What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What should Vans do next?

Now that the RV-12 is out the door, what should the next RV be?

  • Nothing for now - focus on efficiency, cut costs and prices, survive.

    Votes: 209 30.2%
  • A factory-built version of the RV-12

    Votes: 36 5.2%
  • The RV-11 Motorglider

    Votes: 120 17.4%
  • An amphibian

    Votes: 54 7.8%
  • An updated single-seater

    Votes: 110 15.9%
  • A twin, using the new IO-233 or Rotax engines

    Votes: 71 10.3%
  • A turboprop

    Votes: 36 5.2%
  • A jet!

    Votes: 55 8.0%

  • Total voters
    691
Here are a few ideas (probably already stated in this thread):

Revisit the cowl design and try to lower the cooling drag by creating some kind of lower cowl baffling that would also stop floor vibration in 6,7,9 and improve efficiency

Redesign the 6,7, 8 and 9 nosewheels

Sort out documentation - particulary for older models - e.g. air dams in baffle plans for 7 and 9 apparently, but how would a 6 owner know about that? (just stick something on the Vans website)

Yep that glider would be cool - preferably electric and maybe with solar panels on the wings

Do a study on the RV6 and maybe increase max load (just 50lbs would be good)

Do long range tanks

Investigate a modified monkeybike (50-100cc cable of 45mph and can use Avgas from the tanks) that could fit in a RV6,7,9 (would have a big market for that - 500 - 1000 owners would want one)

Produce a taper wing retrofit (not sure would be much more efficient but would look cool)

Finally how about guns?
 
Fix the Nose wheel

Not since the RV-3 wings would fail in flight and the 3B wing redesign, Has Vans had a such a Moral Hazard as the 6,7,8,9 A nose wheel. Regardless of how it happens, who is at fault, Pilots, Vans, Gofers, It does happen and far too often.I would like to see a stronger nose gear to address this issue. Who better than Vans to do this, I can't think of a better time than right now for the company.
 
hmmm... realistically - what base doesn't Van's have covered. Everything is there except maybe a niche market (no harm in that)! How can we help keep Ken et al busy? Maybe just upgrades to the current line.

  • A new nose wheel option for those that want it (I'd like to think I'm going tail dragger if I can ever get back to the project again!)
  • Extended range tank option for all models
  • RV-12 style panel option for those that want it
  • An improved golf swing (everyone needs one of those) :D
Bob
 
Nosewheel, Nosewheel, Nosewheel, Nosewheel.

How many rollovers before a death and lawsuite shuts down Van's? Apply the resource to improve the "A" nose landing gear design.
 
Not since the RV-3 wings would fail in flight and the 3B wing redesign, Has Vans had a such a Moral Hazard as the 6,7,8,9 A nose wheel. Regardless of how it happens, who is at fault, Pilots, Vans, Gofers, It does happen and far too often.I would like to see a stronger nose gear to address this issue. Who better than Vans to do this, I can't think of a better time than right now for the company.

what statistics do you have to back up your claim? If you say it happens way to often i'd like to see a little statistical comparison of rva models flying, vs ones that have flipped or had a nose wheel incident. I know statistics can be made to show things you want, but i'd like to see people that make a claim have some number, any number; an actual number of incidents to say there have been to many.
 
How many rollovers before a death and lawsuite shuts down Van's? Apply the resource to improve the "A" nose landing gear design
If you want a "true" nosewheel aeroplane, buy one - not a "converted" taildragger :eek: That is what A stands for...

Whilst the rollovers are hardly desirable, I do not think they are a significant safety hazard, given that Van's effectively say to keep the NW off the ground. As per the post above, yes - they do have a number of high profile accidents, but are they actually more hazardous than the taildragger version?

Andy
 
I vote for a more robust nose wheel, as well as improved build instructions/ docs for the 7,9, etc. I never understood why they don't try and make the build as easy as reasonably possible.
 
Kitplanes, July 2010, article starting page 36.

the article shows the rv6a has more accidents than the rv6, the rv8a has less than the rv8, and it doesn't separate the rv 9 or rv 7 out into nose/ tail wheel. not much there other than rehashed old stuff before the redesigned nosewheel fork
 
There might not be much else out there in an organized form. The NTSB files are available, I think, and a dedicated inquirer could possible update the matter, with some effort.

I mentioned the Kitplane article because it was relatively recent.
 
I vote for ... as well as improved build instructions/ docs for the 7,9, etc. I never understood why they don't try and make the build as easy as reasonably possible.

Have you seen a non-prepunched kit? In the past decade, Van's has introduced the -7, -9, -10, and -12 kits. Those virtually snap together in comparision to the -3, -4, and -6 models.

Trust me, it's a lot easier than it once was...

But, what should they work on?

