Is your other plane a bush plane?

[Flyyak]

Yes
Own and fly an RV 7, J-3 and yak 52

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by 63robskin

Please make sure it has a traditional aircraft engine. (0-360 like). And it must compete with the Carbon Cub.

I will strongly disagree with the "compete" with a Carbon Cub statement. There are a bunch of planes in the group that are lucky to do 110 knots but stall in the 20's and 30's.

My desire is a 2+2 that can use anywhere between a 150 hp O-320 to a 200 HP IO-360. (Avoid crazy expensive engines like the IO-390, 400, and/or 540.)

I would happily give up low end stall for something that flies like the -9 on the low end and maxes out at 140 knots, more is always better.

Realistically, how many people land on sandbars in the middle of a river? (We have a customer who sent us his EICommander after it spent two weeks upside-down in a river, along with his plane.) It is kind of like the Jeep thing, most owners don't but "could" go off roading to some place other than the local mall. However, having something that can land on relatively rough fields that are 1600' long would be ideal as long as they can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

I love SuperCubs, Super STOL's, Dakota Cubs, etc. for their ability to land in really short spaces but not so much for their ability to take a week getting there. Even the Bearhawk has a fairly slow cruise speed.

That's why I like the idea of a C170 like kit. They could design it so you can have a nosewheel or a tailwheel (Think of the Cessna crowd who would jump on the RV bandwagon!), you could take your wife and two friends out for dinner, or you and your buddy could LOAD it up and go hunting with it.

Just my dream plane as I already have a two place plane and really need the extra seats but want a Bearhawk, Maule or PA-14 with some speed.

[Aerosport1]

My other plane is a 1940 Piper J3 Cub. Took me 4 years to restore from a trailer of parts. Finished it in Sept 2017. It now has 72 hrs. C85/Stroker. Love flying it

[Jaypratt]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I will strongly disagree with the "compete" with a Carbon Cub statement. There are a bunch of planes in the group that are lucky to do 110 knots but stall in the 20's and 30's.

My desire is a 2+2 that can use anywhere between a 150 hp O-320 to a 200 HP IO-360. (Avoid crazy expensive engines like the IO-360, 400, and/or 540.)

I would happily give up low end stall for something that flies like the -9 on the low end and maxes out at 140 knots, more is always better.

Realistically, how many people land on sandbars in the middle of a river? (We have a customer who sent us his EICommander after it spent two weeks upside-down in a river, along with his plane.) It is kind of like the Jeep thing, most owners don't but "could" go off roading to some place other than the local mall. However, having something that can land on relatively rough fields that are 1600' long would be ideal as long as they can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

I love SuperCubs, Super STOL's, Dakota Cubs, etc. for their ability to land in really short spaces but not so much for their ability to take a week getting there. Even the Bearhawk has a fairly slow cruise speed.

That's why I like the idea of a C170 like kit. They could design it so you can have a nosewheel or a tailwheel (Think of the Cessna crowd who would jump on the RV bandwagon!), you could take your wife and two friends out for dinner, or you and your buddy could LOAD it up and go hunting with it.

Just my dream plane as I already have a two place plane and really need the extra seats but want a Bearhawk, Maule or PA-14 with some speed.

Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal

[JonJay]

Originally Posted by Jaypratt

Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal

.....and not be a $150-$200k airplane like the Sportsman.

Folding wings and trailerable without fuss would be a plus just for hangar space concerns.

The market is really quite crowded with bush plane kits from the low and slow scaled cubs and Highlander's, all the way up to the Sportsman, which I feel is the closest to what an RV bush plane might spec out like, but again, hold onto your wallet.

The only reason Vans would consider doing this kit is their loyal fan base, which exceeds all other kit fans, would provide enough market. I don't think you will swing over the "bush" crowd very easily.

There seems to be a lot of opinions on what folks want in a bush plane, so that cuts down the number of Vans fans that would take final interest.

Not seeing much of a market here for the investment. Even this VAF crowd doesn't seem to agree on what type of bush plane they want.

Thus far we want a 2+2, #1000 useful load, 30" tires, 30mph stall, 150mph cruise, 600sm range, folding wings, all in for under $125k. Good luck Vans!

Perhaps that needs to be the next poll. What are you looking for (but make it reasonable, not like my example).

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by JonJay

.....Thus far we want a 2+2, #1000 useful load, 30" tires, 30mph stall, 150mph cruise, 600sm range, folding wings, all in for under $125k. Good luck Vans!...

How about $60K. That would bring a LOT more people into this amazing hobby.

That's where the engine and prop and simple panels come into play. (Although one modern EFIS is lighter and cheaper than steam gauges.)

Come on Van's, we know you want to do this!

