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?)

The planes I know of that try to achieve this are made of carbon composites and have tapered wings. What do you think are the chances you'd get a similar performance with Van's aluminum construction?

And no, I don't think tandem seating and 5+ hours are a good match. ;)


I agree. Although I love a tandem bush plane, in the high and fast cross country speedsters that we fly I think a comfortable side by side seating configuration makes more sense. Fast tandems are very sexy...but just not as practical as a comfortable side by side.

Mark
 
The planes I know of that try to achieve this are made of carbon composites and have tapered wings. What do you think are the chances you'd get a similar performance with Van's aluminum construction?

And no, I don't think tandem seating and 5+ hours are a good match. ;)

Even at 250 knots (still fairly slow by aviation standards), aluminum is a very viable construction medium. The use of composites for homebuilts is more about styling and kit manufacture than any aerodynamic magic bullet.

As far as the seating position and duration goes, different strokes for different folks. My wife and I strongly prefer tandems to the side by sides. Much more room and much more comfortable.
 
Uh...

I would have to disagree with the statement that composites are about styling. From an engineering perspective, there are many things that are achievable with composites that would be difficult to duplicate using aluminum.
 
Hard to say. How do you define "expensive"? People on other forums think RV's are "expensive"... It's a matter of perspective. Anyway, parametric estimating will show the airframe cost to scale with material usage, avionics are going to be the same, and the engine might actually be cheaper. Thanks to the 10's demand on PV 540's, the used price on those has gone through the roof - they used to be cheaper than 360's. Design this ship for the AV 540 or Big Conti and suddenly you have a new pool to draw from.

But to your point, these mission requirements are a significant step up from the current RV line. I'd expect people to pay more.

Which decreases the size of the potential market, no?

Something tells me Van's has found a pretty good (and good-sized) niche that will sustain them into the indefinite future.

We can all dream, though...personally, I want a 300+ knot jet Van's :)
 
I would have to disagree with the statement that composites are about styling. From an engineering perspective, there are many things that are achievable with composites that would be difficult to duplicate using aluminum.

In a pure, technical sense - sure. But how often are those concepts truly optimized and then applied to kit aircraft? Not often. A brief scan of homebuilt empty weight specifications will show that
composite construction is most often hurting performance. Composites "done right" is pretty hard. Often far beyond what a kit manufacturer is willing to sink into NRE.
 
Last edited:
...We can all dream, though...personally, I want a 300+ knot jet Van's :)

Well, just like the Bushplane market is covered, you can buy an L-39 today for less than a used RV-10 if you need to satisfy your "inner Maverick".

An efficient, long legged, 230 knot piston single that can also operate fully loaded out of a half mile long strip is not quite so easy to come by. That's my mission, so that's what my next airplane should be.
 
Well, just like the Bushplane market is covered, you can buy an L-39 today for less than a used RV-10 if you need to satisfy your "inner Maverick".

Yeah, but then I gotta pay somebody to work on it, right? And do the annual CI? :) Since I'm not the builder, no Repairman Certificate for an L-39 :(
 
