N941WR
Legacy Member
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
Ummm?
I thought the RV-8 was the XL size RV-4 and you are asking for an XXL RV-4?
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
Ummm?
I thought the RV-8 was the XL size RV-4 and you are asking for an XXL RV-4?
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.
....Thinking of getting a Cessna Cardinal.
I recently sold my 7A as it was becoming to difficult for my wife and I to get out of.
I think a lot of RV builders will eventually experience the same situation and with a design like this Vans would have a plane for us older pilots to transition to. Turning 80 this year. Thinking of getting a Cessna Cardinal.
With mobility impairment, low-wing aircraft lose their appeal quickly. The Vans airplanes are particularly challenging to those with impaired leg strength.
IMO, looking at the market, the open spot is for a modernized rv3. Something a guy could build light and (in airplane terms) cheaply and have fun flying around. Do a few loops, come down and have a sandwich, then go buy around a little more.
No one is going to try ifr or cross country in it, so panels could be the simplest of vfr. 100-150hp, fixed props. I know I wouldn't try to start out building an rv3 because it seems intimidating compared to the new kits, but what if it was the simplest RV to complete?
What's the competition in the category of beautiful, inexpensive, fun to fly single seaters?
You just described a Panther - they?ve sold quite a few kits! Nice airplane....
I would like to see a strut less high wing two seat with a 48 inch wide cabin. With a cruise speed in the 150 to 160MPH range.
I recently sold my 7A as it was becoming to difficult for my wife and I to get out of.
I think a lot of RV builders will eventually experience the same situation and with a design like this Vans would have a plane for us older pilots to transition to. Turning 80 this year. Thinking of getting a Cessna Cardinal.
IMO, looking at the market, the open spot is for a modernized rv3. Something a guy could build light and (in airplane terms) cheaply and have fun flying around. Do a few loops, come down and have a sandwich, then go buy around a little more.
No one is going to try ifr or cross country in it, so panels could be the simplest of vfr. 100-150hp, fixed props. I know I wouldn't try to start out building an rv3 because it seems intimidating compared to the new kits, but what if it was the simplest RV to complete?
What's the competition in the category of beautiful, inexpensive, fun to fly single seaters?
I would like to see a strut less high wing two seat with a 48 inch wide cabin. With a cruise speed in the 150 to 160MPH range.
I recently sold my 7A as it was becoming to difficult for my wife and I to get out of.
I think a lot of RV builders will eventually experience the same situation and with a design like this Vans would have a plane for us older pilots to transition to. Turning 80 this year. Thinking of getting a Cessna Cardinal.
Lots of interesting perspectives from RVer's concerning a high wing bush design. I seem to be going the other direction. Considering selling my Ran's S-20 Raven I built in 2016. My mission has changed a bit as I now spend half the year snow birding in Goodyear Az. I would like something a bit faster. Thinking of selling my Rans this spring and replacing it with a used 9 or 14. or possibly building a -14 eventually.
Although I have plenty of shoulder room (46 inches) in my high wing it takes a slight bit of planning to get in or out of. With 8:50 tires she sits a bit high. At 6"2, I am able to grab the birdcage above my head and slide my legs in. For shorter people it requires them to place their feet on the tire, sit on the seat and swing their left leg around the stick. Not impossible but a consideration.
Raven Pics:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o5fsi6w22a4m9ru/AAA4bi0PcIKcyVjMs5nvHM9ma?dl=0
Man, that?s a beautiful Raven! I?m planning on an S-7 build just as soon as I?m finished with my current RV-7 project. I totally understand you need/desire for a fast airplane, but I think you?re going to really miss your Raven out there in the Arizona back-country. I think you should keep your Raven....?and? get yourself an RV of your liking!!
Lots of interesting perspectives from RVer's concerning a high wing bush design....
The horror of it all!! Vans....please, hurry up and design a high wing bush plane so that no one has to encounter this nightmare. . My vote is still for an all aluminum, high wing, modern suspension, big tire, tandem, STOL, bush plane. Basically, an affordable, all aluminum, quick build, pop rivet, Carbon Cub.
