewrite (don't get me started on the ASTM side) perhaps eases some of the technical challenges but does absolutely nothing for the certification and production process.

The only thing I could see coming even close, is if the MOSAIC proposal essentially turns out "heavy LSAs"--that is, a way to "certify" and produce larger aircraft the same way S-LSAs are currently done. Any formal standard-category certification would be a complete non-starter.

Go read the Part 23 Reorganization ARC final report, especially Appendix F. Most people who don't work at an aircraft manufacturer or supplier don't realize how far the FAA's hands go into everything. They dictate the structure of your company (your design, production, and service organizations will be separated with entirely separate processes and procedures that must be separately approved by the FAA), they supervise the layout of your production floor, and so on. It's bad enough dealing with this stuff in the large aircraft world; the FAA would apply all the same rules, processes, procedures, and dictates to Van's as they do to Boeing.


With GA costs going up and up, it's antidotal but I wouldn't be surprised if flight training made up the vast majority of light aircraft flights these days. And consequently, the vast majority of new GA aircraft sales. Cessna is still riding this and Piper seems to be tapping into it.

I wouldn't put flight training as the majority of GA flights. But flight training and commercial operation (training/rental, small corporate use, or buy-and-lease for the same) definitely makes up the majority of new certified piston single sales. Nobody out there is buying a new Cessna or Piper for personal use; the only ones out there buying them are flight schools looking for the "same old same old".

Annual homebuilt completions now rival certified piston single production numbers, and I guarantee every one of those homebuilts is for personal use.
 
You are giving the FAA way too much credit. They do not have the expertise to decide or design anything on the factory floor, or the management of a large aircraft manufacturer.

They do not have the expertise to regulate or oversee a large manufacturer, or even a major airline. They designate "experts" at those companies to be their reps to regulate the very company they work for. It is the regulatory equivalent of being paid to sleep with your sister.

The thought of trying to get anything through the certification process for the first time - I wouldn't touch it. The big boys get away with it because of the aforementioned inbreeding. The FAA rubber stamps the decision their "designees" make.

Hence, the 737 MAX
 
I think the FAA understands the certified rules written many decades ago aren't regulating light aviation, they are strangling it. I think the rumors of relaxing LSA rules are their attempt to revive light general aviation.

For years we have been crashing light aircraft much faster than they are replaced.
 
You are giving the FAA way too much credit. They do not have the expertise to decide or design anything on the factory floor, or the management of a large aircraft manufacturer.
I never said they did that. I said they insist on supervising this stuff--approving procedures, being notified of any/all changes, etc.

For example:
21.135 says you have to provide the FAA a document describing how your production organization will be set up.

21.137 lays out a whole laundry list of what your quality manual must contain.

21.138 states that the FAA must approve your quality manual.

21.139(c) states "The production certificate holder must immediately notify the FAA, in writing, of any change to the manufacturing facilities that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of its product or article." The FAA's interpretation of this is very broad.

21.150 says the FAA gets to review any changes to your quality system and basically restates 21.139(c).

and so on. And that's just one little snippet out of Part 21.

And remember: behind every regulation is a stack of Orders, ACs, Policy, Guidance, and unwritten procedure.


They do not have the expertise to regulate or oversee a large manufacturer, or even a major airline. They designate "experts" at those companies to be their reps to regulate the very company they work for. It is the regulatory equivalent of being paid to sleep with your sister.
They don't have the manpower, and they don't have the funding to get it. How much do you think you'd have to pay to get senior engineers with very deep technical knowledge to relocate, work for the government, and then spend a whole bunch of time on the road, bouncing around while supporting programs at different manufacturers? And then what do you do with them in between major programs to keep them sharp and trained and not bored out of their minds?

The FAA has been "delegating" for a long, long time (even longer than I'd thought).

The thought of trying to get anything through the certification process for the first time - I wouldn't touch it. The big boys get away with it because of the aforementioned inbreeding.
The "big boys"--that is, established manufacturers--"get away with it" because they've been doing it a long time, know how the FAA works, and know how to do things "the FAA way". Look at the troubles new players have getting into the certified game; quite often, it's much more a matter of figuring out how to deal with "the system" than anything technical. It's like when I built my shop and had to deal with the city planning/zoning/permitting office--they had no issues with my plans or my eventual build, but there were some communication issues during the process of applying for the permit, scheduling and conducting inspections, etc. because I was just some guy doing it for the first time, not a general contractor or developer who does it all day long and knows the process and the people and "the way it's done".


The FAA rubber stamps the decision their "designees" make.
Umm, yeah. Sure they do.

Hence, the 737 MAX
The FAA--or its designees--can't approve (or reject) data that isn't presented to them. If engineering presents false or misleading data to the designee (or makes a change without presenting it to them at all), how is that any different from doing the same thing to an FAA employee working in the same capacity? They can only work to the data that's presented to them. If anything, the designated company employee is more likely to be able to tell if something smells fishy and is more likely to be aware of things outside what's presented than the visiting guy on the outside getting a paycheck from Uncle Sam.

I'm not saying that did (or didn't) happen at Boeing; I didn't and don't work there and I'm not super familiar with the ongoing MAX drama. But working somewhere with an ODA and seeing some part of how these work inside, I really don't think the popular knee-jerk reaction of "but if they'd worked for the government they would have caught this and stopped it!" holds much water.