A Lyclone 0-390 option for the -10 as well as Continental 0-360, 0-470/520/550 options. Realistically, I'd love a smaller engine option than the -540 that is currently the only supported option.
 
what statistics do you have to back up your claim? If you say it happens way to often i'd like to see a little statistical comparison of rva models flying, vs ones that have flipped or had a nose wheel incident. I know statistics can be made to show things you want, but i'd like to see people that make a claim have some number, any number; an actual number of incidents to say there have been to many.

I don't know the exact number,but I will bet you a Cheese Steak,Vans does!More than a few are not reported,parts can only be bought from one place,Vans. I know of one ship that was not reported in the Philadelphia area alone,it's not to their benefit to release that Intel.It would be to everyone's benefit to have a nose gear that would live up to the "Total performance"of the rest of the line.
 
Why?

Realistically, I'd love a smaller engine option than the -540 that is currently the only supported option.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Atlanta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB

Can you elaborate? (without a thread hijack)

Carry on!
Mark
 
Additions to take the RV-10 the next stage as an IFR platform. In particular, a turbo charged/normalized engine, some de-icing equipment as an option,... flight tested recommendations for redundancy would be nice too.
 
I'd vote for a taildragger that goes together as quickly and easily as the RV-12. Maybe even a taildragger version of the -12.
 
Taildragger high-wing LSA STOL bushplane similar to the Zenith CH-701 but with the cruising speed of the RV-12.

i.e. a jeep with wings
 
Last edited:
Redesign RV-12 a bit

Since it seems that there are very few, if any, people who plan to trailer their RV-12 to and from the airport, redesign it so that the fuel is in the wings just like its big brothers.

Also, maybe update the panel option to SkyView and G-696.
 
I think, as a lot of the others have stated, that an updated plans/manual for the 7/9 including an up to date electrical system kit supporting a glass panel (with a couple of options aka RV-12) and including lighting would be great. The build time and frustration could be reduced significantly (I estimate that at least 1/3 of my time has been spent on the web sifting through parts catalogs and ordering miscellaneous minutia). I bought a kit plane because I didn’t want to get an aeronautical engineering degree and design/fabricate one, only to find out part way through the build that I darn near needed to get an electrical engineering degree and design/build my own electrical/avionics system and order more stuff over the internet than I will for the combined needs of the rest of my life.

This “complete kit/QB” option should include everything except painting and fluids. I really, really enjoy building but my experience would be significantly enhanced if I could pull all my materials from my parts depot (spare bedroom) and become less chummy with the UPS guy (just kidding, I have never made it to the front door before he’s hitting second gear). And for those that want to do everything their way. No problem. Just choose the “slow build, extensively internet supplemented” option.
 
Rocket

With everybody making these airplanes faster, but the vne still a limiting factor, I vote a rocket design. The IO540 (with turbo in the design)

This design could be built on existing engineering. A bush plane would be nice and I'm sure there would be a market, but I'm thinking a rocket would be the quicker to market and share more parts.

I for one would be very interested.
 
Update Plans & Update Pre-Punch

Like many, I would like to see the plans on all the models to be to the quality of the -12 or -10 with the illustrations on the same page as the instructions.

I believe an even better idea would be to pre-punch the kits to #40 size. If Van's can pre-punch the -12 to final size, why cannot it not be done to the other kits wherever possible? Every model from the -7 onward is in a computer file somewhere so it wouldn't be necessary to reinvent the wheel, it would just be a matter of tweaking the design. The time savings would be significant, which I think would translate to more sales because lower build times.

Just a dream.

Joe Hutchison
 
High Wing 4 Seat (aka High wing RV-10)

I owned a Cardinal and loved the size but couldn't stand the lack of performance. (compared RV's) I now own an RV-9A and love the way it flys. The only problem is my wife hates it. She finds it difficult to get in and doesn't like that the wing blocks her view of the ground. I know Van considered a high wing when they were coming up with the 10, but I'm hoping they go that route so both husbands and wives can be happy. No question, I'd jump right on a high wing 4 place from Vans in a heartbeat.


Mark Klepper
N1075
 
Light Sport Aerobatic

Use the RV3 Fuse and change the wing and such to make an aerobatic competition optimized Light Sport plane.

Brian
 
How about a pre-punched RV-3 kit (and/or full quickbuild - not just the wings) as others have suggested. And include the new O-233 Lycoming as a factory supported engine choice. Still 115 HP with great fuel specifics, 2400 hr TBO, dual CDI ignition, and light weight. With 30 gal on board, this combo would have very good duration and range.
 
Vote for high wing

As I get older, my wife and I both have trouble getting into low wing airplanes. Also read a story where an old timer had to sell his RV3 because he could not get into a low wing; don't want that happpening to me. I vote for a high wing RV10. This should be a suficient challenge for Vans to make then interested:)
 
High Wing Bush Style

Just to listen to all those other manufacturers saying, "this isn't going to be good."
 
