What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What class of bushcraft do you think they are working on?

Around 50 mph. If the RV-14 can cruise near 200 and stall in the high 50's I don't see why you couldn't have a high wing that does 175 and stalls in the low 50's.

I am sure you are infinitely more knowledgeable about this than I, but I think a high wing benefits less from ground effect which plays a part in landing speeds.

You say “low 50’s” while I said below 50 (which is still very fast for a backcountry plane), so low 50’s could be construed as 53, while below 50 could be 47, that is 7mph inclusive and that can be a lot in a backcountry scenario unless you just want to land with all the Bo’s and low wing RV’s at 3U2.
 
I am sure you are infinitely more knowledgeable about this than I, but I think a high wing benefits less from ground effect which plays a part in landing speeds.

You say “low 50’s” while I said below 50 (which is still very fast for a backcountry plane), so low 50’s could be construed as 53, while below 50 could be 47, that is 7mph inclusive and that can be a lot in a backcountry scenario unless you just want to land with all the Bo’s and low wing RV’s at 3U2.

Let's not assume a back country airplane is also a STOL plane. In fact, STOL planes are pretty terrible back country / Bush planes. When I think back country I picture Beavers, 180, 185, 170, 182, 206. We don't know what Vans has up their sleeve but following their mantra of total performance I would be very disappointed if they came out with an airplane that only did 125 mph on 180 hp. There are sooooo many stol planes on the market right now and only one or two airplanes that fit the "back country" mission in my eyes (S21, Sportsman).

A back country plane for me is one with good speed and range, load carrying ability, good climb rate, 5-600' fully loaded takeoff roll. There are very few runways that you really need a <600' takeoff roll to operate from. At least here on the east coast, several people jumped on the STOL plane bandwagon only to hop right back off because they realized it was pointless. Yea you can take off on the taxiway but then you burn you whole day and 2 tanks of fuel to get anywhere fun.
 
I think the only way they are going to achieve a 4:1 speed ratio is by changing the wing area via chord length with slats.

Just look at this speed card for the CRJ 700 and note the difference from flaps 0 to 1 which means clean vs slats only at 20 degrees. If all we did was throw the slats out to 20 degrees we can approach 16 knots slower at 75,000 pounds which I think is significant.
 

Attachments

  • 70013D09-9815-434C-82C7-9B9692527C41.jpeg
    70013D09-9815-434C-82C7-9B9692527C41.jpeg
    119.1 KB · Views: 212
Having grown up with a Cessna 180, I'm well aware of it's aerial prowess and now, used cost. Interestingly enough, most are comparing the Bearhawk with the RV15 but noone has mentioned a company who has been making similar kits for awhile, Murphy Aircraft.

The Rebel or Moose seem to be in the RV15 competitor category but their newest kit looks to be right up Van's proverbial alley, The Yukon.

http://www.murphyair.com/detail/yukon.html

Looks very familiar...
:)
V/R
Smokey

I haven't seen those. That's pretty much the super 170 I've been talking about, but with an extra 300lbs of gross weight.

I see they are around 1450lbs with 2550 gross which is the same as the 4 place bearhawk, but those have a 540, which is a bit more expensive, but also a lot more powerful.

I have a bearhawk, and I know the design well, I think they perform fine and are rugged enough for off airport work, but they are very difficult to get good fit and finish on because it wasn't engineered with the exterior. More like the frame was designed then the builder figures out how to skin it. This leads to notching the door skins for welds and other things which makes it pretty tough to seal up. They also value simplicity over everything else, which is good and bad. Good that it's easy to make and light, bad in that the door handle is a rod welded to a nut.

I've spent years changing the things I don't like which is why I'm not flying yet. Many other people have built them much faster than me, but most of them took the path of least resistance and have the fit/finish of a 60 year old cub, not a new husky or carbon cub.

It seems many here expect Vans to build a fast backcountry airplane, but that's not how it works. Induced drag is a thing.

