What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

I suppose it will need counter rotating Lycomings so,like a P-38, there is no "critical" engine?...

As a point of order, the P-38 was unusual in the fact that the counter rotation was "backwards" from other twins. This was done to reduce vibration so it was a more effective gun platform. And as a result, both engines are "critical".
 
And the electric powered Extra can fly for how long on a charge? Doesn't look like a good choice for a cross country machine... even for burger runs. maybe I'm mis-remembering.
 
Just add about 6 inches to the width of the -10 and/or -14. It's cool that Van's makes these awesome machines but all the side by sides feel like a C-150. Like the window seats in coach on an RJ....
 
And the electric powered Extra can fly for how long on a charge? Doesn't look like a good choice for a cross country machine... even for burger runs. maybe I'm mis-remembering.

I would bet that most time spent in a 3 or 4 and even the 6, 7 and the eight is flights under an hour and within 30 miles of home base.

This is where electric would greatly enhance the experience.
 
Just add about 6 inches to the width of the -10 and/or -14. It's cool that Van's makes these awesome machines but all the side by sides feel like a C-150. Like the window seats in coach on an RJ....

Hmmmm......

The published width of the C-150 is 38" :eek:

The published width of the RV-14 is 46" (3" wider than the RV-7/9 at 43")

The published width of the RV-10 is 48 1/4"

If you added 6 inches to the width of an RV-10 you would only be a little more than in inch shy of the cabin width of a Cessna Mustang

Maybe you are looking at the wrong class of airplane.....:rolleyes:
 
Hmmmm......

The published width of the C-150 is 38" :eek:

The published width of the RV-14 is 46" (3" wider than the RV-7/9 at 43")

The published width of the RV-10 is 48 1/4"

If you added 6 inches to the width of an RV-10 you would only be a little more than in inch shy of the cabin width of a Cessna Mustang

Maybe you are looking at the wrong class of airplane.....:rolleyes:

I don't have a horse in this race, but will offer an observation. Glasair publishes two width numbers for the Sportsman - 44" at the hips and 46" at the shoulders.

As a Sportsman builder I have taken a while to think about cabin width because that 44" at the hips feels considerably wider than the RV6/7/9 aircraft I've been in. I am beginning to believe the difference in perceived width has a lot to do with how much other "stuff" projects into the cabin from the sides.

With the side-by-side RV's, there are structural pieces which project into the space. As well, the distance from seatback to instrument panel is fairly short. The net effect is that one has difficulty shifting one's backside toward the outside of the aircraft because all of these bits and pieces are immovable - once you're in the seat, you're not going to move around very much.

As a point of contrast, the Sportsman has no structure or other impediments projecting into the area occupied by hips and shoulders, so it's width measurement is effectively measuring "clear space". Similarly, it's instrument panel is relatively far forward as compared to RVs. And, the Sportsman offers pretty substantial height above the seat cushion to accommodate tall people, especially those with long torsos.

I'm not entirely sure my analysis is correct, but from a gut feel perspective, I think it likely is. One point is absolutely certain, two big guys can sit in the Sportsman and have lots of space. I recently had a friend over from Sweden. He's about 6'8 and weighs something over 250lbs. I'm much smaller at 5'9 and 200lbs. The two of us were able to sit side by side without rubbing shoulders. I contrast this with a friend's RV9 where he is smaller than I am, likely 40lbs lighter, and we have to coordinate our movements in the cockpit so we don't bind against each other.

Don't get me wrong - the RV's in which I've ridden are wonderful machines. They just don't feel as spacious as our Sportsman. Maybe somebody will take pity on me and give me a ride in their -10 or -14 so I can get a better feel for these larger airframes... :rolleyes:
 
As a point of order, the P-38 was unusual in the fact that the counter rotation was "backwards" from other twins. This was done to reduce vibration so it was a more effective gun platform. And as a result, both engines are "critical".

My mistake, I thought it was the other way around so there wasn't a "critical" engine. I stand corrected.
 
RV3 replacement, to same quality of kit as RV12/14, with new 135hp Rotax due next year.
Quickbuild as much as possible.
Pop rivets for speed/ease of build.
Please - and I'll have 2.

Yes. This. Maybe not the Rotax specifically, but pre-punched RV-3 with pulled (flush) rivets and same strength as the standard current -3? Yes please. Keep it simple and keep it a true -3. I'm in!
 
My friends at the Sling Factory have designed a nice AC that flies 4 people on 120 hp fairly cheaply but there are about 180-190 aircraft units needed to get one flying Its' a beautiful airplane but I wonder how many they will sell?

Once the 915iS FFW kit and engine our out, and the new wing is available, a decent amount I would expect. Beautiful machine, just underpowered.

I may yet go that way, though I don't think I'll have the means for it.
 
Yes. This. Maybe not the Rotax specifically, but pre-punched RV-3 with pulled (flush) rivets and same strength as the standard current -3? Yes please. Keep it simple and keep it a true -3. I'm in!

Make it a 3-1/2 for those that need a bit more room too.
 
