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?

4 seats

“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!

What, do you want to take your wife, girlfriend AND your dog? I wonder who gets the right seat?
 
Last edited:
I tend to think that the STOL thing is largely a fad that will pass in due course in the lower 48. It will always find a small but passionate group of enthusiasts.

Even though I’d have no use for a STOL aircraft (at least I don’t think I will), I’d be perfectly fine with one, providing cruise speed isn’t crippled. The issue I had with the STOL enthusiasts was a complete dismissal of cruise speed. My first post on this forum got jeered for simply wanting a reasonable cruise speed while accommodating a reasonable STOL performance. I know it won’t be as fast as an RV-14, but there is no way I’m going back to the days of boring cross countries at Cessna 172 speeds. I think I'd lose motivation through the build if I knew I was regressing backwards several decades in my flying hobby.

I honestly think some of these STOL devices are fascinating: Wren conversion, VGs, slats, fowler flaps, etc. because they yield good STOL without significantly compromising cruise speed (if properly engineered). Heck, maybe it’ll change my anticipated mission and I’ll start landing on sand bars and mesas when I’m not in the mood to fly halfway across the lower 48 in one day.
 
Last edited:
I just finished watching a presentation by the designer of the Helio Courier as I was interested in the wide speed ratio of 5.16 of that aircraft. He makes the point that you can spot most STOL aircraft by how aerodynamically dirty they are. By which of course he means draggy. He furthermore emphasizes that a low stall speed should not limit a reasonably high cruise speed. The Helio Courier has full width Handley Page slats and NO wing struts.

https://rumble.com/vd6jcp-dr.-otto-koppen-designer-of-the-helio-courier.html?mref=el60j&mc=bnsdq

With Vans emphasis on Total Performance, I think the RV-15/16 will be more like a Helio Courier than a Zenith Super STOL. No reason a "bushplane" can't be beautiful as well as functional
 
While it’s anyone’s guess as to what they’re actually working on, I would prefer something between the 150-200 hp range (like the majority of RVs). Not too small and wimpy as the 100 hp, but not too expensive as a 230+ hp.
 
Worth noting as we think of extreme wing designs for the last increment of STOL performance is that they didn't say STOL capable, they said off-field capable. That suggests something closer to C180 performance.

My '55 C180 can demonstrate this performance:

Sea level, no wind, turf, take off 385 feet (according to the manual, I'm rarely at sea level).
Landing, 5400' elevation, warm summer evening, no wind, two people and about 2/3 tanks, 500'. (Did that).
Cruise, 8,000', full throttle, 2,300 rpm, 11.3 gph, 168 mph. (Did that on an unusually calm day, 8-sided GPS figure).
Climb, 5,500', Spring day, solo, 2/3 tanks, 2,000 fpm (routine).

Dave
 
Last edited:
While it’s anyone’s guess as to what they’re actually working on, I would prefer something between the 150-200 hp range (like the majority of RVs). Not too small and wimpy as the 100 hp, but not too expensive as a 230+ hp.

So I'm not the only one who would be satisfied with -9 performance, just with the high wing, bigger tires and more robust landing gear? Maybe need a O-360 to get the top end with the more drag from the tires. Just look how Vlad takes his 9A everywhere with stock gear and wheels.

For years my "If I could afford two planes" dream has been something that can take two big guys (I use my own median weight of 250 lbs for a standard "big guy") or a more reasonable sized passenger and camping gear in or out of a 2500 ft Utah backcountry strip on a summer afternoon. Call it 8500 ft density altitude.

Of course, I can't actually afford two planes, so it is just a daydream for me.
 
Me too

So I'm not the only one who would be satisfied with -9 performance, just with the high wing, bigger tires and more robust landing gear? Maybe need a O-360 to get the top end with the more drag from the tires. Just look how Vlad takes his 9A everywhere with stock gear and wheels.

