What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What's next from Van's?

They don't need a new airplane; they need a new way to help builders. Everyone I know who's completed an RV in less than 10 years was an engineer or someone else who worked with plans professionally. Zenith is giving their builders a read-only copy of the SolidWorks files for their airplanes. I can't imagine how great it would be to see the parts in 3-D from every angle before putting them together. Almost every mistake I've made started with mis-reading the plans.

For instance, the plans show all kinds of little symbols to denote rivet sizes. Imagine being able to hover the mouse over the symbols instead of having to look back and forth between the drawing and the legend.

Or, how many places on the plans are you directed to look at another view, something like "A-A'?" You should be able to click on the spot in question and drag it around until you've seen it from every angle.

The airplanes are pretty mature, but the plans and manuals are due for some modernization. And that's coming from a guy in his 50's!

I agree that a lot of the people that take on building an RV are engineer or technical types, but the major majority are not.
In fact with the advancements in the later kits, more and more everyday normal people have taken up the challenge than did 15 - 20 years ago with the more basic kits.

That is not to say that there isn't still room to make the kits even better (there always will be), but we are a long ways from them only being built by engineers.
 
The current plans (RV-10 and later) are very good with the occasional oversight. I'm sure the -12 and -14 are better.

One area where I think the current kits could greatly improve would be to do away with all of the bags of assorted parts. Three AN365-1032's, four AN365-1028, three different lengths/diameters of screws and six #8 screws (to make up an example) don't belong together in one bag. UNLESS the plans say "Grab bag 1234 for steps 3-6 of this assembly sequence". I'd be happy with that.

I'd prefer if Vans supplied bags with all of the AN 365 1032's for the sub-kit in one bag, all of the AN3-4A's in another bag, etc. That would let me organize things so when the plans say "2x AN3-4A", I'll know exactly where to find them. With the current (RV-10) system, I have to go to the packing list and figure out what bag that hardware is in, OR, I have to bust open all of the bags when I get the kit and sort all of the hardware to put "like" items together, which is a waste of time.
 
With the current (RV-10) system, I have to go to the packing list and figure out what bag that hardware is in, OR, I have to bust open all of the bags when I get the kit and sort all of the hardware to put "like" items together, which is a waste of time.

When I do the initial kit inventory, I usually write what's inside the brown paper bags on the outside of the bag before I staple them shut again.

After I open the small clear bags and use a few rivets or whatever, I put the half-used bag and remaining parts in a small Ziploc sandwich bag. That way I can still see Van's original label, but don't have to worry about the remaining parts spilling out. If two bags have like items, I'll sometimes put both bags in the same Ziploc bag.
 
I think to increase market share in the kitplane biz..a traveling High wing design would bring the most new customers. Along the Glastar theme..but all aluminum of course. a bit bigger in the cockpit than current RV's..2 seats with a good baggage capacity. even an optional 3rd "Jump seat" maybe? I Think it would be pretty easy to get better than Glastar performance if sticking to a alum 150 to 180 hp design. Keeping with simple systems to keep it affordable. This would appeal to the biggest number of folks, and have the potential for the most sales.
 
