VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   What's next from Van's? (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=155620)

bkervaski 12-01-2017 08:15 AM

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.

1001001 12-01-2017 08:28 AM

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.

1001001 12-01-2017 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkervaski (Post 1222543)
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...

Bill Boyd 12-01-2017 08:33 AM

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...

1001001 12-01-2017 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Boyd (Post 1222550)
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...

Jrskygod 12-01-2017 10:11 AM

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.

larrys 12-01-2017 10:16 AM

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

StuBob 12-01-2017 01:19 PM

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!

Bob Kuykendall 12-01-2017 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLock (Post 1222480)
To everyone and especially Mr. Mach .26...

We do happen to have that tapered RV wing under development, designed by the guy who developed the RV-10 and RV-14 wing profile... ;)

rv7boy 12-01-2017 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1222617)
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.

rvbuilder2002 12-01-2017 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1222617)
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.

Kyle Boatright 12-01-2017 06:13 PM

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.

Mach.26 12-01-2017 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Kuykendall (Post 1222619)
We do happen to have that tapered RV wing under development, designed by the guy who developed the RV-10 and RV-14 wing profile... ;)

Bob I wish you and Steve the greatest of success. Can't wait to see it flying and hopefully own one soon! :D

rv9builder 12-01-2017 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright (Post 1222671)
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.

N333M 12-02-2017 05:53 PM

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.

N333M 12-03-2017 12:53 PM

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?

dtw_rv6 12-03-2017 01:39 PM

I would build an all metal version of the Long EZ.

N941WR 12-03-2017 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 (Post 1223041)
I would build an all metal version of the Long EZ.

Someone built an aluminum Defiant so I see no reason why you couldn't build an aluminum EZ.

DougCronkhite 12-05-2017 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Kuykendall (Post 1222619)
We do happen to have that tapered RV wing under development, designed by the guy who developed the RV-10 and RV-14 wing profile... ;)

Great news, Bob! Between that and an HP-24 kit, I think you could get a lot of my money in the next couple years.

OrenAir 12-05-2017 04:29 PM

Maybe the RV-11 will be released

N333M 12-09-2017 01:10 PM

Maybe an RV-13??

Jimbot 12-09-2017 03:33 PM

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.

perryc 12-30-2017 05:28 AM

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

PilotjohnS 12-30-2017 08:37 AM

My take
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by perryc (Post 1228567)
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.

BruceMe 12-30-2017 08:48 AM

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.

RVTOY 12-30-2017 09:12 AM

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.

jchang10 12-30-2017 06:48 PM

https://youtu.be/PPaESFlSXVw

"Sebastian Thrun: Making flying cars a reality"

Sounds like it's getting close.

KRviator 12-30-2017 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1222617)
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.

svyolo 12-30-2017 11:54 PM

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.

Flybipe 12-31-2017 06:09 PM

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.)

Grum.man 12-31-2017 06:47 PM

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.

Timberwolf 12-31-2017 08:55 PM

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.

Dmadd 12-31-2017 11:05 PM

+1 for rotax twin

Quote:

Originally Posted by control (Post 1222086)
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.


PilotjohnS 12-31-2017 11:54 PM

Curious
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmadd (Post 1228961)
+1 for rotax twin

Curious why a Rotax twin? What itch does this scratch?

Oliver 01-01-2018 07:40 PM

+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.

DNeufeld 01-01-2018 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timberwolf (Post 1228946)
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!

Timberwolf 01-01-2018 08:17 PM

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.

DNeufeld 01-01-2018 09:06 PM

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:

Jaypratt 01-02-2018 06:16 AM

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.

N333M 01-23-2018 07:53 PM

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!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 AM.