For years my "If I could afford two planes" dream has been something that can take two big guys (I use my own median weight of 250 lbs for a standard "big guy") or a more reasonable sized passenger and camping gear in or out of a 2500 ft Utah backcountry strip on a summer afternoon. Call it 8500 ft density altitude.

Of course, I can't actually afford two planes, so it is just a daydream for me.

I think a 9/9A with high wing, fowler flaps and IO320 to io390 would be perfect. Maybe tweak the Vne to 215 so we can use the big engine up high.
Oh ya, put the spar behind the pilot, strut-less, ala Cessna 177
 
Last edited:
ok, I'm not sure what to think but, I doubt this is any competition to the RV-15.

NEW: Announcing Sonex Aircraft High Wing Designs!

Sonex Aircraft is proud to present its newest kit aircraft design: the Sonex Aircraft High Wings. Designed for expanded utility, ease of pilot access and to appeal to the high wing enthusiast, the Sonex High Wing offers the legendary Sonex performance and handling in a new configuration. While many kit manufacturers today offer high wing aircraft with a backcountry mission in-mind, we are making our cantilevered wing aircraft in the Sonex tradition of sleek, efficient aerobatic and cross-country performance – The Best Performance Per Dollar!​

HNB-Composite-20.jpg



Image the discussion over there about the RV-15, 180s, Maules... :)
 
Last edited:
26’ wingspan and 117 sq ft wing area…. it won’t be flying slow by backcountry standards

It says right there in the press release they aren't after the back country crowd.

I am excited for this, gives another option in case Vans decides to go the STOL route.
 
Sonex High Wing

The Sonex series is interesting, but it's hard to get over the fact the fuel tank is right above your legs. I don't know what the safety record is. I know Ercoupe had the same design.

Sonex says the tanks are rotationally-molded. Don't know if that is flimsy plastic, or something structural.

Vans did some testing of the RV-12 tank which is located in the fuselage, and they used that as a selling point. It would be nice to see something similar form Sonex.
 
Man, you got to hand it to Sonex, they sure know how to make an ugly airplane! :)

No offense Paul :D
 
Nothing to see here

It seems like Sonex is building toys, while Vans is building airplanes. Nothing to see here. JMHO. And my kids are cuter than yours.
 
Last edited:
Man, you got to hand it to Sonex, they sure know how to make an ugly airplane! :)

No offense Paul :D

It takes careful paint job planning to effectively change the shape of an airplane…. ;)

The funny thing is that over on the Sonex forums and FB page, people are saying how pretty the high wing is!

I will ”hold my own council” on the matter. They have a two-seat jet to get out first!
 
Yep that’s It

Super interesting responses.

When I started this thread I was just asking if people thought it's going to be a small (rotax), medium (4cyl), or large (6cyl) sized bushplane. I incorrectly assumed that everybody wanted something that would land in the 40's or low 50's with larger size tires and the ability to operate in 1200ft with the BBQ grill, mountain bike, and cooler.

I stand corrected, it seems what most people want is just a high wing RV. I laughed out loud when I read that someone wanted a bush rig that is only slightly slower than a cessna RG.

There is no free lunch, airplanes are compromises, that's why you need two, and if you are going to have two, wouldn't you want the second one to do the things that RV's don't do? Like unimproved strips, enough room for a weeks worth of outdoor fun, that can land on beaches or short strips?

Also, I agree with others that have mentioned the 180 being the benchmark. No, it doesn't land as short as a cub, nor is it fast like a banana, but I've been around enough 180's and super 170's to know that they are super fast for what they are. There isn't any flying wires, tail lift struts, cabane V, bungees or stuff hanging off of them like a cub, and while they can't do what a cub can do, they can do quite a lot of it and can pack much more gear and move a lot faster. If I had all of the time and money in the world I'd skip right past building my own airplane and get a 185 on floats. They totally got it right.