Mr. Lock,
After posting the above last night..I went to bed thinking about this Kit-Plane market. To begin with, I'll confess that I almost bought a Glastar before I found the RV9A I own today. The High-wing, travel suited craft would have been better suited to my mission, ... by just a bit, than the 9A. ( Yes, the RV10 would work ,but that was out of my budget). So, my personal prejudices aside, I have examined in my mind the benefit to the Vans aircraft company of such a product and come to the conclusion, its the best way to increase kit sales. VAC already holds such a huge share of the market now, with designs that are all actually pretty similar, when it comes to the target buyers. Not sure how much increase could be left in that niche. Moving to a High wing design, would have to potential to bring in the most "new customers".
Futhermore, the possibility of a common fuselage, and then offering different wings and Gear configurations to suit the bush plane crowd, as well as the Traveling crowd, the float-plane crowd and etc.. would keep the designers busy for years to come. I can see the evolution of a Vans high wing craft following the proven path the company has already traveled with its current offerings. Sure, there will always be the desires for something faster..something smaller, something bigger among the edges of the market..but the bulk of the buyers are in the middle. This I believe would be the best path for the future generation of folks employed at Vans, to insure a long and successful journey in the production of product. So..just for conversations sake..there you have it! Start with a better than a Glastar type, for the traveling aspects, stick with the current engine choices of 150 to 180 or so..to keep it economical, and room for more of the wife's stuff aboard, and her/our ever widening beam..And I predict immediate success , (also because there is less competition there) then start offering a shorter takeoff, tail dragging big tired model along the same platform to broaden the base and..well...that's a pretty good long term plan to start with right there isnt it?
 
Throwing my $0.02 into the ring...I would have to agree with the aforementioned high-wing design for the discussed reasons.

There are A LOT of Cessna 170/172, 180/182/185, etc. out there, and a lot of older pilots that clearly favor the high-wing design for much easier ingress/egress.

I think a high-wing version of essentially an RV-10 - available both as a taildragger or tri-gear - would be well received in the marketplace.
 
Jez have you ridden in a EV? I have a idea where the frontiers of what I'd define as "Total Performance" aviation is heading and it sure looks like a happy place to me. 500 Wh/kg is about where batteries need to get to and that's only 3-6 years off (about what I take to build a RV). You could define the physical batteries shape now and even fly low endurance versions of the battery today the rest is a just another engineering project well within their comfort zone.

Now where's my tinfoil hat...

Perry
 
Last edited:
My take

Jez have you ridden in a EV? I think I have a pretty good idea where the frontiers of "Pure Performance" aviation is heading and it sure looks like a happy place to me. 500 g/Wh is about where batteries need to get to and that's only 3-6 years off (about what I take to build a RV). You could define the physical batteries shape now and even fly low endurance versions of the battery today the rest is a just another engineering project well within their comfort zone.

Now where's my tinfoil hat...

Perry

EVs are limited by the battery, I think we all agree.
I have a new battery design, it has much higher energy densiity that li ion; when comprimised, it dissipates to inert items and doesnt create an explosion; it recharges in 15 minutes; and is lighter for the same range. It is called avgas.

My problem with li ion batteries is it takes technology to keep them safe; when the technology fails, you have a bad day. For avgas and lead acid batteries, technology makes them work, if the technology fails, all you are left with are lumps of inert items. JMHO.
 
Vans on podcasts

I just finished listening to a couple aviation podcasts with Van as the guest host. In the EAA Green Dot podcast - Sept 6, 2017, when they asked him at 28:24 "What's on your drawing board?",

he cryptically retorted, "I don't know, did you ever watch the Jetsons?"

So... is there a flying car in the Vans lineup future or was he just messing around? I suspect he's messing around.

I temper my enthusiasm with the statement he made directly before that 28:18 "Aviation is not a growth business, it's a bit of a struggle just to hold your own." He also says Vans Aircraft has seen a long shallow decline since '08. That will dramatically lower any enthusiasm to take on risky new designs.

If there is some new trend that fits comfortably in their lineup, it will happen. But personally... I don't see it. And quite frankly, beyond the basic bread and butter they've been serving amazingly well for almost 45 years now. They are what they are.
 
High wing vote

None of us are getting younger and everyone will someday say scurrying up on the wing, settling down into cockpit and then trying to pull yourself up and out. Legs, knees and hips tend not to sing with joy while doing the above. So, for those of us that will be transitioning from low wing to high wing with easy in / easy out would be a winner.
 
They don't need a new airplane; they need a new way to help builders. Everyone I know who's completed an RV in less than 10 years was an engineer or someone else who worked with plans professionally.

