What Van needs is a...

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by Captain_John

...doesn't the Bearhawk have a tubular fuse?

Maybe I am wrong?

CJ

It does - and that fact is certainly one of the plusses.

The point being, Van is a businessman. Why would he jump into a market populated by so many stellar competitors? Remember, he's dominating the current market because he has a good product - not because he's Van. He's not King Midas - every airplane he produces is gold.

Finally, it makes little sense to stray far from existing parts -Tooling and NC programming is very expensive. The cost of an all new design will be passed on to the consumer. Making changes without technical merit is a bad business decision - especially in a "requirements driven" market like this. Sure, some dream about a new model every year - but few would actually pay for it.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by lockeed

... why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home.... ...

...Because some people use their airplanes for more than a breakfast run to the next town. Last year coming back from OSH I found the range of the -6 we were flying with quite limiting. He had to land and I still had more than an hour to go in the -8. Major pain. As for the bladder situation - two words - "relief tube".

[pierre smith]

Originally Posted by Ramendala

...The RV-14 has different wing attachment dimensions, different chord, spars...etc. This makes no sense to me.

Ryan

Negative, Ryan..it's the SAME wing, with the same chord and the same attach points..4 bolts outside the fuselage, just like my -10. I was there and spoke with Ken. The front and rear spars are simply RV-10, with the same attach method. The shorter wing becomes stiffer and why it's a 6G wing.

Best,

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by PerfTech

...I like the 2" or so wider cabin

I wonder if anyone has ever built a -6, -7, or -9 and put just one seat in it, centered. Would require some non-trivial mods for the control....

[Ramendala]

Originally Posted by pierre smith

Negative, Ryan..it's the SAME wing, with the same chord and the same attach points..4 bolts outside the fuselage, just like my -10. I was there and spoke with Ken. The front and rear spars are simply RV-10, with the same attach method. The shorter wing becomes stiffer and why it's a 6G wing.

Best,

phew...thanks Pierre.

That maybe would have been a better response. "Same wing as our proven RV-10, just a stubby"

[JoeM]

[quote=Toobuilder;684013
The point being, Van is a businessman. Why would he jump into a market populated by so many stellar competitors? .[/QUOTE]

Why don't people on here consider the Zenith STOL series, is it just because they want something from "Vans". They seem to be close to what everyone is asking for, all metal high wing, lots of engine choices and I think it can be flown with the doors off.

Just curious, it's not what I'm looking for, I'm still deciding between the RV-12 and CH-650

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

The point being, Van is a businessman. Why would he jump into a market populated by so many stellar competitors? Remember, he's dominating the current market because he has a good product - not because he's Van. He's not King Midas - every airplane he produces is gold.

Finally, it makes little sense to stray far from existing parts -Tooling and NC programming is very expensive. The cost of an all new design will be passed on to the consumer. Making changes without technical merit is a bad business decision - especially in a "requirements driven" market like this. Sure, some dream about a new model every year - but few would actually pay for it.

I learned that he?s [Richard VanGrunsven] disappointed in how the light-sport aircraft movement has evolved. I also learned that, despite the success of his ?touring? airplane designs, Dick actually sees a need for more creative approaches to airplane ownership, and a greater emphasis on ?fun? versus ?cross-country? flying, in the years to come. ?I?ve come to the realization that a personal air-plane as a transportation vehicle is not that realistic,? he says. ?I?m not writing off the transportation aspect, but just stating that in my own mind, with the higher price of fuel, etc., we need more emphasis on ?pure,? fun flying.

EAA Sport Aviation, July 2012.

I really wonder how much Dick runs Vans Aircraft anymore.

[gmpaul]

RV14
Has anyone thought of a three place? The 10 is way out of my budget but I could sell my 9. Then build a 14 with a little interior modification & grand kids and Pop would be off. Yea this might be dreaming but aren't all builders dreamers?
GP

[Geico266]

Doing some hangar flying today while I was working on my -10 several hangar rats comented on the -14. One comment that made sense is the RV-14 is for foreign markets. Think about it, 50 gallons of fuel? Very robust main landing gear for unimproved landing strips, large cabin is just a plus. The largest buyer of RV kits is the company in Brazil that takes 6-12 kits a month last I heard. I would guess their input into new products gets a lot of consideration.


JMHO.

[Adam Wright]

I disagree with Van needing a high wing stol. There are too many good planes that do that already. Anyone every look at the Rans S-7 it has stol capabilities it is cheap and you can fly doors off.

Van's should concentrate IMO on exactly what he wrote in the magazine the other day... "pure fun and economical airplanes"

My vote is up dating the RV-3 design! and after that finishing development on a self launch glider! These would be both fun, economical and bring more people into the hobby!

The RV-14 brings no new significant capability to the line up except for making a more expensive 2 seat airplane. The RV14 refinements should have just been integrated in the existing RV-7.