VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 11-29-2017, 08:41 PM
FlyArmy FlyArmy is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: AZ
Posts: 186
Default

I vote for something like this. https://newsline.kitplanes.com/2017/...ooley-jet-eze/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-29-2017, 09:19 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 662
Default Groundhog day

Vans doesn't care what we want them to build. Every year, this thread comes up and lots of creative stuff comes out but nothing or nobody admits to being interested. Nevertheless, I'll bite but I offer these suggestions because I can't resist a good thread. First some ground rules:

1. Vans does not do retractable gear, ever. It goes against their philosophy on so many levels,
2. Vans does not do high wing anything, ever.
3. Vans does not want to complete with an existing design unless it's their own. The bearhawk and moose has the metal utility market, there are several amphibious crafts, and so on.
4. Composites are an exception rather than the rule, which eliminates a lot of potential designs. The exception would be a sailplane, maybe. (and of course the -10 fuse)

I think there is a market for different wing designs for existing RV's. This is already being pursued outside of Vans and I'm thinking it will be successful as long as one doesn't break.

Another market I think is for the builder to pay extra for additional margins and options. Want to add a 540 to a -6, here is the kit. Want to increase your 6g design to 7g, then add this kit. Want to increase VNE 10kts, purchase this kit. I think there are people who are willing to pay to play. The market base is changing and new customers seem to have deeper pockets. If you got good engineers, why not get a return on that investment?

My personal preference would be a bearhawk competitor type all metal design or maybe a super efficient all metal twin to compete with my twin Comanche. So far, no one has been able to compete with the twin Comanche overall acquition and operating cost however the diamond comes close in the operating cost area.

Just my .02 and not worth anything but it's great to see what they come they come up with. With 10,000 Vans owners out there, if they pick the right design, they may find themselves with 10,000 orders from those of us looking for another plane to cohabitate with our RV. Who knows.....
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
Aerostar 600A, Family Hotrod
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-29-2017, 09:40 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 662
Default Good points

Very good points Carl.
Thanks,


Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Never say never. Van's was reluctant to do a side-by-side. They did. Van's was reluctant to do nose gear models. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a 4-place. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a LSA. They did. People wanted them and they responded ... when they thought the market was big enough!

And, the torch is being passed to a new generation at Van's. No telling what they might do.
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
Aerostar 600A, Family Hotrod
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-29-2017, 09:41 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Never say never. Van's was reluctant to do a side-by-side. They did. Van's was reluctant to do nose gear models. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a 4-place. They did. Van's said they wouldn't do a LSA. They did. People wanted them and they responded ... when they thought the market was big enough!

And, the torch is being passed to a new generation at Van's. No telling what they might do.
Thing is, they are quickly heading to the bigger/more expensive end of the spectrum. I'd love to see an updated RV-3, but I don't think the market is there for Vans to make the investment.

Given that they can now go LSA- 200 mph 4 seater, I'm not sure if they don't just spend time refining the existing models and putting together more standard sub-kits (panel kits, for instance) for the older -7-8-9-10 designs. Pass through sales (avionics, props, and engines) seem to be a big part of the current thinking at Vans, and I'm sure they are missing out on some of that "action" because they haven't put together standard packages for the older kits.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-29-2017, 10:00 PM
PilotjohnS PilotjohnS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1,119
Default Garmin stack

Ya a nice Garmin dual display G3x setup with G5 and GTX 650 with remote transponder and radios would be awesome. Seems like most of the g3x panels are settling in to a standard arrangement enough for Vans to offer a instrumentation kit. Great idea and I will be first in line for the 9 kit.
__________________
John S

WARNING! Information presented in this post is my opinion. All users of info have sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for their use.

Dues paid 2020, worth every penny

RV9A- Status:
Tail 98% done
Wings 98% done
Fuselage Kit 98% done
Finishing Kit 35% canopy done for now
Electrical 5% in work
Firewall Forward 5% in work
www.pilotjohnsrv9.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:22 AM
6 Gun 6 Gun is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 846
Smile Icon

I like what Bob Kuykendall said in post #14 but all aluminum if you can seal a fuei tank why not a hull.
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:53 AM
Tom Martin Tom Martin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,544
Default

A quick build tapered wing that would fit the newer model RV's. I have an EVO wing rocket and just love the speed range. The higher you go the better the wing behaves relative to the square wings.
Cost has always been used as reason to not go with a tapered wing. One only has to look at how many IFR panels are owned my non IFR pilots to realize that costs are not the primary driver in aircraft purchases.
The wing could be offered as an option, and I believe it would be a popular one.
500 similar RVs show up at AirVenture; would it not be nice to have one that looks a bit different and offers an improved flying experience?
__________________
Tom Martin RV1 pilot 4.6hours!
CPL & IFR rated
EVO F1 Rocket 1000 hours,
2010 SARL Rocket 100 race, average speed of 238.6 knots/274.6mph
RV4, RV7, RV10, two HRIIs and five F1 Rockets
RV14 Tail dragger

Fairlea Field
St.Thomas, Ontario Canada, CYQS
fairleafield@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-30-2017, 09:51 AM
uk_RV9A uk_RV9A is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Default

I think refinement of the mid-range kits would be the way to go.

The kit and documentation standards of the RV10 and 14 at the high end, and the RV12 at the low end, have moved on greatly from the 9 and the 7.

However in the mid range there appears to be a gap, with the 7 and 9 still using the older documentation style and more work intensive kit. If you do not need the size of the 14, or 4 seats of the 10 there is a big step down to the 12.

I would very much like to see the RV-9 refreshed into a more developed kit along with the modern document style. This is VANS building on what it already does and improving it, not going out on a new limb like some of the suggestions.

If there is not enough innovation in that idea, maybe combine it with a firewall forward kit option for the new Rotax 915 to combine the 9 wing with turbo charged efficiency to give a model that slots between the 9 and the 12 and would be a super efficient cruiser.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-30-2017, 09:56 AM
Mark Dickens's Avatar
Mark Dickens Mark Dickens is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Collierville, TN (KFYE)
Posts: 1,433
Default

While I'd like to see the RV-8 kit updated to the same standards as the -14, I'd vote for a high wing Cub-like design. You could also hangar one of those with a low wing RV in a standard T hangar
__________________
RV-8 #81077 Super Slow Build
Dynon Skyview HDX, Titan IOX-370, Dual P-Mags, AFP FM200A FI, Whirlwind 200RV CS Prop
First Flight 11/20/2016
www.marksrv8.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:17 PM
BruceEicher's Avatar
BruceEicher BruceEicher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Wilsonville/Aurora KUAO Oregon
Posts: 746
Default Aerobatic...

What about a bird that would take aerobatic flight to higher levels? Maybe an improved, all metal concept of the ?One Design?? Or a less expensive home built ?Extra? type?
__________________
Bruce, Katie, Hana and RV-8 HulaGirl
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.