What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

Example of Things My RV Won?t Do?but wish it would.

This morning 0800 at the ‘remote office’ 3n.m. east of my home field in the shared Cub - a 2 1/2 minute flight and maybe a cup of fuel. Dried up part of a creek/lake that some of us have started calling ‘Denton Creek Regional Spaceport and Tire Care Center’ (DCRSTCC). When it starts raining this all goes away, but while it’s 90*F at 0800 here in the south, we pick our outings carefully and plan on shade. RVating needs to be done by 0800 here this time of year. The open door Cub not so much.

A WiFi puck, iPad and I’m working with an office view to get excited about. 30 minutes out here under the wing, not on a runway or airport, allows my brain to decompress and gives me the mojo to take on the day. Note VAF on iPad….I’m working on picking stories for the next day’s edition.

IMG_9799-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-v2C6fJb/0/fd9ff651/5K/IMG_9799-5K.jpg


Here’s a better pano with the FOV slightly elevated….

If I had an RV that would do this it would be on the front page of VAF all…the…time. I don’t mind working on emails and stuff if this is the view.

IMG_9800-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jTrVhVh/0/27e2c0d2/5K/IMG_9800-5K.jpg


The next pic showing that even with the wheel pants off, the RV would have a tough time of it. The cracks are big and you need bigger tires than what comes on the RV. The DCRSTCC aerodrome is too short for the current RV models anyway. It would probably be too short for 2 people in the Cub - 65hp and no flaps after all.

An RV-Super Cub, with 60* fowler flaps and slats and 31” tires would make for a nice way for two RV folks to enjoy a picnic RV breakfast or RV lunch. Uncharted RV territory......off road!

IMG_9797-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-n8z8w7z/0/5c9c6157/X5/IMG_9797-X5.jpg


Back in the Cub, engine running and about to take off. Time for one more pano…

IMG_9802-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jPSk3dR/0/4a80614e/5K/IMG_9802-5K.jpg


This is the stuff I’d LOOOOOVVVVEEEEE to do in an RV, if there was such an offering. Like I said in an earlier reply: I’d build it. I’d promote it. The Cub would be gone in a heartbeat. I’d fly an RV-Super Cub often…especially in our four months of hot, hot weather.

I’ll shut up now, as you're probably sick of me begging for this thing. ;^)

v/r,dr​
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in the S-21 and spent quite a bit of time in Rans booth. I've always wondered why Van didn't do a high wing "bush" plane design. I'm very seriously considering stroking a check for a S-21. It looks like a very nice kit. Matched hole, pre-deburred holes, drilled to size. Vans could do this kind of thing in its sleep if it wanted to
 
Full disclosure,I just unpacked & inventoried my S21 fuse, tail, & wing kits. So far I am pretty impressed with the quality of the parts.
 
Van?s VS. Rans

I'd love an all aluminum, two door, Vans Super Cub with 31's, I'll probably end up with a Rans S-7. If Rans would do a tandem version of the S-21, I'd build it. The S-7 is a great little airplane and I'm sure I'd be happy with it even though it's a tube and fabric. So come on Van?s, don't "force" me to buy a Rans!! 😜

Mark
 
Full disclosure,I just unpacked & inventoried my S21 fuse, tail, & wing kits. So far I am pretty impressed with the quality of the parts.

I've been looking seriously at this one myself, my next airplane... someday.
 
Definitely more snug width wise than my RV 10 but legroom and headroom are pretty close to the '10. This from sitting in the factory plane with my wife.
 
RV9A service bulletin 18-05-21

This dated bulletin May 21-2018 does NOT get into detail on Vans website. Called Vans yesterday and was on hold for 33 minutes and never got answered, guesss they are busy after Oshkosh. This pertains to a plug on the fuel spider of injected 320-160hp. Can?t fly until I check it. Has anyone gone through the check? What would I be looking for? Thanks
Ron in Oregon
RV9A flying
 
This dated bulletin May 21-2018 does NOT get into detail on Vans website. Called Vans yesterday and was on hold for 33 minutes and never got answered, guesss they are busy after Oshkosh. This pertains to a plug on the fuel spider of injected 320-160hp. Can?t fly until I check it. Has anyone gone through the check? What would I be looking for? Thanks
Ron in Oregon
RV9A flying

Check to make sure the manifold does not have temp plastic plug installed on any of the outlets (metal pipe plug only like shown below).

