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?

DougCronkhite

Active Member
I keep wondering what Van's will do next for an airplane.. I must admit the RV-14 puzzled me, considering how good the RV-7 already is..

It doesn't really feel like there are any holes to fill in the Vans line of aircraft right now, but I can't see them sitting around doing nothing.. so I've been wondering what Van's is going to do next? I think it would be cool to see him develop a real 2-place IO-540 powered speedster. Something designed to work up in the Glasair III or Lancair Legacy speed ranges but in all-metal construction.. Or maybe a new tapered wing for the RV-8..

Just dreaming out loud here.. :)
 
I know there are still a number of people who would like to see an all metal high wing bush-type plane from Van's (myself included). With the Sportsman headed for certification and Glasair having already announced that they will stop producing kits once it is certified, there will be even fewer options. Murphy makes some good examples, but they are extremely hard to get kits from and the kits (not to mention the instructions) are not nearly as complete as Vans.

I vote for an all metal Glastar/Sportsman like craft.
 
Those of us who own Murphy?s would also love to see vans get into that side of the market. The Murphy line was up for sale last year and a lot of us were holding our breath that vans would buy the line. Unfortunately it didn?t happen. It would be awesome to see vans produce such a plane with all of their knowledge in the all metal side of things.
 
I think thats the only thing that would open a new market for them. All the other planes fill all the voids.

Personally I prefer they keep the kits simpler like the 7/8/9. the 14 is pretty advanced, but the price reflects that. I'd rather save a little money and do a little work myself. I still like airplane building rather than airplane assembly.
 
Have to admit, I'm in the improved RV8 camp - a la something along the lines of a tandem RV14 or O540 powered tandem speedster.
 
My guess? Something that is easier to build than the RV-8, but isn't quite as fast or as maneuverable.

I'm pretty much in the F-4 Raider camp for my next project at this point.
 
I'd love to see a Rocket type, or Super-8 type, but I'm guessing the market isn't large enough for them to design the kit for that.

A more realistic target might be the Lancair/Mooney/Bonanza performance market, there are enough buyers there with enough dollars to pay attention to.
 
My choice would be a plane much like the RV-9, with a longer, stronger gear for the back-country places, an external baggage door, that has the same sort of step-by-step instructions that the double-digit planes do.

Dave
 
A fast high wing or a really fast Rv9/14 clone (io540 w/ 240kt cruise)

Or how about a high wing with the choice of two wing designs...a fast version (ala Wittman Tailwind) or a slow version wing design (ala Cub or Husky). IMO, the trusty IO- or O-360 would be sufficient power for either.

With Van's penchant for commonality of parts across the present production lines, this would fit into their heritage.

Just some random thoughts... :)
 
New Single Seater please. Modern kit.

Use a common empennage and wing, 7/8, Common Fuselage with the 8 with old school landing gear/motor mount. Maybe with a power range from 0-200 to IO360

Fastback and Tip Over.

That's just me and what I'd like to see someday sitting next to the 14. Probably going to have to take what I learn with the -14 and go "old school" with the -3, learn a little more. Or a lot more :eek:

Fast Glass company's are struggling while Van's plugs along racking up first flights. I think a faster, more complex airplane would probably go somewhat against the "total performance" philosophy.
 
I'm no expert in the field of fuels for piston airplanes, but it is my understanding that the future of 100LL is limited. Believe me, I hope they figure out a viable replacement because soon I will be spending several thousand $$ for a brand new lycoming for my 14 project. Lets hope this bandaid/novelty fuel will be readily available and not cost an arm and a leg.
With all that said, and back to the original post, how about an RV designed for either the heavier diesel or the much smaller/lighter turbine engines. My vote would be for the turbine. Not necessarily for the speed and power, but more for simplicity and reliably. While there's no small turbines that fit the bill at this time, there are a few companies that seem to be getting their foot in the door. My guess would be that military drones might help with the development/testing of some type of small engine that might carry over to light aircraft.
Again, I hope gas piston engines will be around for a long time, but it's nice to have a plan B.
 
How about an ELSA amphib equivalent to the Icon A5? They could leverage most of the RV-12 wing, use their matched-hole construction for the rest of the airframe, and maybe a fiberglass or carbon fiber hull. They could use the same motor as the RV-12 and a lot of the FWF parts. With a total kit price of ~$75k they could totally eat Icon's lunch in the sport amphib sector.
 
Last edited:
I hope it's something dramatically different than the traditional Vans line. Putting bigger engines in, keeping the same fuse with different wings, etc... Those are all neat but not much more to me.

I do know that if Lancair was still producing IV-P Prop-Jet kits, I'd be looking at it pretty hard.

