What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What should Vans do next?

Now that the RV-12 is out the door, what should the next RV be?

  • Nothing for now - focus on efficiency, cut costs and prices, survive.

    Votes: 209 30.2%

  • A factory-built version of the RV-12

    Votes: 36 5.2%

  • The RV-11 Motorglider

    Votes: 120 17.4%

  • An amphibian

    Votes: 54 7.8%

  • An updated single-seater

    Votes: 110 15.9%

  • A twin, using the new IO-233 or Rotax engines

    Votes: 71 10.3%

  • A turboprop

    Votes: 36 5.2%

  • A jet!

    Votes: 55 8.0%
  • Total voters
    691
java said:
..."How many piston single, six seat aircraft have been sold in the past year?" ...
Click to expand...
I wrote a story for KitPlanes on a Murphy Super Rebel where the guy built it as a four seater rather than a six seater due to the insurance costs.

The exact number escapes me but IIRC, it was almost double the cost for the extra two seats. So, he built his as a four seater and put in a really nice interior and has a LOT of useful load left over.

Here is a short list of kits that I can think of with more than four seats:

Murphy Moose (The Super Rebel has been discontinued.)
Sherpa

There might be others but it is a small market.
 
Twin

I really like the idea of a twin, but I do not see it as being viable for us, the consumer.
A VERY conservative shopping list would look like this:
2x o/h O-320s @ $20,000 = $40,000
2x o/h feathering props @ $5500 = $11,000
airframe guesstimate = $50,000
VFR instruments = $5,000
upolstry, electrical, lighting, paint = $5,000
TOTAL = $111,000

For that price, you might as well buy a used Twin Commanche or Seminole.
 
I don't think 110-120K is out of line for a kit twin, considering what a lot of people invest in their -10's...I also can't agree with the argument for buying a Comanche or Seminole either, as for that money, you're getting a second hand plane that's approaching 40 years old.

For the money I'm spending on my -9, I could buy a decent Bonanza, but I don't want a decent Bonanza. I want an RV-9A, dual Dynon's and an autopilot.It'll be new. It'll be pretty. It'll be mine. Not Piper's...

People will pay to get what they want. It simply comes down to the question "Are there enough paying people to justify the development costs?"
 
Twin

You can't really compare a bare bones "RV-Twin" to a loaded RV9. No matter how you look at it, a "RV-Twin is going to cost twice as much as an equally equipped RV7/8/9. Twice the engines, twice the props, twice the firewall forward, twice the seats, twice the engine gauges. You get the picture.

What you'll save in only needing one set of flight and nav instruments will be spent in the more complex fuel system and feathering counterweighted props vs standard c/s props.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will be very few people who could afford to build and operate an "RV-Twin". I'm not saying it's a bad idea though. If I had the money, and it actually existed, I'd order one as soon as I finished my 8:D
 
Retractable, turbo-normalized, 4-6 seater, with the flutter margin to cruise at 200+ knots in the flight levels. Something to keep me from lusting after a T210.

- John
 
Kyle Boatright said:
I've probably said it before in this space, but stretch the RV-9 into a 4 seater. Give us an experimental (and higher performing) alternative to the AA-5B.
Click to expand...

Lots of folks, including me, agree with that. Going back through this thread here are some similar comments...

- 3 inches wider for big guys.
- Heavier, less spindly main gear. something will a good sized baggage compartment with a real baggage door to make it easy to get stuff in and out of, or maybe a third seat. Even something with a canopy like the RV10 to help keep the sun out and with a real passenger door.
- I want a bit more room for baggage/gear/occasional third passenger - but I don't want something quite as big/expensive as an RV-10. So - stretch out an RV-9... make a smallish back seat. Power it with an O-360. *
- I too like the the idea of a*stretched*7/9. Enough room for a third soul or more likely Mountain bikes
- Well... I'm pushing for a stretch-9 as mentioned.
- Wow a streched 9! Enough room and carrying capacity for two adults (one perhaps oversized) and two sets of golf clubs! Sold!
- Me too, a larger 9 would be nice, sacrifice a little speed for weight and room,*2" wider and possible third person/Skis/kitchen sink
- I would like to see a*stretched*7 with more shoulder and baggage room
- I've said it before... and I'll throw it out again... I think there is room in the RV lineup for folks that need a bit more room for cargo/3rd passenger-kids-dog, etc., than what the RV-7 offers. Not as big/expensive as an O-540 propelled RV-10. I'm talking tip-up or slider canopy, O-360 power along the lines of a "stretch-9". A "2+2" with a small back seat
- Ohhh man, you are sooo correct about a modified/stretched RV-7/9. A small backseat for our youngster would be*perfect*for us. The RV-10 is just a whole lot more airplane in terms of size and money. You could almost build 2 RV-7/9's for the price of a nice -10.*
 