2ujhw76.jpg
 
The high wing idea has been mentioned many times so there seems to be support for it in the community. I'd also like to an RV-14 version of the 9; roomier cockpit plus all the nice features of the 14 build.

Bob
 
Electric

I would like to see them start developing an all electric version. Possibly base it off of the 12. Battery density will be high enough in just a few short years. The Alpha Electro already has an hour (plus reserve) of endurance now, which is a great start, and perfect for flight training. Once that is up to 2 or 3 hours then traveling becomes possible.
 
The high wing idea has been mentioned many times so there seems to be support for it in the community. I'd also like to an RV-14 version of the 9; roomier cockpit plus all the nice features of the 14 build.

Bob

Isn't the RV-14 the RV-14 version of the RV-9? :p
 
Hybrid Version of the 7

I would love to build a gasoline-electric hybrid version of the RV7.

- classic matched hole aluminum body for comfortable building
- slightly increased aspect ratio / wing span
- side by side seating
- nose wheel and tail wheel version
- aerobatic capability
- 120 kW electric propulsion (2 60kW electric motors for redundancy)
- slow turning large diameter adjustable 5 blade propeller for less noise
- 80 kW modern gasoline (unleaded regular auto gas / "pump gas") electronic injected, electronic twin sparked engine (e.g. BMW R1200 motorcycle, Sauer Flugmotoren, VW clone, Geiger Flugmotorenbau, Rotax, etc.)
- 2 x15kWh LiFePo buffer batteries for 15min at T/O power (5min take off and initial climb at 120kW, 10min climb at 75%, 11kWh to return to the field in case of gas engine failure or charging problems)
- 2 x40kW belt driven generators for cost reduction and redundancy



Avgas cost is a real problem over here. 1 liter is approximately ?2.50 ($11.00 per usg). An engine using regular automotive fuel, diesel or Jet A1 would be absolutely necessary for me. The electric propulsion would give some redundancy in case of single electric motor, generator or battery failure or gas engine failure.

Patrick
 
High wing RV?

I’m with Doug on this one. I would love to have a Van’s High wing bush plane.

Think about this. The Cessna 170 / 172 is the most popular airplane ever. It’s under powered. If Van’s offered a design that would be similar to a 170, have plenty of power, and be easy to build? I would be the second to buy the kit.

This would be designed as if a Super Cub and C170 had kids. All metal, O-320 to IO-390 Lycoming. Nose wheel or tail wheel. 2,200 Gw. Big baggage door.

I built a North Star Bush plane in 2004. I still fly it. I put my money down. I love this type of flying. I would want to own, promote, fly, a Van’s product like this if it was available.

PS:
My North Star has an O-360, and 31” Alaska Bush Wheels
 
Last edited:
I?m with Doug on this one. I would love to have a Van?s High wing bush plane.

Think about this. The Cessna 170 / 172 is the most popular airplane ever. It?s under powered. If Van?s offered a design that would be similar to a 170, have plenty of power, and be easy to build? I would be the second to buy the kit.

This would be designed as if a Super Cub and C170 had kids. All metal, O-320 to IO-390 Lycoming. Nose wheel or tail wheel. 2,200 Gw. Big baggage door.

I built a North Star Bush plane in 2004. I still fly it. I put my money down. I love this type of flying. I would want to own, promote, fly, a Van?s product like this if it was available.

PS:
My North Star has a O-360, and 31? Alaska Bush Wheels

Van's should have bought Murphy when it was for sale a few years ago. Update the drawings and kit contents, along with prepunched skins, and you have an instant success. There's a reason they are so popular with out neighbors to the north. I know I love my Muprhy Rebel
 
I?m with Doug on this one. I would love to have a Van?s High wing bush plane.

Think about this. The Cessna 170 / 172 is the most popular airplane ever. It?s under powered. If Van?s offered a design that would be similar to a 170, have plenty of power, and be easy to build? I would be the second to buy the kit.

This would be designed as if a Super Cub and C170 had kids. All metal, O-320 to IO-390 Lycoming. Nose wheel or tail wheel. 2,200 Gw. Big baggage door.

Not to be too tongue-in-cheek, but the product of which you speak is called the Glasair Sportsman. It matches all of those criteria quite nicely, save for the pre-punched, all aluminum build. The success of the Sportsman really tells us that Jay isn't the only person in the world who wants this kind of utility aircraft. I can't argue with Jay because I built a Sportsman.

