What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What should Vans do next?

Now that the RV-12 is out the door, what should the next RV be?

  • Nothing for now - focus on efficiency, cut costs and prices, survive.

    Votes: 209 30.2%

  • A factory-built version of the RV-12

    Votes: 36 5.2%

  • The RV-11 Motorglider

    Votes: 120 17.4%

  • An amphibian

    Votes: 54 7.8%

  • An updated single-seater

    Votes: 110 15.9%

  • A twin, using the new IO-233 or Rotax engines

    Votes: 71 10.3%

  • A turboprop

    Votes: 36 5.2%

  • A jet!

    Votes: 55 8.0%
  • Total voters
    691
fatherson said:
--- snip ---

Maybe a different direction for your question would appeal to you. What do you think is next? I mean in the big picture, like maybe, the future of general aviation.

--- snip ---
--
Stephen
Click to expand...

We need inexpensive airplanes that are inexpensive to operate.

Another option is a fast growing economy where our wages go up faster than the cost of living and flying.

The past six years, my income has not kept up with the cost of everything else going up. I have cut back on flying and everything else.

The pilot population is shrinking. Without new pilots, less of everything is needed and that will raise prices.
 
RV-12

Some serious redesign on some items on the RV-12!
Wings that stay on, and fuel tanks in the wings for starts.
The present design, or the new one, can be an option.:)
 
Lots of comments reflecting the cost of AVgas, shrinking personal incomes, etc.

With that in mind, I'm sure many would love to see the RV-3B kit brought up to the equivalent of the current kits. I'm guessing that a lot of RVers would tackle the project if it weren't so labor-intensive.

Builders could use a smaller, cheaper engine with less fuel burn. Fixed-pitch prop. Keep it light, fast, fun and cheap.

In 24 pages, I'm sure that's been mentioned. Sorry if it's a repeat.
 
Toward the question earlier, any way to make it easier to foster young people into aviaton. What the Eagle's Nest Project and TeenFlight project's are doing is great, but we need just a bit more. My crewmembers and I are fortunate to have this oppurtunity, but we are one out of a million. If there is any way to boost interest or make it simpler to get started, I'm all for it. And as for the Van's perspective, most of the RV fleet looks very sporty and attractive to lot's of us, and now I'm a RV nut! Sorry for getting off subject, just answering a previous question.
 
Last edited:
Longer wings for the RV12 and adjustable prop you have a motor glider. Thus you have no restriction on the aircraft (i.e. light sport) and none on the pilot (i.e. medical). You don't even need a drivers license. Sure there would be more design issues but the basics are there.
 
What I'd personnaly like to see Van's do next is a kick *** affortable high wing aircraft with STOL capacity and good cruise speed. Something that would send the Cessna, Glastar and Sportmen 2+2 of this world back to the drawing board!! :D
 
already a fix made x 3

Stabird said:
How many rollovers before a death and lawsuite shuts down Van's? Apply the resource to improve the "A" nose landing gear design.
Click to expand...

Three fixes exist:
1) Get a tail dragger RV
2) Alan at aerosplat has a easy mod.
3) Technique, (practice)
 
Improve the Plans

My understanding is that the plans for the RV-12 and RV-10 are quite a bit more complete than for the other plans. Perhaps updating the plans for the older planes could be done. The improved plans could be a purchase item as a supplement to the existing plans. I think I would be happy to buy upgraded plans to go with the preview plans I already have. As a purchase item, Van could recover the cost of producing the improved plans. I think it would even be worthwhile to me if the improved plans were just an improvement of the textual instructions, and the drawings remained as they are. I've missed a few things in the drawings that might possibly have been better explained in the text.

I read recently that there about 700 RV-9's flying out of 2100 tail kits sold. Perhaps half of those 1400 unfinished kits are in a state where the builder might be interested in improved plans. I don't know if that a significant enough market to make it worth Van's effort.
 