I think the FAA understands the certified rules written many decades ago aren't regulating light aviation, they are strangling it.
Parts of the FAA understand that. Again, read the Part 23 Reorganization ARC final report. But from my time on the ASTM panel for new "means of compliance", the FAA is still well-stocked with people to whom "that's how we've always done it" might has well have been on Moses's tablets. But it's been ingrained in them for a long, long time that "an airplane is an airplane". Back in the 50s there wasn't a whole lot of difference in terms of technology or construction, but there definitely is a difference today, and the one-size-fits-all approach to certification and regulation hasn't worked for a long time. They keep ratcheting the bar higher to meet the safety needs of airliners and other commercial aircraft, and light private aircraft get dragged along with them.

I think the rumors of relaxing LSA rules are their attempt to revive light general aviation.
I think large parts of the FAA don't much care about light aircraft one way or another, and would be fine with them just going away (one less headache to deal with). But we aren't going away, and they don't the manpower to deal with the large aircraft, let alone the little ones. I think this move is essentially deregulation for the sake of conserving manpower, not an attempt to revive GA or make it better for us (even if that's the end result).
 
"""I?m really hoping for an RV14 type of update to the RV-9"""

But this would not sell MORE kits, it would stop sales of one kit and replace it with another. I dont see that as a big help for the companies business.
 
if they did a 6 place, or even just a bigger 4 place I would buy it. At this point I am probably going to build an RV-10 eventually but I already know it is really too small for my family. nothing else comparable in speed/economy and technology on the market though.
 
LSA with tailwheel and something besides a Rotax on the nose. But it would have to be immediate to help me!
 
Ive been looking at building something and a big factor for me is time. It seems other companies are working at making their kits flyable around 1k hour. I think building will be an amazing experience but dont want to spend 5 years doing it AND spend a ton because it pushes me back into the ease of just renting. Id love a revised RV4/8 but a small high wing 4 seater XC 4cyl 140-150kts would be amazing! Give it the ability to switch between tri/TD with some STOL quality's and youll have a winner!
 
According to my 6-year son old who spends a good bit of time in the back of my -4 there are only 3 points to consider for the next gen RV:

1. At least 800-HP
2. 300 MPH+ cruise
3. Retractable gear
 
I would absolutely build a 6-seat RV. Sure there are tons of Cherokee 6s, Bonanzas, and others out there. But they are (mostly) ancient, underperforming (compared to what an RV could do), expensive to maintain, and lack the benefit of Van's approach to new aircraft.

Diesel power would be a major plus.

If they could come up with a fixed gear six seater with decent performance and range and a truly useful useful load, I would be in line.
 
Why

I would absolutely build a 6-seat RV.

Diesel power would be a major plus.

Educate me, why diesel powered?
A Lycoming running lean of peak is really efficient. And relatively cheap compared to turbines and airborne diesels?
 
Last edited:
Educate me, why diesel powered?
A Lycoming running lean of peak is really efficient. And relatively cheap compared to turbines and airborne diesels?

Honestly, I think a good Diesel solution will eventually overtake the avgas powered engines. The complexity of making avgas along with the need to get the lead out eventually will drive the worldwide GA piston fleet toward Diesel.

The energy density of Diesel fuels is better. Lack of lead improves a number of things including greater time between engine oil changes (using synthetic lubricating oils). The cost of Diesel / Jet A is much cheaper (mostly because of the aforementioned complexities of making avgas and the fact that avgas is a relatively low volume product for the refineries that still manufacture it).

What will make a "good" Diesel engine solution? In my opinion:

1. Comparable cost to avgas-burners. While the existing Diesel cycle engines come with a high capital cost, this will be achieved due to economies of scale as the Diesel fleet expands overseas first and then in the US.

2. Manufacturer support. Van's and other kit makers, as certain Diesel solutions emerge, will likely officially support alternate engine packages with firewall forward kits, or perhaps the engine manufacturers will support popular airframes. This will pretty much be a must, as only the most dedicated among experimenters have the guts to try out engines not provided with an easy firewall forward installation, or not proven in aviation.

3. Proven reliability and maintenance costs. This only happens once the Diesel fleet grows and matures.

It's not an overnight change for sure, but I think avgas will be on the way out within 15 years.

The big question in my mind is whether electric batteries/capacitors/flow batteries will ever become competitive in terms of energy density with liquid hydrocarbon fuels. When that happens, for better or worse, IC engines in general will be on their last legs.
 
Last edited:
The problem for an airplane designer is that if they pick the wrong choice of engine, the airplane is a market failure. That's happened for a number of airplanes and so far, Van's has consistently chosen engines that are reliable, available and thoroughly proven. I, for one, think that is the right way to do it.

Dave
 
Ive been looking at building something and a big factor for me is time. It seems other companies are working at making their kits flyable around 1k hour. I think building will be an amazing experience but dont want to spend 5 years doing it AND spend a ton because it pushes me back into the ease of just renting. Id love a revised RV4/8 but a small high wing 4 seater XC 4cyl 140-150kts would be amazing! Give it the ability to switch between tri/TD with some STOL quality's and youll have a winner!

That recipe is owned by Glasair, it's called the Sportsman 2+2 and it's very successful. It's NOT cheap. If you want speed of build, the Two Weeks to Taxi program scratches that itch very well.

To satisfy other posters here, the Sportsman IS available with a diesel. Again, it's not cheap.
 
There must be something here...looks like Bearhawk released a 6-seat version of their Bearhawk 4 this week...

I would absolutely build a 6-seat RV. Sure there are tons of Cherokee 6s, Bonanzas, and others out there. But they are (mostly) ancient, underperforming (compared to what an RV could do), expensive to maintain, and lack the benefit of Van's approach to new aircraft.

Diesel power would be a major plus.

If they could come up with a fixed gear six seater with decent performance and range and a truly useful useful load, I would be in line.
 
Back
Top