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?)

I will probably get raked over the coals for this one but here it goes... a true 80% scale p-51 kit. Something that looks real and not forced. The titan looks a bit "off" IMHO.
 
I will probably get raked over the coals for this one but here it goes... a true 80% scale p-51 kit. Something that looks real and not forced. The titan looks a bit "off" IMHO.

Sorry, wrong topic! This thread is about the RV-15 not the RV-51! ;)
 
Last edited:
170B

Yes! the RV15 could be should be a 170B, with a 180 to 210 hp engine. hopefuly, with a wing that would cruse faster.
Designed with sticks, two front seats, OR ! One seat up front. Extended baggage a baggage door. Or a litter door?! Have you ever seen a 180 with a litter door?
I would not want a back seat, but there is an Atly Dodge folding seat that is offered for the 180. Might want one of those for my RV15.
 
Last edited:
RV-15

  • RV-14 fuselage & Wings
  • IO-540
  • Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
  • Flutter tested to 280KTs
_14.jpg
 
Yes! the RV15 could be should be a 170B heavy hauler, with a 180 to 210 hp engine.
Designed with sticks, two front seats, OR ! One seat up front. Extended baggage a baggage door. Or a litter door?! Have you ever seen a 180 with a litter door?
I would not want a back seat, but there is an Atly Dodge folding seat that is offered for the 180. Might want one of those for my RV15.

I agree 98% Jay. Only I want a removable split back seats. Call it a 2+2. I could take another couple to dinner or load up a family of three and take a trip. Two people with the back seats removed and food, tents, and all the supplies needed for and extended stay in the back country.

And yes, a side baggage door would be great!

They could design it as a tricycle or tailwheel, builder's choice, same as most of the other two seaters. Even better if it was designed to be easily changed back and forth.

Plus two if they designed in float fittings for the one percenters who want to get theirs wet.
 
280kts, yes and yes!

  • RV-14 fuselage & Wings
  • IO-540
  • Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
  • Flutter tested to 280KTs

I really like the idea here. Doesn't the idea of opening the canopy in an emergency sound good? From what I have heard a successful canopy removal in flight is not possible. What about smoke, fire, frost, leaks inside? And what about the open air the experience?
Has anyone hung a IO-540 on a 14 yet? Is flutter testing to 280kts really possible? If it is, then yes! yes! I am building a 14 and would stop now to make the upgrades.

Also I have been reading on Doug's "Cub" or back woods airplane idea and I think Vans should do both! I have been to AK around Lake Hood - Van's would dominate, it is needed.
Larry
 
To be really innovative, make it a cantilever high wing

So basically a Cessna 210. I think low wings are sexier and they just look faster but I guess anything would be cool if it can cruise at 200+ knots! I like the pushing vne part....
 
Last edited:
So basically a Cessna 210.

Seems like most of the ideas spelled out on this thread have been done already or don't fit Vans style. I can understand brand loyalty, but... :confused:

Specifically, DR's quest for a Supercub from Vans has me puzzled as to why? The PA-18 is probably the most copied design already. It's tube and fabric and high winged. RV's are not.
To make things even less likely, Cubcrafters with their homebuilt Carbon Cub EX kit is a 4 hour drive from Vans. RV's and CC's are everywhere up here. I don't know what the unspoken rules are in kit manufacturing about treading on your neighbors turf, but I doubt either is going to venture into the others'.

(If this has already been mentioned, sorry I haven't read all 350+ posts on this thread)
 
I think Vans have covered most of the wants of kit builders out there with their current designs, they have done their research. Sure there will always be those that want faster, bigger more seats etc but everything in aviation is a trade off! I've got an 8, it's about the best design Vans ever made I reckon, fighter looks & handling, very capable for what it is, the third wheel is where Vans intended it to be in their original concept/s and it's easy to fly/land, what more could I want without costing more to do the same thing.....FLY👍:)
 
One of the downsides to the current fleet of RV designs, as a friend reminded me the other day, is that we all sit in a big bucket that are difficult for less mobile pilots and passengers to get in and out of.

Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.
 
Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.

You just described the RV10.
 
You just described the RV10.

No, the RV-10 is not available as a Taildragger, requires an expensive six cylinder engine, does not like rough fields, and is difficult to get in and out of for less mobile people.
 