Last edited:
I would guess that it will be a success if VAN has a passion for it.
VAN has shown an interest in gliders and motorgliders?
That also suits the aging population of pilots.
VAN could design a kit motorglider that seats 2 and pushes the limits of performance, like he is wont to do.
I'd love it. I always walk the airshow flightline looking for motorgliders.
Long after you give up trying to pass a physical, you would be enjoying your flying, and spending very little on gas too. :D
With gas prices expected to go up some more, and motorgliders being so expensive, VAN could possibly make his mark in this market too.
Also, Like T Thurston said: Improving the plans might increase the rate of completions. VAN probably could sell more wings fuselages and finish kits if beginning builders had more confidence to continue.
His Sheet Metal Training sure made the difference for me. (Yay Art Chard!!) But not everyone lives close enough, so better plans & Manual would be welcome.
 
Last edited:
Future RV market

SHIPCHIEF said:
I would guess that it will be a success if VAN has a passion for it.
VAN has shown an interest in gliders and motor gliders?
That also suits the aging population of pilots.
VAN could design a kit motor glider that seats 2 and pushes the limits of performance, like he is wont to do.
I'd love it. I always walk the air show flightline looking for motorgliders.
Long after you give up trying to pass a physical, you would be enjoying your flying, and spending very little on gas too. :D
With gas prices expected to go up some more, and motorgliders being so expensive, VAN could possibly make his mark in this market too.
Also, Like T Thurston said: Improving the plans might increase the rate of completions. VAN probably could sell more wings fuselages and finish kits if beginning builders had more confidence to continue.
His Sheet Metal Training sure made the difference for me. (Yay Art Chard!!) But not everyone lives close enough, so better plans & Manual would be welcome.
Click to expand...

I agree that Scott and some others have the spot on the Future RV market. My oil investment info sources are all saying that a barrel of oil will inflate to near $125 which is nearly double our current enjoyed rate in the US. With new oil value inflation along with upcoming general economy inflation the motorgliders will likely become a new upcoming market in aviation. RV motorgliders may have a strong market in the near future, 5 years or so.
 
old thread, reading thrue it thou, first Survive, second updated, printed and electronic plans, third, umm RV-38 Lightning with twin 540's? ok fine twin Rotax engines then. Honestly I see alot of merit to most of the idea's in this thread, but if I could order the perfect kit? 250 mph cruise, seats 2 and the dog, luggage for a week and can cover half the country without fuel stops and can acro the beast on weekends.

till then please just survive and re do the plans for the 7 that i want to order. and what is this nose wheel thing?
 
Vans Version of a Sonex OneX

The Sonex OneX got my attention in a recent Kitplanes article, largely due to the significantly reduced cost of flying:

1. Nicely equipped VFR aircraft for about $25K (depends on your choices of course; BTW - the engine alone for the RV-12 is $27,785):
- Complete OneX Airframe Kit $12,995
- Hardware from Aircraft Spruce $861 (rivets, bolts, nuts, etc.)
- 80hp Engine $6,995 (also a kit that they claim you can build in about 12 hours)
- Prop $820
- Avionics, Upholstery (up to you)
2. Wings fold up (in 15 seconds) or can be removed - store in garage or covered trailer and drive it to the airport; no hangar expense! (RV-12 has the wing removal advantage too.)
3. Runs on 90 octane mogas or avgas - lower GPH and fuel price.
4. Acro capable, stated cruise of 135kts (at 8,000ft - Ceiling is 16,000ft) - fun with some utility.
5. Build time of about 500 hours.

I bet Vans could do better. Maybe a redesigned RV-3 with punched holes and smaller engine? While I want to build a -8, a Sonex OneX (better yet a Vans version) is/would be a compelling option to allow me to get and stay in the air VERY economically, as well as test my building abilities with less risk. Unfortunately my little lady isn't as enthusiastic about flying as am I, so I'm usually in the cockpit alone anyway.

Oh, and you can switch between nosewheel and tail dragger!