Personally, I'd love to see an experimental super 170 with nice handling, baggage doors, and a stick. If it only goes 130-140mph (on 29's) that's fine, as long as it lands in the 40's has 900lbs useful load, and can do 1200fpm on a hot summer day in the mountains.
That It, This thread is done,,, you got it.
Thank You
 
Hangar space?

It takes careful paint job planning to effectively change the shape of an airplane…. ;)

The funny thing is that over on the Sonex forums and FB page, people are saying how pretty the high wing is!

I will ”hold my own council” on the matter. They have a two-seat jet to get out first!

Well, it appears we are going to find out just how many airplanes a person(s) can build-own-fly in a lifetime! Go for it !!
 
What do I think? -
...Not LSA-like 100hp Rotax, because there are already lots of those around.
Probably a more exciting version of C170/C180/C172/C182, because they were so popular.
"Total Performance" speed range of 38 knots to 130 knots.
Seating 2+2 or 2+200 lbs.
Lycoming engine 4 cylinder multiple options including160 hp to 210 hp.
Re-use of existing model parts e.g. RV14 empennage.
A clever wing with fowler flaps.

Time will tell and I'm probably wrong because I really thought Vans was too busy to introduce a new model just now!

This is my vote. There are already lots of 2 place options in a saturated market. I would like to see a 4 or 6 cylinder 180/185 type with a wide cabin so there is no shoulder rubbing. Float option is a must.
 
My guess is a 390 powered Vashon Ranger variant. The Vashon Ranger designed by Ken Krueger has a lot of Vans DNA. So I expect cantilever wing, 2+2, powered by a bigger displacement 4 cylinder than the Ranger.

I also expect a usable backcountry airplane, not a STOL specific flying potato. If I am going to travel around at 85 kts to take a hundred feet of TO/LDG distance I will just take my Tacoma. I think the most recent wave of ultra STOL planes is mostly driven by marketing and youtube. I have a lot of faith in Vans to create a true total performance airplane.
 
Last edited:
Agree

My guess is a 390 powered Vashon Ranger variant. The Vashon Ranger designed by Ken Krueger has a lot of Vans DNA. So I expect cantilever wing, 2+2, powered by a bigger displacement 4 cylinder than the Ranger.

I also expect a usable backcountry airplane, not a STOL specific flying potato. If I am going to travel around at 85 kts to take a hundred feet of TO/LDG distance I will just take my Tacoma. I think the most recent wave of ultra STOL planes is mostly driven by marketing and youtube. I have a lot of faith in Vans to create a true total performance airplane.

I completely agree. When i asked at the announcement if total performance meant reasonable cruise speed, I got the impression the answer was a resounding yes. and they said back country capable, which means not a STOL potato. Later on, Greg asked me one on one if i wanted to land on sandbar or higher cruise speed , I told him higher cruise speed; I got the impression he agreed. JMHO
 
Sandbar vs Cruise eh?

Well, not all sandbars are created equal. One man's sip is another man's gulp.

Was he talking about a 100ft sandbar that is reserved for carbon cubs and the like? Or was he talking about a 300ft sandbar that is completely doable in my 170 when I'm light and have low DA?

I would agree that I wouldn't want a cub and I'm happy to give up the 100ft sandbar for something that's faster than 100mph, but I disagree that I'd give up the 300ft sandbar for more speed, here is why:

In order to do a 300ft sandbar in an airplane that weighs 1700lbs with me and a splash of gas means that the same airplane needs around 2000 ft in the same conditions to clear a bunch of 100ft tall trees. When you add high DA due to mountain flying, obstacles, and another 400lbs of people, gear, and fuel, that 300ft sandbar airplane becomes what I would call the bare minimum for backcountry flying.

It's easy to say you don't need a 300ft sandbar capable airplane, but many forget that a 3000ft strip at 3-4k alt, with wife, campsite, and some extra gear is exactly the same airplane.