Last edited:
In reply to Toolbuilder, at the high performance end of the kitbuilt spectrum, I?m reminded of two airplanes, the Questair Venture and the Swearingen SX-300, both from the mid 1980s (specs from Wikipedia).
Questair Venture
General characteristics
? Crew: one
? Capacity: one passenger
? Length: 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)
? Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
? Height: 7 ft 8 in (2.34 m)
? Wing area: 72.7 sq ft (6.75 m2)
? Empty weight: 1,200 lb (544 kg)
? Gross weight: 2,000 lb (907 kg)
? Fuel capacity: 56 U.S. gallons (210 L; 47 imp gal)
? Powerplant: 1 ? Continental IO-550-G six cylinder, air-cooled, four stroke aircraft engine, 310 hp (230 kW)
Performance
? Maximum speed: 305 mph (491 km/h; 265 kn)
? Cruise speed: 275 mph (443 km/h; 239 kn)
? Stall speed: 70 mph (113 km/h; 61 kn)
? Range: 1,150 mi (999 nmi; 1,851 km)
? Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)
? Wing loading: 27.5 lb/sq ft (134 kg/m2)
Founder Ed MacDonough, designer Jim Griswold (also designed Piper Malibu). Number built approx. 100.
Swearingen SX-300
General characteristics
? Capacity: 2
? Length: 21 ft 2 in (6.45 m)
? Wingspan: 24 ft 4 in (7.42 m)
? Height: 7 ft 5 in (2.26 m)
? Wing area: 70.73 sq ft (6.571 m2)
? Empty weight: 1,400 lb (635 kg)
? Max takeoff weight: 2,200 lb (998 kg)
? Fuel capacity: 360 lbs
? Powerplant: 1 ? Lycoming IO-540 6-cyl. air-cooled horizontally-opposed piston engine, 300 hp (220 kW)
? Propellers: 3-bladed
Performance
? Cruise speed: 208 kn; 385 km/h (239 mph)
? Stall speed: 57 kn; 106 km/h (66 mph)
Designer Ed Swearingen (Swearingen Merlin turboprop and Sino Swearingen SJ-30-2 bizjet. Number built less than 100 (est.)

The Questair company still exists after several different owners but it is not clear if they are actually still producing kits. The Swearingen company no longer produces kits.
I?ve been enjoying this discussion, but it seems to me Vans Total Performance philosophy has allowed it to exploit the large middle part of the aircraft performance curve and market. I?d be very surprised to see a Vans version of a Questair Venture or a Super Cub.
 
An efficient, long legged, 230 knot piston single that can also operate fully loaded out of a half mile long strip is not quite so easy to come by. That's my mission, so that's what my next airplane should be.

Micheal
If you can get your hands on an EVO wing the 230 knot high speed cruise is possible if you want to burn fuel. I can always get between 215 and 220 knots burning 12.5 gph. 10 gallons will get me 200 knots.
If I fly 150 knots I can due that with 6gph just like the RV9 guys brag about.

The wing seems to operate very well in the 8000 to 15000' area. Below 4500' there is not much speed difference except the EVO will stall 10 knots slower then the stock wing. Above 4500' the tapered EVO will start to pull ahead of the stock wing.
 
I noticed they distinctly didn't mention the 9!!!!!

Bob


Sorry, my mistake, they were talking about the 7+9, not the 6.



Wait, what? Now just one minute sir .. that's crazy talk :eek:


Maybe, but going faster and higher always results in more expensive, more complex, more fuel burn and drifting away from what I personally like in private aviation.


Reading the wishlist there should still be enough room for RV16, 18, 19, 20...for years or decades to come.
 
I have to agree that it's going to be tough to capture another market segment. There is no technical magic to the RV line, but it was the right airplane at the right time and that momentum has been successfully leveraged over the years to produce exceptional value and service. There is no secret sauce that makes an RV a sales hit - it still has to provide a good return on the investment both for Vans and the end consumer. I'll agree that my mission requirements are in a small niche and only Vans can determine if that niche can be exploited profitably. I'd probably guess the only possibility is the fact that the playing field is pretty empty. Conversely, I suspect penetration into the Bushplane niche is close to impossible. The market is crowded and Vans would have to leverage existing infrarastructure to make an affordable offering. That means an aluminum bird and I can't see such a ship performing any better than the competition. So where is the technical diferentitiation? Heck, just about any existing tail wheel RV with big tires is more of a STOL bird than most pilots can use anyway.
 
...but going faster and higher always results in more expensive, more complex, more fuel burn...

Not always. My -8 does 165 KTAS @ 8.5 GPH for 19.5 MPG. There are more than a few Rockets that can do 200 @ 10GPH for 20MPG. Though my Rocket isn't in the 200@10 range just yet, it will be. In the past however, I can tell you it's a far more capable aircraft than the -8 and is essentially equal in cost to operate. Factor in the value of time and it gets even better.

