VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #61  
Old 09-08-2019, 09:26 AM
flyingRV flyingRV is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 18
Default

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

Maybe a Ąpop rivetď RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case Iím afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited.
How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:40 AM
FlyingSlowly FlyingSlowly is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Just another reason for Van's to make a 2+2 C170/172 that uses any four cylinder engine and performs like a -9(A).
Sling TSi...

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

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

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

Speed, economy, visibility, efficiency...Design such a plane and watch the kits fly off the shelves!!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:56 AM
flyingRV flyingRV is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 18
Default

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

Maybe a Ąpop rivetď RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case Iím afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited.
How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:39 AM
Jimbot Jimbot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: FL & NC
Posts: 146
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingRV View Post
Maybe a Ąpop rivetď RV7/9 or an RV12 with all the performance squeezed out of a Rotax. In my case Iím afraid of the build time of the RV7, the 14 is too big and expensive for my needs and the 12 maybe a little too limited. How about shorter wings for die RV12 with higher cruise and stall speeds outside of LSA like the Panther offers?
Lately Iíve been think that this will be the new thing new model, essentially an easier-to-build RV that slots in between the 12 and a 14, especially performance-wise.
  • Could be available with Rotax 912iS (standard version) or 915iS (high-performance model)
  • Easier build could perhaps attract new customers to experimental aircraft category
  • Rotax engine fitment would appeal/attract new customers in overseas markets, especially Europe
  • In the U.S., model would appeal to first-time builders; those concerned about the future of 100LL, etc.

Call me crazy, but I think a new model like this might be popular. Heck, I know I would probably be interested in it
__________________
Jim Hall
2019 VAF Annual Dues Paid

Former President, EAA Chapter 309 - EAA 309

Founder, SUPERBIRD Aircraft Cleaning Products, featuring the SUPERBIRD Aircraft Paint Restoration System
https://www.superbirdclean.com/colle...-force-members
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:15 AM
MikeThePilot MikeThePilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Morinville, AB, Canada
Posts: 11
Default

It may have been mentioned before but I didn't see it - is it possible the next RV will be a certified aircraft?

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

With GA costs going up and up, it's antidotal but I wouldn't be surprised if flight training made up the vast majority of light aircraft flights these days. And consequently, the vast majority of new GA aircraft sales. Cessna is still riding this and Piper seems to be tapping into it. Perhaps certifying the RV-9A, RV-10, or RV-14A would open up flight school sales opportunities?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:55 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeThePilot View Post
It may have been mentioned before but I didn't see it - is it possible the next RV will be a certified aircraft?
...
Perhaps certifying the RV-9A, RV-10, or RV-14A would open up flight school sales opportunities?
I'd bet Van's would collectively run away screaming at the mere thought of trying to certify to Part 23. The paperwork and bureaucratic headaches would be staggering (and likely bankrupting). And to try and certify any of the existing designs would mean basically starting over from scratch, as the FAA would want to be involved from the very beginning and the entire process would have to take place under Part 21 and all the associated FAA dictates over how you do everything. In the end I'd bet the resulting airplane would gain a bunch of weight and share only a handful of common parts with the original.

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

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

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeThePilot View Post
With GA costs going up and up, it's antidotal but I wouldn't be surprised if flight training made up the vast majority of light aircraft flights these days. And consequently, the vast majority of new GA aircraft sales. Cessna is still riding this and Piper seems to be tapping into it.
I wouldn't put flight training as the majority of GA flights. But flight training and commercial operation (training/rental, small corporate use, or buy-and-lease for the same) definitely makes up the majority of new certified piston single sales. Nobody out there is buying a new Cessna or Piper for personal use; the only ones out there buying them are flight schools looking for the "same old same old".

Annual homebuilt completions now rival certified piston single production numbers, and I guarantee every one of those homebuilts is for personal use.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:26 AM
svyolo svyolo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: bellingham, wa
Posts: 197
Default

You are giving the FAA way too much credit. They do not have the expertise to decide or design anything on the factory floor, or the management of a large aircraft manufacturer.

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

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

Hence, the 737 MAX
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:34 AM
svyolo svyolo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: bellingham, wa
Posts: 197
Default

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

For years we have been crashing light aircraft much faster than they are replaced.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:01 PM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svyolo View Post
You are giving the FAA way too much credit. They do not have the expertise to decide or design anything on the factory floor, or the management of a large aircraft manufacturer.
I never said they did that. I said they insist on supervising this stuff--approving procedures, being notified of any/all changes, etc.

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

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

21.138 states that the FAA must approve your quality manual.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by svyolo View Post
The FAA rubber stamps the decision their "designees" make.
Umm, yeah. Sure they do.

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

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


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by svyolo View Post
I think the rumors of relaxing LSA rules are their attempt to revive light general aviation.
I think large parts of the FAA don't much care about light aircraft one way or another, and would be fine with them just going away (one less headache to deal with). But we aren't going away, and they don't the manpower to deal with the large aircraft, let alone the little ones. I think this move is essentially deregulation for the sake of conserving manpower, not an attempt to revive GA or make it better for us (even if that's the end result).
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-26-2020, 08:18 PM
N333M's Avatar
N333M N333M is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: central Il
Posts: 73
Default

"""Iím really hoping for an RV14 type of update to the RV-9"""

But this would not sell MORE kits, it would stop sales of one kit and replace it with another. I dont see that as a big help for the companies business.
__________________
D. Gherardini
Central Illinois
RV9A slider 0-320 carbed
Kitfox IV (SOLD)
Luscombe 8A (SOLD)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.