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?)

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

Skylor

Ok, I won't. I'm sure Van's appreciates your help. I just returned to the forums after a self-imposed exile because it felt like VAF was turning into a social media site rather than a builder's forum. So much for polite discourse.
 
Last edited:
I like the flying feel of the 2 place RV's, so am thinking of a slightly more capable cross country machine but still sporty.

2 or 3 place sporty side by side. 14 wings & tail, stretched 14 fuselage, slider, back seating for a third person that can be easily be reconfigured as a large luggage area with about 150 - 200 lb capacity, be capable if carrying 2 sets of clubs & my wife's overnight bag.... uugh! Big 4 banger or 540 powered.

There's a Super-6 at our airport configured basically this way - beautiful flying machine!
 
It's faster planes, more efficient, quicker build and less money. (to the melody of "Faster Horses")
 
It never ceases to amaze me that in these recurring threads about what Van's should do next how many folks think Van's should create something that is distinctly non-RV like and is already pretty well covered by other manufacturers.

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

Skylor


This thread is a discussion on what different customers wants. If one is in the business of providing a good or service then one provides what the customer wants. Your business doesn't thrive if you tell people to bugger off, and I know that Van's position is to be responsive to their customer.

Existing RV owners seem to mostly more cubes in the RV-15. From my reference frame, "just adding more cubes" isn't consistent with the "total performance" concept that exists in all the airframes prior to the RV-14.

Why would Van's Aircraft risk treading into a market that has lots of existing competition such as the high-wing utility aircraft? There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support?

A very similar question is to ask, respectfully, "why did Vans bring a <200mph >200hp two-seater to the market saturated with RV 7 & 9s?" It's heretical to ask this, but a valid question nonetheless.

Suffice it to say that the market for 130+ knot larger cabin utility two-seaters is larger than the market for <200mph >200hp two-seaters. This should be reason enough to consider the market.
 
This thread is a discussion on what different customers wants. If one is in the business of providing a good or service then one provides what the customer wants. Your business doesn't thrive if you tell people to bugger off, and I know that Van's position is to be responsive to their customer.

Yes but "the customer" is the market place as a whole, and not necessarily the desire of a small group of individuals. Van's is in the business of making money and they do that by providing products that appeal to the masses and are not part of a saturated market. It simply doesn't make sense for them to spend millions developing a completely new aircraft if there is limited opportunity to capitalize on it due to market competition from other established vendors. One might argue that by appealing to a broader market place with a product of limited profit potential, Van's will win over more repeat customers. All I know is that this philosophy didn't work out too well for Cessna and the Skycatcher.

Suffice it to say that the market for 130+ knot larger cabin utility two-seaters is larger than the market for <200mph >200hp two-seaters. This should be reason enough to consider the market.

Maybe, maybe not. All indications are that -7's, -8's, and -9's are still being built (and presumably sold) at impressive rates. I think the RV-14 is Van's attempt to appeal somewhat to the larger cabin utility market while still staying reasonably close to their basic design philosophy that has been so successful over the years.

Skylor
 
[...] The 9 shares so many parts with the 7 (pretty much everything besides tail and wings), and yet fulfills a totally different mission. To me, that seems like a good idea. Offer more options to your customers without a huge increase in startup / production costs.

There are plenty of -9 naysayers, and yet people like me keep building them and loving them. Performs beautifully on less HP, stable IFR platform, super-efficient high-altitude cruise, and a crazy low stall speed.

[...]

I would venture to say that the -9 models take away almost ZERO -14 sales, due to the huge difference in pricing. I could not financially swing a -14 (if I could, I'd spend a bit more and build a -10). Would I have built a 7 if the 9 weren't an option? [...]

The 9 as well as the 14 are certainly great planes, I actually flew both. Yet, both IMHO fit very similar missions. Costs appear to be one on the main decision drivers for customers.

Now, looking at the costs, the difference is mainly so big because Van's pretty much forces customers to purchase a brand new IO390 engine. With an O-360 firewall forward kit as an option, the plane would still be a great performer, but customer would also have the option to buy a used engine, minimizing the premium to the 9. Also, the higher level of prefabrication of the 14 over the 9 adds to the cost. An update 9 kit would most likely not be much cheaper than the 14.

I also understand your argument that Van's was able to develop the 9 relatively easily from the 7. Yet, Van's still also developed the 14.