Mark
A sporty four-seater with the back seats more sized for a pair of children (or small wives) rather than chubby blokes. Powered by an (I)O-360.
There are at least 3 all aluminum 'bushplane' kits I can remember at the moment. The Murphy Super Rebel (now known as a flat engine Moose), the Dream Tundra, and the St Just Cyclone (a Cessna 180 clone).While there are a lot of bush planes that are servicing this mission, to my knowledge there are no all aluminum kits. In my opinion this is a untapped market. Design something that will slow way down, doesn?t have to land like a cub but get the stall in the low 40?s. Think long RV 9 wings with big Fowler flaps. Get the cruise above the bush planes out there. 50 Gal. Fuel, easy access doors for tandem seating. Small RV8 baggage up front with spacious baggage in back accessed by a large door. Flush rivets from tip to tail and all aluminum. Powered by 0-360 variants. Something like this that could work in and out of 600? strips would catch a lot of attention IMO
While there are a lot of bush planes that are servicing this mission, to my knowledge there are no all aluminum kits. In my opinion this is a untapped market. ...
There are at least 3 all aluminum 'bushplane' kits I can remember at the moment. The Murphy Super Rebel (now known as a flat engine Moose), the Dream Tundra, and the St Just Cyclone (a Cessna 180 clone).
BTW, when Murphy showed the 1st Moose at SNF, I begged them for a speed-wing, but they weren't interested. I'd gladly give up 10 kts on the low end for 20kts cruise improvement while retaining that cavernous cabin. Something like a clean, strutless C-210 but with fixed gear.
For those of you wishing for a fast, high wing, four seater RV-15 and not for a low and slow two seat tandem (like I’m hoping for), have you ever look at the BD-4? I looked at them at S-n-F this week and It looked like a viable option.
I looked at it too. Ugly as sin and a questionable business model for the company.
For those of you wishing for a fast, high wing, four seater RV-15 and not for a low and slow two seat tandem (like I?m hoping for), have you ever look at the BD-4? I looked at them at S-n-F this week and It looked like a viable option.
Mark
Just for what it's worth, If you think the BD-4 is ugly, you obviously haven't seen the CH-801.
Life is too short to fly an ugly airplane! Plus, it really isn't suitable for "rough" fields.
It needs at least 8" tires, the 5-500's we run on RV's are undersized.re: BD-4
Define 'rough'. It's certainly not a bush plane, but turf was no problem at all for the old one I owned. As to 'ugly', is a Tailwind ugly? I figure, if it works and I don't like the looks, I'm probably looking at it wrong (except the trikes; my trike really was butt-ugly ) Pretty much the same as TriPacer vs Pacer.
A far bigger concern for me would be whether Jr inherited Sr's business practices.
Charlie
Oh, the 801: Haven't flown an 801, but the 701 really does fly about like it looks.
Well pretty much everything requested so far is already available from other reputable kit makers. But I may have just seen my candidate. Should work for all the STOL guys, too.
;-)
After much thought and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the next step for Vans is a twin. I know I know, it?s too complicated, it?s too expensive. Experimentials folks can?t fly twins and they will go bald if they try. Two engines are too expensive and nobody can afford two. Vans has to decide if they are going to grow the business and innovate or if they are going to create another cub lookalike . Basically that?s the only choices. If there is anyone that could successfully design a twin, it?s vans. They would corner the market and the certified world would have a fit. Let?s call it the twin10 instead of the RV15. The twin10 with two extra seats would be an instant best seller. However, Vans needs to definitely do one thing different going forward: get rid of that stupid TAS limitation on their planes and use IAS like the rest of the world. When I?m decending from FL16 at 220mph indicated in my Comanche, I know the tail won?t come off because I forgot to calculate TAS. Yes, glass does that for you but hey, make the airframe handle IAS like the rest of aviation and dump that TAS limitation. Carry on.
I can see a definite market for a Pilatus PC-12 competitor, doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market. You hang a turbine up front and you'll attract a lot of attention.
doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market
Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.