The utility of the aircraft was a huge selling point for me, as was its crashworthiness, thanks to its 4130 steel "cage" around the cockpit. I don't think I would want to give up that cage in favor of all-aluminum construction.
 
Not to be too tongue-in-cheek, but the product of which you speak is called the Glasair Sportsman. It matches all of those criteria quite nicely, save for the pre-punched, all aluminum build. The success of the Sportsman really tells us that Jay isn't the only person in the world who wants this kind of utility aircraft. I can't argue with Jay because I built a Sportsman.

The utility of the aircraft was a huge selling point for me, as was its crashworthiness, thanks to its 4130 steel "cage" around the cockpit. I don't think I would want to give up that cage in favor of all-aluminum construction.

The big problem with the Sportsman is that Glasair has already stated that once the Sportsman is certified they will stop producing kits.
 
Upgraded kit instead?

I'd like to see Van's upgrade and simplify the construction process of the RV-7, 8, 9 series of aircraft with the same technology that they used to produce the RV-12 and RV-14. Make it easier for us whom some of you refer to as 'kit assemblers' to build. My next Van's aircraft most likely will be a 9 or 9A. Not afraid to build the 9 as it is but the fit any simplicity of assembling my 12 is outstanding. No jigs, etc. Simply easier and in my opinion better. And I'm not afraid of the standard flush rivets either.

I'm a Dynon guy - all in. And I'd like the option of buying a complete Dynon system which has actually been assembled and all of the wiring including the wiring that we place inside the structure of the airplane having been trial assembled and tested on the bench by Dynon. This would cost more but I'll bet it would be a good seller for Dynon. Yeah, I'm as sissy builder but a tested avionics system that I could simply install into my RV-9 would be nice to have. I will have a complete Dynon system in my 12 and the actual wiring of it has consumed many, many hours. I'd like a plug and play full avionics system that is fully tested at Dynon that I could simple install into my airframe, plug in, verify, and fly.
 
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)

Whooop!!!
We marvel at that airfoil up high sucking O2 on the way to/from to the next adventure.
 
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)

Just to be clear on the terminology, the RV-9(A) uses a John Roncz custom airfoil. The RV-10 and the RV-14 share the same custom airfoil (by a VAF contributor) but this is a different airfoil from the RV-9(A).
 
Just to be clear on the terminology, the RV-9(A) uses a John Roncz custom airfoil. The RV-10 and the RV-14 share the same custom airfoil (by a VAF contributor) but this is a different airfoil from the RV-9(A).

That is correct, but even though they have different airfoils, both were designed with the same purpose in mind.
The RV-9 airfoil was specifically designed to also produce excellent performance on lower HP. In comparing the 9 and the 14; I would say that is the primary difference other than what was already mentioned (bigger size, engine, gross weight, etc., for the 14)
 
65hp cub

Doug,
I did the same thing. (Picked up an original 65hp cub this summer).
The cub definitely opened up a part of the flying experience that the RV can't do. The simplistic and low cost flying along with the open doors deal makes early morning or late evenings such a joy. A high-wing RV would be a nice hangar mate with an existing Low-wing RV. My RV is maybe like a SUV. It does several things well. However, it will never be a truck. How can a feller go thru life without a truck?
Craig


This morning 0800 at the ?remote office? 3n.m. east of my home field in the shared Cub - a 2 1/2 minute flight and maybe a cup of fuel. Dried up part of a creek/lake that some of us have started calling ?Denton Creek Regional Spaceport and Tire Care Center? (DCRSTCC). When it starts raining this all goes away, but while it?s 90*F at 0800 here in the south, we pick our outings carefully and plan on shade. RVating needs to be done by 0800 here this time of year. The open door Cub not so much.

A WiFi puck, iPad and I?m working with an office view to get excited about. 30 minutes out here under the wing, not on a runway or airport, allows my brain to decompress and gives me the mojo to take on the day. Note VAF on iPad?.I?m working on picking stories for the next day?s edition.

IMG_9799-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-v2C6fJb/0/fd9ff651/5K/IMG_9799-5K.jpg


Here?s a better pano with the FOV slightly elevated?.

If I had an RV that would do this it would be on the front page of VAF all?the?time. I don?t mind working on emails and stuff if this is the view.

IMG_9800-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jTrVhVh/0/27e2c0d2/5K/IMG_9800-5K.jpg


The next pic showing that even with the wheel pants off, the RV would have a tough time of it. The cracks are big and you need bigger tires than what comes on the RV. The DCRSTCC aerodrome is too short for the current RV models anyway. It would probably be too short for 2 people in the Cub - 65hp and no flaps after all.