One of the downsides to the current fleet of RV designs, as a friend reminded me the other day, is that we all sit in a big bucket that are difficult for less mobile pilots and passengers to get in and out of.

Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.

More correctly, you've described a Glasair Sportsman 2+2! (not that I'm biased or anything LoL) Your comments closely mirror some of my decision-making criteria in selecting the Sportsman. The accessibility of the cockpit has become a much more critical consideration as my wife has experienced a significant reduction in her mobility. The RV8A that once caught her eye would now be a total impossibility for her. She can get in and out of the Sportsman pretty well, as can my octogenarian father and our EAA chapter's 91 year old senior statesman. As much as everybody may want a Vans airplane, close scrutiny of mission profile may force one to choose another brand.

Designing a viable high-wing aircraft would take a considerable departure from the "tried and true" methodologies found in the current Vans low -wing airplanes. Unlike in low-wing airplanes where the spar carry-through's often become part of the seat support structure, in a high-wing airplane it's a different game altogether. Vans would have to be willing to step well outside their comfort zone to tackle a design that's as far from their core competencies as a high-wing airplane would be.
 
More correctly, you've described a Glasair Sportsman 2+2! [...]

And this would be a very good thing! Reasonably fast, versatile and still capable of landing in backcountry strips.
I'm wondering if all the naysayers in this thread ever wondered why Cessna 172, 180, 182 and 185 are still so popular, despite of their age?


[...] Designing a viable high-wing aircraft would take a considerable departure from the "tried and true" methodologies found in the current Vans low -wing airplanes. [...]

Yes. But much, much, MUCH smaller companies like RANS or Glasair also managed to design great high and low wing aircraft. Heck, there are even brand new companies with brand new designs still entering the market (Vashon, Sling, etc..). If they can do it from scratch and be successful, I don't see any reason why Van's couldn't do it, if only they wanted to.
 
I think when the folks at Van's get bored and need a good chuckle, they read this thread! :D

And yes, the Cub, in all its reincarnations, has been done to death.

Yes am sure the Vans people would get a chuckle out of what's written here:D
Like I mentioned aviation is a trade off, Vans have the recipe just right for what they intended to design/build, a low wing, fast, agile and a basic design for a couple of people +, easy to build (using conventional methods and materials, things still highly sought after), small enough to house in small places and aerobatic (mostly), you can't make a square peg fit in every different shaped hole, that's why we have multiple manufacturers to make those different pegs��
The choice for flying machines out there is amazing, just not all from the same toybox��
 
Last edited:
Hi,
The ineresting thing Vans could do is looking at Higgs engines as a replacement of Lycoming in term of weight and consumption.
 
...and

...and there goes the affordability part of the equation.

Anyone care to bet on the cost of that new engine, IF it makes it to market?
 
Plenty of people/companies have tried alternate engine installations inc Mooney & Cessna to no commercial advantage.Buyers are hesitant to go down the alternate engine track knowing the resale value is low, that with the 'oddity' of the type and availability of fuel (usually jet/diesel) all means the idea fails.
Look how many experimental aircraft are out there with alternate engine installations compared to the tried and proven types, the ratio is very small!
Rotax have done well cause they use the old proven design, not some obscure type.
Each to their own i guess but Lycoming don't have anything to worry about for a very long time yet:)
 
Unique

Well, to those of you saying the cub-type is saturated, and Cessna has a lock on high wing, then the only thing left is a high wing speedster pusher. This here would be a new market segment.

Dont see many of those? There is something to be said for Darwinism; it works over time.
 
Hi,
The ineresting thing Vans could do is looking at Higgs engines as a replacement of Lycoming in term of weight and consumption.

I had to research this engine.

It was supposed to start certification two years ago and in that time, nothing has made the news. Sounds like a dead engine.

In reading the weight and HP numbers for their engines, it doesn't sound realistic. Meaning compression ignition engines are typically much heavier than spark ignition engines. Their weight numbers are way in the light side!

I think Van's has been smart staying with the tried and true.
 
It isn't compression ignition...it is a combined cycle engine...

You are correct. I was reading about it on a diesel engine site.

Still, it seems light for the HP it was putting out. I wish them luck but for any airplane company to bet that kind of cash on an unproven engine would be a real risk.