Again, I am not bashing any of Van's planes at all. As this thread is about which kind of plane Van's should develop next, I think that it is valid to also look at the current lineup.


According to the Rans specs, the S-21 appears to be significantly slower than the RV-9 even though it has more power:

Well, that's the compromise between short field capability vs. speed they chose. I bet that for many customers this is already sufficiently fast. The Glasair Sportsman shows a similar performance as sells well, despite of its high price. Van's could obviously decide to lean more towards speed.


There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support?

Yeah? Which of these cruise at least at 120 kts (not to speak of 130), are all metal and fairly easy / fast to build?


Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

Cessna even continued its development what led to the 182, due to the increasing popularity of trikes.

Don't you think that if people are willing to pay +$50k for a 60 year old 170 with a 180 hp engine or +$70k for a 180, they would be willing to spend around $100k for plane like RV-14 with the wings attached to the top?


If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

I guess it is fair that Van's fans (we) discuss about what the next big thing from Van's should be. Some believe that the current lineup only needs refinements, but no new model. Fine. Others think that a new model should rather be a variant of an existing model. Also fine.

Some others, like me, however believe that something quite different would be needed to a.) win over new customers and b.) to also keep the existing customers, who are getting older. I don't know if your have ever been to a fly-in with other Van's aircraft and saw how some of the older pilots struggle to get in / out of the plane? Getting in the plane would also be a lot easier in a high wing.
 
more affordable

I guess I'm the only financially challanged person on here since in 11 pages there is not much talk about something more affordable to someone who wants the quality and support of a company like Vans. I think offering the RV-12 in a basic kit with options for alternate engines and basic instruments would sell with minimal expense to Van's in redesigning things. The cost of just the airframe between the 12, Zenith CH650 and the Sonex are not that different but I will most likely build one of the others just because they offer the support for more than just one way to build your plane.
 
The reason the RV-12 is not offered as a "basic kit" is that it was designed to be a "Light-Sport" kit built aircraft. To qualify as such, all components must be supplied by the kit manufacturer. It must EXACTLY match the factory built SLSA aircraft. Even though it CAN be built as amateur-built, with whatever engine and instruments you like, the kit was not specifically designed for that purpose.
The other kits you mention are not ELSA kits. They are strictly "amateur-built" kits.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm the only financially challanged person on here since in 11 pages there is not much talk about something more affordable to someone who wants the quality and support of a company like Vans. I think offering the RV-12 in a basic kit with options for alternate engines and basic instruments would sell with minimal expense to Van's in redesigning things. The cost of just the airframe between the 12, Zenith CH650 and the Sonex are not that different but I will most likely build one of the others just because they offer the support for more than just one way to build your plane.

I am most certainly on a budget, and considered Sonex as well. In the end, I decided that by waiting for a good deal on a used engine and some avionics and other equipment, I could build a 9 for not a whole lot more, and have the plane I REALLY wanted. I have over $10k less in my plane than Van's lists as the total cost for an RV-12.

A used engine and simple panel will go a long ways towards helping the budget, as will doing your own wiring, keeping the interior simple, etc. With regards to 'basic instruments', you will probably find that a single EFIS is a better and more cost effective alternative to steam gauges, with greater reliability and more features. Of course if you have them on hand already, that's another way to save money.

It seems most builders these days go "all-in", and more power to them, but I promise you the RV grin is just as big for us common-folk!

Edit - I see you are looking for light-sport options, but the ability to scrounge and save is still there!

Chris
 
Last edited:
The reason the RV-12 is not offered as a "basic kit" is that it was designed to be a "Light-Sport" kit built aircraft. To qualify as such, all components must be supplied by the kit manufacturer. It must EXACTLY match the factory built SLSA aircraft. Even though it CAN be built as amateur-built, with whatever engine and instruments you like, the kit was not specifically designed for that purpose.
The other kits you mention are not ELSA kits. They are strictly "amateur-built" kits.

I understand that, I would just like to see the e-ab option kit that could be built to meet Light Sport specs.
 
I understand that, I would just like to see the e-ab option kit that could be built to meet Light Sport specs.

You can do that, but the reason for the high cost is because of the kit design. A lot more goes into a design for a specific purpose.
 
So, have you been looking over my shoulder as I have been searching for our next plane???