An RV-Super Cub, with 60* fowler flaps and slats and 31? tires would make for a nice way for two RV folks to enjoy a picnic RV breakfast or RV lunch. Uncharted RV territory......off road!

IMG_9797-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-n8z8w7z/0/5c9c6157/X5/IMG_9797-X5.jpg


Back in the Cub, engine running and about to take off. Time for one more pano?

IMG_9802-XL.jpg


Full size image: https://photos.smugmug.com/Planes/Cub/i-jPSk3dR/0/4a80614e/5K/IMG_9802-5K.jpg


This is the stuff I?d LOOOOOVVVVEEEEE to do in an RV, if there was such an offering. Like I said in an earlier reply: I?d build it. I?d promote it. The Cub would be gone in a heartbeat. I?d fly an RV-Super Cub often?especially in our four months of hot, hot weather.

I?ll shut up now, as you're probably sick of me begging for this thing. ;^)

v/r,dr​
 
Just to be clear on the terminology, the RV-9(A) uses a John Roncz custom airfoil. The RV-10 and the RV-14 share the same custom airfoil (by a VAF contributor) but this is a different airfoil from the RV-9(A).

And both Steve and John did an amazing job designing custom airfoils!

Can you tell us why two different airfoils were used for the RV-9 vs. RV-10?

I'm with Scott, every time I fly my -9 I am stunned by the performance up high, down low, on takeoff, and landing.

My dream plane is 2+2 bush plane with that airfoil. While it will be no DRACO or Super STOL, it will be more than adequate for 99% of the rough fields I would like to visit.
 
The RV14 was my eleventh and last plane. I would however be very interested in a high wing, NO strut, aluminum RV. Tail wheel of course. The RV14 gear would be perfect but I would want a heavier tail wheel and aft fuselage. Something able to handle rougher terrain. A 540 option would be awesome.
A fuseage half way between a 14 and a 10 would be perfect if it had a decent size aft door. What the heck, while you are at it make the main cabin doors removable!

With no struts I cannot see any reason why this could not be a 150 to 175 knot airplane.
 
Last edited:
The RV14 was my eleventh and last plane. I would however be very interested in a high wing, NO strut, aluminum RV. Tail wheel of course. The RV14 gear would be perfect but I would want a heavier tail wheel and aft fuselage. Something able to handle rougher terrain. A 540 option would be awesome.
A fuseage half way between a 14 and a 10 would be perfect if it had a decent size aft door. What the heck, while you are at it make the main cabin doors removable!

With no struts I cannot see any reason why this could not be a 150 to 175 knot airplane.

Even with struts hanging out in the breeze the Sportsman does between 140 & 145 knots with an IO-390 so your speed goal seems entirely reasonable, with the higher speeds making sense particularly with a 540 installed. Of course it already has all those other mission-specific items you've suggested, but it still has those pesky struts which come in pretty handy when one wants to fold the wings.:D
 
The biggest problem with a strut-less high wing is head room. Without struts you will need a hefty spar carry-through. This takes up a lot of room just where you don't want it.
 
I would like to see the next model be an updated (version 2?) 10 or 14 with the fiberglass parts pre-finished and some of the more monotonous tasks pre-done.

As I see it, there are probably two classes of experimental folks .. builders and assemblers .. personally I think I fall somewhere in the middle.

And let's face it .. Experimental and LSA aircraft are the new GA, might as well get them cranking out .. these Cherokees and 172s are getting a little long in the tooth.
 
Last edited:
Can you tell us why two different airfoils were used for the RV-9 vs. RV-10?

Maximized/optimized performance for the lower power and lower weight of the -9 meant choice of an airfoil that best fit/addressed that specific set of needs.
 
Actually the 14 is the down sized RV-10 and the up sized RV-9.
It uses the RV-10 airfoil section which was design for cruising efficiency as its primary mission (just like the RV-9)

Thanks Scott, I must have lost those brain cells!

Now time for the decision, finish the 9 or build the 14...
Bob
 
I'm a Dynon guy - all in. And I'd like the option of buying a complete Dynon system which has actually been assembled and all of the wiring including the wiring that we place inside the structure of the airplane having been trial assembled and tested on the bench by Dynon. This would cost more but I'll bet it would be a good seller for Dynon. Yeah, I'm as sissy builder but a tested avionics system that I could simply install into my RV-9 would be nice to have. I will have a complete Dynon system in my 12 and the actual wiring of it has consumed many, many hours. I'd like a plug and play full avionics system that is fully tested at Dynon that I could simple install into my airframe, plug in, verify, and fly.