I imagine such an airplane would outsell all others in his lineup. I believe I read somewhere that Sonex had shipped 50 OneX kits by the end of 2011 with 1,100 orders placed (could be a long wait list).

Chris
 
Interesting comments. During my RV12 build I have decided my next project will be a OneX! Lots to like about it for my needs, and looking it over closely I just have to have one. Vans could slick it up a little (the sonex products are just not as precision and slick as it would be if Vans built one). Of course the Viking 110 hp engine has a FWF for the OneX, that should make it get up and fly even better!
 
I'm starting to build one, sort of - it's the slow-build version and it's by Van's. It's a bit more powerful and doesn't have that dreadful fuel cap in the windshield. Van's calls it an "RV-3B."

And it's a heck of a lot more attractive. Or will be when done. Right now it's a bunch of pieces in boxes.

Dave
 
CSJohnson said:
The Sonex OneX got my attention in a recent Kitplanes article, largely due to the significantly reduced cost of flying:

1. Nicely equipped VFR aircraft for about $25K (depends on your choices of course; BTW - the engine alone for the RV-12 is $27,785):
- Complete OneX Airframe Kit $12,995
- Hardware from Aircraft Spruce $861 (rivets, bolts, nuts, etc.)
- 80hp Engine $6,995 (also a kit that they claim you can build in about 12 hours)
- Prop $820
- Avionics, Upholstery (up to you)
2. Wings fold up (in 15 seconds) or can be removed - store in garage or covered trailer and drive it to the airport; no hangar expense! (RV-12 has the wing removal advantage too.)
3. Runs on 90 octane mogas or avgas - lower GPH and fuel price.
4. Acro capable, stated cruise of 135kts (at 8,000ft - Ceiling is 16,000ft) - fun with some utility.
5. Build time of about 500 hours.

I bet Vans could do better. Maybe a redesigned RV-3 with punched holes and smaller engine? While I want to build a -8, a Sonex OneX (better yet a Vans version) is/would be a compelling option to allow me to get and stay in the air VERY economically, as well as test my building abilities with less risk. Unfortunately my little lady isn't as enthusiastic about flying as am I, so I'm usually in the cockpit alone anyway.

Oh, and you can switch between nosewheel and tail dragger!

I imagine such an airplane would outsell all others in his lineup. I believe I read somewhere that Sonex had shipped 50 OneX kits by the end of 2011 with 1,100 orders placed (could be a long wait list).

Chris
Click to expand...

I've been hounding Van's for 5 years for a "Onex" type of aircraft. Recently, however, I've found that flying in a 2-place s/s (RV-9A) just isn't very comfortable, and I'm sure a single place is the same. It's all about the seats.

How about a one-place designed for pilot comfort... take a recliner chair and build an airframe around it. Build in some creature comforts such as a beverage chiller for water bottles and make the cockpit wide (28-30" for a single place).

This might sound like a joke, but for us arthritic baby boomers, comfort is starting to be the biggest feature.
 
Something between the size of a 9 and a 10. There are a lot of folks, in my opinion anyway, who want a little bit more than a 9 but not nearly as much as a 10 in terms of size and dollars required.

- It should incorporate all the latest and greatest CNC stuff and build manual/instructions that Vans is using for the 12
- Non-acrobatic, cross country cruiser
- Room for 2 adults and a couple of little ones in a smallish back seat.
- It should be designed for an engine up to 200HP
- Gross weight in the neighborhood of about 2200 lbs
- RV10 style engine mount/nose gear design for nose draggers and option for tail dragger configuration.
- RV10 style gull wing door top but re-engineered to address all the issues
- Pre-built fuel tanks (aluminum or some other suitable material)
- Designed from the start for an optional BRS installation.
- And...yes I am going to say it....pulled rivet construction.
- Designate it the RV-14.
 
I was by Vans last week.....