It would be nice to see a good replacement for our Lycoming engines but it would have to be a well proven design. Just look at how long it took the Rotax 912 to be accepted and yet it is not uncommon to hear people put them down.
 
I'm hoping

Hoping for the best with these alternative engines...I'd really like to see one of these good ideas make it to market...
 
Rotax 915 engine would be a good match for the RV9 wing. Is there scope there for a model between the 9 and the 12.

A 7/9 sized kit refreshed to the build documentation of the 14 would be good also.
 
Rotax 915 engine would be a good match for the RV9 wing. Is there scope there for a model between the 9 and the 12.

A 7/9 sized kit refreshed to the build documentation of the 14 would be good also.


I think something of this vein that meets proposed new LSA rules will be the answer. I also think Vans will have a factory-built option as rules around both LSAs and builder assist loosen.
 
A refresh of the RV-8 with the tube landing gear instead of the flat gear would be cool.. BUT..

If Van's did a high-wing STOL-ish airplane.. I'd have real trouble resisting it.
 
Dream airplane

Van?s would do well to offer a tapered wing option for the Rv-7 and RV-8 kits.

Only two things currently prevent me from starting to buid a Van?s kit. First of all, I have a busy life and I just don?t have more than 800 hours to spend on such a project. I could probably purchase an abandoned project plane.

Secondly, I already own an airplane. The next one will be my forever plane, so it absolutely has to have tapered wings. I mean no disrespect, but I don?t like the looks of the Van?s rectangular wings.

My dream airplane would be a quick build metal/composite Van?s airplane that would look like the Falco, but With the kit being produced and supported by Van?s, which has a great reputation in the industry.
 
Van?s would do well to offer a tapered wing option for the Rv-7 and RV-8 kits.
Only two things currently prevent me from starting to buid a Van?s kit. First of all, I have a busy life and I just don?t have more than 800 hours to spend on such a project. I could probably purchase an abandoned project plane.
Secondly, I already own an airplane. The next one will be my forever plane, so it absolutely has to have tapered wings. I mean no disrespect, but I don?t like the looks of the Van?s rectangular wings.
My dream airplane would be a quick build metal/composite Van?s airplane that would look like the Falco, but With the kit being produced and supported by Van?s, which has a great reputation in the industry.

One of the biggest reasons for Van's reputation is that he designs a relatively simple, easy to build, great performing airplane.
A round fuselage like the Falco and a tapered wing would increase complexity and build time considerably. The terms "quick build" and "tapered wing" do not belong in the same sentence.
 
...
My dream airplane would be a quick build metal/composite Van?s airplane that would look like the Falco, but ...

Have you bothered to compare the Falco with an RV?

Granted, the Falco is beautiful but the RV is faster, slower, wider, has a greater useful load, simpler fuel system, is easier to build, etc. All those traits make the RV a much better looking airplane!
 
Mel,

I don't follow your logic. The Bushby Mustang II has a tapered wing, and even the old non-prepunched kit wings were no worse to build than the old -4/-6 wings. And they've been available prepunched for quite a while. It's still a flat wrap wing. CNC makes many perceived problems disappear.

Charlie
 
Pascal, welcome to VAF:D

Have you thought about a Rocket with the Evo wing?

http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/f1-specifications.html

Hi Mike, thanks for welcoming me here. The Rocket might be too much airplane for me.

In my quest for the next airplane, I am looking to solve four shortcomings of my current airplane which are limited range and speed, certified prices for everything (especially avionics), and a very small community of owners for an aircraft which is out of production but still supported by its manufacturer.

I have been reading the forums here for a while. I?m thinking an IO-320 or IO-360 with a fixed pitch propeller to keep the complexity, weight and price down. Apart from the occasional aileron roll and looping, I am not planning on any serious aerobatics. The mission calls for an aircraft that can reliably give me 500 nautical miles plus reserve, on a 20 knots headwind.

I don?t know much about airplane building but I have designed, scratch built and flown several RC airplanes.

Let?s say I want to build a wing that would be similar to the RV8?s wing, but two feet wider and tapered. Could I build the wing upside down on a flat surface? The resulting wing when turned upright would be horizontal and the taper would provide some dihydral on the underside?
 