Your in luck- Dynon already has that
http://www.dynonavionics.com/quick-panels.php
 
When I visited a VANS presentation at Oshkosh they confirmed that
there are no plans so far to improve the kits of the 7 or 9 to make the construction easier/faster. It is not that easy and they prefer to spend the time on the RV15.
They didn‘t come up with any details not even a small hint, e.g. more for bushflying or speed or whatever. They told us that they even don’t know yet. But they „have listened to the Community“. Hard to believe for me that you begin a construction without having the goal already in mind.

The S21 from Rans caught my attention. Something like this from VANS and optimized for Rotax 912is or 914 at reasonable costs. I’d pull the trigger. Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons:)
 
Last edited:
[...] The S21 from Rans caught my attention. Something like this from VANS and optimized for Rotax 912is or 914 at reasonable costs. I?d pull the trigger. Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons:)

While I m not so sure about the rather expensive Rotax, at least not for the US market, I would otherwise agree with you. If Van's long term goal is to grow, they need to come up with something that a.) truly expands their current portfolio and that b.) is accessible to more people.

I noticed that planes like the RANS S-21 or the Sling 2 / 4, both with an elegant, yet simple design and fast to assemble kits, make people seriously consider building an aircraft who would have previously not even remotely thought about it.

Personally, I still think that something like an all-metal, strutless, pulled rivet, 2+2 seat Glasair Sportsman would be the perfect addition to Van's portfolio.

Van's has done a lot for us homebuilders and there is a reason why they are so crazy successful. The world keeps moving, though...
 
Christmas wish list to Santa....uhh, I mean Vans!!

I’m sure that if Vans designs another airplane that they’ll go in the direction that their market research tells them that they’ll be the most successful and make the most money. It’s fun to read this wish list and see all the different types of airplanes that people want Santa to leave under their Christmas tree. I think to really be different you have bring to market something that’s popular...but is not currently being offered. Going high and fast and carrying four people is certainly very desirable, but for the most part that’s already available and also a relatively expensive and a long slow process to build. Then you look at something like the new Rans S-21 and you see a design that’s simple, fast and easy to build, and relatively affordable for the “regular guy” and has a mission to fill that aims at the segment of aviation that’s very popular right now which is the back country STOL bush flying. I love their simple design where as the aluminum skins are basically just pop riveted on to the frame. With this type of design the aluminum skins are basically just taking the place of the fabric that would be covering a tube and fabric design. I think Rans really has a winning design here and they will sell a lot of S-21’s. The Vashon R-7 “kind of” fits into this same side by side back country design....but not really. With all of this in mind, this brings my line of thinking around full circle and I just have to ask as to what kind of design should Van’s offer that’s completely outside of their normal wheelhouse, that’s aimed at a very popular segment of aviation, but is “just” different enough from everyone else that will make their design stand out amongst the crowd?? Oh, and one other thing...if you’re aiming at that back country market I think you must also keep in mind what is arguably most popular back country airplane ever designed....the Piper Super Cub!! Although there are some nice side by side back country planes out there and I know that a lot of people like that side by side seating, history proves that a tandem configuration bush plane has the most long term appeal and utility of any other design. This is where I think Rans missed the mark with the S-21 and where Van’s could step in. If I’m not mistaken the tandem S-7 is the most popular design that Rans ever had. So with all that being said, I’ll refer back to my original Christmas wish list that I’ll mail out to Santa and tell him that I want an easy/simple, quick build, pop rivet together, rugged, all aluminum, tandem seating, big gas tank, heavy hauling, two door, modern day big bush tire and suspension, amphib capable, low and slow flying, STOL performing airplane that you can bolt on everything from a parallel valve 233 all the way up to an angle valve 390 and everything in between and still be able to get good performance out of it. Do you think I’m asking for too much? LOL!! ��

Mark
 
Last edited:
I think what could be commercially attractive is a certified plane for flight schools attacking the C172.

I could imagine something like a RV-14A with a cheaper engine (O-320, O-360 or IO-360) and a G1000 Panel. Optionally with a constant speed prop on the IO-360.

Van's would have to revise the 14 for the smaller engine, integrate the G1000, do FAA and EASA certifications and set up a certified aircraft factory. Don't know if they take the risk.
Also you'd probably design a second plane, an RV-24A with two engines and retractable gear for CPL training.
 