<SNIP>

The airplanes are pretty mature, but the plans and manuals are due for some modernization. And that's coming from a guy in his 50's!
I have to disagree with this quite strongly in fact - but in saying that, do I love Lego... :p

I built my RV in 4 years, 9 months 19 days - that's from picking the kit up at the docks to registration certificate in hand. In that time I worked away 6 months of every year, moved house, and had 2 kids. Realistically, the -9 took me less than 2 years and I feel this is a realistic figure for one of the matched-hole 2-place kits. My only exposure to the RV kits before this was a former colleague who bought a -4 kit 20 years ago and I watched him set a couple of rivets.

The kits certainly are doable by most anyone, and can be completed in a reasonable time if you can devote some time to it. A commentary with a decade-long time frame is likely to put a lot of people off needlessly - and part of the reason why I include my build-time as my forum signature.
 
I have always been a big fan of RV's. The RV-4 prototype showed up at Oshkosh for the first time, the last time I went to Oshkosh.

But, I have never come close to buying or building one. If Van's sold a bush plane kit, with a high useful load, I would build one. This forum is THE source of info for homebuilt aircraft and systems, and I have learned a lot. I would like to say thank you to all of you for your inputs here.

My Bearhawk kit gets delivered in 3 months. The kit company has been wonderful to deal with.

Happy New Year.
 
High speed tourer

I would love to see Van expand into the high(-er) speed touring market that was left wide open by the demise of the composite two seaters from Lancair and Glasair i.e. I have long since thought the RV-4,6,7,8 were the perfect low(-er) speed “jack of all trades” and the Glasair III was the perfect high speed version (the Rocket a very close second).

I’m looking for my next project and my dream kit would be a side-by-side Rocket, SX-300 or “metal version” of a Glasair III with RV-12 or -14 style documentation and match hole ease of assembly. 235Kt high speed cruise and an economy cruise range of 1,200 NM. Useful load of 900 to 1,000 lbs.

(And for all of you that want a high wing bush plane, does the Carbon Cub EX not scratch the itch? I think the only thing that makes the CC EX shy of perfection is a factory nod towards using Oratex fabric to allow you to cover it without painting.)
 
Last edited:
The problem with the Carbon cub types is that they are too far on the stol side and sacrifice a lot of cruise speed. There aren?t many high wings that cruise and take off like an RV does. I would like to see something like that with a cantilevered wing or a tapered low wing RV next.
 
I?d be first in line for a 4 seat modern version of my Murphy rebel with similar performance and capability to my buddies cyclone 180....for a reasonable price that vans seems to have figured out.
 
+1 for rotax twin

The boring but understandable path would be to continue the improvements. We now have:

RV7 -> RV14
RV12 -> new RV12
next would be to make RV8 and RV10 versions that are easier to build... new RV3?

My wish would be for an economical twin, designed for Rotax.
 
+1 for the many proposals for an all metal Glasair Sportsman style RV. High wing, 2+2 seats, 1000 lbs useful load and a cruise speed of around 150 kts would certainly be a winning combination.

I also think that it would be worthwhile to consider the transfer of the RV-12 building techniques to Van's bigger models, as they seem to have a much higher completion rate by the original buyers than the other models.
 
I?d be first in line for a 4 seat modern version of my Murphy rebel with similar performance and capability to my buddies cyclone 180....for a reasonable price that vans seems to have figured out.

That would be the Murphy Yukon. Don't know that the Yukon is built for the 540, but I know of a 540 powered Yukon. The owner seems to like it!
 
Tracking, but I mean a vans model with current cfd modeling and building techniques. Plus the legendary vans support. Really wish vans would have bought Murphy when the company was for sale a year ago.

Had I built my rebel I would have used flush rivets for the first 20% of the wing chord as that is where majority of the drag is on these things to help gain some speed.
 
