VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-15
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111  
Old 08-09-2021, 01:15 PM
akschu's Avatar
akschu akschu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee
Posts: 428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grum.man View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-09-2021, 01:21 PM
Utah-Jay Utah-Jay is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Heber City
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grum.man View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-09-2021, 01:28 PM
Grum.man Grum.man is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-09-2021, 02:10 PM
smokyray's Avatar
smokyray smokyray is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: T38
Posts: 2,018
Default I see the light!

Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu View Post
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 by smokyray : 08-09-2021 at 02:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-09-2021, 02:58 PM
akschu's Avatar
akschu akschu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee
Posts: 428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokyray View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-10-2021, 06:55 PM
Dirt911 Dirt911 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: NH
Posts: 6
Default

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…
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-10-2021, 09:44 PM
RV4J RV4J is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Livonia
Posts: 4
Default 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.
__________________
John S.

RV4 purchased flying - 2019
Livonia, Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-11-2021, 11:57 AM
jetcat3 jetcat3 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 6
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-11-2021, 12:29 PM
Jaypratt's Avatar
Jaypratt Jaypratt is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hicks Airfield, Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 1,836
Default Right In the middle!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hersha View Post
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.
__________________
Jay Pratt VAF #2
RV Central - Builder Assistance
Paul Revere, Borrowed Horse, & Shooter

Last edited by Jaypratt : 08-17-2021 at 06:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-11-2021, 12:59 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaypratt View Post
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!
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 07:56 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.