Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Silly question probably already answered
- Thread starter workky
- Start date
"we want to focus on new products."
The more detailed answer is that to put out a kit developed to the level that the latest kits are requires a huge amount of investment in time (money).
It is far more than just drawing up a set of plans and some new instruction text.
For it to be profitable, the effort would have to produce a big boost in kit sales over what they are now. That is not likely to happen on kits that have already been on the market for 15 years or more.
RV-14 plans
The RV-14 plans and the other information you have put on the web really helped me a lot with my RV-8. I'm getting a lot of direct value in the work you guys have done on newer kits.
BillL
Well Known Member
I have wondered about this . .
Making a 7 replacement, for instance, that has the same level of refinement of the 14 would mean fixing all the intimate details missing in the current design. They can not ignore all the lessons learned by the design and manufacturing team. The business model of just answering the same builder questions over and over has to be weighed agains using that human resource to do new developments. Vans has a lot of growing pains still to go through and must know what the company wants to be when it "grows up". Without sustainable business goals, baby steps by the team in that direction will not be efficient. They are not the little company in with the huge opportunity anymore, they are the big dog with a huge share of the market.
That is going to be a real problem for Vans, growing into a sustainable, competitive product line. The older kits are lower cost, and appeal to a large market, but are deficient in the level of refinement of the later models. A company has to plan for making it's own products obsolete. If not, someone else will. Efficient manufacturing by Vans has shown other companies how to do it. Typically, the best approach to avoid a clean sheet development of a like (replacement) product is continuous improvement, something Vans does not adhere to. They must evolve at some point, and protect that core market of volume. They have come from a small operation and are emerging into an organization with engineering, validation, analysis and a product needing less human (factory) support to build. A market analysis and strategic planning function will be needed. The market for price and performance and size does not seem to have changed a lot in the years, but the product line and emphasis has moved to more expensive and larger airplanes. They will have to protect their core market, and at some point evolve to recapture the volume revenue available in the market sweet spot, or plateau. The next decade will tell.
Just what is the market for a 3, or 4, or 7, or 8 that substitutes more refined instructions for builder skill and appeals more to a 1st time (younger) builders? How does build time to flight affect the market size? Does EAA help quantify this market or just make AirVenture attendance larger? It would seem that people with more money will have less time and that would expand the product sales. The market for built RV's will meet some of those needs. There seem to be a lot more questions for Vans to deal with than just making better instructions for an older (less complete) design. Many possible avenues.
Making a 7 replacement, for instance, that has the same level of refinement of the 14 would mean fixing all the intimate details missing in the current design. They can not ignore all the lessons learned by the design and manufacturing team. The business model of just answering the same builder questions over and over has to be weighed agains using that human resource to do new developments. Vans has a lot of growing pains still to go through and must know what the company wants to be when it "grows up". Without sustainable business goals, baby steps by the team in that direction will not be efficient. They are not the little company in with the huge opportunity anymore, they are the big dog with a huge share of the market.
That is going to be a real problem for Vans, growing into a sustainable, competitive product line. The older kits are lower cost, and appeal to a large market, but are deficient in the level of refinement of the later models. A company has to plan for making it's own products obsolete. If not, someone else will. Efficient manufacturing by Vans has shown other companies how to do it. Typically, the best approach to avoid a clean sheet development of a like (replacement) product is continuous improvement, something Vans does not adhere to. They must evolve at some point, and protect that core market of volume. They have come from a small operation and are emerging into an organization with engineering, validation, analysis and a product needing less human (factory) support to build. A market analysis and strategic planning function will be needed. The market for price and performance and size does not seem to have changed a lot in the years, but the product line and emphasis has moved to more expensive and larger airplanes. They will have to protect their core market, and at some point evolve to recapture the volume revenue available in the market sweet spot, or plateau. The next decade will tell.
Just what is the market for a 3, or 4, or 7, or 8 that substitutes more refined instructions for builder skill and appeals more to a 1st time (younger) builders? How does build time to flight affect the market size? Does EAA help quantify this market or just make AirVenture attendance larger? It would seem that people with more money will have less time and that would expand the product sales. The market for built RV's will meet some of those needs. There seem to be a lot more questions for Vans to deal with than just making better instructions for an older (less complete) design. Many possible avenues.
Ed_Wischmeyer
Well Known Member
Actually, they did this when the -8 was somewhat redesigned into the pre-punch -8. And if I recall correctly, the -14 and -9 tail cones have the same outer mold line, i.e., shape, which would make it easy to incorporate some of the -14 concepts into the -9, should that transition make financial sense.
Ed
Ed
JonJay
Well Known Member
Vans has done very well with their business model. As a successful business owner, I always chuckled at the guy, who never saw my books, never worked for me, or had the slightest clue about the workings of my business, would tell me all the stuff I was doing wrong and if I didn't figure out I was doomed.
If it made sense for Vans to rework the older kits, they would do it.
If it made sense for Vans to rework the older kits, they would do it.
rv7boy
Forum Peruser
I have been a " Van's Fan" since Sun'n Fun '93. During those 24 years I have seen a lot of airplane kit manufacturers either go out of business, get gobbled up by bigger companies, or convert their kit designs to certified production aircraft. I have seen Van's Aircraft go through the drudgery of defending themselves against lawsuits. I have seen management and staff go through many changes. A lot of people have said Van's Aircraft should do this or should do that. In some areas they have been responsive to customers' comments; in others, not.
But through it all they have remained in business. I'm sure they could have done it differently. But I'm glad they're still here. Here's a toast to many more years!
But through it all they have remained in business. I'm sure they could have done it differently. But I'm glad they're still here. Here's a toast to many more years!
Last edited:
