What's new
Van's Air Force

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

My realistic proposal for the next RV(16)

larrys

Well Known Member
Doug, I was walking around Oshkosh this year and there are quite a few other planes exactly like what your poll shows - although not a vans which would be better.

What is missing is to scale up the current Van's designs and make a kit of a 6 place low wing like a Bonanza, Cherokee or PA-32. It should be scaling what Van's already has. It must be single engine with the barn doors on the side for cargo and be able to carry a lot of weigh. I can see this type plane being built all over the world for work of all kinds.

My son-in-law was at Oshkosh with me this year working the booth and his repeated comment was that you can't bring other people with me in the RV-14A I am building now.

I think my next project would be to "re-build" a 6 place but it would be much better to build a RV16 as described above. Then of course you need to work through the licenced A/P issue??

Doug can you please make a poll for the 6 place and see if it viable?
Thanks, Larry
 
I attended the "What's New at Van's" seminar at KOSH this year. The seminar was hosted by Mitch Locke, president and Greg Hughes, marketing/media. The crowd was polled as to what they thought Van's next model should be:
Retract - No. Too complex, costly, and little performance gain
6 place - No. Cherokee 6's are cheap these days.
Floats - No. An RV isn't the best platform.
Sailplane - No. The RV-11 is up in the rafters with a 1/2" of dust on it.

The RV-15 is in design now, but it's configuration was not revealed. It will not be leaked out like the -14 was either.
 
I’m really hoping for an RV14 type of update to the RV-9

And yes I’d totally forget about that 9 emp I’ve Been lugging around forever and order the new one ! ;)
 
Last edited:
I attended the "What's New at Van's" seminar at KOSH this year. The seminar was hosted by Mitch Locke, president and Greg Hughes, marketing/media. The crowd was polled as to what they thought Van's next model should be:
Retract - No. Too complex, costly, and little performance gain
6 place - No. Cherokee 6's are cheap these days.
Floats - No. An RV isn't the best platform.
Sailplane - No. The RV-11 is up in the rafters with a 1/2" of dust on it.

The RV-15 is in design now, but it's configuration was not revealed. It will not be leaked out like the -14 was either.

Thanks Steve, I really missed out not going to the meeting you are talking about. It is too bad that was the outcome of the meeting. My question would be where was the consensus? I bet there where a lot of opinions but I am sure something must have come to the surface? Please pass it it on if you know.
Thanks, Larry
 
Next

If the next rv is already in design, it would seem to me that Van?s has a defined direction. A poll or consensus from a meeting would then serve to stir the pot and generate interest more than drive the design...
 
My notes from that meeting...

Van's asked "what would you write a check for right now if we offered it?"
They also said they look for underserved niches in the market that they are equipped to meet and reflects their design philosophy.

The first suggestion was a high-wing STOL. Not much reaction to that but it sure is NOT an underserved segment of the market, plenty of them out there.

Besides the other things mentioned (like 6-place - answer? "Buy a Caravan.")

I said "A 4-place Van's equivalent of the Grumman Tiger or Piper Archer." They shot that down, saying those were readily available on the market and cheap. And also that the RV10 is their best-selling kit ever and it is 4 place. I said "no, a 320 or 360, not a honking big 6 cylinder and that is a VERY complex kit." Still "no."

I also suggested "A version of the 7 that is as easy to build as the -12." They said "Get the 14." "But... expensive!" "Put a -360 in it."

They also did not think it funny when I asked "How long are you going to be the only major kit maker without a jet?"

Their big focus s getting into the training - flight school market. Build the pipeline into other models. Their desired path to that is reg changes to allow training in experimentals.

There have also been 80 RV12 kits sold for building by students (!)
 
To me it doesn?t make sense to say ?buy a Caravan or a Cherokee 6? if you want 6 place. You could say the same thing on a 4 place. Just buy a Bonanza or a C182 or SR22.

