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?)

XXL

That might be the winner, RV4/8 stretched & stressed to use an IO540 ( maybe even a turboprop ) with a VNE greater than 250K. Maybe a 3 seater flown from the middle position fore & aft potions could be quick change out from seating to baggage.
 
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.

I'd like to see something like that too. Just don't suggest it on the "turbine" tread. They get rather hostile about it over there.
Maybe trade a small amount of speed for improved, "unimproved airport" and cargo carrying capabilities. As D.R. pointed out, Porsche sells far more SUVs than it does sports cars. Van's has built its reputation in the sport plane market and it may be worth taking a look into the "utility" market.
 
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.
 
:eek:
....Thinking of getting a Cessna Cardinal.

The horror of it all!! :eek: 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
 
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.

Can I get an AMEN!?

With mobility impairment, low-wing aircraft lose their appeal quickly. The Vans airplanes are particularly challenging to those with impaired leg strength.

We built our airplane with a well-defined mission profile in mind. Mobility impairment was not part of that mission profile. By the time our aircraft made its first flight, mobility impairment was very much a reality in our household. Had I started building an RV8A as I had initially wanted, we would have been forced to sell it. As it stands, our choice of the Glasair Sportsman has been reinforced by its ability to adapt to the needs of our mobility-impaired family member.

I hope and pray that a similar change in circumstances will not affect the lives of those currently building their dream aircraft. If such a thing does come to pass it will be difficult to accept that a Cessna Cardinal might be the only way the family can travel together. Still, flying beats driving, so the Cardinal isn't such a bad compromise after all!
 
With mobility impairment, low-wing aircraft lose their appeal quickly. The Vans airplanes are particularly challenging to those with impaired leg strength.

This is a real issue. When I was at Sonex I flew with several potential customers that were forced to turn away from the design simply because it was too hard to get in and out of the cockpit. I hope I'm a few years away from that becoming an issue, but there will come a day.

The issue that you run into with a cantilever wing (aka "strutless") is the mass of the spar carry-through and related structure, and the added cabin height you need in order to still have some headroom. But for people with short or weak legs (or both), the strutless high-wing airplane is a godsend.

Such a plane would definitely open up a whole new market segment for Van's!
 
I totally get the desire for high wing for ease of entry of those of us whose knees and backs ain't what they used to be. But seems like most of those asking for a high wing are picturing a tundra tire bush plane. If you're looking for ease of entry for bad knees and aching backs, a tundra tire cub ain't it.

When we were at the factory, my wife was able to get herself in and out the 9, the 14 and 10. It took some doing because she didn't know where to step and where not to, but she was able to do it. I honestly don't think she would be able to contort her in and out of the back seat of the tundra tire supercub I used to tow banners with though.
 
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?
 
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.

Too funny. I just finished the RV7A and started flying it. I'm considering selling my Cardinal. :eek:
 
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'm with you, for the most part. I am hoping the -15 is an C170/172 type plane that can take an engine from 150 to 200 HP.

As I say see, there is no need for another supper tandem seat bush plane as the are already a ton on the market.

However, a 2+2 highwing that has the takeoff and landing performance of an RV-9 would be outstanding. I say that because the -9 can easily handle a 1500' strip without breathing hard.
 
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
 
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!! :)
 
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!! :)

Thanks for the kind words. I do enjoy the short field performance. I have my favorite spots along the Columbia River I frequent. The low and slow aspect is a kick. The sea lions are consuming large quantities of salmon right now. Got a birds eye view the other day flying over them. You will love the S-7
 
Lots of interesting perspectives from RVer's concerning a high wing bush design....

Actually, for me you can skip the "bush" capability. There are already lots of choices in that arena. What I'd be more interested in is a high wing speedster. Think of a Van's version of the Wittman Tailwind! Keep the interior dimensions roughly the same as the RV-14, but high wing for easier entry and exit. That would be a sweet bird in my book!
 
I'd like to see an updated RV-10 with more complete subkits like the 14 and possibly drop-in fiberglass.

I don't mind fiberglass work but have drop in perfect fairings would be nice.

Probably a 51% rule issue.
 
RV8-RG with true dual controls. Solid 250kts cruise.
2X 14" hard points on the wings would be nice too.
 
I would think that something between the -9 and -10 would make more sense for Vans. 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.
 
I agree

:eek:

The horror of it all!! :eek: 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

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
 
rear seats and speed

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.

I have had two wives and a kid; 3 kids and camping gear on floors, with plenty of space in the rear seating of my -10. How big are these blokes?

What is missing at Vans is a turbine plane. And I dont mean a -10 with a aftermarket turbine that still goes 200kts (VNE) no I mean a 300kt plus; 5 seater turbine.
It wouldnt be cheap, but like every other Vans plane, worth every penny!
 
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
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. ...

There are a number of all aluminum kits in the bush plane market.

A friend built and flies a Murphy Super Rebel (Now called a Yukon, I believe). It is massive and can lift a TON!

http://www.murphyair.com/
 
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.
 
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.

You are essentially talking about an RV 170/172 that I'm begging Van's for.