Something about 330 kts and being above the wx.... That's a cool mission profile. :cool::cool::cool::cool:
 
As a Glasair Sportsman builder I'll go with ArlingtonRV's viewpoint. We looked hard at the RV's (my wife fell in love with my hangar-mate's 8A) but in the end there just wasn't enough utility in the RV's for us. The baggage space in the 8A is what killed that idea.

At the moment Vans doesn't have any true utility aircraft in their design stable. I suspect there's a fairly large crowd of Cessna owners who would like a little faster Cessna without the cost.
 
A 540 powered 4 place !

Years ago , before the RV 10 was anounced , I cornered Dick and asked him if he could built a 4 place , fixed gear Siai Marchetiti , he simpli looked at me and grinned , ,,,,,,do Porsches not have back seats ?
 
An observation from someone whose last logbook entry until a month ago was 1967. Back in the dark ages almost NOBODY filed an IFR flight plan with a single engine airplane. Today it is obviously a different story. I don't know if aviators are simple braver or the general consensus is engines are more reliable.

If it's the latter I would disagree, the vast majority of improvements in piston driven aircraft engines have mirrored the advances in computer control systems. Rings, bearings, cams, valves, push rods have improved maybe five percent in forty years.

I think Van's should look at doing a twin, with both the 360 and the 540 Lycoming engine options and a retractable landing gear option. Being a machinist and a manufacturer you do not want folks making retractable landing gear components in their garages so the optional retract kit would have to include the gear legs and retraction mechanism ready to install. Plumbing the hydraulics would be no worse than the current liquid systems in the planes.

Another interesting possibility is modifying/strengthening one of the current models for a FJ33 Williams turbine :)
 
Last edited:
Groundhog day

Vans doesn't care what we want them to build. Every year, this thread comes up and lots of creative stuff comes out but nothing or nobody admits to being interested. Nevertheless, I'll bite but I offer these suggestions because I can't resist a good thread. First some ground rules:

1. Vans does not do retractable gear, ever. It goes against their philosophy on so many levels,
2. Vans does not do high wing anything, ever.
3. Vans does not want to complete with an existing design unless it's their own. The bearhawk and moose has the metal utility market, there are several amphibious crafts, and so on.
4. Composites are an exception rather than the rule, which eliminates a lot of potential designs. The exception would be a sailplane, maybe. (and of course the -10 fuse)

I think there is a market for different wing designs for existing RV's. This is already being pursued outside of Vans and I'm thinking it will be successful as long as one doesn't break.

Another market I think is for the builder to pay extra for additional margins and options. Want to add a 540 to a -6, here is the kit. Want to increase your 6g design to 7g, then add this kit. Want to increase VNE 10kts, purchase this kit. I think there are people who are willing to pay to play. The market base is changing and new customers seem to have deeper pockets. If you got good engineers, why not get a return on that investment?

My personal preference would be a bearhawk competitor type all metal design or maybe a super efficient all metal twin to compete with my twin Comanche. So far, no one has been able to compete with the twin Comanche overall acquition and operating cost however the diamond comes close in the operating cost area.

Just my .02 and not worth anything but it's great to see what they come they come up with. With 10,000 Vans owners out there, if they pick the right design, they may find themselves with 10,000 orders from those of us looking for another plane to cohabitate with our RV. Who knows.....
 
Good points

Very good points Carl.
Thanks,


Never say never. Van's was reluctant to do a side-by-side. They did. Van's was reluctant to do nose gear models. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a 4-place. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a LSA. They did. People wanted them and they responded ... when they thought the market was big enough!

And, the torch is being passed to a new generation at Van's. No telling what they might do.
 
Never say never. Van's was reluctant to do a side-by-side. They did. Van's was reluctant to do nose gear models. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a 4-place. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a LSA. They did. People wanted them and they responded ... when they thought the market was big enough!

And, the torch is being passed to a new generation at Van's. No telling what they might do.

Thing is, they are quickly heading to the bigger/more expensive end of the spectrum. I'd love to see an updated RV-3, but I don't think the market is there for Vans to make the investment.

Given that they can now go LSA- 200 mph 4 seater, I'm not sure if they don't just spend time refining the existing models and putting together more standard sub-kits (panel kits, for instance) for the older -7-8-9-10 designs. Pass through sales (avionics, props, and engines) seem to be a big part of the current thinking at Vans, and I'm sure they are missing out on some of that "action" because they haven't put together standard packages for the older kits.
 
Garmin stack

Ya a nice Garmin dual display G3x setup with G5 and GTX 650 with remote transponder and radios would be awesome. Seems like most of the g3x panels are settling in to a standard arrangement enough for Vans to offer a instrumentation kit. Great idea and I will be first in line for the 9 kit.
 