Le' Apples and Le' Oranges...

I have been reading the forums here for a while. I’m thinking an IO-320 or IO-360 with a fixed pitch propeller to keep the complexity, weight and price down. Apart from the occasional aileron roll and looping, I am not planning on any serious aerobatics. The mission calls for an aircraft that can reliably give me 500 nautical miles plus reserve, on a 20 knots headwind.
Pascal,
Not to further hijack the RV15 thread but your question is valid and response-worthy.
Based on your requirements, Range/Speed, the distaste of the Hershey Bar Wing and you don't have time to build, consider a Mustang II. The Mustang is faster at top end for equal HP but the RV will takeoff and land slower. Another Mustang II advantage is cost. They can be purchased flying for less $$$, especially compared to newer RV's. Additionally Mustang Aero makes kits and they aren't far from you...www.mustangaero.com

All that said I still prefer the RV for my own requirements which include operating from 400M' (1200') runways. For me, utility outweighs pure aesthetics every time. Any stock RV will also match your speed/range requirements flown properly or modified like mine with ER tanks. www.hotelwhiskeyaviation.com The RV's NACA23012/3 airfoil is shared by the Bonanza, Taylorcraft, King Air, Baron, T-34 and others. There is a reason that all-star list of aircraft is so successful. They all have awesome flight characteristics across the board, including aerobatics. You don't need to re-invent the wheel building a one-off tapered wing to have that...

Here is an AOPA comparison article between the RV7 and the Mustang 2.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/march/pilot/flyoff-rv-7-vs-mustang-ii

Bonne Chance..
Smokey

PS: I have been blessed to fly everything from Commercial Jets to the F16 and Sport Aircraft for 40 years. What do I own? A highly modified RV...
 
Last edited:
Have you bothered to compare the Falco with an RV?

Granted, the Falco is beautiful but the RV is faster, slower, wider, has a greater useful load, simpler fuel system, is easier to build, etc. All those traits make the RV a much better looking airplane!

We have 5 Falco's at our local airstrip, and number 6 in the works (for decades).

Despite their tapered wings and retractable gear, our dirt simple RV-4 with 160 hp O-320 and fixed pitch (Catto) prop outruns and certainly outclimbs even a Falco with IO-360 and c/s prop.

Great looking and flying they might be, I wouldn't trade the -4 for one!

(A taper-wing F1 Rocket on the other hand... hmmmm)
 
Doug,

I agree with you Doug; however, I would like to see a 2+2 "bush" plane. Call it a 180 hp Cessna 170 with 8" wheels (Larger, if the pilot wants).

Van's could design it like the -7 & -8 where they can be built with any engine from 150 to 200 HP and with or without a CS prop.

I don't need to build another two seat RV, I have one that I love but we already use it like a Super Cub and would like room to take my wife and another couple out for dinner or myself, my wife, and son can load it up and go camping for a weekend.

The RV-9 with a strut plugged in at the tie-down ring fitting, longer wing tips, the same RV-9 taildragger firewall and engine mount with the wing mounted up top would be amazing.

The RV-7 & -9 tail cone, VS, and rudder could be reused along with the -9's HS but with five rib tips installed on each side, instead of just three would increase the strength.

The goal would be a plane that can comfortably land and take off in 1500', not 200' like many of the highly modified Super Cub's can, and can cruise at 150 to 160 MPH but still stall in the 40's like the -9 does.

Van's, if you read this and agree, send me the first kit and I will be more than happy to be your test builder! If that doesn't work, let me know you are designing "my plane" and I will stop building the WagAero 2+2.


As everyone knows, airplanes are full of compromises, and I would argue that this is even more true in the bushplane world. Having an airplane go fast and slow (which in my mind is in the 35kt range) is super hard to do. You need a very draggy airfoil to do it, and draggy airfoils kill speed, that said, using a draggy high lift airfoil and keeping the rest of it clean would surely work well.

Anyway, I think a bush plane coming from Vans would be cool, but I wouldn't do rag and tube because there are already a LOT of options in that field, and because Van's doesn't have as much experience here, and because, well, it wouldn't be a Vans.