They had an open house for the local EAA chapters (free pizza and conversation with lots of RV folks). While walking around in the demonstrator hangar, I asked a prominent member of the VAN's staff about what was behind the locked door leading to there development shop. He said that he couldn't discuss what they were working on next.
I ask about the rumors of the RV14 and he would not confirm any such plane, but he also didn't deny it either.

I think that it might be a jet power high wing bush plane.:eek:

Kent
 
Having seen the SubSonex, I would consider changing my vote. That is cool.

Update_113012_1785.jpg


Update_113012_8382.jpg
 
I hadn't seen this thread before. Thanks Doug for bumping it back up.

Interesting how, in the years since this thread was created, Vans has introduced some of the things people here were asking for, e.g. "something between the RV-9 and the -10 in size" (i.e. the -14) and a factory-built RV-12.

As cool as a jet RV would be, it would probably be too impractical to be worth the development. Small jets gobble up ridiculous amounts of fuel. Anyone else catch the AOPA Pilot article about the reborn BD-5J? That airplane will burn its ~30gal tanks in less than an hour. I can't imagine Vans saying "All our airplanes have a range of several hundred miles, except for this one...". But yeah, a jet would be dang cool. As much as I love RVs, when I was in high school it was BD jets that I drew in my notebooks...

But unfortunately, I don't think a jet would belong in the RV lineage. Same thing for a STOL bushplane or an amphibian (let alone the fact that the market for such an airplane would probably not be very large). Then again, in the past, four-seaters and LSAs seemed like they would stick out like a sore thumb in the RV family, yet here they are. So who knows.

I would place my bet on a really efficient motorglider, maybe like an RV-12 with a really big wing. And I see potential for an RV-12 with a slower wing (bigger, curvier, with slats) sacrificing some speed on the high end for really terrific STOL performance, like an RV-12 bushplane. (Maybe a builder will try that someday, along with a tailwheel). I guess these RV-12 variants would be similar to how the RV-9 is a variant of the -7.

Along similar lines, a lot of people have wondered if an RV-3 could be modified to become an LSA. It would basically need a much lower top speed (attainable with a low-pitch prop and/or with a placard prohibiting high-RPM power settings for more than 5min) and a slightly lower landing speed (bigger flaps? VGs?). Or maybe re-engineer the RV-3 to use a Rotax engine and a slower wing. But I'm not sure if that market is there, either. At Oshkosh, Van said that it's not even worth upgrading the RV-3 kit with all the easy-to-build features in the newer kits, so they'll probably not try to squeeze any more out of the -3.

Does Vans offer engine mounts and other parts for putting IO-540 engines into two-seaters like the RV-7 and -8 and -14? If not, do you think they ever will? Maybe they could offer them, along with other Rocket-style parts like thicker skins and so on for the higher speeds. That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch from their current airplanes. "Total Performance", right?
 
Last edited:
dicel87 said:
Something between the size of a 9 and a 10. There are a lot of folks, in my opinion anyway, who want a little bit more than a 9 but not nearly as much as a 10 in terms of size and dollars required.

- It should incorporate all the latest and greatest CNC stuff and build manual/instructions that Vans is using for the 12
- Non-acrobatic, cross country cruiser
- Room for 2 adults and a couple of little ones in a smallish back seat.
- It should be designed for an engine up to 200HP
- Gross weight in the neighborhood of about 2200 lbs
- RV10 style engine mount/nose gear design for nose draggers and option for tail dragger configuration.
- RV10 style gull wing door top but re-engineered to address all the issues
- Pre-built fuel tanks (aluminum or some other suitable material)
- Designed from the start for an optional BRS installation.
- And...yes I am going to say it....pulled rivet construction.
- Designate it the RV-14.
Click to expand...

Pretty good guess! Not 100%, but close enough.
 
rgmwa said:
Pretty good guess! Not 100%, but close enough.
Click to expand...

I got the first one and the last one right at least. :D

But while I'm dusting off the ole crystal ball, I had this thought.....

The 7 and the 9 fuselage are basically the same. The big difference is the wing (and horizontal stab). The 7 does acro, the 9 does not. The 7 takes bigger engines, the 9 was designed with less HP in mind.