So, in my mind, this really boils down to two things: What is the definition of "backcountry flying" and "how much diversity do you really want"

First, backcountry flying. If define that as Johnson Creek or Cavanaugh Bay, well, then an RV can already operate in there just fine. It just depends on which end the little wheel is on and how much you trust the gear to keep the prop out of the dirt. If you are talking about the strip next to your favorite campsite, hunting spot, or buddies cabin, then you probably have a different definition of backcountry. Further, for some, backcountry means the 300ft flat spot next to the mountain where your sheep hunting permit is.

Second, how much diversity do you really want? Do you want two go fast airplanes, one with a high wing, and one with a low wing? Or do you want one go fast airplane, and one that can haul you and kit in and out of remote places? For my part, I truly don't understand the RV crowd wanting another fast airplane. I think DR got it right when he said he wants a RV that does cub things as that is the spectrum not already covered.

For some people the perfect 2 airplane hangar is a cub and a 180. You have the fast-ish hauler and the slow off airport (like stuff not on a sectional) exploring airplane. For others, the perfect setup is a 180 and a Bonanza. It seems like the RV crowd wants a 182RG and a Bonanza (sticking with the certified theme). Why?

Why is going fast so much more important than everything else? I find an aircraft's usefulness is far more dictated by its load carrying capacity, safety, and operational flexibility than speed. I'd rather have an airplane that can complete the mission 30 minutes slower than an airplane that defines the mission, or can't complete it at all.
 
Those fast backcountry planes are unlikely to land where I did to go fishing yesterday.

https://youtu.be/usUHwZsyIX4

A 180/185 could have gone in there with a safe margin, so I suspect a high wing Vans will do just fine.
As a matter of fact, Cabin Creek strip looks like just the kind of strip for gentleman backcountry flying Vans is envisioning.
 
Last edited:
A 180/185 could have gone in there with a safe margin, so I suspect a high wing Vans will do just fine.
As a matter of fact, Cabin Creek strip looks like just the kind of strip for gentleman backcountry flying Vans is envisioning.
1700’ so plenty long especially with the 6% uphill grade, but folks are talking about a 175 knot plane, that would be pretty dicey when you think a big ratio is 4-1 cruise to stall. Not many planes can actually hit the 4-1 in real world flying
 
Sandbar vs Cruise eh?

For some people the perfect 2 airplane hangar is a cub and a 180. You have the fast-ish hauler and the slow off airport (like stuff not on a sectional) exploring airplane. For others, the perfect setup is a 180 and a Bonanza. It seems like the RV crowd wants a 182RG and a Bonanza (sticking with the certified theme). Why?

I’m the 182RG guy you keep referencing out of context. I think I’m more tolerant of a realistic speed range than the STOL crowd seems to be. I have no problem going slower than my 182RG – I’ve said that on my first post on this forum. The issue I have is the hyper focus on STOL to the exclusion of any reasonable top end. I’m sorry, but the reality is, not many potential builders will want something that cruises below 130 KTAS.

Heck, the Rans S-21, can go a more reasonable 134 KTAS on the Titan, and the STOL crowd seems to like it. I think it’s realistic to expect the RV-15 “Total Performance” to excel beyond the Rans S-21 envelope.

I think many builders, including me, would find the Cessna 180 performance envelope reasonable (stall 48 knots, cruise 142 knots). The Cessna 170 (stall 45 knots, cruise 105 knots), not so much.


Sandbar vs Cruise eh?
Why is going fast so much more important than everything else?


Why is going slow so much more important than everything else?
 
Why is going fast so much more important than everything else? I find an aircraft's usefulness is far more dictated by its load carrying capacity, safety, and operational flexibility than speed. I'd rather have an airplane that can complete the mission 30 minutes slower than an airplane that defines the mission, or can't complete it at all.

Becasue a large number of people that want to visit the beautiful back country don’t live anywhere near it, like you do! Like you, I now live pretty close to spectacular places to go land….but I lived in Houston (Texas), on the Gulf Coast for over 30 years, and it was a thousand miles to anyplace with high elevations, pine trees, and snow. Getting to the mountains in something slow took forever, so we didn’t; go. I know people who own a bush plane that they keep near the bush, and a fast airplane to get from where they live to where they keep the bush plane - but that is expensive.