Icon

I like what Bob Kuykendall said in post #14 but all aluminum if you can seal a fuei tank why not a hull.
Bob
 
A quick build tapered wing that would fit the newer model RV's. I have an EVO wing rocket and just love the speed range. The higher you go the better the wing behaves relative to the square wings.
Cost has always been used as reason to not go with a tapered wing. One only has to look at how many IFR panels are owned my non IFR pilots to realize that costs are not the primary driver in aircraft purchases.
The wing could be offered as an option, and I believe it would be a popular one.
500 similar RVs show up at AirVenture; would it not be nice to have one that looks a bit different and offers an improved flying experience?
 
I think refinement of the mid-range kits would be the way to go.

The kit and documentation standards of the RV10 and 14 at the high end, and the RV12 at the low end, have moved on greatly from the 9 and the 7.

However in the mid range there appears to be a gap, with the 7 and 9 still using the older documentation style and more work intensive kit. If you do not need the size of the 14, or 4 seats of the 10 there is a big step down to the 12.

I would very much like to see the RV-9 refreshed into a more developed kit along with the modern document style. This is VANS building on what it already does and improving it, not going out on a new limb like some of the suggestions.

If there is not enough innovation in that idea, maybe combine it with a firewall forward kit option for the new Rotax 915 to combine the 9 wing with turbo charged efficiency to give a model that slots between the 9 and the 12 and would be a super efficient cruiser.
 
While I'd like to see the RV-8 kit updated to the same standards as the -14, I'd vote for a high wing Cub-like design. You could also hangar one of those with a low wing RV in a standard T hangar :D
 
Aerobatic...

What about a bird that would take aerobatic flight to higher levels? Maybe an improved, all metal concept of the ?One Design?? Or a less expensive home built ?Extra? type?
 
A quick build tapered wing that would fit the newer model RV's. I have an EVO wing rocket and just love the speed range. The higher you go the better the wing behaves relative to the square wings.
Cost has always been used as reason to not go with a tapered wing. One only has to look at how many IFR panels are owned my non IFR pilots to realize that costs are not the primary driver in aircraft purchases.
The wing could be offered as an option, and I believe it would be a popular one.
500 similar RVs show up at AirVenture; would it not be nice to have one that looks a bit different and offers an improved flying experience?

Agree! I would love to put a tapered wing on my 8! What a neat option to have. Should I skip my wing build and go straight to the fuselage in anticipation of this option? Mr. Vans President do you monitor this thread? :D
 
Last edited:
Thing is, they are quickly heading to the bigger/more expensive end of the spectrum. I'd love to see an updated RV-3, but I don't think the market is there for Vans to make the investment.

Given that they can now go LSA- 200 mph 4 seater, I'm not sure if they don't just spend time refining the existing models and putting together more standard sub-kits (panel kits, for instance) for the older -7-8-9-10 designs. Pass through sales (avionics, props, and engines) seem to be a big part of the current thinking at Vans, and I'm sure they are missing out on some of that "action" because they haven't put together standard packages for the older kits.

The SPA Panther is a new single-place kit on the market. I think an updated RV-3 using RV-8 components would be an interesting airplane, and being from Vans would probably sell pretty well. The commonality of components would help reduce new development costs for Vans too..
 
What about a bird that would take aerobatic flight to higher levels? Maybe an improved, all metal concept of the ?One Design?? Or a less expensive home built ?Extra? type?

Yeah.. I'd be all over something like this. An RV specifically designed to handle 'real' aerobatics (+/- 10G limits) would fill a market that's sorely lacking in the world of $450,000 Extras.
 
Agree! I would love to put a tapered wing on my 8! What a neat option to have. Should I skip my wing build and go straight to the fuselage in anticipation of this option? Mr. Vans President do you monitor this thread? :D

The guys that make the HP-24 sailplane kit have been working on a full carbon tapered RV-8 wing.. I don't know if they plan to produce it or not, but the first assembled internal structure (no skins) weighed only 22 pounds.
 
The guys that make the HP-24 sailplane kit have been working on a full carbon tapered RV-8 wing.. I don't know if they plan to produce it or not, but the first assembled internal structure (no skins) weighed only 22 pounds.

Oh I am tracking this project indeed. Was told by Steve though to basically not hold my breath... but who knows maybe by the time I have my fuselage together there may be a chance they sell wing kits to individuals......
 
I'd also love to get started on a Bearhawk-style all metal bush plane...

However, after the secrecy and surprise of the RV-14, we won't know until they roll it out. :cool:
 
The thing Van's is really missing is something that can compete with a two weeks to taxi program.
I know a couple of companies are planning to offer something close to this Glassair program.