I'm more in the camp of Vans building what a Bearhawk or S-21 or Yukon can do, but with Vans level of documentation, fit and finish, and consistency.
 
I think we could determine a lot if Vans would at least define what they mean by “backcountry”.

Anyone that knows Van, or Van’s, knows that above all, he (and the company) are practical above all else. That tells me that they are thinking back country access with enough equipment to enjoy the backcountry - think Alaska bush pilots instead of Valdez STOL competitions. That said, I know no more than anyone else does, and they could be building Boeing style self-disassembling wing to get you onto a small postage stamp…..

But I’d bet a cup of coffee the airplane will be extremely practical.
 
@Grum.man

600’ runways are all but unusable to all but the slowest flying cubs. Unlike you I live in the mountain west, so DA and dirts strips are more or less an everyday occurrence. Using good personal safety margins, btw I fly a Rans S-21 with a 915, I want a strip to be a minimum of twice than my required landing distance. When you figure in losing 100’ for touchdown point, 500-600’ for touchdown to end of the rollout you are now in the 1,300’ range for a short strip. Throw in high DA’s, I was practicing at 8,200’ DA the other day to nail down necessary minimums. So to take it further, IAS at 8,200’ (pretty typical on a summer day here starting at 10:30 to 11am your low 50’s IAS is now comfortably over 60mph ground speed. Now your 1,300’ strip which may have seemed long before is now really short. Throw in a non-turbo’d engine and your takeoff is gonna be **** sporty in a plane that has a “low 50’s” stall speed.

I hope that puts things in perspective on what we look at out here. STOL is one thing, but functional in the mountains is a lot different than landing out east with 2,000’+ strips.
 
Last edited:
Let's not assume a back country airplane is also a STOL plane. In fact, STOL planes are pretty terrible back country / Bush planes. When I think back country I picture Beavers, 180, 185, 170, 182, 206. We don't know what Vans has up their sleeve but following their mantra of total performance I would be very disappointed if they came out with an airplane that only did 125 mph on 180 hp. There are sooooo many stol planes on the market right now and only one or two airplanes that fit the "back country" mission in my eyes (S21, Sportsman).

A back country plane for me is one with good speed and range, load carrying ability, good climb rate, 5-600' fully loaded takeoff roll. There are very few runways that you really need a <600' takeoff roll to operate from. At least here on the east coast, several people jumped on the STOL plane bandwagon only to hop right back off because they realized it was pointless. Yea you can take off on the taxiway but then you burn you whole day and 2 tanks of fuel to get anywhere fun.

East Coast, those are the key words. You don't need a backcountry airplane on the east coast because there isn't really any back country.

After spending 25 years in AK, and now in WA I can tell you for sure that the best back country airplanes are also the best STOL airplanes (except for the STOL comp airplanes that are trailered to events). If you are sheep hunting with your cub you don't care that it's only a 100mph airplane, you care that you can operate at gross in 300-400 ft because that's the length of the strip near the critters.

I agree that I would be happy with something that is much faster (and lands longer) than a cub, something like a super 170 or 180, but you aren't going to get something that can work in 500-600ft at gross and still go 175mph at least not with a conventional wing.

Also, keep in mind DA. If you are dealing with 7000ft DA at gross then you either need a very powerful STOL airplane, wait until morning, or 5000ft of runway.

What makes a good backcountry airplane is the ability to operate at 7000ft DA at gross in 2000ft. Nothing that goes 175mph will do that.
 
East Coast, those are the key words. You don't need a backcountry airplane on the east coast because there isn't really any back country.

After spending 25 years in AK, and now in WA I can tell you for sure that the best back country airplanes are also the best STOL airplanes (except for the STOL comp airplanes that are trailered to events). If you are sheep hunting with your cub you don't care that it's only a 100mph airplane, you care that you can operate at gross in 300-400 ft because that's the length of the strip near the critters.

I agree that I would be happy with something that is much faster (and lands longer) than a cub, something like a super 170 or 180, but you aren't going to get something that can work in 500-600ft at gross and still go 175mph at least not with a conventional wing.

Also, keep in mind DA. If you are dealing with 7000ft DA at gross then you either need a very powerful STOL airplane, wait until morning, or 5000ft of runway.

What makes a good backcountry airplane is the ability to operate at 7000ft DA at gross in 2000ft. Nothing that goes 175mph will do that.

I totally get all of that, I guess my point is there are already a lot of options on the market for aviators like you that need those capabilities. There aren't a lot of options for the people that live in the more population dense areas where speed and range is of far greater importance. There also aren't a lot of options on the market. Just look around the grounds at EAA and the proof of more people wanting speed with respectable takeoff than all out STOL capability is evident. Even with the current market addiction to kitfox aircraft due to youtube I bet there are 5 vans kits sold for every kitfox if not more. No matter which direction they take it's guaranteed to be a hit for Vans and the others will take a hit.
 
I totally get all of that, I guess my point is there are already a lot of options on the market for aviators like you that need those capabilities. There aren't a lot of options for the people that live in the more population dense areas where speed and range is of far greater importance. There also aren't a lot of options on the market. Just look around the grounds at EAA and the proof of more people wanting speed with respectable takeoff than all out STOL capability is evident. Even with the current market addiction to kitfox aircraft due to youtube I bet there are 5 vans kits sold for every kitfox if not more. No matter which direction they take it's guaranteed to be a hit for Vans and the others will take a hit.

I appreciate your reply, I suppose I'm missing your point because vans already makes several models that meet your goal of going fast. If what you want to do is already served a number of different ways, why would you want a 15 over a 14 or a 10? What does high wing buy you? Seems odd to me that the Vans crowd wants another fast airplane as opposed to a backcountry airplane to work a completely different mission in addition to the fast airplanes.

I agree that there are other options in the backcountry market if you are cool with a 2 place, but if you want a 4 place (or 2 plus LOTS of gear) then you are down to a bearhawk, sportsman (kinda), or murphy. If you want an aluminum airplane, then just a murphy, and I think that a polished solid rivet Vans equivalent to the 4 place murphy would sell really well.

The super 170 of the experimental world that Utah-Jay and I are hoping for doesn't really exist, not on the level of Van's kits at least.

Seems clear that no matter what they release there will be some that are excited and others that are disappointed. If they release the super 170 I'll be excited that Vans now makes something that will work for my typical mission, while others will be disappointed that it's not a 150kt airplane.
 
I totally get all of that, I guess my point is there are already a lot of options on the market for aviators like you that need those capabilities. There aren't a lot of options for the people that live in the more population dense areas where speed and range is of far greater importance. There also aren't a lot of options on the market. Just look around the grounds at EAA and the proof of more people wanting speed with respectable takeoff than all out STOL capability is evident. Even with the current market addiction to kitfox aircraft due to youtube I bet there are 5 vans kits sold for every kitfox if not more. No matter which direction they take it's guaranteed to be a hit for Vans and the others will take a hit.

Vans is the 800# gorilla in the room, they set the standard for build kits.
 
I appreciate your reply, I suppose I'm missing your point because vans already makes several models that meet your goal of going fast. If what you want to do is already served a number of different ways, why would you want a 15 over a 14 or a 10? What does high wing buy you? Seems odd to me that the Vans crowd wants another fast airplane as opposed to a backcountry airplane to work a completely different mission in addition to the fast airplanes.

I agree that there are other options in the backcountry market if you are cool with a 2 place, but if you want a 4 place (or 2 plus LOTS of gear) then you are down to a bearhawk, sportsman (kinda), or murphy. If you want an aluminum airplane, then just a murphy, and I think that a polished solid rivet Vans equivalent to the 4 place murphy would sell really well.

The super 170 of the experimental world that Utah-Jay and I are hoping for doesn't really exist, not on the level of Van's kits at least.

Seems clear that no matter what they release there will be some that are excited and others that are disappointed. If they release the super 170 I'll be excited that Vans now makes something that will work for my typical mission, while others will be disappointed that it's not a 150kt airplane.

A 14 would fit my mission and for that matter most people's mission just fine. There are lots of things about a high wing that would make life even better. In my opinion for more serious off airport work I would like a more robust gear and more wing to ground clearance, larger tires, stronger tailwheel. I also prefer the downward visibility of a high wing, the shade it provides on hot days. A large baggage door and more cargo volume. I'm no airplane designer but I would think all that possible while only giving up 20-30 mph to the 14. The Sportsman 2+2 accomplishes it but it's expensive. The sweet spot for me would be a slightly scaled down Sportsman at RV kit prices.
 
I see the light!

East Coast, those are the key words. You don't need a backcountry airplane on the east coast because there isn't really any back country.

After spending 25 years in AK, and now in WA I can tell you for sure that the best back country airplanes are also the best STOL airplanes (except for the STOL comp airplanes that are trailered to events). If you are sheep hunting with your cub you don't care that it's only a 100mph airplane, you care that you can operate at gross in 300-400 ft because that's the length of the strip near the critters.

I agree that I would be happy with something that is much faster (and lands longer) than a cub, something like a super 170 or 180, but you aren't going to get something that can work in 500-600ft at gross and still go 175mph at least not with a conventional wing.

Also, keep in mind DA. If you are dealing with 7000ft DA at gross then you either need a very powerful STOL airplane, wait until morning, or 5000ft of runway.

What makes a good backcountry airplane is the ability to operate at 7000ft DA at gross in 2000ft. Nothing that goes 175mph will do that.

Wow, somebody who actually gets it!
I spent a number of years in the last frontier and appreciate your candor. I flew Maules extensively as well as a modified T-Craft and a relatively stock C170. These airplanes are old but timeless, capable designs that will be hard to beat, or will they?
I started building my RV4 nearly 30 years ago touting it to my squadron Bros and GA friends as a "180 Mph Super Cub". Well sorta.
Living "outside" (the lower 48) I didn't see the need for a true Bush plane when there were airports literally everywhere and kitted out properly my RV4 could frequent most "lower 48 backcountry" airstrips and still make almost 150 knots across the ground with a headwind. However, my wife loves our dog and bringing more than a backpack and toothbrush. Well ok, floss.
So, we have a Maule M5 alongside my RV and to be perfectly honest, I still love the design. I've chatted at length with Brent (Maule) the CEO and they are back ordered well into 2023.
So, there's a market and...Van is market savvy to the Nth degree.

Look for the RV15 to challenge even the staunchest Maule fan to take a look, and get out the Rivet gun, again.:)
V/R
Smokey

PS: Paul I agree fully about Murphy, too leaky a vessel to instill much hope in...
 
Last edited:
Wow, somebody who actually gets it!
I spent a number of years in the last frontier and appreciate your candor. I flew Maules extensively as well as a modified T-Craft and a relatively stock C170. These airplanes are old but timeless, capable designs that will be hard to beat, or will they?
I started building my RV4 nearly 30 years ago touting it to my squadron Bros and GA friends as a "180 Mph Super Cub". Well sorta.
Living "outside" (the lower 48) I didn't see the need for a true Bush plane when there were airports literally everywhere and kitted out properly my RV4 could frequent most "lower 48 backcountry" airstrips and still make almost 150 knots across the ground with a headwind. However, my wife loves our dog and bringing more than a backpack and toothbrush. Well ok, floss.
So, we have a Maule M5 alongside my RV and to be perfectly honest, I still love the design. I've chatted at length with Brent (Maule) the CEO and they are back ordered well into 2023.
So, there's a market and...Van is market savvy to the Nth degree.

Look for the RV15 to challenge even the staunchest Maule fan to take a look, and get out the Rivet gun, again.:)
V/R
Smokey

PS: Paul I agree fully about Murphy, too leaky a vessel to instill much hope in...

I just flew my 1949 C-170A with 145HP and 80x42 prop from Wenatchee to Oshkosh. Flying over the Rockies then taking off at gross from Cody, WY at 6900 DA really puts things into perspective. A constant speed and another 40HP would have made a huge difference.

My bearhawk is expected to be 100lbs heavier and another 115HP with a C/S prop. I expect it will work much better, whenever it flies.

The maule is a fantastic airplane, perfect for taking the wife, dogs, and bikes on a camping trip.

Feel free to look me up any time you are up my way, I'm always game to have a cold beer over a campfire with fellow aviators.

Matt
 
I live in the East and land off airport, mostly on skis, but also at a variety of secret spots…sort of backcountry flying in the East. I personally don’t care about winning a STOL contest, I care about getting out of tight spots and clearing the trees.

I’m personally hoping for something 170 size or a little smaller that gets out quicker, lands slow enough, and has better cruise.

My input to whoever might be listening would be to think about being able to fuel from a can/bag without a step ladder (doesn’t work well on floats, or in deep snow).

Also I don’t love slats, because the AOA seems so high as to be unusable on floats or skis. Good Fowler flaps, maybe even the fancy double slotted types are great.

Good heater us important…

I’m sure this will be a nice airplane, I’m hoping that it’ll work for my mission…
 
Mission Critical

I bought a gentleman’s RV-4 and it had some former bush plane life.
Going High wing the previous owner was missing the RV performance very badly but he made this compromise for practicality and comfort and to complete the mission.

My 2 cents is that the RV15 high-wing mission requires ability to land on many types of surfaces and stick a landing on a 1-way in/out airport, carry significant payload for the appropriate gear for camping and tie downs and do it without compromising control feel or have narrow CG restrictions, have a reasonable cruise speed and still give the pilot the famous RV-grin. How to accomplish this…perhaps mild aerobatic capability- aileron rolls will put a smile on anyone’s face. Bring these points together and it will be sweet.

I would really like to fly a high-wing RV. I flip flop flying between a 182-Q and the RV-4. Worlds apart but the 182 delivers ability to haul camping gear and a small family and still reach remote airports. Its doesn’t feel sporty but it instills confidence to passengers.

Internal aesthetics will be important for the 15 as well as good heating and ventilation options lighting and storage or stowage.

Looking forward to what is revealed.
 
Slats are not just about high AOA. They are truly game changing on all aircraft. For instance, the CRJ 700 can approach 16 knots slower on final at 75,000 pounds with no flaps and 20 degrees of slats. That is the definition of game changing! The CRJ 200 does not have slats and approaches noticeably faster for its weight with an approach angle a few degrees nose lower.

I was reading about the PegaStol wing on a Zenith 701 a few years ago and forgot to mention something I thought was very cool. I’ll copy and paste the pertinent parts. Here is the website. https://www.stolspeed.com/pegastol-wing

“The airfoil is much thinner than the regular 701, and the bottom is semi-symmetrical. When the slats are retracted it’s very streamlined.”

“The slats deploy not only forward, but also downward, thus effectively increasing camber of the wing to somewhat the same as the thick, high-lift profile of the original wing, so it gives very much the same lift coefficient at slow speed. All retractable slats in other aircraft, such as the Hellio Courier, deploy downward to increase the camber. Fixed slats can’t give that advantage.”

“The first 701 plans had the slats mounted so that the bottom lip was below the bottom of the wing, but that caused so much drag and disruption at cruise speed that they had to be raised permanently thus losing some lift at slow speed. Fixed slats are a real compromise problem between slow speed lift, and cruise speed drag. The retractable slats give the best at both ends of the flight envelope.”

How neat! Now the designer isn’t subjected to a high lift airfoil as the slat placement increases the coefficient of lift enough to match a high lift airfoil with fixed slots. Not to mention 12% more physical wing area for landing and 12% less without the drag penalty of a high lift airfoil with fixed slots for riding thermals out and increasing wing loading. Too cool. I’d say the 15 would have to feature retractable slats in order to be innovative in this market.
 
Right In the middle!

Cessna 170B with 4 cylinder Lycoming, control harmony (which the Cessna doesn’t have), 135K target cruise speed, baggage door, enough useful load to carry two full sized adults (in the four seat airplane), along with camping/fishing gear a reasonable distance - say 500 miles. They of course will have an ‘A’ model, which is sort of like….. well, you know, except this one will fly nice and be pretty (which the 172 is not).
That’s what I think, after discussing this with a very knowledgeable person that everyone knows. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Bulls Eye!!!
Scott,,

Exactly what I’m hoping for. A C170. Sized,,, 1400 lb empty. 180-220 hp. Struts,, big baggage door, extended baggage,,,, C180 rudder, C180 rudder,, it’ll look similar. ;-) to the C180.
 
Last edited:
Scott,,

Exactly what I’m hoping for. A C170. Sized,,, 1400 lb empty. 180-220 hp. Struts,, big baggage door, extended baggage,,,,

Hmmm that describes my Sportsman pretty well. Just throw in "easily changed landing gear configuration, folding wings and sexy flowing lines" and you've nailed it! :D
 
Super 170

I appreciate your reply, I suppose I'm missing your point because vans already makes several models that meet your goal of going fast. If what you want to do is already served a number of different ways, why would you want a 15 over a 14 or a 10? What does high wing buy you? Seems odd to me that the Vans crowd wants another fast airplane as opposed to a backcountry airplane to work a completely different mission in addition to the fast airplanes.

I agree that there are other options in the backcountry market if you are cool with a 2 place, but if you want a 4 place (or 2 plus LOTS of gear) then you are down to a bearhawk, sportsman (kinda), or murphy. If you want an aluminum airplane, then just a murphy, and I think that a polished solid rivet Vans equivalent to the 4 place murphy would sell really well.

The super 170 of the experimental world that Utah-Jay and I are hoping for doesn't really exist, not on the level of Van's kits at least.

Seems clear that no matter what they release there will be some that are excited and others that are disappointed. If they release the super 170 I'll be excited that Vans now makes something that will work for my typical mission, while others will be disappointed that it's not a 150kt airplane.
Super 170,,, is not Available, in an Experimental,,, I have owned my 180J since 2009,,, it’s the perfect airplane,, except it is certified,,
 
Bulls Eye!!!
Scott,,

Exactly what I’m hoping for. A C170. Sized,,, 1400 lb empty. 180-220 hp. Struts,, big baggage door, extended baggage,,,, C180 rudder, C180 rudder,, C180 rudder,, it’ll look similar. ;-)

I hope so too. I would build one in a heart beat
 
except

The 170 isn't a 4 place airplane. I mean it has 4 seats, but come on. I'd expect 4 clowns to pop out of a 170 clone. My little BMW has 4 seats, no way 4 adults riding in that thing. Jay said it. The 180 is the perfect airplane, except its certified, true story. If your going for a 4 place plane, make it fit 4 people that you would see at a pancake breakfast that can afford an airplane. Then make it better, build it around the 0-540, make it carry its own weight, etc etc. I'm sure Van's has these idea's already hashed out, but sometimes I'll still beat a dead horse just to see if it will work this time.
 
My wish...

I posted this on the other thread, but I'd like:

RV + Cessna Cardinal + Kitfox.

Here's my rough design impression of this. I'd love Van's to build something like this. If not, I may have to figure out a way to put this out there...

Sarah

Dream specs... 2400-2500lbs gross wt, 1100lbs useful, >160mph cruise, <55mph stall, IO360 to IO540 (Design around IO390). Build for <$120K (Simple VFR). Pop rivets. Lots of plexiglass. Roomy (48in wide at doors). Flat floor and easy entry/exit. NO STRUTS. Some beautiful machined and anodized components (like the spar carry-through). 3 or 4 seats with loads of baggage. Optional chute. Convert tri-gear to taildragger (or back) in a day.