dicel87 said:
Lots of folks, including me, agree with that. Going back through this thread here are some similar comments...
Click to expand...

I had a back and forth e-mail discusion on this with Ken Kreuger recently. He said they have discussed the idea, but <paraphrasing here> they weren't convinced the market was there to support it. Also, it seems that many people are very happy with the bigger/more capable/more expensive RV-10, so why undercut it?

My assumption is that an RV-9+ would kill sales of the -9, because who wouldn't want 2 more seats for an extra $5k or whatever. I think the -10 is <largely> a different market.

Anyway, if Van's recieved a groundswell of requests for a cheaper 4 seater, that might get them moving on it. So if y'all want an RV-9+ or an RV-13 or whatever we would call it, reach out to Van's and let 'em know.
 
I emailed Van's about two months ago asking if there was any discussion about a 4 seater built around an IO-360. I forget who responded, but they basically said that they liked the idea, but its not in the works.

For what I "NEED", something like a Piper Archer works great. Throw a CS prop on that airframe and you have a decent 4 seat aircraft. The problem with going and buying an Archer (not saying I'd change an Archer to a CS) is that you have: a 30+ year old airframe with possible corrosion issues cropping up soon, a tired engine, outdated paint, avionics, and interior. If you could offer that as a kit, then folks can make their way around the sky burning less than 9 gph, have a brand new aircraft (think interior, avionics and paint) with a little lifting capability and a solid "lighter" IFR platform.

The RV-10 fits into Van's history of "total performance", but it really prices a lot of folks out of the aircraft when it only accepts a 540 or equivalent (not to mention the kit cost). I keep looking at the Bearhawk, but it just doesn't have the builder group that the RV's have and I just don't know enough about them to possibly pull the trigger on one.

I like the idea of an all metal 4 place tailored to a 360. I'll sacrifice some performance for the ability to be an all around aircraft.

Start a letter writing campaign I guess...
 
Real RV10

I know it's been mentioned before, but what about a "real" RV10, as opposed to the "RV-10A". AKA tailwheel.
 
A stretched rv-9a....I emailed vans on this idea and they replied with a nice "sounds like a good idea", but they may say this to all who ask.

I would like a stretched rv-9a to handle slightly more baggage area.
 
ConneryIsTheBestBond said:
... I keep looking at the Bearhawk, but it just doesn't have the builder group that the RV's have and I just don't know enough about them to possibly pull the trigger on one.

I like the idea of an all metal 4 place tailored to a 360. I'll sacrifice some performance for the ability to be an all around aircraft.

Start a letter writing campaign I guess...
Click to expand...
Same here! I keep wondering how the -9's wing and tail would work on a high wing four seat bush plane. Add a strut to each wing to give it the extra strength required for four seater and it might all work out with existing parts.

Heck, even if it will only go 175 MPH cruise, that is still smoking right along.
 
Van Should Design

a RV-8 with a radial engine up front. Something around 300 hp and that great round motor sound. What a treat that would be!
 
How about a jet powered, amphibious, aerobatic, six-seat motorglider with tundra tires?

