the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Yes, please. I like the idea of the -3, simplicity, sharpness and focus, but I like taking people along for rides and trips on occasion.
TODR
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Group Project: Designing the RV-13
- Thread starter N941WR
- Start date
TODR
I think the existing offerings are excellent, but I would like to see a tapered wing option that was a bolt-on replacement for the existing wings on the 3/4/6/7/8. It probably wouldn't be that hard to design one wing that bolted on to either the -7 or -8... Aren't they the same now?
vlittle
Well Known Member
If Van revisits the RV-3, it would be the ideal airframe for a taper wing. What a machine that would be! Matched hole and a tapered wing. Fast, economical and the envy of everyone. The perfect second airplane. Would probably fit in the back part of a tee hangar along with another RV.
If the cabin was big enough for my body, I would definitely be interested. Hey Rob, rather than design it yourself, why not just convince Van to do it? They may be looking for a project.
Rocket performance at half the cost, sounds interesting.
Ever seen a Midget Mustang?
Newbie_Doo
Member
How about larger, tapered wings for the RV-12 so it can do duty as a motor-glider? Sure, it is draggy. But, as light as the airframe is, it might make a good jumping-off point for something that can thermal reasonably well.
As much as I like the looks of the RV-3, I think the reality is that there isn't much of a market for it anymore. The -4 is a negligible amount more work to complete, only marginally more money, and flies on the same engine options. Oh, and with a -4 you can carry baggage. And even luggage, if you need to*.
No, I think if Van were to explore a tapered wing, it would make the most business sense to target the -7 and -8 builders. If someone wanted to design one for the -4 or -6, they might sell a few to existing owners looking for a change, and a few more to new builders, but I doubt there's enough of a market to make a real go of it. But maybe that's just how I see it.
---
* You know the difference between luggage and baggage, right? Luggage goes *behind* the passenger seat...
johnny stick
Well Known Member
Got to be a high wing
I think the next Vans should be a high wing. I have read many stories about builders selling thier RVs because they can no longer climb into the plane. For me, my wife has a hard time climb into low wing planes, (and boats and things). I would love to build an RV9 or 10, but I am afraid in 5 years my wife will not be able to climb inside. I can see it now, a group of RVs with walkers. Gotta love it.
johnny stick
I think the next Vans should be a high wing. I have read many stories about builders selling thier RVs because they can no longer climb into the plane. For me, my wife has a hard time climb into low wing planes, (and boats and things). I would love to build an RV9 or 10, but I am afraid in 5 years my wife will not be able to climb inside. I can see it now, a group of RVs with walkers. Gotta love it.
johnny stick
yak53
Member
A single seat low or mid wing all metal taildragger aerobatic, LSA or heavy ultralight, Redo or improvement on the the Hummel Bird, the CA-2, (metal mini max) or the Rans S-9. Something very basic that is powered by a cheap but reliable, readily available engine. Total cost less than 20K. An airplane so fun to fly you would prefer it for local flights even if you had an RV-7 or RV-8 in your hanger ready to fly.
The smaller an airplane the more fun it is to fly.
FLYPTV
Active Member
Options?
I stumbled on to this thread and I have written several reply's, all deleted. But something just came to me that I am daydreaming about. After reading all of the posts there seems to be common vein running through, at least in the more marketable options. Look, I like any, love to dream about this stuff. But some ideas I have to scratch my head at. Twins? Retracts? Why? Yes, it would be great, but that area of the aircraft world has been done pretty well in the manufactured arena. . . not to mention cost/complexity to build, fuel, insurance and so on. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes get uneasy when there is only one motor, and my ego can take a hit when the Dunlops are dangling. . . even though I know better. . . but that is probably because 11,000 of my 12,000 hours is in high performance multi-engine airlplanes. Finally, if you want a twin, go buy one. There are some really great deals out there right now. Call me, I'll help you!
I took a look at this from a marketing and manufacturing point of view. I think we can all agree that the -7, -8, -9, -10 have all hit their respective market desires pretty well. I dare say, they can't improve much there. To me, there seems to be a couple of emerging marketplaces. I'll admit to being partial to one. That is, the single seat fire breathing aerobatic/cross country machine that I can fit in with excessive comfort and convenience, with a larger wt & balance envelope, and capability to go high and sip fuel. The second market would be the LSA market.