[Mark33]

Originally Posted by Jaypratt

Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal

I actually think there’s room in the Vans “bush plane” market for two different designs. 1. The 170/180 style 2+2 “gentlemen’s” bush-plane that could take the family and or friends on outdoor adventures. Make it all metal and with solid, one-piece spring type landing gear that’s robust but easy to maintain. Make the landing gear in an airfoil type of a design (kind of like the Grove RV-8 gear) so that the airplane will be relatively fast. Also make the gear easily removable and have the airframe pre-configured and rigged so that they could easily be swapped out for amphibious floats. Equip it with some relatively large “all terrain” tires, and you’d have one awesome “gentleman’s” bush-plane.

Now for number 2. A Super Cub/super STOL style, hard-core, all metal, tandem seating, all terrain, go anywhere, do anything, Bad-A$$, Alaskan style bush-plane. Equip it with the latest heavy duty Cub-style landing gear and Acme off-road shocks or the new Beringer Alaskan landed gear. Put a set of 31-35” tundra tires on it and you’d really be set to go anywhere. Design it with the latest Fowler flap and aileron airfoil technology along with automatically deployable leading edge slats to give it true super-STOL abilities. Design it with off-road/backcountry being its primary mission. You’d also still want to easily be able to convert it to a float plane.

Large doors on both sides of the fuselage would be highly desirable on a floatplane so that you could easily exit out of either side of the airplane. You’d also want to have the back seat and controls easily removable or mobile enough to get everything out of the way so that the back of the plane could be loaded up with camping and hunting or fishing gear along with the game that you’d taking home with you after your trip.

That backseat/rear fuselage area should also be designed and accessible to actually be able to sleep in that area if necessary. I could go on and on but I think the point is that I believe that Vans has the opportunity to satisfy a market that’s itching for both styles of airplane as I’ve described. You can kind of think of it as satisfying the RV-10 and RV-8 crowd.

Both types of airplanes are very capable but have a little bit different mission in mind. I think Vans saw a need for both a two and four seat versions of their traditional fast, efficient, and sexy aircraft and they really hit the nail on the head with those designs but I also think there’s a golden opportunity for them to capitalize on these very similar but distinctively different backcountry/bush-style airplanes as described above.

Heck, I think there’s even enough room for a third and possibly a fourth design. Can you imagine a four seater, and both a tandem and side by side two seater bush-planes in their lineup? And who knows, maybe even light-sport bush-plane? Think of it as the 7, 8, 10,....and 12 of Vans bush-planes!!....”And the crowd went wild”!! LOL!!

So Santa, I’ve been a “pretty good” boy this year, so now you know what I want under the tree.

Mark

[JonJay]

Originally Posted by Mark33

I actually think there?s room in the Vans ?bush plane? market for two different designs. 1. The 170/180 style 2+2 ?gentlemen?s? bush-plane that could take the family and or friends on outdoor adventures. Make it all metal and with solid, one-piece spring type landing gear that?s robust but easy to maintain. Make the landing gear in an airfoil type of a design (kind of like the Grove RV-8 gear) so that the airplane will be relatively fast. Also make the gear easily removable and have the airframe pre-configured and rigged so that they could easily be swapped out for amphibious floats. Equip it with some relatively large ?all terrain? tires, and you?d have one awesome ?gentleman?s? bush-plane. Now for number 2. A Super Cub/super STOL style, hard-core, all metal, tandem seating, all terrain, go anywhere, do anything, Bad-A$$, Alaskan style bush-plane. Equip it with the latest heavy duty Cub-style landing gear and Acme off-road shocks or the new Beringer Alaskan landed gear. Put a set of 31-35? tundra tires on it and you?d really be set to go anywhere. Design it with the latest Fowler flap and aileron airfoil technology along with automatically deployable leading edge slats to give it true super-STOL abilities. Design it with off-road/backcountry being its primary mission. You?d also still want to easily be able to convert it to a float plane. Large doors on both sides of the fuselage would be highly desirable on a floatplane so that you could easily exit out of either side of the airplane. You?d also want to have the back seat and controls easily removable or mobile enough to get everything out of the way so that the back of the plane could be loaded up with camping and hunting or fishing gear along with the game that you?d taking home with you after your trip. That backseat/rear fuselage area should also be designed and accessible to actually be able to sleep in that area if necessary. I could go on and on but I think the point is that I believe that Vans has the opportunity to satisfy a market that?s itching for both styles of airplane as I?ve described. You can kind of think of it as satisfying the RV-10 and RV-8 crowd. Both types of airplanes are very capable but have a little bit different mission in mind. I think Vans saw a need for both a two and four seat versions of their traditional fast, efficient, and sexy aircraft and they really hit the nail on the head with those designs but I also think there?s a golden opportunity for them to capitalize on these very similar but distinctively different backcountry/bush-style airplanes as described above. Heck, I think there?s even enough room for a third and possibly a fourth design. Can you imagine a four seater, and both a tandem and side by side two seater bush-planes in their lineup? And who knows, maybe even light-sport bush-plane? Think of it as the 7, 8, 10,....and 12 of Vans bush-planes!!....?and the crowd went wild?!! LOL. So Santa, I?ve been a ?pretty good? boy this year so now you know what I want!!