Otherwise, Van's is really missing options to change/tweak the planes. When you look at most of the competitors, you see them adding more options to allow customers to make the plane "their" own.

Also, i doubt you will ever van's get in the bush plane market. Van's has crafted an image of speed, fun, and most importantly speed. Bush planes are not really known for speed.


Tim
 
To everyone and especially Mr. Mach .26,

I monitor this website every day. I truly enjoy the posts for the most part. I take everything into consideration but nothing to heart.

I have particularly enjoyed this thread because it lets us have a glimpse into what the RV community is thinking and maybe wishing for. We have our wishes too. Mostly we wish for enough insight into our niche of GA that we may still come up with designs that excite and delight. What pleases you most is what sells the best.

I believe your faith in Van's Aircraft over the decades has been rewarded time and again with airplanes that tickle the fancy and are fun to fly. Whatever comes next will do the same. I promise.
 
Didn't expect that Mitch, thanks for checking in sir! There are some really great ideas here so I really do hope that you take some of them to heart. Van's could never go wrong by just doing what it does best, continue to put out a nice flying, easy to build product at a affordable price.
 
Videos .. My wish list would have Van's offer a library of professional quality videos for various tasks that covers what first time builders need throughout the entire build process.

In additional helping builders produce a higher quality product that will sell more airplanes it will help sell more kits than anything else by eliminating the apprehension of potential customers thinking they "can't build an airplane".

In the new modern internet world people are doing research online before making a purchase like this. Running across a huge, organized library of official company "how to" videos would make the decision easy.
 
I would love the opportunity to build my own 6-seat twin (or single, but preferably a twin).

With the rapid advances in electrical energy storage technology, I wonder when it will be viable to consider a kit-based multi-motor (think many small fans) electric airplane similar to some of the real experimental stuff that has been coming out recently.

While even the best batteries are badly outclassed by liquid fuels right now, it is possible that this will change in the next couple of decades. When that happens (probably due in large part to advances driven by drone and automotive tech), it will be a very interesting time.
 
Videos .. My wish list would have Van's offer a library of professional quality videos for various tasks that covers what first time builders need throughout the entire build process.

In additional helping builders produce a higher quality product that will sell more airplanes it will help sell more kits than anything else by eliminating the apprehension of potential customers thinking they "can't build an airplane".

In the new modern internet world people are doing research online before making a purchase like this. Running across a huge, organized library of official company "how to" videos would make the decision easy.

Also I agree with this...it might even be supportable with an ad-based monetization on Youtube. Getting pro-quality videos out there in front of "the masses" might drive more kit sales...
 
Amen on a video library

The vid on doing the windscreen to forward deck fairing being a good example of daunting tasks made less so by good hand-holding :)

I know this takes time, but if Stein can do it for avionics...
 
The vid on doing the windscreen to forward deck fairing being a good example of daunting tasks made less so by good hand-holding :)

I know this takes time, but if Stein can do it for avionics...

Exactly...I forgot to mention that video even though I was thinking of it...
 
Yup a video library of major tasks would make many wanna be's builder bees when they can see the task being done and it is not quite so daunting.
 
Speed

I asked Van once "what about a turbine". I just got the stare. I assume I was the 20,000th person asking the same question that day. He just went back to writing on his yellow legal pad with what I assume where more good ideas he was thinking about.

My assumption, or his look was saying "son you do not understand the danger".

Then I picked up the copy of the article on flutter they have at the booth at most of the airshows. It was a good handout for my question, I assume that is why it is there. Then I looked up some videos on the subject and it will scare the **** out of you!

On the other hand, it seems that engineers have a much greater grip on why and what makes it happen. I am sure Van and his teams are the top of the crop of engineers that can figure it out. It is more a focus of "it is worth it" Even on this forum when people talk of the Rocket it only goes a little faster but it seems to be the quest for many.

Aviation always has trade offs, but... It seems greater speed is within reach.

On the flip side, floats would be a great value. If you go to the Alaska Airmen show up in Anchorage there are floats everywhere! And the desired plane up there if often and older Cessna taildragger with floats. Basically a more powerful RV- 10 /14.

Fun to dream, but hopefully my RV-14 won't be updated / outdated like the obsolete 12's.
Larry
 
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!
 
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... I can't imagine how great it would be to see the parts in 3-D from every angle before putting them together...

...Imagine being able to hover the mouse over the symbols instead of having to look back and forth between the drawing and the legend.

...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 with you StuBob, and I am an engineer but I'm in my 60's! :eek:
You make some valid points.
 
Back
Top