I am no engineer (does Flight Engineer count?) and just an end user of this technology. But I wonder if you could take two existing kits and design a fuselage that with minor plans changes, part differences, construction techniques, could be built to cover these two marketplaces.
Plan - 1 Light Sport (tail dragger)
Start with the -9 empennage and wing. Don't know enough about the 12 wing/emp, perhaps that would be better suited. Couple that with a tandem fuselage that is built as a one/two seat (albeit small) airframe. Low power, slow, and economical. You guys that are into LSA's would know more about the power and lift required. Just designing a fuselage here.
Plan - 2 Modern Version of the - 3 (tail dragger)
Start with the -7/-8 empennage and wing. Single seat, fastback (or both), tip-over (or both) canopy. 320-360 power. Panel big enough for today's goodies, seat and flight control ergonomics that would make the biggest among us feel very comfortable with a loading envelope that allows for more than a duffel bag. Think single seat, high end sports car or motorcycle.
So, existing wings and tails, one fuselage, with multiple directions and options, depending on the type of flying the customer desires.
Okay, shred my idea. . . I'm a big boy I can take it!
I stumbled on to this thread and I have written several reply's, all deleted. But something just came to me that I am daydreaming about. After reading all of the posts there seems to be common vein running through, at least in the more marketable options. Look, I like any, love to dream about this stuff. But some ideas I have to scratch my head at. Twins? Retracts? Why? Yes, it would be great, but that area of the aircraft world has been done pretty well in the manufactured arena. . . not to mention cost/complexity to build, fuel, insurance and so on. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes get uneasy when there is only one motor, and my ego can take a hit when the Dunlops are dangling. . . even though I know better. . . but that is probably because 11,000 of my 12,000 hours is in high performance multi-engine airlplanes. Finally, if you want a twin, go buy one. There are some really great deals out there right now. Call me, I'll help you!
I took a look at this from a marketing and manufacturing point of view. I think we can all agree that the -7, -8, -9, -10 have all hit their respective market desires pretty well. I dare say, they can't improve much there. To me, there seems to be a couple of emerging marketplaces. I'll admit to being partial to one. That is, the single seat fire breathing aerobatic/cross country machine that I can fit in with excessive comfort and convenience, with a larger wt & balance envelope, and capability to go high and sip fuel. The second market would be the LSA market.
I am no engineer (does Flight Engineer count?) and just an end user of this technology. But I wonder if you could take two existing kits and design a fuselage that with minor plans changes, part differences, construction techniques, could be built to cover these two marketplaces.
Plan - 1 Light Sport (tail dragger)
Start with the -9 empennage and wing. Don't know enough about the 12 wing/emp, perhaps that would be better suited. Couple that with a tandem fuselage that is built as a one/two seat (albeit small) airframe. Low power, slow, and economical. You guys that are into LSA's would know more about the power and lift required. Just designing a fuselage here.
Plan - 2 Modern Version of the - 3 (tail dragger)
Start with the -7/-8 empennage and wing. Single seat, fastback (or both), tip-over (or both) canopy. 320-360 power. Panel big enough for today's goodies, seat and flight control ergonomics that would make the biggest among us feel very comfortable with a loading envelope that allows for more than a duffel bag. Think single seat, high end sports car or motorcycle.
So, existing wings and tails, one fuselage, with multiple directions and options, depending on the type of flying the customer desires.
Okay, shred my idea. . . I'm a big boy I can take it!
Vans
Vans dosen't have a bush plane. That is my 'want' for the next Vans offering. I have a RV8, and a little over 2200 RV flying hours, I love the RV series. I have built 4 of them, 2 RV6s and 2 RV8s.
if Vans had a kit Cessna 180 / 185. that would be my vote.
I have a Kit Super Cub as an addition to my RV8 and my love of flying. My Super Cub has most Alaska mods to do the out back things an airplane can do. Great airplane.
I live in Texas, My mission is airplane camping in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas. Too far for a Cub. I have recently bought a Cessna 180. I am too old to build a Bear Hawk or something that Vans might come up with,,,,.The Cub is for sale.