Right there with you on the S-21, at least from the specs published. Will be watching for what the "real world" stuff actually turns out when there are a few of them built by customers.

I saw your post and checked out the S-21. That looks that a really cool plane. I will be watching that to see if it performs as good as it looks.
 
I also understand your argument that Van's was able to develop the 9 relatively easily from the 7. Yet, Van's still also developed the 14.

Minor clarification....
Even though in number sequence the RV-7 is before the RV-9, the RV-9 came first. The RV-7 was then developed as a (pre-planned) variation of the RV-9 and introduced about 1.5 years later.
 
If I wanted to sell more planes, I would work on reduction of the time required to build. Part of this might be FAA regulatory, but how much education do you need drilling, deburring, and dimpling 20,000 holes? 10,000+ rivets seems to be more than education. Even redistributing the time utilization to meet the 51% rule from a quick build concept to having all the metal prep complete (Drilled, deburred, and dimpled, - and lets start a war - PRIMED :D). I think if you could build an RV-3 in 500 hours, it would sell really well, particularly if it could smoke the pants off an RV-8 with better climb and top speed. I mean, think how many egotistical pilots are there out there that want a hot rod?

Yep.. This. I agree. If there was a way to build something like a -3 in 500 hours I'd snap it up in a heart beat. Heck, I might even pause on my -10 to do it.


... It never ceases to amaze me that in these recurring threads about what Van's should do next how many folks think Van's should create something that is distinctly non-RV like and is already pretty well covered by other manufacturers. Why would Van's Aircraft risk treading into a market that has lots of existing competition such as the high-wing utility aircraft? There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support? Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

While I tend to agree with you here, I feel that it's not only our right and prerogative to discuss with one another such trends and desires but also our responsibility to Van's as supporters and fan's to help them iterate on their product by making suggestions and communicating our desires..

As a small business owner I understand that you must be agile and innovate, but also you must iterate based on customer demand and respond to the trends the industry is going in. If you don't you run the risk of being the next Kodak.

If enough people in the experimental market demand a high wing aircraft (bleh..) then it might behoove Van's to produce one. I know I wouldn't buy it but it sounds like a lot of people might. They might want to consider doing a lean canvas with their customer base and see if there is actually a market there.



I still am hoping for the Van's "Single person fighter plane" :D While we are going there, lets give it gull wings to look cool.. :p

I like what LoPresti was trying to do with the Fury but it's still a two seater.. feh. Either way, one of the things it had going for it was retractable gear. Is that something you'd want in an RV? I feel the benefits are small and the possible complications are large, but I could be convinced otherwise..
 
I'm in the 6-seater camp. Turbine would be nice too, but now we're talking about really big $$$. I'm sure a PT6A-21 can be had for the low 6 figure range off an old King Air 90.

In reality I predict the RV-8 redone like the -14, but in the distant future.
 
With a Lyc O-540 instead of the O-390!

Interesting note. I just had a long conversion with and potential RV builder who wants an RV-8, but is to big so is looking at an RV-14 (tall, lanky Naval Aviator) . He is very turned off by the IO-390 engine as it is strictly a 100LL option - he is worried about the future of 100LL and more so on the cost of the 100LL replacements. I told him he could get the IO-390 made with lower compression pistons and be safe with 94UL, but he and I both agree the RV-14 needs all of the 210HP, and more would be better.

I warned him against the idea of bolting up an IO-540 engine on the RV-14 as a way to get both an 94UL engine and power. I concluded with:
- You will spend more money than that for an RV-10
- You will add a boatload of time to the build
- You will destroy the planes resale options

This concluded with the point where the RV-10 became the logical option, but he wants an aerobatic tail dragger.

Now - if Van's had an IO-540 option for the RV-14 (or RV-15 built around the IO-540) that would be a very different story.

Carl
 
-8

Interesting note. I just had a long conversion with and potential RV builder who wants an RV-8, but is to big so is looking at an RV-14 (tall, lanky Naval Aviator) .

Has your friend actualy sat in an -8 with rudder pedals and seat cushions configured for a taller pilot? I'm 6'3" 240# and I have lots of room in the front seat of my -8. I don't even have the tall pilot option installed.

Skylor
RV-8
 
Last edited:
Cost vs. build time?