I wanted a 4 seat too but didn't see it coming from Van's back in 1999.
I've been building the M14p powered Moose since the beginning of time...99. Most of it is flush solid riveted where I could get to it and flush Avexed where I couldn't. Doubt it'll help much speed wise. It's a fat wing. 4415 airfoil. Hoping for 130kts cruise. Soft thin 6061 T6 is not fun to solid rivet. I know after driving 38,000 rivets. Lots of stringers and close rivet spacing.
Finally getting close. I think Murphy's stuff is pretty self explanatory and simple. Support was fine. Don't know what they're like now that Darrel's in it again? He always seemed like a good guy to me. Some customers cannot be satisfied no matter what! I'm sure Scott McDaniels can testify to that:)
Always thought Van's was designed more like a certified plane though.
If you do build one, use the pops!:rolleyes:
 
What?s Next?

I think Vans Aircraft will continue to improve on their products?
Reengineering The tip up canopy on the RV7 and RV9 are a natural progression for improvement.
The RV14 canopy fits together. It can be done.
I see new kits in my shop every year. There are improvements coming out all the time. I am in a unique place to see this. Believe, me they are listening.

I do not see, or think, we will see any new designs out of Vans Aircraft. In order to stay in business, the company will have to become leaner and more refined. Just look at the announcement about the RV3, RV4, and RV6. That is a good decision. Not many new starts a year on those models.
History is littered with failed aircraft companies. We want Ours to be around a long time.
 
Jay,, Just for discussion..
Yes, I agree, we want Vans to be around for a long time, and the kit plane biz has had many , many casualties... But..
Will simple improvements to vans current designs bring in new customers?
I dont think it would. (I could be wrong of course)
And..it appears the economy is coming back.. I supply industrial engines to manufacturers, and we have had an increase in 2017 like we have never had in the 23 years I have worked here. I realize that recreation aviation will come back slower that the base manufacturing in this country..but I think it will, and hopefully it will have an future effect on the aircraft market, which we all know is pretty well in the toilet.
With that being said, is it possible that stagnation/product offering in design will translate into degradation of market share? It usually does. When a leader of any market sits on its laurels with no new designs, it generally declines I think.
I sure hope Vans can remain lean enough, and efficient and keep going for a long time, but with no new designs, I dont think it can be as profitable as possible. New customers must be continually attracted to maintain, let alone increase. Obviously, it must be done with caution, not going too wild and risky and over-reaching. I think Vans has found the great combination of performance and affordability that hit the sweet spot in the market with the 7 and the 9, and the bulk of the builders market that is currently outside of Vans share, is in those that prefer High wing aircraft.
As I mentioned, I could be completely wrong too!
 
Booming Economy

Economy is coming back, Manufacturing in many markets booming like we have not seen in along time in this country. I am seeing wage competition in the midwest, WOW! whoever would have thought we would see that again in the USA. More folks working than ever before. Be a great time to introduce a new Kit!
 
Van?s now have the RV12 and RV14 with the best manuals and manufacturing.

If I was deciding for Vans, the highest priority would be to get the RV8 and RV10 up to the same standard, before focusing on whatever the RV15 will be. :)

The -10 plans are pretty good. I can't speak to the 7-8-9.

My thought is they should create standard plug and play panels for the 7-8-9-10 like they offer for the -12 and -14.
 
Maybe they'll consider bringing back the -6... :) Or at least making a tapered wing upgrade...
 
Maybe they'll consider bringing back the -6... :) Or at least making a tapered wing upgrade...

Absolutely. I don't know why they wont make upgrades for existing models. A tapered wing would be perfect for the 7/8. I mean who doesn't like upgrades and customization ?!
 
My thought is they should create standard plug and play panels for the 7-8-9-10 like they offer for the -12 and -14.

I think third-party vendors have mostly captured this market by now.

Absolutely. I don't know why they wont make upgrades for existing models. A tapered wing would be perfect for the 7/8. I mean who doesn't like upgrades and customization ?!

The guy trying to write the business case for a brand-new wing with limited sales potential and no common parts to older models ;)
 
Back
Top