An RV can be an aircraft camping machine, many use it for that, and I have. I try to find someone to haul extra gear when we camp. So a heavy hauler is my choice of a complement to an RV. A 10 is out of my budget.
Vans dosen't have a bush plane. That is my 'want' for the next Vans offering. I have a RV8, and a little over 2200 RV flying hours, I love the RV series. I have built 4 of them, 2 RV6s and 2 RV8s.
if Vans had a kit Cessna 180 / 185. that would be my vote.
I have a Kit Super Cub as an addition to my RV8 and my love of flying. My Super Cub has most Alaska mods to do the out back things an airplane can do. Great airplane.
I live in Texas, My mission is airplane camping in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas. Too far for a Cub. I have recently bought a Cessna 180. I am too old to build a Bear Hawk or something that Vans might come up with,,,,.The Cub is for sale.
An RV can be an aircraft camping machine, many use it for that, and I have. I try to find someone to haul extra gear when we camp. So a heavy hauler is my choice of a complement to an RV. A 10 is out of my budget.
vlittle
Well Known Member
Plan - 2 Modern Version of the - 3 (tail dragger)
Start with the -7/-8 empennage and wing. Single seat, fastback (or both), tip-over (or both) canopy. 320-360 power. Panel big enough for today's goodies, seat and flight control ergonomics that would make the biggest among us feel very comfortable with a loading envelope that allows for more than a duffel bag. Think single seat, high end sports car or motorcycle.
So, existing wings and tails, one fuselage, with multiple directions and options, depending on the type of flying the customer desires.
Okay, shred my idea. . . I'm a big boy I can take it!
I, too would like to see a modern version of the -3. However, I don't think reusing the existing wing/empennage makes sense (you could just put a single seat in an RV-8 to get this).
I think that a -3 engineered with a higher useful load and more cockpit volume would be very interesting. If an O-235 or a Rotax would get the top speed similar to the 2-place RV's then that would be the engine of choice.
The idea is to have an economical sport plane for flying formation with the 2-place aircraft. A short wing span would allow it to be stored in the back part of a T hangar, possibly with another aircraft out front.
The market would then be for the 2-airplane family: A x-country aircraft for the family, and a sport aircraft for formation and occasional aerobatics. Since the biggest recurring expense is the hangar, this would be quite economical. Folding wings would be even better!
Also, a cheaper RV that has the same performance as the two placers has to be attractive in this economy.
BikePilot
Well Known Member
I think the ideal for me would essentially be an over-sized 7 with a huge baggage compartment. I'd absolutely love a performance, aerobatic capable plane that could fly four full size people or two people and two motocross bikes or two people and one street bike. I've seen the 10 with the motorcycle pod, but that gives up far too much in terms of motorcycle performance and the 10 isn't aerobatic of course.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I'm with you Jay!
Floridagator
Member
I'd like to see a single-seater that can handle an IO-540 on the front. Or a tandem two-seater with the pilot in the back.
In other words, imagine a homebuilt version of the Extra 330 or Edge 540.
In other words, imagine a homebuilt version of the Extra 330 or Edge 540.
Jkkinz
Well Known Member
Since I a big guy who likes to travel, I would like to see a stretched 7 with more shoulder and baggage room. I would also like to see it capable of using the IO540 and travel in the 250 or greater MPH range. That would make the long cross country trips a real pleasure.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
cattflight
Well Known Member
Jet engine on RV-13!
I saw Sonex fired up the Subsonex jet engine this week. There's a video on their site. http://www.sonexaircraft.com/ Looks exciting! They say it makes 240lbs of thrust. Anyone able to translate that into a HP equivalent for perspective?
Maybe over the next few years, this could become a reality for an RV-13 or -14 (personally, I think Van's should pass over the #13, but that's just me)
Could we go with jet engine(s) or is that a step too far on this project ?
I saw Sonex fired up the Subsonex jet engine this week. There's a video on their site. http://www.sonexaircraft.com/ Looks exciting! They say it makes 240lbs of thrust. Anyone able to translate that into a HP equivalent for perspective?