Either a high wing or a 6 place seems like the logical next step.
 
Other Van's seminar notes

- Van's is bringing all machining work in-house leading to better control quality and scheduling. Toward that end they purchased a Haas VF-11 NC mill. Two smaller mills are due to arrive later this year. A new Trumpf metal punch machine was recently installed.
- They have added a new nose wheel axle to the A models. It prevents over tightening of the axle nut.
- A new nose gear/engine mount, based on the -14 design, is available for the other A models. It is a major project best done before the engine mount is drilled to the airframe.
- Van's is expanding the "fly away RV-12" program to 2 per month. They are just about there.
- As everyone knows by now, they have revised the company logo, created a new website, and are selling new branded merchandise.
- The presenters noted Van's is exploring all aviation markets and technologies. As mentioned by others, the pilot training field is wide open. The emerging electric airplane is well known.
Bottom line is Van's does what makes good long term business sense for Van's.
 
Last edited:
I know there is no market for this, but the kit that would excite me is an all metal ?Extra? capable of +/- 10g, tapered wing with a symmetrical airfoil, 330 hp, etc. I know, I?m dreaming!
 
I know there is no market for this, but the kit that would excite me is an all metal ?Extra? capable of +/- 10g, tapered wing with a symmetrical airfoil, 330 hp, etc. I know, I?m dreaming!

Me too - not sure if we'll ever get there from Vans, but it would definitely have my interest.
 
If anything got me to build another plane it would be a 6 place or heavy 4 place(1400lbs usable). Easy of entry would be a big plus. You have to have pretty agile passengers to get them in and out of 2 place RV, cuts out hauling older parents and so on. I thought about building a velocity xl but the payload is still not that good with full fuel to justify it.

I am very tempted to get a PA32 to supplement my RV9A maybe with a partner if I could find one. I would love a P206 but it is 180K for a 30 year old plane.

It is funny as you build and fly how your thoughts change on what your ideal plane is and what your needs are.
 
It is funny as you build and fly how your thoughts change on what your ideal plane is and what your needs are.

An amphibious Cessna Caravan. Of course I?d have to have a crazy rich aunt will it to me with enough $$$$ to operate it. Fortunately, my aunts are all crazy, so I?m halfway there! :rolleyes:
 
I understand when Van's says go build a 14 when you want a simpler 7.
Also I understand that there's no real need for a smaller 10.

So maybe the 16 is 8x2? A new 8?
But honestly, are there people unhappy with their 8s? Not really.
So probably the 16 is not a new 8.

What's left?
High wings. On the market there are a lot of high wings of good quality. Even TAF just revealed a high wing Sling TSi. There's not really a market niche to be filled.

Trainer planes for the PPL? At least here in Germany: Forget it! The only chance is when the experimental regulation and certification would move from the German institutions to the EASA. And there's no sign this will happen!

But when I look around in the experimental scene here in Germany and talk with other builders, often you get this response: "Oh you build an RV? That's too expensive for me!"
So my guess is Van's tries to reduce the build costs and TCO of their planes. This is possible even without reducing the margin on Van's side! How so? Remove the Lycomings! Design the planes for cheaper engines with less fuel consumption.
I think we will see more Rotax engines and fixed pitch props in new Van's models!
So where to start?
I guess it's gonna be a Rotax 8! They want to show that Rotax can be fun! Like Tesla did with their first models, the Roadster and the Model S. And it is possible! Just look at the Blackshape Prime!


Probably this is not what most of the builders in this forum want to hear.
But hey, you're building a great plane! Why not grow the community with new builders who couldn't afford an RV until now?

Malte
 
Last edited:
High wings. On the market there are a lot of high wings of good quality. Even TAF just revealed a high wing Sling TSi. There's not really a market niche to be filled.
I disagree. If you're looking for the ease of entry that comes with a high wing, you've got lots of options, but just about all of them struggle to see anything north of 130 knots and several of them will burn in the 10 gph range trying to do it.