Yep.. This. I agree. If there was a way to build something like a -3 in 500 hours I'd snap it up in a heart beat.
I still am hoping for the Van's "Single person fighter plane" While we are going there, lets give it gull wings to look cool..

It is called an RV-3 and looking at Vans price chart, a kit could be had for less than $20'000.- A fully developed prepunched kit and quick build version would probably jack the price up to $35'000 and 500 hours of build time might not be an unreasonable expectation. Van has an RV 3 without an electrical system and minimal instrumentation, wood prop, used engine etc.. A version like that could be built for less than $40'000 but not in 500 hours or less.

I have been looking at the Titan P51 replicas and as attractive as they look,
a project like that will set you back over $100'000 and closer to 2000 hours of
labor. The RV-3 is also considerably faster and has a long history of reliable service.Not sure I'd want gull wing doors on that 3...

From a business stand point, a six seater would be about as attractive as a motor glider. I am pretty sure Van had to fight his own good business instincts to resist the temptation to come up with a motor glider in the kit line up.

As for my wish list:
I do like the RV-14 as my next airplane, once all the kids are out of the house
but like Carl pointed out, it needs a 540 for the very reasons stated.
RV-15-IO 540 option.
 
I have heard that the RV-14 is a better "kit" than the 7 and 8. I would just like to seem them incorporate some of these refinements then into the earlier kits in lieu of a "RV-15". They could start by better instructions/parts for the horizontal stab. The first kit should be the easiest IMO. Instead I went through two front spars and two doublers before I got satisfactory results. I was sweating every drill. It should be totally prepunched. Frustrating start!
 
I have heard that the RV-14 is a better "kit" than the 7 and 8. I would just like to seem them incorporate some of these refinements then into the earlier kits in lieu of a "RV-15". They could start by better instructions/parts for the horizontal stab. The first kit should be the easiest IMO. Instead I went through two front spars and two doublers before I got satisfactory results. I was sweating every drill. It should be totally prepunched. Frustrating start!

Van's heard the customer demand to provide kits with "more done", and that all got factored into the RV-14. After working an RV-14, I am of the camp that they went way too far. A lot of the "stuff" that builders decided on how they want to do their plane is pre-determined. The provided wiring kits, as example, will do what the prototype does, but if you want to do anything else it is easier to leave the wiring kits in the box.

So - Van's responded to customer demand with the RV-14 and the price went up to pay for it. Many like the new approach. I'm not one of them.

Carl
Day spent deburring, flutting and straightening rib flanges, RV-8 slow build.
 
The Next RV

Just an observation and comment.

If Van's has all the engineering and design work completed for all the aircraft kits they provide, why are they advertising for a draftsman position and an engineering position? Only two reasons I can imagine, replacement of personnel or the Van's skunk-works in gearing up for another project. Could be both or a combination.

What ever it might be, it will be an aircraft that qualifies to be flown with the new "BasicMed" pilot requirements.

Just a thought...
 
I don't remember anything within BasicMed restricting turbine powered aircraft. Of course the altitude and speed limits would make turbine power to be somewhat impractical.

Hmmmm....the Subsonex only goes 250 mph and can't easily get above FL180....:cool:
 
Just an observation and comment.

If Van's has all the engineering and design work completed for all the aircraft kits they provide, why are they advertising for a draftsman position and an engineering position? Only two reasons I can imagine, replacement of personnel or the Van's skunk-works in gearing up for another project. Could be both or a combination.

Just a thought...

There are a lot of things that still need draftsman and engineers during production. Manufacturing changes, and field issues both take time to address. Vans is not like most companies, but if they wanted to sustain a competitive product line it takes 1/3 the number of technical staff to keep it alive as it took to design it originally. This does not count test/development personnel, so the Vans fraction may be 1/6.

Since they do tend to leave a kit "unchanged" following release, I wonder how long they will last with this philosophy. Too many companies have moved their products beyond the sweet spot of the market. It seems the sweet spot here is 6/7 territory, but maybe that has dropped to the 12 range. I wonder if they are doing an update on a 7 with all the fixes (and precision) that the 14 got. If so it could be lower cost and much easier to build. They know the sweet spot, but with prices creeping up, it is hard to see a less expensive, aerobatic, side-by -side, with a Lyc engine than the 7.
 