Maybe over the next few years, this could become a reality for an RV-13 or -14 (personally, I think Van's should pass over the #13, but that's just me
)
Garage Guy
Well Known Member
Power is Force times Velocity. So, the horsepower equivalent of 240 lb of thrust depends on velocity. Suppose the Sonex is flying at 100 kt. Then, since 1 hp is 33,000 ft lb / min:
Force * Velocity = 240 lb * 100 kt = 240 lb * 10,000 ft / min = 2,400,000 ft lb / min = 72 hp.
At 50 kts, it's about 36 hp; at 200 kts, 144 hp. This is prop horsepower; equivalent engine horsepower would be 20% or 25% higher because of prop inefficiency.
--Paul
Garage Guy
Well Known Member
That relationship between power and thrust breaks down at low velocities. But static thrust (from a standing start, velocity = 0) is important for takeoff performance. One way to write a relationship for static thrust is
static_thrust = (K * power) / (rpm * prop_diameter)
where K is the static thrust coefficient. When thrust is in lb, power in hp, prop_diameter in ft, K can be anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000, depending on propeller design. Assuming static rpm of 2500 and a 6 ft diameter prop, 240 lb of static thrust would require from 36 hp (with K = 100,000, corresponding to a very low-pitch, climb prop) to 144 hp (with K = 25,000, corresponding to an extreme cruise prop).
For a specific example: Suppose you have an airframe that has 240 lb of drag at 150 kt. The Sonex jet engine would (barely) fly it there. If your propeller is 85% efficient there, your piston engine needs to be making about 127 hp to do the same. A O-290-G flat out at 2700 rpm would give you that, turning a 6 ft diameter fixed-pitch prop with a design V/ND of 0.90. Such a prop will have a static thrust coefficient of about 45,000. The O-290-G might have a static RPM of 2200 with that prop, making about 100hp and 350 lb of thrust, about 50% more than the jet.
--Paul
stewart smith
Member
Make an Aeronca Champ out of aluminum powered by a Rotax.
13 guess
There is a secret room at Van's where something is going on. I'll put my money on a motor glider based on the 12 design. Van is a glider guy and the 12 wings are glider origin. A motor glider has none of the hangups of light sport and you don't even need a drivers license to fly. A Pipistrel motorglider cruises at around 150kts, can fly above 10000, has a inflight controlable pitched prop and can be maintained by any A&P. There is life beyond light sport
There is a secret room at Van's where something is going on. I'll put my money on a motor glider based on the 12 design. Van is a glider guy and the 12 wings are glider origin. A motor glider has none of the hangups of light sport and you don't even need a drivers license to fly. A Pipistrel motorglider cruises at around 150kts, can fly above 10000, has a inflight controlable pitched prop and can be maintained by any A&P. There is life beyond light sport
kevinh
Well Known Member
I would _so_ be into that. I'd be in line to be customer #1 - bonus points if the G limits are high enough for acro. I love gliding and love my RV.
mark schoening
Active Member
I would love the idea of a high wing "bush" plane with tail-wheel, 2 place + with strength for optional skis. floats, or tundra tires. Room for two, or extra fuel, or camping stuff, or rescued puppies !
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
MetalStar -13
Well, since someone brought it up...again! I recal the SH boys did try the Glastar as an all-composite, and found it too heavy....so.....
to swing the other way, why not all metal, high-wing -9?...and since we are seeing quantities in the thousands, why are we all forced to do fibreglas on our RV's?
Can't we have stamped aluminum cowling, fairings, and wheel spats? ( love that name!....had to use it!)
that would lend itself to the bushplane idea as well.
Hey, some days I just don't want to climb up on the wing and down into the cabin, (maybe it's a sign of my advancing years.)
The real trick is getting some kind of upward visibility (that we all adore) in a high wing. Steve wittman was on the right track with the pinched wing roots.
Well, since someone brought it up...again! I recal the SH boys did try the Glastar as an all-composite, and found it too heavy....so.....
to swing the other way, why not all metal, high-wing -9?...and since we are seeing quantities in the thousands, why are we all forced to do fibreglas on our RV's?