So a “fast” airplane might not make any sense for you at al if you live where you can easily go play, but for a large number of people, speed allows them to get to where they can enjoy. Hence, the need for a large speed range.
 
In reference to the C-180 & Rans S21, my buddy flew in his 180 with me to drop my S21/Titan at the paint shop. He was about 6-7 MPH faster than me. Almost a non issue on the 2 hour flight. We started with me about 5nm ahead & it took him an hour to catch up. YMMV
 
Becasue a large number of people that want to visit the beautiful back country don’t live anywhere near it, like you do! Like you, I now live pretty close to spectacular places to go land….but I lived in Houston (Texas), on the Gulf Coast for over 30 years, and it was a thousand miles to anyplace with high elevations, pine trees, and snow. Getting to the mountains in something slow took forever, so we didn’t; go. I know people who own a bush plane that they keep near the bush, and a fast airplane to get from where they live to where they keep the bush plane - but that is expensive.

That makes tons of sense, thanks for explaining.


Ironflight said:
So a “fast” airplane might not make any sense for you at al if you live where you can easily go play, but for a large number of people, speed allows them to get to where they can enjoy. Hence, the need for a large speed range.

That makes sense too. From my perspective it made sense to have a fast airplane that does what they do, and a slow airplane so that you had something that would work in the mountains. It didn't occur to me that people didn't want to take the time to get to the mountains. I might be weird, I flew a C-170A from Wenatchee to Oshkosh this year, and while going fast would have been great, being able to pack my wife, campsite, camera gear, and cooler was more important to me.
 
In reference to the C-180 & Rans S21, my buddy flew in his 180 with me to drop my S21/Titan at the paint shop. He was about 6-7 MPH faster than me. Almost a non issue on the 2 hour flight. We started with me about 5nm ahead & it took him an hour to catch up. YMMV

What kind of speeds were you getting? What fuel burn?
 
I’m the 182RG guy you keep referencing out of context. I think I’m more tolerant of a realistic speed range than the STOL crowd seems to be. I have no problem going slower than my 182RG – I’ve said that on my first post on this forum. The issue I have is the hyper focus on STOL to the exclusion of any reasonable top end. I’m sorry, but the reality is, not many potential builders will want something that cruises below 130 KTAS.

Heck, the Rans S-21, can go a more reasonable 134 KTAS on the Titan, and the STOL crowd seems to like it. I think it’s realistic to expect the RV-15 “Total Performance” to excel beyond the Rans S-21 envelope.

I think many builders, including me, would find the Cessna 180 performance envelope reasonable (stall 48 knots, cruise 142 knots). The Cessna 170 (stall 45 knots, cruise 105 knots), not so much.

Why is going slow so much more important than everything else?

I would bet that the Rans folk fly their airplane slower than 130kt, especially if they have anything close to big tires on them. Also, I don't know anybody that actually goes 142kt in a 180.

Either way, the reason why those work at the speeds they do is because they have a lot of HP for the size of the airframe, thus at the speeds you quoted, they are in the drink lots of fuel end of their flight envelope.

If vans builds something that can go 130kts that has the low end performance of a 180, then fantastic. I (and others) keep mentioning the 180 being the benchmark, we agree on that. Also, when I say 170, I'm talking about a Super 170, one with a 0-360 which is much faster than a stocker, as it has a constant speed.

I've never suggested that we want something kitfox or cub slow, but I have suggested that it needs to do what a Super 170 or 180 can do and if it can't then it is my opinion that they have sacrificed too much STOL performance for speed.

Remember, I'm not talking about STOL performance per se, I'm talking about operating in the mountains on a hot day performance, but I fully recognize that there is a bit of overlap.
 
