"Rv 16"

[Billythekid]

It seems the more models these guys come up with , the price keeps going up. Is the rv16 going to be 51k out the door. Is not the 4 and 6 a sturdy platform great in its own time tested way. Excluding the 10 of course, it seems interesting that the manufacturing of the 6 is being downplayed, or the options surrounding it are decreasing. Can anyone explain why vans mountain is going in so many different directions. And away from what seems to be old school ways. At what point does the upward spiral stop making dollars and cents.

[Robin8er]

The prices are going up, but so is the quality of the kits and the engineering that goes into it. All that fabrication, pre punched holes, plug and play wiring harnesses etc. cost money.

The way I see it you either pay for the kit with your time or your money. I chose to pay for mine with my time, so im doing a slow build.

[tjo]

Here's the thing, a two place airplane airframe basically will cost $20k, regardless of manufacturer for an aluminum skin and stringer configuration, tube and fabric is more, all composite is more. Avionics, $5k to $40k, engine $10k to $40k, prop $1k to $10k, interior $1k to $5k. So overall $37k to $115k for a 2 seater, a very wide range regardless of airframe. The question is not which mfg for the airframe, that cost is pretty consistent, the question is what kind of airframe performance wise, then engine, avionics, prop, and interior, that is where the real cost difference is.

Tim

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by Billythekid

It seems the more models these guys come up with , the price keeps going up. Is the rv16 going to be 51k out the door. Is not the 4 and 6 a sturdy platform great in its own time tested way. Excluding the 10 of course, it seems interesting that the manufacturing of the 6 is being downplayed, or the options surrounding it are decreasing. Can anyone explain why vans mountain is going in so many different directions. And away from what seems to be old school ways. At what point does the upward spiral stop making dollars and cents.

Van's is a business. Their goal is to make money, and they aren't going to introduce new products that aren't likely to earn a good return. The "old school ways" of more basic kits aren't popular in the market; the potential market for advanced kits is much larger and more profitable. The advanced kits are more likely to be completed rather than abandoned, and will therefore sell more sub-kits; more people are going to be willing to start an advanced kit because they perceive it as something within their skills. Plus, the newer models are perceived by a lot of people to be more useful (more cockpit room and higher gross weights). All of these mean that advanced kits will sell more and result in more completed, flying airplanes than old-school kits.

Part of the reason Van's has been successful is that they are making products that the market wants. The market wants advanced, easier-to-build kits and larger, more capable (in certain areas) airplanes, and is willing to pay for those things. Basic, "old school" kits and scratchbuilding were more popular "back in the day", but that wasn't because the market preferred them--it's just that there weren't any other options. And because of that, the experimental world was much, much smaller. Annual homebuilt completions are nearing annual certified piston single production numbers; that would never have happened without advanced kits.

[6 Gun]

Proofs in the pudding with 25 thousand RV6 kits sold and only 2500 plus finished that's proof that builders need more complete kits and less build time.On the other side of the coin if you like building that means lots of good deals out there on Rv6 kits saved me lots of money.Also just because its the newest model does not mean its better I think its safe to say the wing and tail of the RV6 is better than RV7 .
Bob

[BillL]

I believe we are watching the evolution of a full fledged aircraft manufacturer. They do better design through analysis, testing and validation of designs. They learn with every test and every design. This learning drives some overhead cost, as we all know in our own building. And, although this will drive cost, in the Vans philosophy of value, it should be a better alternative to the current certificated offerings.

There may come a time when Mr RV is aged and the company looks like a ripe tomato to a commercial outfit for cost effective design and manufacturing, and may be purchased and "transformed" in the business sense. Hopefully, he has made alternative provisions to avoid this potential future.

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by 6 Gun

I think its safe to say the wing and tail of the RV6 is better than RV7.

On what data do you draw that conclusion?

[DanH]

Originally Posted by BillL

Hopefully, he has made alternative provisions to avoid this potential future.

He did. Vans Aircraft is employee-owned.

[6 Gun]

In the Model Specific there is a thread by Bill L on what does the Harmon or F1 Rocket do to beep up vert front spar the F1 use spar doublers and the Harmon Rocket just uses the 4 tail with vne of 300 mph which is the same as 6.
Bob

[StuBob]

It's been said already: They cost more because more is done by the factory, so more will be completed. My RV6 tail took a year and wound up in a scrap yard at $0.50 a pound. My RV8 tail will be done in 3-4 months and will wind up flying [he said, in a fit of unwarranted optimism].

For those wanting less pre-fabbing, there's still the Mustang II and T18. You can even build a Zenith from scratch. Or a Wittman Tailwind.

But what about this RV16? Is there such a thing?