Can't we have stamped aluminum cowling, fairings, and wheel spats? ( love that name!....had to use it!)
that would lend itself to the bushplane idea as well.
Hey, some days I just don't want to climb up on the wing and down into the cabin, (maybe it's a sign of my advancing years.)
The real trick is getting some kind of upward visibility (that we all adore) in a high wing. Steve wittman was on the right track with the pinched wing roots.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I think I found the next "air plane" Van's could design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYFEFekPzDM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYFEFekPzDM
mkjprice
Active Member
How about a Radial?
I would love to see a RV-8 a little larger (room enough for golf clubs) and a little longer rear seat that would work with the M-14P radial. Doesn't need to be any faster or manueverable, just keep the same performance specs. Then it could compete with the Bear 360 and the Radial Rocket. Obviously would have to have taller gear to accomodate the larger prop. That would make a true RV Warbird feel.
There is my 2 cents!
I would love to see a RV-8 a little larger (room enough for golf clubs) and a little longer rear seat that would work with the M-14P radial. Doesn't need to be any faster or manueverable, just keep the same performance specs. Then it could compete with the Bear 360 and the Radial Rocket. Obviously would have to have taller gear to accomodate the larger prop. That would make a true RV Warbird feel.
There is my 2 cents!
Last edited:
burgundyja
Well Known Member
extrem 8
A 3 seat 8 with a io780 on it. Retract gear speeds of 200kts. 3rd seat would be a baggage hold so 2 with bags.
A 3 seat 8 with a io780 on it. Retract gear speeds of 200kts. 3rd seat would be a baggage hold so 2 with bags.
David Paule
Well Known Member
How about a slightly tweaked RV-9 set up for bush?
Longer, stiffer gear with bigger wheels and tires on all three. This would provide more wing, prop and tail clearance. Gear leg fairings but not wheel fairings. Powerful brakes.
Fowler flaps, maybe longer span flaps, too.
Cockpit set higher (yes, taller canopy, sorry) for better approach visibility.
There might be a bit of structural beef-up as well to accommodate the longer gear.
Add an external baggage compartment door and it would be an evolutionary airplane development with lots of capability.
Dave
Longer, stiffer gear with bigger wheels and tires on all three. This would provide more wing, prop and tail clearance. Gear leg fairings but not wheel fairings. Powerful brakes.
Fowler flaps, maybe longer span flaps, too.
Cockpit set higher (yes, taller canopy, sorry) for better approach visibility.
There might be a bit of structural beef-up as well to accommodate the longer gear.
Add an external baggage compartment door and it would be an evolutionary airplane development with lots of capability.
Dave
As long as we're brainstorming here, did anyone else see the "Snap!" at Oshkosh? it spent most of the time in front of the IAC HQ, but started out in the LSA area becasue, well, it's an LSA that looks liek an Extra!! Supposd to be availabel in 2012, made in france - LSA, but fully aerobatuc, single seat. The bad news - they are projecting a price of $180,000!! Silly....don't you think Van could do a kit for much less?
So...a very light, fully aerobatic LSA - no travel capability, inverted airfoil, +/-9 G's....it'd be better than an RV-3 for pure Acro - and would complement that electric Motorglider that I want for the peaceful times.....
Paul
So...a very light, fully aerobatic LSA - no travel capability, inverted airfoil, +/-9 G's....it'd be better than an RV-3 for pure Acro - and would complement that electric Motorglider that I want for the peaceful times.....
Paul
N941WR
Legacy Member
I did see it and their bi-plane. Spent some time talking to their sales rep and found out that they both have the 912 engine which is set to be replaced because it is not approved for acro. There is a new engine under development that they want / need to try. No details were available other than to say they are replacing the 912.
NickAir
Well Known Member
RV-13 Market needs
Types of aircraft with market popularity that are near Van's current line up. (economical type aircraft are a growing need for many pilots)
1) Motorglider: RV12 - build higher aspect ratio wings to plug in to the current recepticals. Simple, you could buy a RV12 with standard wings or motorglider wings. The new high aspect RV12 wings surely would be a compromise between standard wings and glider wings. This would be a versital aircraft if you consider an owner will be able to choose both sets of wings for different flying missions. I am suprised they have not done this yet. There may be engineering issues that make it not possible or production issues making it not reasonable to accomplish.