The point we need to consider is that while RV's are remarkable performers, they are still pretty crude airplanes. There is room to improve for a clean sheet.
 
Interesting would be a plane configurator.
A browser based tool where you can define different parameters and "build" a virtual version of your new plane:
There are three base designs:
- Two seats in tandem configuration
- Two seats next to each other
- Four seats

Now select tail wheel or tri-gear.
Next is the airfoil: aerobatics, XC, STOL? Select wing area and span according to your speed and payload requirements.
Which engine do you want to use? This affects the cowling, the position of the wings and the distance between wings and horizontal stabilizer.
Tip-up or sliding canopy? Doors for the four seater?

For every change the performance characteristic would be re-calculated and a three dimensional model displayed.
When your happy with your virtual plane Van's will derive constructional drawings from your virtual build, produce the custom tailored kit and send it together with a custom manual to you!

Now you can start building your unique experimental airplane! :)

Oh my god, that's so great! If Van's isn't going to do this I'll start my own company!!! :D
 
Interesting would be a plane configurator.
A browser based tool where you can define different parameters and "build" a virtual version of your new plane:
There are three base designs:
- Two seats in tandem configuration
- Two seats next to each other
- Four seats

Now select tail wheel or tri-gear.
Next is the airfoil: aerobatics, XC, STOL? Select wing area and span according to your speed and payload requirements.
Which engine do you want to use? This affects the cowling, the position of the wings and the distance between wings and horizontal stabilizer.
Tip-up or sliding canopy? Doors for the four seater?

For every change the performance characteristic would be re-calculated and a three dimensional model displayed.
When your happy with your virtual plane Van's will derive constructional drawings from your virtual build, produce the custom tailored kit and send it together with a custom manual to you!

Now you can start building your unique experimental airplane! :)

Oh my god, that's so great! If Van's isn't going to do this I'll start my own company!!! :D

If you do create this experimental aircraft configurator, please add Rotax-power (choice of 912iS, 914 and 915), twin-engine and high wing as available options please ;-)
 
If you do create this experimental aircraft configurator, please add Rotax-power (choice of 912iS, 914 and 915), twin-engine and high wing as available options please ;-)

Rotax shouldn't be that big of a problem when the rest is working. Twin-Engine and high wing would require more base designs - which are quite a lot of work to setup in the beginning similar to a new RV type at the moment.

Probably the biggest challenge would be to create high quality parametric CAD designs that are robust enough to handle the variations. Also you still need to fulfill strength requirements. And flutter could be quite a problem to predict. You'd need to go with a huge safety margin to not run into problems with flutter.
 
Last edited:
I'd buy an aluminum "Glastar Sportsman" kit: 150kt - high wing - convertible nosewheel/tailwheel - 2 place - 150 lbs baggage.

You just described a Rans S21 except it has 120lbs baggage.

I'm interested in the S-21 and spent quite a bit of time in Rans booth. I've always wondered why Van didn't do a high wing "bush" plane design. I'm very seriously considering stroking a check for a S-21. It looks like a very nice kit. Matched hole, pre-deburred holes, drilled to size. Vans could do this kind of thing in its sleep if it wanted to

Full disclosure,I just unpacked & inventoried my S21 fuse, tail, & wing kits. So far I am pretty impressed with the quality of the parts.

I've been looking seriously at this one myself, my next airplane... someday.

Laura and I are heading off to Kansas next week to test fit/fly the 21.

Short answer---------we are now on the order waiting list. Our kit is 14--16 weeks away, lots of OSH orders in front of us.

Long answer-------factory is setup similar to Vans, similar production equipment, similar parts design and finish, finished airplane actually a bit more "creature comfort" items than Vans.

We both flew in the S21 powered by the 100 HP Rotax, liked the performance and handling, loved the viability.