Mark

Mark - you now just cut the market into another segment. Vans will never do a bush plane unless they have clear direction on what the market wants.
Thus far, all this poll thread has done is shown how little in common the VAF subscribers have when it comes to this type of aircraft.
If, together, this group can not settle on what they want and show Vans there are enough people that would buy it, they will not make the investment.
In a crowded market with lots of bush plane kit options, we better all settle on what you want Vans to do that is different, and what you would buy.
If I am sitting at Vans right now looking at this thread, I would be confused....

[Mark33]

Originally Posted by JonJay

Mark - you now just cut the market into another segment. Vans will never do a bush plane unless they have clear direction on what the market wants.
Thus far, all this poll thread has done is shown how little in common the VAF subscribers have when it comes to this type of aircraft.
If, together, this group can not settle on what they want and show Vans there are enough people that would buy it, they will not make the investment.
In a crowded market with lots of bush plane kit options, we better all settle on what you want Vans to do that is different, and what you would buy.
If I am sitting at Vans right now looking at this thread, I would be confused....

Well, I tend to disagree with you a little bit. For starters, this thread is just about having some fun and daydreaming about a few “possibilities” if Vans were to introduce a bush-plane kit. I don’t think they’re confused in the least and if anything they probably enjoy reading the wishlist of all of us daydreamers. But if they were to ever actually take any of this seriously I see no reason why they shouldn’t look at the bush-plane market just exactly as they do the sport-plane market.

Obviously, they saw a need/desire for a four place and several two place kits (both side-by-side and tandem) as evidenced by their current lineup and with the many differences in opinions/desires that we’ve seen here on this thread alone, I don’t think they’re confused in the least as to the fact that there’s many different wants/needs from many different people.

From a business point of view the hard part would be determining where the most profitable niche is...or at the very least where the best place to start is. I think all of our imaginations can go wild and fantasizing about the possibilities that are only limited by those imaginations, but I also think if you’re in the kit plane business you have to keep your finger on the pulse of what your potential customers want.

So with that said, I’ll go back to my original thoughts of “why not” a bush-plane lineup exactly like,....but just a mirror image “opposite” of the sport-plane lineup. Once again, I think the hard part would be to decide on which one should be the “first” one to be introduced, but after that only the sky...(or market) would be your limit.

I think these airplane kits are just like anything else that there’s a market for and as a business you must decide what demographics your going to go after and I think there’s a fine balancing act that you must pull off. It’s kind of like a house building contractor....do you want to build one or two multimillion dollar homes a year or do you want to build a bunch of middle class homes a year??

I think when your dealing with “regular guys” like the majority of us are that are interested in kit-planes, then you must not only offer kit(s) that are desired, you must also keep them in a price range that “regular guys” can afford. Would I love a four place SUV bush-plane?....sure I would....just exactly like I’d love an RV-10. However, at this point in my life and with everything else in life to take in account, my budge will only allow me to build a fixed pitch prop RV-7.

There’s a lot of guys that can afford an RV-10 with all of the bells and whistles and I’m really happy for them...and maybe at some point I’ll be able to join their ranks, but right now I’ll be VERY happy with my new RV-7. Once again, from a business/market point of view, I think there’s a lot more RV-7 out there flying around than there are RV-10’s, but obviously Vans saw a market for both.

I also think the exact same analogy holds true with these bush-planes that we’re talking about. Confusion?....no, I don’t think so. Diverse desires....yes!! Once again, from a business point of view, where should/would they start?? Who knows, maybe the market is over saturated with bush-planes and maybe there’s no room for another player...but on the other hand, with the reputation that Vans has, maybe this is just exactly what the bush-plane market has been waiting on. I guess this is call that only Vans can make. Until then, we can all just keep on dreaming and keeping our fingers crossed.

Oh, BTW, if Vans is reading any of this, if I can’t get my Vans tandem bush-plane I’ll be building a Rans S-7 next...after I’m finished with my Vans RV-7. So, you can see what demographics I fall into. LOL!! .....it’s all fun though!!

Mark ��

[Latech15]

Paragraphs! Hit the enter key every once in a while....