Barn%20Owl%20B1.jpg


Barn%20Owl%20B2.jpg


Barn%20Owl%20B5.jpg


Barn%20Owl%20B6.jpg


Barn%20Owl%20Bisotop.jpg
 
Last edited:
The 170 isn't a 4 place airplane. I mean it has 4 seats, but come on. I'd expect 4 clowns to pop out of a 170 clone. My little BMW has 4 seats, no way 4 adults riding in that thing. Jay said it. The 180 is the perfect airplane, except its certified, true story. If your going for a 4 place plane, make it fit 4 people that you would see at a pancake breakfast that can afford an airplane. Then make it better, build it around the 0-540, make it carry its own weight, etc etc. I'm sure Van's has these idea's already hashed out, but sometimes I'll still beat a dead horse just to see if it will work this time.

The 170 and early 180 are the same size. There’s lots of room in the back of my 170. 180 gear is a little taller, but firewall back is the same…
 
Speaking of another thread...

“We want it to be innovative,” Johnson said. “I don’t want to reinvent the wheel.”

Bob
 
Speaking of another thread...

“We want it to be innovative,” Johnson said. “I don’t want to reinvent the wheel.”

Bob

This is what innovation looks like for the masses.
 

Attachments

  • FA916D71-64F9-4976-B21C-D8698107BE5E.jpg
    FA916D71-64F9-4976-B21C-D8698107BE5E.jpg
    187.6 KB · Views: 354
  • 57CB0F22-EA70-49B9-9B08-23D9A1A17BCD.jpg
    57CB0F22-EA70-49B9-9B08-23D9A1A17BCD.jpg
    180.3 KB · Views: 289
C170 / C175

The C175. With its GO-300. 175 hp engine is 1400 pounds empty.. or close..
I think Van’s could come up with a design similar to the C175,,, that could use a O-360. 180 hp, to IO 390. 220 hp.

Remember,, the engine wasn’t very good, or popular in the C175. But. This plane had 900 / 1000 pound useful load. It is faster than the 170 172. Shared a similar fuselage....to the C180. It had other draw backs. No extended baggage, no Baggage door. No tail wheel.. ;-).

My 1976 C180 is 1700 lb empty. Has a 1000 lb useful load. It will cruse 130 knots.. 230 hp engine, cruises 120-130 knots.... The STANDARD EVERY OTHER is matched to....

Now,,,, think about A kit built C175. / C170,,,by Vans. ,
1300 / 1400 pounds empty,,,
180 -220 hp,, 4 cylinder Lycoming,,,,
This Ought to be possible with similar performance..to THE Standard Back Country airplane,,,. the C180.
There is not a kit that comes close to a C175. When Van’s introduces the RV15? If it’s like I’m describing? The company will not be able to make enough kits to supply the demand.
Hundreds of us want to open the door, step in,,, and have Total Performance at our finger tips. It will be a Grand Slam Home Run.
 
Last edited:
6 cylinder ?

I contend that more will want a 4 cylinder airplane than a six cylinder. Some will want a six. a few will try it. ( Rocket RV4s))
So my argument for the C175 sized high wing.
 
Last edited:
I contend that more will want a 4 cylinder airplane than a six cylinder. Some will want it, a few will try it. ( Rocket RV4s))
So my argument for the C175 sized high wing.

The only plus I see with 6 cylinders is it will run a lot smoother with one dead jug.
 
Super 170,,, is not Available, in an Experimental,,, I have owned my 180J since 2009,,, it’s the perfect airplane,, except it is certified,,

Anyone remember the Super Cyclone 180/185 experimental clone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Super-Cyclone
http://www3.sympatico.ca/st-justaviation/

Seven sold in 15 years. Just because the RV-15/16 is a Vans kit, I don't expect the market is there for a Vans 180/185.

My guess is the RV-15 will use the RV-14 wings, tail and engine and be 2 place side by side and the RV-16 will use the RV-10 wings, tail and engine and be 4 place. Neither will be aerobatic.
 
hint

For the record, just wanna say: You have no idea how much we enjoy reading these threads. :)

Great discussion.