The 14 is a wonderful plane. But it ain't easy to get in and out of if you've got bad joints. TAF recognizes that void in the market and I suspect they'll do well with their new offering. But I also suspect a high wing/2-seat/150kt/8gph Vans offering would sell better.
 
BIPLANE!!!!!

The RV 16 has to be!!. I mean everyone loves the -8, well 2 x 8 = 16 sooooo.... it must be a two winged -8 or BIPLANE!!!

YEAH!!!!
 
Well, looking at prices of a new Rotax doesn?t spell cheaper to me.

I was afraid when I saw a sale on the RV-8 fuse that Van?s was going to announce an update to that plane instead of my hope of an update to the 9. There is certainly nothing wrong with that but...

Someone was right in saying that the high wings just don?t cruise at relative RV speeds. There are lot?s of contenders to that platform. Of course no one makes a kit plane like Van?s so who knows?

A Rotax RV-8 would be interesting, but here in the states we?re about to lose the arbitrary weight restrictions of the LSA aircraft (among other restrictions). You?d be hard pressed to put a Rotax in anything over current LSA and expect to safely get off the ground, especially out here in the high density altitudes of the mountain southwest. I?m not sure I?d want to bank on a new LSA type of aircraft until I knew more where the FAA was headed.

One thing is for sure, it?ll be fun guessing what is coming and how far the evolution of kit aircraft is going, until Van?s shows us! Although the thought of jumping up and down on a welded canopy bar to get it to fit, just doesn?t seem right. :)

Bob
 
Affordable Flying

My vote would have to be for something affordable. Call it the Corvette index. Create something of Vans quality that can compare in price to the quintessential American midlife-crises toy and you'll sell tons of them. $60k range-ish.

The world is not full of Doctors and Lawyers that can afford a $100k+ hobby, having a Vans for the everyday consumer would be awesome and really help the industry as a whole.
 
Well, looking at prices of a new Rotax doesn?t spell cheaper to me.

Anything smaller than a 915 is relatively cheap. Also the fuel consumption is lower and you buy MOGAS instead of AVGAS.
In Europe gas is f***** expensive. MOGAS is about 7.50 USD/gal and AVGAS 9.50 USD/gal.
 
interesting

60K?

So you would be talking about an fat ultralight...seriously.

Consider that a -12 is over $75k.

Consider something like a QC Challenger XL-65 will cost you around $36k without paint or avionics.

Consider a BushCat will be something north of $75k

Look at what is out there in that price range and you will soon have an idea of what $60k will get you in a NEW aircraft. You can't compare used aircraft because, well, they are used and anything Van's comes up with will be NEW.

Sure, you could find used parts and probably reduce the cost but I think $60k is still going to be tough to accomplish...

It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out. Again, if they are already in design, then the "consensus" of a poll will do little to change the overall concept...that has been established at this point...
 
Practical

When starting this post I was thinking about what the next logical extension of what van's already has. And what would builders line up for and what would return more then the cost of the kit - a 6 place. At least it would have serious value because it is a Van's.
Isn't the wings on the 14 the same wing but shorter then the 10? And tail feathers are interchangeable from different models?
If they focus on a 6+ seat heavy hauler, single engine with side entrance barn doors with the typical low wing and maybe RV10 entry doors it seems like a logical extension of what is already there?

Of course I would like most all of the other suggestions but the next step is a 6+ place
Larry
 
But I also suspect a high wing/2-seat/150kt/8gph Vans offering would sell better.

This would be awesome - a roomy, two-seat side-by-side with good baggage space, along with side door access to the cargo area. Essentially a much faster EAB Cessna 170 (taildragger) and/or 172 (nose wheel).

I say "and/or" as it would be especially nice if such a design could have reconfigurable landing gear, a la Rans' new S-21 Outback model. :D
 
Sounds like a high wing 14.