There is no need for a Super STOL. The -9 can takeoff in 300' and land in 300'. That is pretty darn good! Even if they extend it to 500' with four people on board, that is pretty darn good.

I just hope if that is what the -15 becomes, that it doesn't require the IO-390 or IO-540! In my mind, it should be designed to accept the same range of engines as the -7; 150 to 200 hp four cylinder Lycomings.
 
RV-15....BD-4??

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
 
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.

The Glasair Sportsman is a good looking high-wing four-place. Mixed construction - main fuselage (through the VS) is composite over steel structure. Rudder, elevator, and wings are aluminum similar to an RV. Also very versatile - convertible from conventional to tricycle or even floats. Seating is more 2+2 than true four seater. Controls are all cable, which I'm not a huge fan of. Also would prefer a yoke because climbing into the seat and then getting a leg over the stick isn't ideal either.
 
Last edited:
I looked at it too. Ugly as sin and a questionable business model for the company.

Yeah, it?s definitely ugly as sin! LOL!! I don?t know anything about the company or it?s viability either, but this ?type? of aircraft appears to be what some people are hoping for. I know that everyone has different criteria on their wish-list...from wild to mild, but this thread has drifted quite a bit from when Doug first started it and his desire for a ?simple low and slow? which would allow some back country exploration. I?ll continue to stick with my original wish-list design of an all aluminum, pop rivet, quick build, tandem, two door, big tire, modern suspension, high gross weigh, amphib adaptable, multi engine accessible/adaptable, STOL capable, AFFORDABLE,......RV-15. As nice as it would be to have a four seater high wing bush plane, I think that the affordability aspect really becomes the main issue. Personally, about $125k (maybe $150k tops) is my cutoff limit....but all of this is just my dumb opinion.

Mark
 
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

Life is too short to fly an ugly airplane! Plus, it really isn't suitable for "rough" fields.
 
FWIW, and I know it's contrary to the prevailing sentiment here, but what I want is a Cardinal clone. High wing, low and wide door, good visibility. Put in an IO-390 for economy cruise or an IO-540 for speed...
 
Just for what it's worth, If you think the BD-4 is ugly, you obviously haven't seen the CH-801.
 
Just for what it's worth, If you think the BD-4 is ugly, you obviously haven't seen the CH-801.

Oh, I saw it. The only reason I was really looking at the BD-4 because of it's speed. The 801 doesn't even have that going for it.
 
re: BD-4

Life is too short to fly an ugly airplane! Plus, it really isn't suitable for "rough" fields.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
It needs at least 8" tires, the 5-500's we run on RV's are undersized.

Yes, the tailwind is ugly. I just can't get over the wing juncture angling back to the top of the cabin and the square fuselage.

Granted they are good performers but just not a good looking plane either.

As for the 801, 701, 750, etc. they are also very much on the ugly side.

Then again, I don't think a 172 and 182 are good looking either.
 
Time for Van's to get politically correct with trans

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LNeVcziDus&feature=youtu.be&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1RNE1Ua3laalUyTURFeCIsInQiOiJlcVFlXC9RSDBGaUJpbnNmYmx4akp4Z2hCZUtBbFphejBWRTZJRGFwRUF5TXhQT25oTDNqTG5lU1FKeVE3WUtzaGdlSm50Nmw2am5OY3V6emVGQjZMU1JtZVFTT2NnRFRZRXpwb0lkUjN6VHl0V3BHRm9OQUNXUk45NnhLZnpYc3cifQ%3D%3D


;-)
 
Reality

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.😄
 
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 think Vans does not use different physics than the others; I just think Vans chooses not to artificially limit the Vne down low thru a IAS limit.
 
Vne

The tas Vne on the -10 was calculated move. Think about it. Just look at the forums. Guys putting bigger engines, turbos, oxygen, turbines, and guys talking about pressurization. Putting a TAS limit on the airframe nullifies most of these mods while limiting liability for the company. It is a beautifully simple solution. You exceed the factory airframe limits, you are a test pilot and they are more or less off the hook...
 
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.
 
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.

Yes, but "attention" doesn't always mean sales.
 
Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.

There has been a lot of debate regarding if twins are safer than singles when an engine fails on either.

The reason being is that with a single, you have to land and there is a lot of structure between you and the ground. With twins the pilot screws up and the plane rolls over and everyone dies.

Lots of debate, as I said.

Look into the Velocity V-twin. Nice plane but EXPENSIVE to build.
 
I'd like to weigh in. I already made my choice (S-21), but the tech has evolved sufficiently so that something like an electric RV-12 would appeal to a whole new generation of buyers. This will increase the market size by appealling to a younger demographic.

By way of evidence, a local float-plane airline (Harbour Air) is converting several DH2 Beavers to electric propulsion for their island-hopping flights, starting next year. This is one of the largest float operators in the world, so this is a serious statement (and one I predicted a few years ago).

I don't do a lot of long x-country flights anymore, but I do many short flights to see family or buy $100 burgers.

The capital cost of an electric RV-12 may not be less, but operating and maintenance costs would be much lower. A lot less stuff in the hangar would be required as well. Oh, there may also be an environmental benefit.

Someone please dust off this post in 5 years and see how close to the mark I was.
 
Back
Top