2) Mentioned often around airports and with RV people is a Streched tandem RV9 and a streched tandem RV12, both taildraggers! Enough room and carrying capacity for two adults and room for 100 lbs of gear. These would sell hot. Especially the RV12. If you added the above RV12 with higher aspect ratio wings with a tandem setup... 100's would already be sold if available. Many solid RV people are getting older and moving to light sport and Van's could cash in on this new surplus of pilot selling off their old planes and moving to Light Sport. I see adds actually stating this regularly.
Bush plane market is with it's many aircraft options, from Champs to 180's, although older, but never the less they are too competitive in price and too many of them available to make it worth persuing from a Van's perspective.
Hot rod RV. This has already been accomplished many times with current production aircraft that were modified successfully.
NickAir
www.VictoryNW.com
RV6 N69GM sold
RV7A 0-360FI 180hp, CSP, 3axis AP, Slider, Dynon/Advanced Flight Systems, etc.
Types of aircraft with market popularity that are near Van's current line up. (economical type aircraft are a growing need for many pilots)
1) Motorglider: RV12 - build higher aspect ratio wings to plug in to the current recepticals. Simple, you could buy a RV12 with standard wings or motorglider wings. The new high aspect RV12 wings surely would be a compromise between standard wings and glider wings. This would be a versital aircraft if you consider an owner will be able to choose both sets of wings for different flying missions. I am suprised they have not done this yet. There may be engineering issues that make it not possible or production issues making it not reasonable to accomplish.
2) Mentioned often around airports and with RV people is a Streched tandem RV9 and a streched tandem RV12, both taildraggers! Enough room and carrying capacity for two adults and room for 100 lbs of gear. These would sell hot. Especially the RV12. If you added the above RV12 with higher aspect ratio wings with a tandem setup... 100's would already be sold if available. Many solid RV people are getting older and moving to light sport and Van's could cash in on this new surplus of pilot selling off their old planes and moving to Light Sport. I see adds actually stating this regularly.
Bush plane market is with it's many aircraft options, from Champs to 180's, although older, but never the less they are too competitive in price and too many of them available to make it worth persuing from a Van's perspective.
Hot rod RV. This has already been accomplished many times with current production aircraft that were modified successfully.
NickAir
www.VictoryNW.com
RV6 N69GM sold
RV7A 0-360FI 180hp, CSP, 3axis AP, Slider, Dynon/Advanced Flight Systems, etc.
Last edited:
Greg Arehart
Well Known Member
David,
Although not as bush as a cub and the like, my 9 works reasonably well for "less than optimal" landing strips. I don't think I would take it into a sand bar (yet) without more training, but I'm happy with the way it performs with some simple mods. I put on custom gear legs that take 6" wheels, so I can use bigger tires (currently 800x6 but could go larger) and Flyboys (Vince Frazier) is making a custom tailwheel fork for an 8" tailwheel. I suppose longer legs would give more clearance, but the 9 legs are already quite long and longer would put more stress on the mount. I use the standard leg fairings and no wheel fairings. Approach visibility is fine as is.
Cheers,
Greg
Although not as bush as a cub and the like, my 9 works reasonably well for "less than optimal" landing strips. I don't think I would take it into a sand bar (yet) without more training, but I'm happy with the way it performs with some simple mods. I put on custom gear legs that take 6" wheels, so I can use bigger tires (currently 800x6 but could go larger) and Flyboys (Vince Frazier) is making a custom tailwheel fork for an 8" tailwheel. I suppose longer legs would give more clearance, but the 9 legs are already quite long and longer would put more stress on the mount. I use the standard leg fairings and no wheel fairings. Approach visibility is fine as is.
Cheers,
Greg
lockeed
Well Known Member
We were just discusing that this past weekend with some fellow pilots and owners... We all agreed that the next aircraft we would love to see from Van's would be a quick-build high wing.
I'd personnaly like to see Van's do a medium sized affortable high wing aircraft with STOL capabilities and a sturdy landing gear. Good cruise speed and a 46"+ wide cockpit with a good cargo space at the back - preferably with a small access door behind the pilot's door.