Regarding 6 seats:
I don't know many people who would need / build that.
Also it comes with certification issues. I for myself only need two seats and some space for the luggage. That's why I build a 14.
 
Good idea

The 14 is a wonderful plane. But it ain't easy to get in and out of if you've got bad joints. TAF recognizes that void in the market and I suspect they'll do well with their new offering. But I also suspect a high wing/2-seat/150kt/8gph Vans offering would sell better.

Sort of a Vans Glastar/Sportsman. I think that would be the shizzle.

The Sportsman is a terrific airplane but is very expensive by my standards.
 
For me the RANS S-21 Outback TD struck a chord, so much so, I put down a deposit at Oshkosh. :eek:

That configuration may not be in the cards as a Vans option but with a 9-12 month delivery lead-time for the S-21 kit & an expanding order backlog there seems to be quite a pent up demand for an all-metal 150mph TD.
 
I didn’t know you could put a 360 in a 14.

Van's tail wheel 14 has a 360.
But it's not recommended as the 360 is lighter than the 390 which results in smaller margins when it comes to weight and balance.
Also the 360 that Vans sells does not fit in the 14.

But is the 360 so much cheaper than the 390?
Probably it's just to close the price gap to the 7.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know you could put a 360 in a 14.
Technically you can. But there are dozens of -360 variants and only two or three of them will work in a 14. If you can find one, you can use it. So technically speaking you can, but practically speaking you probably won't.
 
I didn?t know you could put a 360 in a 14.

Angle valve 360 - important difference! The parallel valve is really too light and will cause issues with CG you?ll have to solve. The angle valve 360 is pretty close to the 390. I flew both on Van?s two -14?s, and noted little difference.
 
I said "A 4-place Van's equivalent of the Grumman Tiger or Piper Archer." They shot that down, saying those were readily available on the market and cheap. And also that the RV10 is their best-selling kit ever and it is 4 place. I said "no, a 320 or 360, not a honking big 6 cylinder and that is a VERY complex kit." Still "no."

That is what I would like to see...a mini 10 designed for 4-cyl. So what exactly is there currently that they claim to be cheap and available?
 
I'm thinking the RV-15 will be something high wing .......similar to the Vashon Ranger.

Jim
 
Sort of a Vans Glastar/Sportsman. I think that would be the shizzle.

The Sportsman is a terrific airplane but is very expensive by my standards.

I would love to see Van's come out with an airplane similar to the Glastar Sportsman. I love the "numbers" of the Sportsman, but frankly I've never liked the looks of the thing. And if I'm going to spend that kind of money on an airplane I need to be able to smile when I look at it. I think an airplane that matches the Sportsman's specs but has the Van's "look" would be sweet!!
 
I'm thinking it would be logical for all of the reasons folks buy high wing airplanes. Lots of them out there.

Easy to get in and out of and load! One of the big reasons the P206 the is so valued by professionals. Look at the price difference between a used PA32 and used P206 and ask yourself why.
 
For me the RANS S-21 Outback TD struck a chord, so much so, I put down a deposit at Oshkosh. :eek:

Agreed. The S-21 is the first new airplane in a long time that has really excited me. If I didn?t already have the 185, it?d be on my (very) short list. They?ve done a great job on the S-21.
 
That is what I would like to see...a mini 10 designed for 4-cyl. So what exactly is there currently that they claim to be cheap and available?

In a kitbuilt experimental? None. But if you want a 4-place 4-cyl for under $100k, there a lots of choices available on the certified market and I think that's the point they're making.
 
I'm thinking it would be logical for all of the reasons folks buy high wing airplanes. Lots of them out there.

We started out with my wife falling in love with my hangar mate's RV8A but the lack of baggage/cargo capacity killed that idea (her decision, not mine). Her health took a turn for the worse and by the time our slow-build Glasair Sportsman made its first flight I was feeling exceptionally fortunate that I had not built any of the Van's airplanes as my wife simply would not be able to get in any of them.