So great, you enjoy our stupidity. So throw us a bone once in a while and tell us a little more of what you are thinking, like engine selected?
Even Ralphie had a decoder ring.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I would really like the RV15 to have 4 seats the presentation did include the line "Will it be tandem or side by side?" Surely this indicates that it will be 2 seat.
 
Whilst I would really like the RV15 to have 4 seats the presentation did include the line "Will it be tandem or side by side?" Surely this indicates that it will be 2 seat.

A normal 4-seater is BOTH tandem and side by side..............

:D
 
It all comes down to how you want to use the aircraft. In my opinion, Vans already offers great fast airplanes. I'd like to see a low and slow RV-15. I have nowhere to go except up. I luv taking new people for their first flight. Being able to open the windows/doors and having an uninterrupted view of the world really sticks with people.

Without a doubt, Van's attention to detail with kit construction is better than anyone else. Bring that same or better quality, fit, and precision, then give me doors and windows that open in flight and I'll be a happy man.

Think Jeep, with a wing :)
 
The confirmed my two primary wants…plenty of fuel and baggage capacity.

I thought the website always had that vague language of "plenty" fuel, and "oh yes" baggage.

Regardless, I'm banking on their assertion of "And [of course] Total Performance" to imply they have good top end and low end speed. I'm fine with Vans reducing cruise speed a little to accommodate the STOL obsession, but some of these 100 to 130 KTAS airplanes I see guys drooling over are of little interest to many potential builders.
 
One figure of merit for 'bushplanes' is their speed ratio from stall speed to maximum speed. All of Vans aircraft have a wider than usual speed range and of course have STOL performance although not from unimproved strips.

I had a little fun looking at a number of 'bushplanes' and included the RV-9A since I am building one.

Aircraft/ Power (hp)/ Gross wt (lb)/ Stall Speed (mph)/ Max Speed (mph)/ Speed Ratio
Helio Courier: 250 3400 31 160 5.16
Vans RV-9A: 160 1750 50 194 3.88
Aviat Husky: 180 1800 42 145 3.45
Piper Super Cub: 150 1750 43 130 3.02
Cessna 180: 230 2800 58 170 2.93
Pilatus Turbo Porter: 680 6195 60 144 2.40
DHC-2 Beaver: 450 5100 60 140 2.33

So my prediction for the RV-15 and RV-16 is that they will have a speed ratio of 4.5 with a maximum speed of 180 mph and a stall speed of 40 mph:D
 
One figure of merit for 'bushplanes' is their speed ratio from stall speed to maximum speed. All of Vans aircraft have a wider than usual speed range and of course have STOL performance although not from unimproved strips.

I had a little fun looking at a number of 'bushplanes' and included the RV-9A since I am building one.

Aircraft/ Power (hp)/ Gross wt (lb)/ Stall Speed (mph)/ Max Speed (mph)/ Speed Ratio
Helio Courier: 250 3400 31 160 5.16
Vans RV-9A: 160 1750 50 194 3.88
Aviat Husky: 180 1800 42 145 3.45
Piper Super Cub: 150 1750 43 130 3.02
Cessna 180: 230 2800 58 170 2.93
Pilatus Turbo Porter: 680 6195 60 144 2.40
DHC-2 Beaver: 450 5100 60 140 2.33

So my prediction for the RV-15 and RV-16 is that they will have a speed ratio of 4.5 with a maximum speed of 180 mph and a stall speed of 40 mph:D

This will be awesome. I think the rv9 could do this today with fowler flaps.
All of this is well and good when only looking at JUST speeds. However, what is not addressed in these performance numbers is how much each one of these planes can carry as useful load while making those performance numbers. Backcountry flying also means being able to do this while piling several hundred pounds of camping gear, hunting bounty, etc. while doing all of that fast and slow speed flying.

“Total Performance” for me will mean doing 180 mph “CRUISE” speed and 40 mph stall speed while hauling 1200 lbs useful load and landing on unimproved strips.

Now that would TRUELY be Total Performance!
 
Back
Top