Home > VansAirForceForums

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

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-07-2021, 09:00 PM
emsvitil's Avatar
emsvitil emsvitil is offline
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SoCal
Posts: 628

There is no rotax 918 engine.

If you look at the picture, the middle cylinder doesn't have any exhaust port........ And the middle exhaust pipe ends on the rear cylinder.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 01:22 AM
Utah-Jay Utah-Jay is offline
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Heber City
Posts: 24

Originally Posted by bhassel View Post
LOL! - Well that would be a bummer, but you all are probably correct!



yelp color me fooled Well back to where I belong - LyCons...
Sorry, but yes it was an April Fools Joke. But I would not be surprised if Rotax built a higher HP engine in the near future.

It is a bit of a tough one though, I am about to begin a Bearhawk build and have been flying behind a 915iS for a while and LOVE it. But the BH just can’t be built (barring extensive FWF modifications and fabrication well beyond my abilities) due to the fore/aft W&B. It was designed for an engine in the 300# range, and the 915 is a 187# engine, maybe close to 200# if you tried. But at the furtherest most forward arm it is not gonna stay in the CG envelope. And I am not a fore of a aft CG guy so it was out of the question.

So, with the above being said, will they build a 180hp turbo engine for only the current market? Or will they try to break into the 10’s of thousands of LyConti’s already out there? Would they build a 180hp normal weight for the Vans, Kitfox and Rans crowd and a heavier model for the legacy crowd?
Bearhawk Companion QB Builder
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2021, 11:10 AM
LAMPSguy's Avatar
LAMPSguy LAMPSguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 377
Default Innovate

Just to be clear, where innovative engineering is involved, some advances can seem magical/impossible/improbable:

35-375 kts
RV-15 in planning stages.
RV-7 shared.
RV-14 #140050 SOLD

Permanently willing to contribute fuel for RV rides

Helicopter ATP/CFI(I)
ASEL/Glider Commercial/Inst/CFI(I)
Aerobatic Enthusiast
Enjoying flying the 747 around the world.
Atlanta based.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2021, 12:05 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 5,004

Pete Bartoe, who also designed the Skyote biplane, gave a talk to my senior aerospace engineering class back when. He described this and predicted the performance he got, and discussed the technical features. It was built at Boulder, I believe, as a homebuilt.

Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2021, 01:23 PM
AeroEngineer AeroEngineer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US of A
Posts: 9

Originally Posted by grubbat View Post
If I recall, Vans had a graph with a curve on it that showed the relationship between speed and survivability, using data from I guess years of information...
I vaguely remember having seen something like that, so I did some quick Googling.

Rich Stowell generated the following graph from data off an SAE study about light plane crashworthiness. More details in this IAC article. Notice that the angle (presumably the angle off the horizontal) plays a key role: At 90 degrees nose-down (nose-dive), anything above 45mph is deadly. But at zero degrees (belly-flop) you could survive hitting the ground at 75mph, according to the data.

Ron Wanttaja writes lots of terrific articles about light airplane safety, accident rates, accident causes, etc. If you don't know his work, you must check it out. Below is a graph from this article. Although it ranks kitplanes not by speed but by fatal accident rate, you can't help but notice that the ones in the lower left (safest) are generally the slowest, and the ones on the upper right (more fatal accidents) are the fastest. The RV-4/6/8 are slightly above the line.

Finally, it's no surprise that the automotive industry has all kinds of statistics about this. They're not so relevant to us - because cars are different kinds of vehicles, are built differently and move through space differently - but the trends are interesting. Two graphs below, one from here and one from here.

In the end, I have to admit that I feel a little more peace-of-mind when I fly a slower airplane versus a fast RV because I know that, if I have to make an emergency landing, I'll be more likely to walk away from the slower airplane. I've heard pilots say - and I agree - that "The Cub is one of the safest airplanes out there; It's barely fast enough to kill you"
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2021, 02:17 PM
smokyray's Avatar
smokyray smokyray is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TX32
Posts: 1,954
Default RV15 Prototype?