We're just back from a wonderful trip down to Maine to visit family. My wife packed her stuff in a hockey equipment bag, the kind of bag that would fit in only the RV10 with the back seats folded down. The Sportsman could easily have digested four of those bags and still had room for my stuff plus the tool kit, spares bag, tiedown kit and emergency tent and sleeping bag.

And it does it all on an economical O-360 while truing out at better than 130KTAS burning 9GPH or less (altitude dependent). Plus it easily converts from trike to tail dragger. And it has folding wings.

Van doesn't have anything that comes close to the mission flexibility of the Sportsman. Since a huge part of our mission is having my mobility-impaired wife enjoy travelling in our magic flying carpet, that's the most critical mission requirement that none of the Van's products is able to meet. This is indeed quite a large gap in the product line. The order book for the S-21 clearly attests to the magnitude of this gap.
 
Last edited:
Same problem here, C-JOY. My wife finds the 10 harder to enter/exit than our 7, but we could use more useful, want the speed of an RV and remain EAB. We make frequent cross continent trips and our 172 fills the bill except is intolerably slow and over 12k msl it's dead. A sportsman or Glaster may replace it, but Van's, please oh please, 160kts. And, BTW you airplane designers, locate any strut aft of the door opening, and make the bloody right stick easily removable. Time to put your aging customers' ergonomics on the front burner.
John Siebold
 
A sportsman or Glaster may replace it, but Van's, please oh please, 160kts. And, BTW you airplane designers, locate any strut aft of the door opening, and make the bloody right stick easily removable. Time to put your aging customers' ergonomics on the front burner.
John Siebold

WELL SAID, John! :)

With the strut attach point aft of the door opening, getting into our Sportsman is pretty easily accomplished. I've had passengers from 8 to 92 years of age, including my 85 year old father.

After working for years in helicopters, making a control stick easily removable is actually a pretty simple task. It just takes some pre-planning.

In the bicycle world S&S Couplers have become the gold standard for bicycles that disassemble for airline travel. They aren't cheap but would make for a super-cool and extremely rigid quick-disconnect for a control stick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glEOQNxVnPU
 
<< And also that the RV10 is their best-selling kit ever and it is 4 place. >>

Going back to this thought, from a business development standpoint, perhaps evolving the RV10 into a more refined, but more importantly, easier to build model would do well for Vans.

One comment I often hear that certainly resonates with me is the perceived "quite long" RV10 build time, especially for part-time builders. It would seem that incorporating the considerable operational lessons learned to-date for the 10 along with building on the kit efficiency gains made for the RV14 could make for a *really* desirable new 4-seat model.
 
<< And also that the RV10 is their best-selling kit ever and it is 4 place. >>

Going back to this thought, from a business development standpoint, perhaps evolving the RV10 into a more refined, but more importantly, easier to build model would do well for Vans.

One comment I often hear that certainly resonates with me is the perceived "quite long" RV10 build time, especially for part-time builders. It would seem that incorporating the considerable operational lessons learned to-date for the 10 along with building on the kit efficiency gains made for the RV14 could make for a *really* desirable new 4-seat model.

I hear this about the RV-10 as well. Some thoughts:
- The RV-14(A) has a lot of stuff like match drilled holes that can be incorporated into other RV kits.
- The RV-10 build time has a lot to do with the fiberglass cabin top, doors and glass. Nothing hard here but very labor intensive. If Van?s did this work I suspect the kit cost would push the plane out of reach for a lot of builders.
- Right now total cost for a RV-10 over an RV-14(A) is about $25K (assuming slow builds, new engines and such for both). For $25K I view the RV-10 the hands down value option. If Van?s started to add a lot of factory labor to the kits (putting it more on the RV-14(A) price strategy) I?d guess the RV-10 attraction would diminish.