The 100 HP Rotax out climbed the 150 HP Cessna 172 we are currently flying. Also easier to get in/out for an old fat guy like me.

I would have loved to see Vans produce this plane, but will gladly settle for a Rans---------after all, only one letter different;):D

39196760_1566265190146406_4275725434492026880_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Short answer---------we are now on the order waiting list. Our kit is 14--16 weeks away, lots of OSH orders in front of us.

Long answer-------factory is setup similar to Vans, similar production equipment, similar parts design and finish, finished airplane actually a bit more "creature comfort" items than Vans.

We both flew in the S21 powered by the 100 HP Rotax, liked the performance and handling, loved the viability.

The 100 HP Rotax out climbed the 150 HP Cessna 172 we are currently flying. Also easier to get in/out for an old fat guy like me.

I would have loved to see Vans produce this plane, but will gladly settle for a Rans---------after all, only one letter different;):D

39196760_1566265190146406_4275725434492026880_n.jpg

Looks like the Rans Clan just signed a power forward :D. Mike, hope you won?t blow us off - I?ve grown kind of fond of you being the unofficial ?Walmart front door greeter? here. :)

Congrats on your next project and looking forward to hearing about your first flight down the road. Give my best to the RV yahoos out there in NV.

Best always,
Doug​
 
Last edited:
Mike, hope you won?t blow us off - I?ve grown kind of fond of you being the unofficial ?Walmart front door greeter? here. :)



Best always,
Doug​

You can count on my staying around-------many good folks here, and the treasure trove of knowledge is unsurpassed anywhere.
 
We both flew in the S21 powered by the 100 HP Rotax, liked the performance and handling, loved the viability.

The 100 HP Rotax out climbed the 150 HP Cessna 172 we are currently flying. Also easier to get in/out for an old fat guy like me.
A couple questions. How would you describe the cabin comfort. Are you rubbing shoulders like you do in a 172? How suitable would say it is for occasional long XC's with two and bags? What's the cruise speed/burn with the Rotax?
 
Joe, cabin was more roomy than the 172. No shoulder issues with myself and the factory pilot--------did not fly with Laura, but in the 172 she and I do have shoulder space issues.

We plan to do cross country with the plane, do not foresee any issues there. We will be flying behind a Lyclone not a Rotax.

For me, the flap "dog house" was a bit of an issue, hits my leg about mid thigh.

We did not spend any time in cruise, so no info there.
 
Last edited:
Mike

Mike,

What is a flap dog house?

Several years to design and develop another kit! I’m 72 next month. Wish Van’s had an Experimental C170 kit now. If they do design it and bring something to market? That might be too late for me. But you never know.
Light Cub types are already out there, I hope the next offering if it happened, could be a heavy hauler 4 cylinder.
 
Last edited:
Mechanical flap handle and detent rack----like in a old C180, all contained in an assembly that bolts to the top of the area between the seats. Sticks up above the seat a few inches.

Doghouse is my best attempt to give it a name?

Photo below shows it without the cover.

rans_s20_16.jpg
 
Last edited:
For me, the flap "dog house" was a bit of an issue, hits my leg about mid thigh.

I almost hate to ask because I know it opens up the additional weight/complexity worm can that should be avoided at all costs, but I wonder how tough it would be to do electric flaps and eliminate the dog house.
 
O.K., trying to bring this thread back to the original subject...........What do the folks in the Vans community want in a future Vans design???

I apologize for being part of the distraction/redirection in the Rans 21 discussion, if anyone wants to discuss that design further, please PM or email me.
 
Interesting would be a plane configurator.
A browser based tool where you can define different parameters and "build" a virtual version of your new plane:
There are three base designs:
- Two seats in tandem configuration
- Two seats next to each other
- Four seats

Now select tail wheel or tri-gear.
Next is the airfoil: aerobatics, XC, STOL? Select wing area and span according to your speed and payload requirements.
Which engine do you want to use? This affects the cowling, the position of the wings and the distance between wings and horizontal stabilizer.
Tip-up or sliding canopy? Doors for the four seater?