So, what if Vans next thing is merely designing the 9 qualities into the 14 and giving the same choice in the 14 airframe that they offer with the 7 or 9?

Works like this, you order the tail section then the fuselage and then you decide what wing/engine combo you want....the shorter, faster acro wing paired with the IO-390, or the longer, non-acro wing paired with the garden variety O-360.

I think if that EAA sponsored ruling about no medical for less that 200 HP comes to fruition, that this would make a "pick your flavor" 14 an even more attractive option.

Putting the crystal ball away for the evening.
 
Geico266 said:
30 min flight time?

But it would be cool. :D
Click to expand...
I'm guessing 2:00 to 2:30 to empty tanks for the "production" Subsonex. Second prototype will have 42 gal usable, and the TJ-100 burns about 22 gal the first hour, 15 to 18 after that, depending on power setting and altitude. PBS claims specific fuel consumption of less than 1.2 for power settings between 50% and 75% thrust for the uprated engine.

I've seen the TJ-100 on Bob Carlton's glider. It's pretty simple, has fairly simple operations but is a bit noisy. For those who want to "go to 11", there is already an uprated TJ-100A with 250 lb thrust.

BTW, I think the Sonex guys understand - a smoke system will be standard on the "production" kit :D It would be cool....

TODR
 
Taildragger RV-12 with slider canopy! OK, I know, impossible with the Forward-of-the-spar seating but still nice to think about. And, injected.
 
Suggestion from a non Vans builder/owner....

I've always wanted to build a Vans aircraft but they have never designed an airplane that fits my needs. As others have stated, something along the line of a stretched 9A. I'm not into aerobatics, but look for a cross country 2+2 plane that will HONESTLY CRUISE at 200mph on a 4 cylinder Lycoming. Think of a thoroughly modern Mooney 201.

The 2 seat Vans models just don't allow enough baggage area or fuel for 5-6 hour flight legs. The 10 is just too big and expensive. My Cozy MKIV fulfills the cruise speed, range, and will carry a lot more baggage than a 2 seat Vans model. It's downfalls are I can't get skis in it, the pusher design's susceptability of prop damage from FOD, and ground hogging takeoff distance.

Considering all the 4 seat, 4 cylinder Pipers, Cessna, Mooney, Beech GA aircraft out there, this would seem like a natural (and large) market for Vans to go after.

Then I could finally build a Vans aircraft.

Just my $.02, which probably isn't worth that!

Jon D.
 
The RV-14 really interests me, but I won't have an airplane with a tilt canopy. Put a sliding canopy on that bad boy and I'd be all over it!! That's my vote for what Van should do next!
 
jnorris said:
The RV-14 really interests me, but I won't have an airplane with a tilt canopy. Put a sliding canopy on that bad boy and I'd be all over it!! That's my vote for what Van should do next!
Click to expand...

Joe, I know you and know that you have the talent to build your own slider, so if that's the only thing stopping you... ;-)
 
The 14 has lots of baggage capacity and it would be easy to make a ski-box extending into the tail.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
What would make this the case with this little engine?

Because it takes an hour to climb high enough to get a reduction in fuel flow?
Click to expand...
Well ... sort of. Takeoff and initial climbout will take place at max takeoff thrust, which is a higher specific fuel consumption (lb fuel / lb thrust) and higher thrust output. 5 min limitation at this level, probably also EGT limited. Specific fuel consumption goes up to about 1.5 at TO thrust. Also, turbines suck a lot of fuel at ground idle.

The engine has a 30 min limitation at climb thrust (85% thrust), no limitations at max continuous (70% thrust).

So it doesn't take an hour to get to cruise, but you burn that extra 5-6 gal in taxi, take off and climb out.

TODR
 
Y'know, I just read this article about the SubSonex, and to be honest, the numbers are not as impractical as I had first estimated. If it cruises at 200mph, can fly for almost 2 hours, and doesn't require a lot of runway... Hmmm... I suppose a VVLJ RV is not such a crazy idea.