Shortly after I bought my C180, I sold my C170 to a friend. We both departed Telluride together not long afterwards, and I beat him back to Boulder by a full hour. Speed matters.

Interestingly we burned the same amount of fuel. That CS prop really pays off.

I'm mentioning that trip to help convince people that speeds in the low 100+ mph is really too slow for the RV-15.

Dave
 
Sandbar vs Cruise eh?

Well, not all sandbars are created equal. One man's sip is another man's gulp.

Was he talking about a 100ft sandbar that is reserved for carbon cubs and the like? Or was he talking about a 300ft sandbar that is completely doable in my 170 when I'm light and have low DA?

I would agree that I wouldn't want a cub and I'm happy to give up the 100ft sandbar for something that's faster than 100mph, but I disagree that I'd give up the 300ft sandbar for more speed, here is why:

In order to do a 300ft sandbar in an airplane that weighs 1700lbs with me and a splash of gas means that the same airplane needs around 2000 ft in the same conditions to clear a bunch of 100ft tall trees. When you add high DA due to mountain flying, obstacles, and another 400lbs of people, gear, and fuel, that 300ft sandbar airplane becomes what I would call the bare minimum for backcountry flying.

It's easy to say you don't need a 300ft sandbar capable airplane, but many forget that a 3000ft strip at 3-4k alt, with wife, campsite, and some extra gear is exactly the same airplane.

So, in my mind, this really boils down to two things: What is the definition of "backcountry flying" and "how much diversity do you really want"

First, backcountry flying. If define that as Johnson Creek or Cavanaugh Bay, well, then an RV can already operate in there just fine. It just depends on which end the little wheel is on and how much you trust the gear to keep the prop out of the dirt. If you are talking about the strip next to your favorite campsite, hunting spot, or buddies cabin, then you probably have a different definition of backcountry. Further, for some, backcountry means the 300ft flat spot next to the mountain where your sheep hunting permit is.

Second, how much diversity do you really want? Do you want two go fast airplanes, one with a high wing, and one with a low wing? Or do you want one go fast airplane, and one that can haul you and kit in and out of remote places? For my part, I truly don't understand the RV crowd wanting another fast airplane. I think DR got it right when he said he wants a RV that does cub things as that is the spectrum not already covered.

For some people the perfect 2 airplane hangar is a cub and a 180. You have the fast-ish hauler and the slow off airport (like stuff not on a sectional) exploring airplane. For others, the perfect setup is a 180 and a Bonanza. It seems like the RV crowd wants a 182RG and a Bonanza (sticking with the certified theme). Why?

Why is going fast so much more important than everything else? I find an aircraft's usefulness is far more dictated by its load carrying capacity, safety, and operational flexibility than speed. I'd rather have an airplane that can complete the mission 30 minutes slower than an airplane that defines the mission, or can't complete it at all.
First off, I would like to say that I appreciate your position. Secondly, I would like to say that I also appreciate the fact that where you live is exactly why you hold said position. Thirdly, I would like to say that where I live is exactly why I hold my position of wanting a “FAST” bushplane. When one lives 10-15 hours drive from the nearest mountainous terrain one would like to have some other means of transportation that gets them to that environment just a bit faster. A slow flying STOL or even 300 ft sandbar landing airplane that gets you into those spots but takes a days worth of travel to get you there from here doesn’t work well for the part of the world I live in.

Wish it were that we could all live in the Alaska experience! Alas, most of us do not have the fortune to do so!
 
First off, I would like to say that I appreciate your position. Secondly, I would like to say that I also appreciate the fact that where you live is exactly why you hold said position. Thirdly, I would like to say that where I live is exactly why I hold my position of wanting a “FAST” bushplane. When one lives 10-15 hours drive from the nearest mountainous terrain one would like to have some other means of transportation that gets them to that environment just a bit faster. A slow flying STOL or even 300 ft sandbar landing airplane that gets you into those spots but takes a days worth of travel to get you there from here doesn’t work well for the part of the world I live in.