Wing under 30' wingspan to help keep a sporty handling, possibility to switch from tailwheel to tricycle easily. Position the cockipt front seats as foward as possible under the wings to keep a good visibility.
What would be neat would be a strutless design like the Cardinal - but not essential...
That's about it! I'll take two of those!!
I'd personnaly like to see Van's do a medium sized affortable high wing aircraft with STOL capabilities and a sturdy landing gear. Good cruise speed and a 46"+ wide cockpit with a good cargo space at the back - preferably with a small access door behind the pilot's door.
Wing under 30' wingspan to help keep a sporty handling, possibility to switch from tailwheel to tricycle easily. Position the cockipt front seats as foward as possible under the wings to keep a good visibility.
What would be neat would be a strutless design like the Cardinal - but not essential...
That's about it! I'll take two of those!!
Last edited:
David Paule
Well Known Member
David Paule
Well Known Member
Older Cessna 180s cost roughly as much as brand new RVs and do the job quite nicely. And you can buy one within a very short time, and they come ready to fly. Mine cruises at up to 168 mph and I've landed it on a beach in Baja - other places, too, like Fish Lake, ID.
Dave
RV-3B empennage, wings and fuselage kits on order
Cessna 180 flying, not for sale
David-aviator
Well Known Member
We were just discusing that this past weekend with some fellow pilots and owners... We all agreed that the next aircraft we would love to see from Van's would be a quick-build high wing.
I'd personnaly like to see Van's do a medium sized affortable high wing aircraft with STOL capabilities and a sturdy landing gear. Good cruise speed and a 46"+ wide cockpit with a good cargo space at the back - preferably with a small access door behind the pilot's door.
Wing under 30' wingspan to help keep a sporty handling, possibility to switch from tailwheel to tricycle easily. Position the cockipt front seats as foward as possible under the wings to keep a good visibility.
What would be neat would be a strutless design like the Cardinal - but not essential...
That's about it! I'll take two of those!!
You-all have entirely too much time on your hands. Start another project and there is less time to day dream about the perfect airplane.
Most of what has been postulated here is available at least in form. Zenith has a decent line up of airplanes quite capable of STOL. They even come match drilled as do RV's. There's also a monster high wing tail dragger (not Zenith) with an 0720 engine, I've seen it at OSH. It had huge balloon tires. Go for it. It looked big enough to live in.
Vans has a commanding niche market with some really special airplanes, great organization, and is doing quite well as a company. I'd hate to see it go off into the wilderness with an airplane and not come back - like Rutan's Grizzly. The bush market is already crowded with the likes of Super Cubs, etc.
One thing Vans could do is update the RV-3 build to RV-8 standards. Every RV pilot needs one of them as a back up, in the event GPS fails and all flying is mandated local.
lockeed
Well Known Member
David, I respecfully disagree with just about everything you just said
Let's take it from the top. I usualy work about 60hrs a week, more often than not, 7 days a week operating and managing my two companies. So, day dreaming is not my thing.
Zenith are slow and ugly! I love them for what they are - don't get me wrong, but they are not what I have in mind for a potential Van's built high wing.
Yes, Van's has been very successfull with the RV line, this is exactly my point. If there's a manufacturer with the experience, knowledge, reputation, resources, network and infrastructure to support a great high wing design, it is Van's. No doubt at all. Keep in mind that there is a huge percentage of aircraft owners who want and desire a high wing affordable aircraft.
Also, it's not because an aircraft has STOL capabilities, that you should try to land on 100' sandbars with it. I'm reffering to an STOL aircraft, simply to get access to grass strips and short runways safely.
Strap the wings on the roof of my 6A and add 3 feet on each wings and I'll show you an STOL take off!
Let's take it from the top. I usualy work about 60hrs a week, more often than not, 7 days a week operating and managing my two companies. So, day dreaming is not my thing.
Zenith are slow and ugly! I love them for what they are - don't get me wrong, but they are not what I have in mind for a potential Van's built high wing.
Yes, Van's has been very successfull with the RV line, this is exactly my point. If there's a manufacturer with the experience, knowledge, reputation, resources, network and infrastructure to support a great high wing design, it is Van's. No doubt at all. Keep in mind that there is a huge percentage of aircraft owners who want and desire a high wing affordable aircraft.