"An airplane is a series of compromises flying in formation." - unknown
 
what about if vans stops to dispense all the small hardware parts over hundreds of tiny plastic and paper bags. i see a reason to do this for stuff like the map box etc. but not for the kits itself. i was wondering how much labour cost they have to invest to fill all those bags with all the small different items (and what are these zillion rivets doing there?) and at least for me it was more confusing. so i would suggest to provide all the small parts (to buy separatley) in one "bits and pieces kit".

and... i love the rv-11 concept and would order it to be the first. for the people who have only derogative comments on the 11: just keep quiet, because you have no idea what gliding means and will probably never get it.

and at last: vans could supply people with a slider frame that fits from the beginning. :)
 
Bill Phillips said:
a RV-8 with a radial engine up front. Something around 300 hp and that great round motor sound. What a treat that would be!
Click to expand...

I've always wondered how a fast-back -8 with the 150 hp 3600 Rotec radial would look.

With paint it might be close to a P-47.

Keep it light and you might have acceptable performance to boot. If nothing else, it would sound outstanding!
 
N941WR said:
Same here! I keep wondering how the -9's wing and tail would work on a high wing four seat bush plane. Add a strut to each wing to give it the extra strength required for four seater and it might all work out with existing parts.

Heck, even if it will only go 175 MPH cruise, that is still smoking right along.
Click to expand...

I think if you put a RV-9 type wing(only larger) on a cub-like fuselage you would have a really good performer. Stall at 30 and cruise at 150? :D
 
Last edited:
dicel87 said:
I was on the Rotec site not long ago and wondered the same thing...except on the RV9 airframe. :D
Click to expand...

That would look a bit like a Spartan Exec.
Vt67754.jpg


I've dreamed about that too. Also, the -9 will do very well with 150 hp, as any -9 driver will tell you.
 
Awesome plane!

Here is my poor little power point rendition of the stretched RV-9A (in comparison to his little and big brothers).

stretched9.jpg


I know there are some photo-shop type gurus on VAF so how about taking this to the next level.

Can anyone take a real picture and doctor it up to give us (and maybe Vans) a look at what a real life stretched 9 might look like?
 
very creative drawing.
I would think that Vans would open up a new market with the stretched rv-9. I would think it would not take a whole lot of redesign to make this happen and I would think the performance would still be in the same range as the other rvs.
 
I've advocated the stretch 9 before. I'd rather see it as a tilt up or slider like the current 9's. I understand all the fiberglass work on the 10's cabin/doors is a pain. Isn't aluminum one (of many) reasons you want an RV over others?

I envision it basically looking like an AA-5 with Van's qualities and refinement.

While I really want an LSA 4... I don't see it happening. I do agree that a lower cost 4-seater fills a niche.

But remember we are all armchair quarterbacks. Van's is living through the reality of this economy and probably needs a pretty compelling arguement to move in any direction.

JMHO - DJ
 
I've been pleading for a stretched 9 for years. :cool:

Right now there are a limited number 4 passengers based upon the 360 varients; the Velocity SE which I fell in love with years ago (not so sure about all the years of fiberglass work), the Bearhawk (looked at a really nice one and talked with the builder - I can't weld and he made the plans sound like...well I'll stick with Van's), Zentih CH640 (butt ugly, the builders I've talked to all mentioned varying degrees of frustration with the plans that were not accurate, especially the spars -eek! Although I'm not sure what the current revision level of the plans are.), other composites and other tube & fabric.

I probably wouldn't be flying with 4 all the time but being able to pack 3 with baggage or a couple of sets of golf clubs and baggage (we pack alot) would be great.

I remember Van's saying at one time that one of the reasons they limited the 9 to a 320 was the wing would need to be much larger - not sure how that would impact a strecthed 9.

Oh and while you're at it how about making the kits all/mostly pre-drilled to size like the 12? :D

Oh yeah - I did wonder about a 9 wing on a CH750 but that was another night of indigestion...

Bob
 
NCC 1700??

WOW, that is old, probably not even a prepunched kit.:eek:

Last I heard, they were up to 1701 "E", but I hear you should wait for the newer avionics Garmin is about to release.;)
 
Phyrcooler said:
But more exciting!

The RV-12 flies beautifully - I can attest. However, she isn't the prettiest sister in the family. As you look around the LSA market... there aren't ANY that really give me that "GOTTA HAVE IT" sensation. There's no excitement!