Having been blessed to fly a wide variety of aircraft I definitely have my favorites. High on the list is the F16 and the RV4. Right there with though is my tried and true Maule M5.
The similarities between Vans Aircraft and Maule Air Inc are to the most casual observer uncanny. Both humbly began with quiet genius engineer dreamers building a prototype aircraft in a barn after the factory built aircraft didn't add up. Both aircraft (M4 and RV3 prototype) won best new design award at the EAA convention. Both are legendary in their own rite.

Where they differed was one went into production as a certified aircraft, the other into the most successful kit aircraft company in history. So why the M5 comparison?
My M5 180's (0-360) GW perf numbers are impressive even today, the 0-540 powered models even more so. With equal power (Vans uses the same engines historically) it's a good bar for the RV15 to match or hopefully raise.

Maule M-5-180C -GW Performance Data

Horsepower: 180 Gross Weight: 2300 lbs
Top Speed: 157 kts Empty Weight: 1300 lbs
Cruise Speed: 136 kts Fuel Capacity: 40 gal (65 with Aux tanks)
Stall Speed (dirty): 33 kts Range: 525 nm

Takeoff Landing
Ground Roll: 200 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 800 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 600 ft

Rate Of Climb: 900 fpm
Ceiling: 15000 ft
Wingspan 29'6"
Length 26'3"

So I'm expecting great things from Van with the advent of The Fifteen, although the M5 (M7 and 9) casts a large albeit similar shadow...


Last edited by smokyray : 09-14-2021 at 03:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2021, 03:21 PM
gasman gasman is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 4,104

They did the same display out of a hangar at Santa Rosa Air Center back in the late 70's.
VAF #897 Warren Moretti
2020 =VAF= Dues PAID
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2021, 01:15 AM
Mike Houston Mike Houston is offline
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Bushmills
Posts: 42
Default Different Engine

I wonder if Vans might consider at least designing the possibility of using a non- Lycoming engine. If they are doing a 4 seater high wing the UL Power 520 T seems like a interesting option. It provides the same sort of sea level performance as the IO-390 but you are still getting close to 220 HP at 15,000 ft.

It also has the advantage of being about 40lbs lighter and FADEC controlled and uses mogas. The problem is it doesn’t have the pedigree of a Lycoming. However for those who want a reasonably quick 4 seater high wing it sounds like a decent option.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2021, 07:20 AM
Jaypratt's Avatar
Jaypratt Jaypratt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hicks Airfield, Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 1,784
Default Smoky is Right On

Smoky was flying his RV4 to Idaho and telling Doug and I about the fun,,,,, way back. I became hooked.
The N Texas RV crowd were already flying to Vans SunSet air strip for Home Comings. So we were used to the Distance….
About the time Van moved to Aurora ,,,, we found the Back country,,, thanks to Rob Smoky Ray. Not as talented as Smoky, But interested, And with much trepidation ,, I took my RV6 into Indian Creek, Johnson Creek, Big Creek, and Moose Creek, Idaho. I thought those places were a little hard on my plane. So.

2004 . I built a North Star Super Cub Kit with 180 Lycoming, 31” Bush Wheels. Very capable,,,,,,. but 90 knots, 15 hours to get to Idaho from My home base Hicks T67. Never thought about a Maul, Smoky,, ? Guess Learning in 172s clouded my thinking?
I new back then I wanted a high wing RV,,, that would go 130 knots! With bigger tires. Enter my Cessna 180J in 2009.

The C180 is capable and is a great back country plane, just wish I could have built it my self. From a kit. I do wish it was a little faster… I call it Paul Revere
Jay Pratt VAF #2
RV Central - Builder Assistance
Paul Revere, Borrowed Horse, & Shooter
Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2021, 04:36 AM
von_flyer von_flyer is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Metamora, Michigan
Posts: 230

Originally Posted by Jaypratt View Post
I new back then I wanted a high wing RV,,, that would go 130 knots! With bigger tires. Enter my Cessna 180J in 2009.

The C180 is capable and is a great back country plane, just wish I could have built it my self. From a kit. I do wish it was a little faster… I call it Paul Revere
There is this.
John von Linsowe

Cessna 140
Reply With Quote

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 04:33 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.