Last edited:
...Please no more 200+hp planes for 2 persons:)

Idunno… Van’s has most of the market covered from the bugsmasher RV-12 to the School Bus RV-10. Bush aircraft are not represented, but frankly that small market is already saturated with excellent homebuilts. I cant see Van’s improving the performance, kit manufacturing process or price point over what exists today. The only possible discriminator I see is the “brand recognition” of Vans Aircraft. Unfortunately this cuts both ways because the number of illogical buyers who will build “just because” it’s a Van’s product will be offset by an equal number of illogical customers who will avoid a Van’s product just out of principle. It’s a zero sum game.

So one market for exploitation is the “really” high performance segment – the “Grand Touring” segment. I’m envisioning a 230+ TAS cruiser for the mid teens which has 5+ hour legs and a comfortable tandem cockpit layout. It’s a personal airliner that can cross state lines in a single bound. I’m spending a great deal of resources trying to make my Rocket fit in the “personal airliner” box, but as great an airplane as it is, John really designed it to be a light, simple “hotrod” airplane. The design decisions are showing through. A clean sheet airplane designed for big fuel, high altitude wing, roomy rear cockpit and most of all – a heavy engine (Big bore Conti or AV Lyc) would be a winner. Yes, there are some fast glass airplanes that fit this market, but they are few and far between. Additionally, they generally trade off too much low speed handling in exchange for all out speed and that renders them undesirable for a lot of places I want to go (my own runway, for example). The Rocket is perfect on the slow side of the envelope – I’d like to have another 30 knots on the top end.
 
Wait, what? Now just one minute sir .. that's crazy talk :eek:

Crazy talk, indeed. 200+HP two-seaters (the closer to 300 KTAS, the better) are the only airplanes that interest me at all these days. Not counting warbirds and jets, of course. :D
 
Idunno? Van?s has most of the market covered from the bugsmasher RV-12 to the School Bus RV-10. Bush aircraft are not represented, but frankly that small market is already saturated with excellent homebuilts. I cant see Van?s improving the performance, kit manufacturing process or price point over what exists today. The only possible discriminator I see is the ?brand recognition? of Vans Aircraft. Unfortunately this cuts both ways because the number of illogical buyers who will build ?just because? it?s a Van?s product will be offset by an equal number of illogical customers who will avoid a Van?s product just out of principle. It?s a zero sum game.

So one market for exploitation is the ?really? high performance segment ? the ?Grand Touring? segment. I?m envisioning a 230+ TAS cruiser for the mid teens which has 5+ hour legs and a comfortable tandem cockpit layout. It?s a personal airliner that can cross state lines in a single bound. I?m spending a great deal of resources trying to make my Rocket fit in the ?personal airliner? box, but as great an airplane as it is, John really designed it to be a light, simple ?hotrod? airplane. The design decisions are showing through. A clean sheet airplane designed for big fuel, high altitude wing, roomy rear cockpit and most of all ? a heavy engine (Big bore Conti or AV Lyc) would be a winner. Yes, there are some fast glass airplanes that fit this market, but they are few and far between. Additionally, they generally trade off too much low speed handling in exchange for all out speed and that renders them undesirable for a lot of places I want to go (my own runway, for example). The Rocket is perfect on the slow side of the envelope ? I?d like to have another 30 knots on the top end.

Sounds...expensive.
 
So one market for exploitation is the “really” high performance segment – the “Grand Touring” segment. I’m envisioning a 230+ TAS cruiser for the mid teens which has 5+ hour legs and a comfortable tandem cockpit layout. It’s a personal airliner that can cross state lines in a single bound.

The planes I know of that try to achieve this are made of carbon composites and have tapered wings. What do you think are the chances you'd get a similar performance with Van's aluminum construction?

And no, I don't think tandem seating and 5+ hours are a good match. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sounds...expensive.

Hard to say. How do you define "expensive"? People on other forums think RV's are "expensive"... It's a matter of perspective. Anyway, parametric estimating will show the airframe cost to scale with material usage, avionics are going to be the same, and the engine might actually be cheaper. Thanks to the 10's demand on PV 540's, the used price on those has gone through the roof - they used to be cheaper than 360's. Design this ship for the AV 540 or Big Conti and suddenly you have a new pool to draw from.

But to your point, these mission requirements are a significant step up from the current RV line. I'd expect people to pay more.
 
Back
Top