For every change the performance characteristic would be re-calculated and a three dimensional model displayed.
When your happy with your virtual plane Van's will derive constructional drawings from your virtual build, produce the custom tailored kit and send it together with a custom manual to you!

Now you can start building your unique experimental airplane! :)

Oh my god, that's so great! If Van's isn't going to do this I'll start my own company!!! :D

Good luck. As an airplane configurator in my day job, large, highly funded airplane companies have been trying to replace me with just such a computer program for over 30 years. They hate to admit it, but they still need designers like me to create new airplanes.
 
Good luck. As an airplane configurator in my day job, large, highly funded airplane companies have been trying to replace me with just such a computer program for over 30 years. They hate to admit it, but they still need designers like me to create new airplanes.

Hey, looks like you're my first customer ;)

Maybe you can tell me a bit about the challenges you are facing in your daily work?
 
Last edited:
RV Super Cub

Let's go back to the roots. My vote goes for "RV Super Cub" it will be the best of both worlds aircraft. Simple, affordable and fun to fly...

RV1canvas.jpg
 
Hey, looks like you're my first customer ;)

Nope, Don’t need no computer program. Design is creative, not computative. If computative it will just look like the “base design” as you call it.
 
Last edited:
Nope, Don?t need no computer program. Design is creative, not computative. If computative it will just look like the ?base design? as you call it.

Yeah, it wasn't the idea to have a calculated design.
It should just be a few adaptive airplane base designs. In the end the builder still has to decide what he's going to build. The calculations should just assist the builder by predicting some numbers like cruise speed, usable payload, maximum rotation speeds and so on.
Think about it like having an RV-7, RV-8 and RV-10 and changing some design features according to your preferences. It's like modifications made easy.
 
Good luck. As an airplane configurator in my day job, large, highly funded airplane companies have been trying to replace me with just such a computer program for over 30 years. They hate to admit it, but they still need designers like me to create new airplanes.

We call it Model-Based Engineering, and as you said, it's been a goal for decades. The user says I want X, Y and Z, and the software figures out all the effects on the end result (performance, size, cost, mission life, etc.). A boatload of figures of merit to try to pump out the back end.

And as you say, in the end, engineers like me and designers like you still have to analyze it to see if it's even doable, then analyze it, refine, and design the final product.

It's a tough goal, and likely a long way out, because changing *anything* tends to change about a zillion other things, often in ways you don't want.
 
The salesmen at my company are very good at occasionally "selling" something that I cannot design/engineer. And I can quite easily design/engineer something that the shop cannot physically build. And once it's built, it's entirely possible that it cannot be operated or maintained in the field as intended.

It's a fine dance with all parties - putting it into a computer algorithm will not happen easily or quickly.
 
The salesmen at my company are very good at occasionally "selling" something that I cannot design/engineer. And I can quite easily design/engineer something that the shop cannot physically build. And once it's built, it's entirely possible that it cannot be operated or maintained in the field as intended.

It's a fine dance with all parties - putting it into a computer algorithm will not happen easily or quickly.

But back to the intended point of the thread - Vans is a company dedicated to bringing experimental aviation to the mass market - which means bringing moderate-to-good performance at moderate-to-low price point, that can be built by the "average Joe" in his garage, same as they've been doing for the last 30 years. I don't see that changing much, as the market still needs that. We might see an additional 4-seat design, or a high-wing trainer, but I don't think we'll see a fire-breathing Vans Rocket, much as I would love to build one. Building a 300-knot airplane is within the capabilities of the homebuilder, but building a pressurized airplane is not, IMHO.
 
From the VAF front page: VANS facebook
RV-15 production equipment? I like the last sentence. "More information coming soon!"

Diesel or Turbine Vans??:)

Van's Aircraft Inc.
Page Liked ? August 24 ?