I think that a TANDEM LSA either RV-4 styled or even OPEN COCKPIT :eek: would be phenomenal. Do it pulled rivet, with engineering and instructions comparable to the RV-12 and you'd have another 'best seller' on your hands! :D

DJ
Click to expand...

DITTO! My previous prognostication was that an RV-4 ?styled? LSA will be Van?s best seller ever
 
Concentrate on 'finishing' the RV-12

RV-12 could use some 'finishing' in my opinion - such as getting the Skyview functioning well enough in the 12 to be able to sell them to those who are waiting.

I'd also like to see a spun glass/fiberglass fuel tank option - about 25 gallons or so.

The improvements made so far have served to make an already excellent airplane even better. Hope to see the above happen soon.:cool
 
I thought the 7 & 9 shared the small fuselage? I like to see a redesigned sliding canopy and nose gear.

Ron in Oregon
 
Updated HP-18

A glider with a sustainer motor that could be built out of mostly aluminum. Maybe something like an updated HP-18 with an electric sustainer motor that could be like the one developed for the LAK17. I like soaring and building but there is nothing to build except a very few high dollar glass kits.
 
It is interesting that, before being an RV buyer, I never would have thoughtvabout building. Now that I'm flying and readingvthe forums, I *almost* think I might one day build. Given all those caveats, an RV-3 quick build would be my first choice!
 
There seems to be a lot of interest in a quicker build pre-punched RV-3 kit. I would also like to see an optional fat wing that would slow it down to meet Light Sport specs. The kit could be offered either way.
 
Bush Plane

Something along the lines of a Sportsman 2+2, only better. Cruise speeds in the 160's to 170's and a stall speed around 40. Strong gear for rough fields and an O-360 for power. :D
 
4 thoughts:

1) A twin RV-10 (2x 320 or ie2 235) to compete with Dyn.Aero Twin-R and others, only more-so. RV-10 airframe pricing + FWF difference.

2) A 4-seater motor glider. This would be revolutionary. Electric or gas powered, think of it as the Prius of aircraft... extreme efficiency with utility. Might be difficult in aluminum but if anyone can do it it's Van's.

3) A personal jet utilising the Price Induction engines.

4) Or evolution. The only things I've seen wanting on the -10 compared to others are range and speed. Increase the fuel capacity and power/Vne and perhaps even pressurization and I think there would be even more interest, especially now the ES/IV(-P) are out of production.
 
Last edited:
Pressurisation

I think the engineering requirements involved in producing a reliable pressure cell would be be beyond the capabilities of most home builders. The only way would be to supply the pressure cell ready made.

A non pressurised airframe complete with a sophisticated O2 breathing installation using masks would be a much much cheaper alternative.
 
What's Next?

Just got to thinking.....what type of airplane do you think or would like to see Van's next plane be. A perfect combination of several designs or a whole new design? Just curious I guess.
 
one more time?

This has been discussed ad-nasuem previously. But I still vote for a high wing 4 seater for us old farts who can't climb anymore.
 
Maybe an alternative approach to "what's next"?

RPorter said:
Just curious I guess.
Click to expand...

Curiosity is great, Ross, and I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to start new conversations here. You're one of us, and your energy will help enliven the place. Unfortunately, Johnny is right that the "next model" question has already been done a lot in the archives.

Maybe a different direction for your question would appeal to you. What do you think is next? I mean in the big picture, like maybe, the future of general aviation.

You have a unique perspective many of us are missing. We know what drew us into aviation when we were young, but it's a different world for teenagers now, and the aviation landscape has a totally different character for young people today. The physics may be the same, but the energy is quite different.

So maybe you can think about it a while and propose some ideas for what aviation offers (or could offer, or should offer) to people of your generation. What works for you? What doesn't? What would appeal to your generation? Your friends? Maybe to make this RV related, you can talk about what specifically in the Van's designs is attractive to young people today? How could RV's be used more effectively to draw young people in?

Don't let me derail your thread if you really want to pursue your original question, but if you're up for it, I think you could really lead a new, interesting, and unique discussion from a whole new perspective.

--
Stephen
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top