Also, it's not because an aircraft has STOL capabilities, that you should try to land on 100' sandbars with it. I'm reffering to an STOL aircraft, simply to get access to grass strips and short runways safely.
Strap the wings on the roof of my 6A and add 3 feet on each wings and I'll show you an STOL take off!
David-aviator
Well Known Member
David, I respecfully disagree with just about everything you just said
Let's take it from the top. I usualy work about 60hrs a week, more often than not, 7 days a week operating and managing my two companies. So, day dreaming is not my thing.
Zenith are slow and ugly! I love them for what they are - don't get me wrong, but they are not what I have in mind for a potential Van's built high wing.
Yes, Van's has been very successfull with the RV line, this is exactly my point. If there's a manufacturer with the experience, knowledge, reputation, resources, network and infrastructure to support a great high wing design, it is Van's. No doubt at all. Keep in mind that there is a huge percentage of aircraft owners who want and desire a high wing affordable aircraft.
Also, it's not because an aircraft has STOL capabilities, that you should try to land on 100' sandbars with it. I'm reffering to an STOL aircraft, simply to get access to grass strips and short runways safely.
Strap the wings on the roof of my 6A and add 3 feet on each wings and I'll show you an STOL take off!
Well, Jean, if you were the owner of Vans Aircraft Company, would you do it with your money on the line?
lockeed
Well Known Member
David, without a spec of hesitation.
And I would also consult the Van's community for design elements, trying to pickup common and recurent particularities and requirements - based on users and owner's real world experience. About 7000 are flying their product right now? I think it's the right place to start and "feel" the needs. Then go on to a breif market study for north America and determine what they should acomplish to have a successfull product.
Just my 2 cents.
And I would also consult the Van's community for design elements, trying to pickup common and recurent particularities and requirements - based on users and owner's real world experience. About 7000 are flying their product right now? I think it's the right place to start and "feel" the needs. Then go on to a breif market study for north America and determine what they should acomplish to have a successfull product.
Just my 2 cents.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Like in direct competition with Murphy, not far from Aurora.
http://www.murphyair.com/murphyair/default-2.html
I say it again, what you-all are looking for is available. There is no compelling reason for Vans to re-invent it and risk screwing up what works.
Gus said on a tour in early December, 60 (low wing) kits are shipping each month. I doubt Murphy is anywhere near that busy with the (high wing) bush airplanes. The market and interest for a high wing bush airplane may not be as extensive as you hopefully imagine.
What has been demonstrated in the market place is that many pilots want speed, efficiency, and total performance - a Vans airplane - not a bush airplane.
Perhaps this thread suggests some of you are not pleased or satisfied with an RV - maybe a different mission in mind - well, that's understandable. Maybe Vans should go for 100% of the market but I hope they don't. It would be boring to show up at OSH and the only airplanes there were from Vans Aircraft Company
lockeed
Well Known Member
We could go on and on disagreeing David, as I really don't share your point of view.
Wow on earth could Van's screw up what work, by introducing a high wing aircraft?
If the aircraft is as capable, well built and as beatifully designed as the RV line, the only thing that's gona happen is that they will dominate the market, helped by their very strong reputation and loyal following only - not even talking about new customers from the LSA and certified "market" who will definitely have an interest in a "172" killer.
You can't progress and grow as a company if you rest on your laurels whitout ever innovating. Again, I respect your opinion, but I don't share it.
lockeed
Well Known Member
Let's play a game. Let's say I was able to hack into Van's network and I was able to get the first picture of the upcomming RV-X, Van's first high wing aircraft.
I took 10 minutes during lunch to play with the idea... and came up with this:
Now, how many of you want more info on it?
Personaly, I'd be calling Van's 1-800 by now. And this is only based on one stupid photoshop.
Doesn't it look goood!!
I took 10 minutes during lunch to play with the idea... and came up with this:
Now, how many of you want more info on it?
Personaly, I'd be calling Van's 1-800 by now. And this is only based on one stupid photoshop.
Doesn't it look goood!!