Wish it were that we could all live in the Alaska experience! Alas, most of us do not have the fortune to do so!

Thanks for the reply.

First, I don’t live in Alaska anymore, I’m in central Washington now, but after 25 years there I’d point out that Alaska is huge. If you split Alaska into two, Texas would be the 3rd largest state. So, it’s not like speed doesn’t matter there, but hauling your kit or critter matters more.

Many guys fly a cub so they can get in and out of tight places, but then make the trip 2-3 times to get everything out into the field. That’s a little extreme in my mind, but I get it.

Anyway, I understand more why people think the way they do, so I appreciate that.

Looking forward to having my bearhawk done. I just flew from KEAT to SLC at 90kts, it took a while. The bearhawk should be able to do it at 125kts.
 
akschu,

I was at 7500ft msl 134-135 kts burning 7.6-7.9 gph. 80” WW FP prop turning 2500-2550. Mine is TD w/8.50’s
 
I am thrilled with the performance and I operate off my 900ft home “strip”. Basically a cow pasture although only at 1600msl with no obstacles higher than a 5ft fence. Rather rough too! I love my RV10 and am sure whatever Van’s comes out with in a high wing will be awesome, but to greatly eclipse the performance specs of the S21 is going to be difficult.
 
I am thrilled with the performance and I operate off my 900ft home “strip”. Basically a cow pasture although only at 1600msl with no obstacles higher than a 5ft fence. Rather rough too! I love my RV10 and am sure whatever Van’s comes out with in a high wing will be awesome, but to greatly eclipse the performance specs of the S21 is going to be difficult.

I will place my money on Van's engineers........ but I wish Ken was still there!!
 
Speed range

I remember getting Kitplanes magazine in the 80’s and comparing all the kits specs. Which one was fastest, slowest, cheapest, and so forth. I remember settling on the RV because it did a lot of things very well. The +- 6g and the amazing speed range was a source of tremendous pride and I knew one day I was gonna build one of these jewels. A top speed of 210 is fast but I find that 150-180 is perfect for almost 90% of what I do. When it comes to stalls and that magical 55mph survivability wall, I’m sure a creative flap design can get the bottom end of the spectrum down to where it needs to be. My 180hp Maule with constant speed prop could haul 1000lbs in and out of our 1400ft strip no problem and the 73 gals of fuel took us wherever we wanted without worrying about finding fuel. I miss the Maule, and I like the bearhawk, but I’m gonna hold out and wait on the RV-15. I just hope that Vans can get it done sooner rather than later. If history has anything to say about it, I know it will be a home run.
 
Homecoming

When Van stoped the Home Coming Fly - ins at SunSet,,,, the big group of RV flyers around North Texas, tapered off going.
We would pass the Idaho mountains, back country,, looking over there like it was a Forbidden Forest. Until Rob Ray introduced it to the RV world, Wow!

When Doug Reeves and I went there the first time,,in our RV6s,,, we had little in gear, and food. . But we saw Cubs, Skywagons , and people well equipped for the Back Country Experience . I have been back every year since. 2002?
I built a North Star Cub with a o-360 , Bush wheels. Big baggage compartment. Great plane for the area. 90 knots,, 15 hours to get to McCall from Hicks T67.. After a few years I met Carol,,,,,,,. Needed a bigger plane.

Enter the Cessna 180J I found right here in the Home town area. This airplane does what I want with ease. 125-130 knots, that’s 40 knots faster than the Cub. I still had the RV,, but flying it on a camping trip? With 2 people? No….. The 180 hauls ‘ ‘Big ol Fat Carol’ and all her camping gear,,,, we have owned it 12 years of great fun in this plane.

When Van’s introduces the (RV15), The Cessna 175 should be the 15 prototype. Add a baggage door, extended Baggage, tail wheel. 66 gallons of gas, Lycoming 0-360, I hope to be young enough to build one…I turning 75 next month…
 
Last edited:
Back
Top