This is one of the reasons the S-21 is so popular and interesting, it's an aluminum bush plane, with a single strut, and spring gear (translation, it's able to go fast too). Your typical cub is a seriously dirty airplane.

So if van's built a high wing, this is what I would like to see:

1. Combination of aluminum and steel construction like the S-21. Rollcage is important to a bush plane. Cessna's look like crushed beer cans when crashed.

2. Horner style wing tips build into the design, made from formed aluminum. That would make the effective wing length longer.

3. High lift wing like a Cessna 180 with a Sportsman cuff.

4. Single strut, for simplicity and speed.

5. Jackscrew style h-stab. The ability to trim the stab makes a huge difference in making the airplane safe with rear CG.

6. Spring gear. It's not as good as the other options for back country flying, but it makes sense to have a faster back country airplane from Vans. If you want to smash it on the ground, buy a cub.

7. Gear mounts very very very very strong. Like a p-ponk box kit.

8. Skylight and seaplane doors as options. Allow the builder to choose and have instructions for either way.

9. Float attach points, so make sure the fuse is strong enough to get roughed up on floats without wrinkling.

10. Use a strong tailwheel, Scott 3200.

11. HP wise, 180hp is plenty, so parallel valve lycoming.

12. Side by side seating. Lots of tandem options, so make this one different.

13. Bike mount option like the Murphy Radical.

14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.

15. Nice, long, extending fowler flaps, like Keller flaps. Stuff on the front of the wing like slats makes it fly slower, but very nose up, while stuff on the back of the wing like flaps also make it fly slower, but nose down.

16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.

17. Provide strong/nice seatbelt mounts with inertia reels and 4-pt harnesses.

You get the idea, something like a very light/strong/smaller Cessna 170 without the rear seat, much better flaps, stab trim, with seaplane doors and skylight with a 180HP engine.


Given that I can operate my (heavy) 170A with a stock engine in 1000ft with two people (300 ft solo), I suspect the above could work in 800ft at gross, or 200 ft solo, but still cruise at 120kt with a fixed pitch or 135kt with a constant speed.

Anyway, opinion is only worth $.02 Alaskan, so take it for what it's worth.
 
As everyone knows, airplanes are full of compromises, and I would argue that this is even more true in the bushplane world. Having an airplane go fast and slow (which in my mind is in the 35kt range) is super hard to do. You need a very draggy airfoil to do it, and draggy airfoils kill speed, that said, using a draggy high lift airfoil and keeping the rest of it clean would surely work well.

Anyway, I think a bush plane coming from Vans would be cool, but I wouldn't do rag and tube because there are already a LOT of options in that field, and because Van's doesn't have as much experience here, and because, well, it wouldn't be a Vans.

This is one of the reasons the S-21 is so popular and interesting, it's an aluminum bush plane, with a single strut, and spring gear (translation, it's able to go fast too). Your typical cub is a seriously dirty airplane.

So if van's built a high wing, this is what I would like to see:

1. Combination of aluminum and steel construction like the S-21. Rollcage is important to a bush plane. Cessna's look like crushed beer cans when crashed.

2. Horner style wing tips build into the design, made from formed aluminum. That would make the effective wing length longer.

3. High lift wing like a Cessna 180 with a Sportsman cuff.

4. Single strut, for simplicity and speed.

5. Jackscrew style h-stab. The ability to trim the stab makes a huge difference in making the airplane safe with rear CG.

6. Spring gear. It's not as good as the other options for back country flying, but it makes sense to have a faster back country airplane from Vans. If you want to smash it on the ground, buy a cub.

7. Gear mounts very very very very strong. Like a p-ponk box kit.

8. Skylight and seaplane doors as options. Allow the builder to choose and have instructions for either way.

9. Float attach points, so make sure the fuse is strong enough to get roughed up on floats without wrinkling.

10. Use a strong tailwheel, Scott 3200.

11. HP wise, 180hp is plenty, so parallel valve lycoming.

12. Side by side seating. Lots of tandem options, so make this one different.

13. Bike mount option like the Murphy Radical.

14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.

15. Nice, long, extending fowler flaps, like Keller flaps. Stuff on the front of the wing like slats makes it fly slower, but very nose up, while stuff on the back of the wing like flaps also make it fly slower, but nose down.

16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.