Torn between 1 and 6

I'm torn between 1 (Survive) and 6 (a jet). On the one hand, Vans needs to survive, and this economy is a tough one. However, Vans got where it is today by what I call "economical innovation." I think Vans should continue to innovate, because that buzz is what keeps new people coming in the door.
For instance, I would imagine Sonex has driven up its sales immensely by creating the single place "jet-buzz" along with the "electric plane" buzz. I would like to see Vans go in, put them all back on their heels, and show them that aluminum construction is not as antiquated as all those composite guys would have us believe. Perhaps a jet isn't as practical, but nothing gets the buzz going like an affordable, aerobatic jet! My $0.02..

Mike
 
ELSA RV-4

Wow... the never ending thread providing business advice to Van's. (Or our fantasies depending on your point of view). My view has grown stronger the longer I contemplate the options. I believe and really want an LSA equivalent of an RV-4. Van's has proven that there is a market in LSA. And much like the 7 Vs. 8 situation... there are a lot of us out there that really like centerline seating. Yet, there is not a kit on the market that gives you a low wing, sporty, tandem seating, taildragger LSA. The 'close but no cigar' are the MS-One and Warner Sportster - neither of which have updated their web sites in a year. The segment needs some excitement! I also think there are many folks that love the old RV-4 but want a fully match hole/prepunched kit that would jump on this.

RV-14: Tandem low wing ELSA
Gear: Tail dragger!
Engine: by priority - O-233, O-200, Jab 3300, Rotax
Empty weight: 820 lbs. or less (Allows for 2-200 lb dudes/2 hours fuel plus reserves)
+5/-2.5 rated
Keep it light, simple and fun. Just a little more excitement than the RV-12/S-19 cruisers... :p

Well... I'd put down a deposit on it today! :D
 
I believe and really want an LSA equivalent of an RV-4. Van's has proven that there is a market in LSA. And much like the 7 Vs. 8 situation... there are a lot of us out there that really like centerline seating. Yet, there is not a kit on the market that gives you a low wing, sporty, tandem seating, taildragger LSA. The 'close but no cigar' are the MS-One and Warner Sportster - neither of which have updated their web sites in a year. The segment needs some excitement! I also think there are many folks that love the old RV-4 but want a fully match hole/prepunched kit that would jump on this.

RV-14: Tandem low wing ELSA
Gear: Tail dragger!
Engine: by priority - O-233, O-200, Jab 3300, Rotax
Empty weight: 820 lbs. or less (Allows for 2-200 lb dudes/2 hours fuel plus reserves)
+5/-2.5 rated
Keep it light, simple and fun. Just a little more excitement than the RV-12/S-19 cruisers... :p

Have you guys read about the Thatcher CX5? http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2011-02_thatcher.asp Itis not an RV or aerobatic but its LSA design is certainly a consideration per some of the requests I've read from earlier posts here. Yes I do think that Vans can do something very similar with the -4 as also mentioned.
 
Last edited:
E-LSA RV-12L yep Lycoming

I did not go though the entire 13 pages of inuts so this may be redundant but as a "serior citizen" flying a 9A I can see the time when simpler and lower-cost-per flying-hour will be a "mission" for my plane.

I have flown the RV-12 and like almost everything about it. My biggest complaint is the complicated propulsion system. How about an E-LSA RV-12L. Yep, do everything they have with the Rotax but use the new LSA Lycoming.

I am confident Vans did all the homework before deciding on the Rotax but four of the five planes I have flown have had Lycomings and these engines have proven very reliable and relatively easy to work on.

Just my thoughts
 
Have you guys read about the Thatcher CX5? http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2011-02_thatcher.asp Itis not an RV or aerobatic but its LSA design is certainly a consideration per some of the requests I've read from earlier posts here. Yes I do think that Vans can do something very similar with the -4 as also mentioned.

Wow... very interesting. I hope the folks at Van's are taking notice. Others are getting the idea. I'll be watching the development... but really pulling for Van's to head in this direction. PLEASE! :D
 
Electric Motor?

I'm surprised that the Poll offers no option of Electric Propulsion. There's a lot of interest here. Battery technology is progressing while cost is falling. Capacity to weight ratio has improved and there's trickle down from automotive development. There's an electric Skyhawk, the Yuneec and Sonex is investing. Van's outlook has always been conservative, to improve on established designs. Perhaps the idea is too radical?
 
Ken Kruger did a presentation at Oshkosh 2009 on what an electric powered RV might look like. Van has repeatedly written papers in the RVator newsletter on electric propulsion (an example of the sort of story I am going miss with the discontinuation of the RVator). And, Van owns an electric sailplane.
 