And I bet that a builder will stick a TJ-100 onto (into?) an RV before Vans does ;]
 
Kyle Boatright said:
Joe, I know you and know that you have the talent to build your own slider, so if that's the only thing stopping you... ;-)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind comment Kyle. I appreciate it. You're right, it probably could be done. I'm just not sure I want to be the one who does all the engineering of the conversion. Getting lazy in my old age I guess!! :)
 
I'm all in for a "total performance" 2-seat amphibian. I've toyed with the idea of putting my -7 on floats, but low wing aircraft just don't work so hot for anything but beaching. Current-market amphibs all seem geared towards the LSA market, which really does nothing for me performance-wise, and cost? I don't quite see the benefits. For example: The SeaRey, which has outstanding reviews for its flying qualities, motors along sedately at 85mph with the base model Rotax 912. SeaRey sells the 912 for $18k. Upgrading to the 912S raises the cruise speed to 93mph, for an additional $2k. Going for broke, the 914 blazes along at 100mph, with an engine cost of $33K!!!! It may not be fair to compare the brand-new Rotax price against the used cost of my IO-360-A1A, but that's how I put my -7 in the air.

This is why I'm looking for an amphib based upon the IO-360. The Glasair Sportsman seems to be in the class by itself here, but with 4 seats, it's more airplane than I'm looking for. So that's my dream: Something designed along the lines of the SeaRey or Icon configuration, but with a Lycoming to fulfill my need for speed.
 
Second set of wings

Seems to me Vans could easily make a set of soaring wings for the RV-12 to make it into a motor glider. Folks could have both sets of wings if they liked and essentially have one airplane that would serve 2 different missions.
 
This choice is not in the line up but I think he will come up with an design
using an electric motor for propulsion.
He already has an electric motor glider?
 
Vote for Re-engineered RV-7/8/9

I vote for taking the existing RV-7/8/9 and make them just like the RV-14's with punched to size parts and step by step plans. IMO making these models easier to build equates to increased sales and more completed kits.
 
4 place with 180HP

I would also agree there's a market for 0-360 4 place. With the possibility of the 3 class medical petition from the good people at FAA it would be a big hit.
 
Last edited:
We are all getting older and climbing up and into a low wing is not getting any easie

We are all getting older and climbing up and into a low wing is not getting any easier.

So how about a strut less high wing (so the doors open wide and less drag of course) tail dragger with the cockpit slightly ahead of the wing to maximize the visibility up.

Almost sounds like a Cardinal......................
 
riobison said:
We are all getting older and climbing up and into a low wing is not getting any easier.

So how about a strut less high wing (so the doors open wide and less drag of course) tail dragger with the cockpit slightly ahead of the wing to maximize the visibility up.

Almost sounds like a Cardinal......................
Click to expand...

Geeze and the Cardinal in the early years had...an O-360, constant speed prop & 4 seats!

Yeah give me a stretched 9 with an O-360. It can still be a 2+2, with all the new features of the 14 plus! Still asking.... :cool:

Bob
 
Av8torTom said:
Seems to me Vans could easily make a set of soaring wings for the RV-12 to make it into a motor glider. Folks could have both sets of wings if they liked and essentially have one airplane that would serve 2 different missions.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see this! :D
 
this sounds like.....

riobison said:
We are all getting older and climbing up and into a low wing is not getting any easier.
So how about a strut less high wing (so the doors open wide and less drag of course) tail dragger with the cockpit slightly ahead of the wing to maximize the visibility up.
Almost sounds like a Cardinal......................
Click to expand...
Tim!.....I think this is called a Glastar! :) (the strut is nearly out of the way...actually a bigger pain for float guys).......definitely on my list if I could afford 2 planes. !
Hmm, since I can't afford this one, that could be tough!:rolleyes:
Yup, I have little steps all over the place to help folks get up & in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top