The most important thing they could do is to keep prices down and the performance high. Van's have always been the leader in this respect. But as Bill and Carl alluded too the prices are going up significantly with each new model. When I first started looking at Van's (many years ago) you could get a tail kit for not much more than $1,000 and get a great taste of building your first airplane parts! Trying doing that on a newer model! The -14 tail kit is $4100 :eek: Granted it is a nice and more complete kit.... but for broader appeal you couldn't go wrong with continuing to refine 7 and 8 parts and plans so they go together buttery smooth and concentrate on being a price/performance leader! They can start by making the horizontal stab SB on new kits all matched holed and/or redesign the front spar to eliminate. :D
 
I guess the big advantage for Van?s is, that they have a pretty unique product lineup of good looking and great performing planes, with reasonably well prefabricated kits and instructions. Right now, they also have pretty much no competition in the market segment, they are serving.

What however concerns me, is Van?s future outlook: The pool of people who are willing to put +2000 hours into building a plane, spending big bucks, will eventually dry up. Of those who built one, few will build a second Van?s, because of their similarity. A buddy built a 7 and recently bought a Zenith CH-750 kit, I am already dreaming of a Rans S-21, for once we?re done with the 10. Another buddy built a 9, would actually like to build something else, is a big Van?s fan, but doesn?t see a point in buying a 14 or any other Van?s aircraft. And so forth and so on?

Personally, I think they need to attract a new customer segment, for what faster to build kits and / or entirely new models would appear an appropriate measure.
Additionally, they need to find ways to make more existing customers build another Van?s aircraft. Again, an entirely new model and / or highly desirable new features in an existing model would come to mind. As a nice upgrade, the introduction of a turbocharged RV-10, with a significantly increased Vne would come to mind. Apparently, so many people asked Van?s if they could install turbocharged engines, that Van?s even felt the need to write a lengthy explanation why he things this would be a bad idea.

And, again, the introduction of an easy to build, high wing, all metal competitor to the Glasair Sportsman, would attract new customers and make more existing customers buy another kit from them.
 
What however concerns me, is Van?s future outlook: The pool of people who are willing to put +2000 hours into building a plane, spending big bucks, will eventually dry up.

You really think so? History so far suggests otherwise...
 
You really think so? [...]

Otherwise I wouldn't have made that statement. ;)


[...] History so far suggests otherwise...

Really? I actually think the opposite is the true. With the RV-6, they attracted new customers who were interested in a side-by-side seating. Pre-Punched kits made the Van's planes attractive / feasibly for a much broader customer base. The 10 again widened the customer base and also offered a real benefit over the existing product range, with its four seats.

I seriously feel that Van?s faces a similar dilemma like Apple: They are doing great, but they?d better come up with the ?next big thing?, if they want to keep selling stuff to their existing customers and attract new ones.
 
I guess the big advantage for Van?s is, that they have a pretty unique product lineup of good looking and great performing planes, with reasonably well prefabricated kits and instructions. Right now, they also have pretty much no competition in the market segment, they are serving.

What however concerns me, is Van?s future outlook: The pool of people who are willing to put +2000 hours into building a plane, spending big bucks, will eventually dry up. Of those who built one, few will build a second Van?s, because of their similarity. A buddy built a 7 and recently bought a Zenith CH-750 kit, I am already dreaming of a Rans S-21, for once we?re done with the 10. Another buddy built a 9, would actually like to build something else, is a big Van?s fan, but doesn?t see a point in buying a 14 or any other Van?s aircraft. And so forth and so on?

Personally, I think they need to attract a new customer segment, for what faster to build kits and / or entirely new models would appear an appropriate measure.
Additionally, they need to find ways to make more existing customers build another Van?s aircraft. Again, an entirely new model and / or highly desirable new features in an existing model would come to mind. As a nice upgrade, the introduction of a turbocharged RV-10, with a significantly increased Vne would come to mind. Apparently, so many people asked Van?s if they could install turbocharged engines, that Van?s even felt the need to write a lengthy explanation why he things this would be a bad idea.

And, again, the introduction of an easy to build, high wing, all metal competitor to the Glasair Sportsman, would attract new customers and make more existing customers buy another kit from them.


With the company approaching 45 years in business, I would say it has now passed through multiple generations of potential customers so there doesn't seem to be any indication of the customer base drying up but I guess anything is possible.

As for more powerful engines?

It doesn't matter what amount of horse power is used as a basis for a design, there will always be those that chose to add even more.