Preview pic as we load the new Trumpf TruPunch 5000 off the truck and onto the factory floor. Van?s has grown and evolved substantially over time, and is making significant investments in its Oregon-based manufacturing capabilities for the future. More information coming soon!

34pay6d.jpg
 
RV-15 production equipment? I like the last sentence. "More information coming soon!"

It's "everything" production equipment. Including the RV-15, eventually. :D

We've replaced an older model CNC punch machine with this new one, which is much more capable and faster. We will have a total of three machines in operation. Our factory team is busy producing lots of parts these days, so this is a welcome addition to the floor for sure. In the not-too-distant future we'll produce and publish some video showing how they work and how they're used at Van's.
 
Last edited:
Everything tool:)

Thanks Greg. Always fun to get a new toy....I mean tool.
Good to hear the factory is staying busy. We're all out here doing our part. Every time I pull out the rivet gun I'm just a trigger pull away from supporting the local economy there in Aurora, Or. UPS and FedEx are realizing some trickle down effect too :).
 
Last edited:
Doug?s manifesto on the home page 18/08/30 that is pining for an RV ?Super Cub? is spot on. The market has changed. Boomers are getting older. Low and slow local flying is more attractive. Landing on grass strips and beaches is the new challenge. And what about floats?

I had to pull the trigger on a Rans S-21 last year because it checked all of the boxes..... except it?s not from Vans. With all due respect, the quality level from Rans is not yet to Vans standards. There is a window of opportunity still open here for Vans. I am at the point where I would still consider a high wing RV and put my S-21 on hold.

Ball now in Vans court.
 
1927chevy

currently building the wings for the S-21 kit. Your statement of the quality of the Rans kit being not up to Vans, is an understatement. they have a long way to go.
 
Look what Ken Krueger did with the Vashon Ranger. That has a lot of Vans influence. I'm sure that with the Vans collective skill, knowledge and reputation, they could come up with a compelling proposition. Maybe even several models given the relative success of the Carbon Cub, Glasair Sportsman and several others.

I'm now in Phase 1 after building a Carbon Cub, but may well have opted for a Vans kit if there was something similar. Anecdotally, there seem to be several RV owners and ex-owners I know building or flying that type of aircraft.

I think DR's analysis is pretty good.

Who knows what Vans really have in the skunk works, but I'd like to see them take the bait with a rugged back-country RV.
 
I?ve been following the S-21 closely, and appreciate the feedback the builders are posting. Please keep us updated. Like everyone else, I would really like to see Van?s enter this market.
 
Bearhawk

I would like something similar to the Bearhawk Patrol. 2,200 GW with plenty of useful load. A little more robust than the Rans or Kitfox running an O-360.
 
currently building the wings for the S-21 kit. Your statement of the quality of the Rans kit being not up to Vans, is an understatement. they have a long way to go.

I remember looking at some Rans plans years ago and thinking they were pretty good. They had 3D renderings and exploded parts diagrams back when the Vans plans were hieroglyphics on clay tablets. What sort of difficulties have you experienced with the S-21 kit? Not disputing you, just trying to learn, since I too would like to build a Rans someday... unless a tandem high-wing RV materializes...
 
Quite frankly, while I too lust after a capable back country airplane that can carry a good load and go fast too, there seem to be plenty of those available from other capable kit manufacturers.

I?d like to see Van?s go after the fast six seater market with the total performance philosophy in a package that is priced between the RV-10 and the Lancairs and Velocity twins. I bet they could make an outstanding product that would be priced to strongly compete with those.
 
Quite frankly, while I too lust after a capable back country airplane that can carry a good load and go fast too, there seem to be plenty of those available from other capable kit manufacturers.

I?d like to see Van?s go after the fast six seater market with the total performance philosophy in a package that is priced between the RV-10 and the Lancairs and Velocity twins. I bet they could make an outstanding product that would be priced to strongly compete with those.

Probably a backcountry plane would still be more profitable than a six person plane. I'd expect the number of sold kits about 4x higher.
 
Back
Top