Last edited:
how about ........

a jet?
F15-02-june.gif
 
Dream vs. reality

The dream:

Between the RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9, Vans has some mighty fine 2-seat single engine (SE) aircraft. I don't see much value in re-inventing that particular wheel and I trust others would agree.

I also think with the RV-12 they have tapped the LSA market-place with a tidy little aircraft that can steal some market share from the likes of Zenith etc. The RV-12 could do with some cosmetic improvements but this is not the most important thing to work on.

I can see two potential directions for Vans in the next 3-5 years:

Option #1 - Using the expertise to date in SE low wing design, create a 6-seat aircraft that basically builds on the RV-10 - either directly or in concept. This would be the "Cherokee Six" to Van's current "Cherokee" (the RV-10).

I'm not an expert in propulsion but I presume a 300 hp IO-540 would do the trick, as it did for the PA-32-300.

Optional extras: Retractable gear option, making it very similar to a Piper Lance.



In some ways, this development might then lead naturally to ...


Option #2 - A twin engine 4-seat (RV-10 derived) or 6-seat airframe. Two IO-320's or 360's. If this was based off option #1, then it would be the "Seneca" to the 6-seat "Cherokee Six". With Van at the pencil, I imagine it could end up being the best performing (economy etc) small twin since the Twin Comanche! (Which I had the pleasure of flying in just last week as it happens. In the back seat on the way back I found myself wondering .. if I took an RV-10 fuse, beefed up the centre section, changed the wing ... :) !)



Now, crashing back to reality ...

What Vans should probably do .. hunker down and make sure they survive the coming mess!

We can but dream. Van has shown us how.
 
Last edited:
The dream:

Between the RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9, Vans has some mighty fine 2-seat single engine (SE) aircraft. I don't see much value in re-inventing that particular wheel and I trust others would agree.

I also think with the RV-12 they have tapped the LSA market-place with a tidy little aircraft that can steal some market share from the likes of Zenith etc. The RV-12 could do with some cosmetic improvements but this is not the most important thing to work on.

I can see two potential directions for Vans in the next 3-5 years:

Option #1 - Using the expertise to date in SE low wing design, create a 6-seat aircraft that basically builds on the RV-10 - either directly or in concept. This would be the "Cherokee Six" to Van's current "Cherokee" (the RV-10).

I'm not an expert in propulsion but I presume a 300 hp IO-540 would do the trick, as it did for the PA-32-300.

Optional extras: Retractable gear option, making it very similar to a Piper Lance.



In some ways, this development might then lead naturally to ...


Option #2 - A twin engine 4-seat (RV-10 derived) or 6-seat airframe. Two IO-320's or 360's. If this was based off option #1, then it would be the "Seneca" to the 6-seat "Cherokee Six". With Van at the pencil, I imagine it could end up being the best performing (economy etc) small twin since the Twin Comanche! (Which I had the pleasure of flying in just last week as it happens. In the back seat on the way back I found myself wondering .. if I took an RV-10 fuse, beefed up the centre section, changed the wing ... :) !)



Now, crashing back to reality ...

What Vans should probably do .. hunker down and make sure they survive the coming mess!

We can but dream. Van has shown us how.

I'm not seeing either of these happening. I don't know the answer to the question, "How many piston single, six seat aircraft have been sold in the past year?" but my guess is the number is small... even smaller if you consider those sold purely for private purposes (experimental unuseable for commercial purposes). Ditto on the twin idea. VERY few for personal aircraft, and the pool of potential buyers (twin rated) is surely a small fraction of the total pool interested in an experimental. These are both also high $ aircraft (relatively), which doesn't lend well to experimental either.

My best guess would be a motor glider (...because Van likes them and has already started the RV-11 design/prototype), or a high wing "bush" plane. The latter fits well in the experimental category and is an untapped market for Van's. It is a pretty well served market already, however, so they would need to steal market share to make it viable (from the likes of Glastar, Smith Cub, CubCrafters, Zenith, BushCaddy, etc.) I see it as the orphan love child of a Zenith and Glastar. Good speed to add to rugged unimproved strip performance like the Sportsman 2+2, but with all-aluminum construction like the CH-750. A nosewheel version would be available (because they sell).

Then again, what do I know? :cool:
 
I've probably said it before in this space, but stretch the RV-9 into a 4 seater. Give us an experimental (and higher performing) alternative to the AA-5B.

Most folks don't need a true "Fill 4 seats, the tanks, and the baggage area" airplane like the RV-10. But they would be satisfied carrying 3.5 hours of fuel, baggage, and either 3 adults or 2 adults and 2 children at 150+ knots. In that mission, a stretched R-9 would fill the bill and could do 95% of the existing RV-9's mission at a marginally higher initial cost instead of the 50% cost increase from the 2 seat aircraft to the RV-10.
 
Back
Top