There is actually a large list of people that have been repeat builders / customers. Would there be even more if there were some other choices that were quite different from what is available now? Maybe... maybe not. People that are current customers, are so, because the current selection meets the mission they have for an airplane. Something of a very different mission profile may be of no interest.
It may attract new, otherwise unreachable customers but there are a lot of other good kit companies with products that already exist to fill those missions so even that is uncertain.

But who knows, maybe someday we will get a chance to find out.....
 
For those would like to see a high-wing Van's bush plane, what's funny is that there's a thread just like this going on over on the Rans forum. Regarding what the fans of that noted bushplane-producer think about what that company should pursue next:

What I would love to see from RANS, and what I would buy, is something competitive to the Vans RV's. I want an all metal, low wing, 180-200 mph airplane.

Oh, and it's got to be available in nose wheel AND tailwheel versions.

And since that thread quotes this thread, by quoting it in turn I may have tied the internet in a knot...
 
There are a lot of repeat builders. Once you build your first dream plane and fly it around for a while you start thinking, hypothetically, about what you would change if you were to, heaven forbid, build again. Before you know it you start to miss the process and a tail kit is ordered..
 
There are a lot of repeat builders. Once you build your first dream plane and fly it around for a while you start thinking, hypothetically, about what you would change if you were to, heaven forbid, build again. Before you know it you start to miss the process and a tail kit is ordered..

Or you build a wonderful RV-8A, but the wife wants more room for the cross countries. You build a dream RV-10 and sell the RV-8A, but after a few years your wife can't fly with you so the mission for the RV-10 evaporates. The RV-10 gets sold and the RV-8 slow build kits show up so you have a plane to fly by yourself.

Carl
Just finished RV-8 wing rib preps
 
Or you build a wonderful RV-8A, but the wife wants more room for the cross countries. You build a dream RV-10 and sell the RV-8A, but after a few years your wife can't fly with you so the mission for the RV-10 evaporates. The RV-10 gets sold and the RV-8 slow build kits show up so you have a plane to fly by yourself.

Carl
Just finished RV-8 wing rib preps

That is funny Carl! Talk about going full circle. Great example of a repeat offender! I hear Van's offers a discount for repeats too! My wife had no interest in piloting when we had our first plane hence the green light for -8 fighter build:D
 
That is funny Carl! Talk about going full circle. Great example of a repeat offender! I hear Van's offers a discount for repeats too! My wife had no interest in piloting when we had our first plane hence the green light for -8 fighter build:D

Or, the other way around. You build it, then she claims it as her own with her new pilot's license. "See ya! Going to see my mom, move a dog, ...." Gee, it seems I built her's first. The next one is "Mine!".

It is called a light twin. When I place a Vans order and they ask for build number, I know the -9 number (91070) which is what I use.

Yeah, I proclaim this is my last RV build, but my RV14 plans showed up today, just for a look-see of the new plans and parts format. Gee, it looks like current kits go together by themselves!
 
Shark-like or Stream-like RV-15

If anyone is familiar with the Stream and/or Shark aircraft from Europe, that is my suggestion of what the RV-15 perhaps should look like.

These two aircraft are similar tandem two-seaters with Rotax engines. They happen to be composite retractables, but the point is, via use of tandem seating and excellent aero design, the aircraft get quite nice cruise speeds and are super economical, designed around the carb Rotax engines. Would be even more economical with the 912is. Neither co. offers kits in the US, at least not yet. If they do, the kits will be expensive due to the composite airframe.

Van's could re-use most all of the RV-12is FWF design in such a new aircraft, and perhaps a number of other existing RV parts.

Now of course, if they were not retractables, the performance would be lower, but still very good - primarily on the tremendous drag reduction of tandem seating vs. side-by-side.

I have rolling around in the ol' noggin the question of whether one could build a gull-winged aircraft, not for the purpose of cool Black Sheep Squadron vibe, but instead for the purpose of allowing fixed gear that are semi-submerged into the bottom of the wing where the bend is located. Your wing would be more complex to make, but one might get part of the benefit of retractable gear with semi-submerged, fixed gear. No exposed gear leg, only partially exposed bottom of "wheel fairing".
?

One unfortunate feature of the 912is engine is that, to get that extra control simplicity, fuel economy, and performance, one needs to shell out another $5K on top of an already expensive engine. Such is life...
?