17. Provide strong/nice seatbelt mounts with inertia reels and 4-pt harnesses.

You get the idea, something like a very light/strong/smaller Cessna 170 without the rear seat, much better flaps, stab trim, with seaplane doors and skylight with a 180HP engine.


Given that I can operate my (heavy) 170A with a stock engine in 1000ft with two people (300 ft solo), I suspect the above could work in 800ft at gross, or 200 ft solo, but still cruise at 120kt with a fixed pitch or 135kt with a constant speed.

Anyway, opinion is only worth $.02 Alaskan, so take it for what it's worth.

Wow... when I read that well-reasoned list of requirements I realized it was checking off all the boxes that I checked off when selecting our Glasair Sportsman. OK, all except the "all metal" part.

Glad to see I'm not the only one with this kind of shopping list!

For what it's worth, our 180HP Sportsman with Hartzell F7666A constant speed blades trues out pretty nicely at 134kts at my usual cruise power just below 75%. I love being able to fill the 50gal tanks, stick another 200lb person in the seat beside me and still have over 200lbs of cargo capacity, while enjoying a very comfortable, well-appointed cabin. After a year of flying this bird I can't see anything in that "wish list" that needs to be modified.
 
Wow... when I read that well-reasoned list of requirements I realized it was checking off all the boxes that I checked off when selecting our Glasair Sportsman. OK, all except the "all metal" part.

Glad to see I'm not the only one with this kind of shopping list!

For what it's worth, our 180HP Sportsman with Hartzell F7666A constant speed blades trues out pretty nicely at 134kts at my usual cruise power just below 75%. I love being able to fill the 50gal tanks, stick another 200lb person in the seat beside me and still have over 200lbs of cargo capacity, while enjoying a very comfortable, well-appointed cabin. After a year of flying this bird I can't see anything in that "wish list" that needs to be modified.

I agree, it's close, but many people really dislike working with glass airplanes, and the sportsman is still missing the trimmable stab, horner wing tips, has MUCH less wing area than a 170, no bike mount, the Keller flaps.

Think of a Cessna 170 with a stol kit, that's only 1200lbs, with 180hp and these flaps:

attachment.php


I think that would fly very very slow.
 
A couple of thoughts....

I agree with just about every point on your list, with the following comments...

14. Prepunched and dimpled for flush rivets. There are enough pop rivet bush planes out there.

At the speeds these airplanes operate at, there is no advantage to flush rivets other than looks (except maybe on the leading edge of the wing), and flush rivets are a lot more work (which equates to either time or money, depending on who does the work). I'd be perfectly happy with standard rivets rather than flush. Maybe a minor point, but saving time and/or money isn't a bad thing.

16. Make it smaller than the bearhawk/maule/C-180, but larger than a cub. I think C-170 size (perhaps a hair smaller without a rear seat) would be nice. 2000lbs, and try to keep the empty weight in the 1200lb range or perhaps 1300 on bushwheels and a constant speed.

All good, except maybe make it just a couple inches wider than a 170. In that size range, two inches of extra width would be hugely noticed without sacrificing anything notable in the speed department.

All in all, it would be a **** of an airplane! (Especially if you get the shape of the tail right. That's the one place where the Glastar loses me.)
 
RV Jet

Well, sorry to spoil all the high wing bush plane fun, but I think Van should do a (simple!) jet. Think of it as the RV-3 of personal jets to improve upon the pioneering Sonex (the RV-1/prototype in this analogy). Besides, we need something to get Ironflight?s head back in the game ... too many (snarky) non RV posts from him these days :):)

A guy can dream can?t he ?

Peter
 
I'd love to see a high-wing, along the lines of a Pilatus Porter (now discontinued!) with 4-6 seats, but because of the aforementioned issues with designing a high wing, I doubt it will happen.

What might be a thought is a 'bush' version of the RV-10, set on taller tailwheel gear and built as a two-place with ample baggage capacity.

On a side note - has anyone ever had fun thinking about an twin RV-4, along the lines of a an F-82? No doubt it could be done...but 'should', well, that's another matter.

And now, back to my scratchbuilt RV-3.
 
There is a guy building a twin RV6 and it looked impressive.

I think it's safe to assume that the RV-15 is an RV-14 sized RV-8
 
Back
Top