I view the main distractor on the RV-10 as engine cost. Unfortunately any option for a new line of engines (like the Continental diesel) is just not realistic, at least in my lifetime.

Carl
 
I view the main distractor on the RV-10 as engine cost. Unfortunately any option for a new line of engines (like the Continental diesel) is just not realistic, at least in my lifetime.

Carl

Im coming back to my earlier comment as this point here is key for me. I know there are plenty of 4-place, 4-cyl options in the used certified world but none come close to the performance or pilot satisfaction that you get with a vans. For me just having a stick in my hand vs a yoke is a real selling point.

I would love to see Vans maximize the experience that can be had from the usual bunch of 4-cyl engines in a 4-place machine. Maybe even make it strong enough for gentleman acro when flown solo or 2-up.
 
Im coming back to my earlier comment as this point here is key for me. I know there are plenty of 4-place, 4-cyl options in the used certified world but none come close to the performance or pilot satisfaction that you get with a vans. For me just having a stick in my hand vs a yoke is a real selling point.

I would love to see Vans maximize the experience that can be had from the usual bunch of 4-cyl engines in a 4-place machine. Maybe even make it strong enough for gentleman acro when flown solo or 2-up.

I?ll have to disagree. The IO-540 is a good match for the RV-10. Anything less and you end up with an underpowered four seat plane that can really only carry two real people, either the RV-10 or a scaled down four place RV-XX.

I like the IO-540 but the engineer in me screams for a modern, diesel engine. Why not four seats, 170kts TAS on 8gph of Jet A? Here a two stroke diesel makes the most sense as they are very efficient in such constant power service. The Delta Hawk is (I think) finally ready for prime time but it is grossly overpriced and underpowered for the RV-10.

If EAA and AOPA would embrace 94UL fuel instead of just stubbornly waiting another 20 years for the drop in 100UL fuel I would find the IO-540 far more appealing.

Carl
 
Rans has sold so many S-21s their orders today are going to ship in 12-15 months.. I still think Vans is REALLY missing the boat on the high-wing STOL-ish market. I would order a kit TODAY if Van's announced a 2-place side-by-side high-wing Bush(ish) plane.
 
I like the IO-540 but the engineer in me screams for a modern, diesel engine. Why not four seats, 170kts TAS on 8gph of Jet A? Here a two stroke diesel makes the most sense as they are very efficient in such constant power service. The Delta Hawk is (I think) finally ready for prime time but it is grossly overpriced and underpowered for the RV-10.


Carl

Out at our work site in Arizona, the local flight school has a diesel 172 they use for training.. It's DEAD QUIET compared to the other 172's in their fleet. Seriously in agreement here with you.. A good direct-injection modern diesel aircraft engine would be a fantastic option..
 
IF the FAA does follow through and expand LSA to include higher gross weight and 4 seats; I've got my money on Van's making a plane to fit the max of those specifications, whatever they may be.
 
Rans has sold so many S-21s their orders today are going to ship in 12-15 months.. I still think Vans is REALLY missing the boat on the high-wing STOL-ish market. I would order a kit TODAY if Van's announced a 2-place side-by-side high-wing Bush(ish) plane.

Sling announced the TSi High Wing at AirVenture. They expect it to be only a few kts slower than the low wing. This means that it will still be a +150kts airplane. Seems like they are already working on the prototype and that they will have it at next year's AirVenture

I bet that it will become a huge success: Many people prefer high-wing aircraft, it has 4 seats, is reasonably fast, doesn't need much runway, and is easy and fast to build.

I'm still puzzled that we don't see something like this from Van's...
 
and...

The devil is always in the details.

Like the often overlooked cabin width of 44". So basically the Sling "4" seater is about the sized of a C-172 inside...

So is it a "4 Seater"? Well, technically it does have 4 seats; putting 4 FAA people in those seats, well, that's another story...
 
Back
Top