As a new marketing strategy, every time you order another sub-kit, Van's should send you a dozen lottery tickets. This would keep your hopes alive that you might hit the lottery, and thereby be able to afford the aircraft you are building!


-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH
"One of these days..."
 
...
Now of course, if they were not retractables, the performance would be lower, but still very good - primarily on the tremendous drag reduction of tandem seating vs. side-by-side.
..."
There was a gentleman in Germany who built an RV and then built a second one, identical to first, except he added retractable gear, including the tailwheel.

The speed difference was something like 4 knots but with an 80 pound weight penalty.

I'll take mine with fixed gear, thank you.
 
There was a gentleman who built ( if I remember right ) 6A with a turbine. I remember seeing a video of it taking off. It would be cool if somebody could dig that one up for viewing. I think it was built in the USA.
 
I got to see a picture of a 6A with a Lancair nose gear, pretty cool looking. I know that a Vans mod to any current model would stress Vans to the limit. One reason is everyone who built, everyone who bought, everyone who resold, everyone who bought parts from garages, the requirement is to notify ALL with updated plans, I believe it’s a requirement of the 51% rule under FAA guidelines. yes I believe that’s why you see separate vendors selling add-on to current models.
 
New model, or MODELS, here’s my two. sure my idea would be 9 EM-GT-model. First of all a new material for runways. Asphalt comprised of metal strips laid in vertical format full length of the runway surface. The bottom of the 9A would be of steel carbon fiber that be Electro Magnetic (EM) . With the steel in the runway being electrified the bottom on the 9A would hover above the surface like opposing fields of magnets thus by changing the the position of the electro field in the plane it could propel the aircraft straight down the runway in a crosswind with no deviation and then let the Catto prop do its thing! Next!! LANDING, aim for the numbers then land on the magnetic field and hover -to- taxi.. aye you say! The landing runway doesn’t have a a electromagnetic surface will that where the “GT” comes into play. Yep it stands for GEAR-TIRES. There you have it, bring in those short runways &#55357;&#56841;or&#55358;&#56618;.
My next model is a BL9IMP - PP. Yes a two person BLIMP! PP= Pedal Power. Like a bike, handlebars to control rudders and elevator and a propulsion by way for PEDAL POWER TO A CATTO PROP. The upp graded version would be the PP-SP being Solar Powered or Li-t battery.
 
sling 4

Would love to Vans buy out the group from So Africa that produces the Sling 4 and make changes to upgrade to a slightly larger engine
 
I've always hoped Van's would develop an upscale -8a on the order of a Texan 2 or Super Tacano size-wise with hard points and machine guns. :)
 
Sling

Would love to Vans buy out the group from So Africa that produces the Sling 4 and make changes to upgrade to a slightly larger engine

The sling 2 is one of the best looking and flying aircraft out there. I really wish they would have made the four a bit bigger with the same general look of the two.

Several years back the sling crew flew three airplanes to our airport after air venture and let us demo them. Nice guys.
 
RV-15 ?

As a builder of the 'older RV-12', There were a few things that I had wished for in the 12 that simply weren't there. Lo and behold, Vans came up with an improved RV-12 which to my mind, is an astonishingly good upgrade of my 12.

In my opinion, Van's has done an excellent job of improving the basic RV-12. As they have said, the ideas for improving the 12 came from those who were building or flying the 'older' 12.

So, why not improve the existing kits? Van's might want to solicit ideas from those who are currently flying or building the existing kits.
 
I don?t see any glaring holes in the product line- could it be that Van?s job is done? He has applied his magic to a full range of choices, all of which share a genius for the most efficient possible blend of aluminum structure and performance bang for the buck. He could certainly rest on his laurels!

I think a venture into motorgliders would be a natural for Van but that he knows that his tried and true methods really cannot compete with modern glass in that arena. Maybe an electric-powered local runabout of some sort?

My guess is that there may be refinements to some of the existing popular RV?s, but I?m not sure we should expect anything dramatically new.

Having said that, I hope I?ll be proven wrong!
 
I would love a -3 with the Kit Quality of the -14. And specially designed for a electrical setup. But as the current technologies do not yet allow more than 1hr endurance it would have to be in a few years (I am anyway not yet finished with the -8
 
Back
Top