Sling 4 seater

J F, congrats on your intel. I spoke directly to Jordan and to Matt at the Sling Factory and one of them, I don't remember which one, said something like 'no power upgrade is in the offing' for the Sling 4 place. That was when I first became aware of the Rotax 135hp engine.

One of them said that the Airplane Factory would likely develop a new aircraft for the Rotax 135. Powering the 4 place Sling with 135 hp seemed like a good idea to me! Maybe there are structural considerations?
 
Upgrades

I think a great start would be an upgrade to the RV6 with engineering to up the VNE to 230mph.
Bob
 
J F, congrats on your intel. I spoke directly to Jordan and to Matt at the Sling Factory and one of them, I don't remember which one, said something like 'no power upgrade is in the offing' for the Sling 4 place. That was when I first became aware of the Rotax 135hp engine.

One of them said that the Airplane Factory would likely develop a new aircraft for the Rotax 135. Powering the 4 place Sling with 135 hp seemed like a good idea to me! Maybe there are structural considerations?

Well I have some FFW CAD drawings for the 915iS in my inbox that suggests they changed their minds ... but yes, apparently they need to strengthen the wing to really get the full advantage of the 915iS. You will be able to put it in the current Sling 4 as well, though your Vne will be unchanged, and the benefit will really be in T/O and climb performance, not necessarily increased cruise.

Anyways, to keep it on topic, I don't see Van's wanting to build that kind of aircraft, as it takes them pretty far from the high performance that is core to their brand. That being said, a more affordable 4 seater could very well be a good move. In terms of performance, LOTS of people are happy with 172s and PA28's, and the -10 can be too much plane for a lot of people ... That's where the Sling 4 fits nicely. Maybe Van's could see if they can compete in that area, but I'm not seeing it ...
 
As a point of contrast, the Sportsman has no structure or other impediments projecting into the area occupied by hips and shoulders, so it's width measurement is effectively measuring "clear space". Similarly, it's instrument panel is relatively far forward as compared to RVs. And, the Sportsman offers pretty substantial height above the seat cushion to accommodate tall people, especially those with long torsos.

Another point of contrast..... The published cruise speed of the Sportsman is 42 MPH slower than that of an RV-7 (180 HP, 75% cruise), so once again we have an excellent lesson on the engineering trade-offs involved in designing an airplane.
Is the speed difference all the result of the different sized cockpit? Of course not. But it is part of it. Particularly since the Sportsman is a 2+2 sized cockpit with a lot more room inside overall (but I am not the one that was comparing the seating of a 2+2 Sportsman to the 2 seat side by side RV's..... it would probably be more appropriate to compare it to the RV-10).

More contrast (but a bit off the subject) the price of the standard Sportsman kit is $20,000 more than the quick build RV-7 kit.
 
Evolution of RVs

"On completely separate line of thought, something built around the Rotax 915is. Possibly an RV-9B with improvements from the -14 in terms of plans and kits and such, and with the Rotax."
For me either this RV9B or a RV12B would be desirable. RV12B with 915is, removable wings for cheaper storage and not as an LSA (that means 150kts cruise range). I thought about a RV14 but I didn't go this way due to 100LL. I won't build an aircraft and have the risk of no more fuel when I am done 4 years later.
Wolfgang
 
shoppers vs buyers

Vans apparently understands the difference between a shopper and a buyer. Shoppers look at bigger, smaller, amphibian, tundra, costlier, cheaper, twin, jet, electric, composite. It?s nice to dream.

But Vans will likely continue to offer what buyers will buy. That's why we're all here.

Next thing coming? Instead of an RV-15, maybe it's time for a couple of simulators.
 
ELECTRIC AIRPLANE????

WHY on earth (or in the air as it may be :D) would anyone want an electric airplane?? Yes, yes, electric powered vehicles are a growing trend, but this is only because electricity in this country is dirt cheap. If you're looking at electricity as a more environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline forget it. The coal fired electric generating station (>80% are coal fired) is the greatest source of air and water pollution in this country. Virtually every lake, river and stream east of the Mississippi is contaminated with mercury from burning coal, and 37 out of 50 states have warning about consuming fish contaminated with that mercury. Not the mention the eventual disposal of all those batteries fill of toxic metals, and the mining of those metals.

I seriously doubt that electric powered planes will ever have the range we desire - even with advances in battery technology. As trainers, will students who get their license in an electric airplane be qualified to fly gas powered craft? I hope not.

But I digress... I've always wanted to see a wing kit for the RV-12 that could turn it into a motor glider. Have both sets of wings for whatever your mission du jour happens to be.
 
An electric engine would provide plenty of power and basically vibration free.

A hybrid solution with an electric engine/battery to provide good TOGA performance together with a small diesel/generator package on a dampening mount and with no need to comply with rpm demand from a propeller, scaled for cruise power demand plus some for recharging the battery.

:D

Electric motors are SERIOUSLY powerful. What you're describing is a freight train power set-up. Diesel engines to run a generator that provides electricity to the electric drive motors (sans batteries).

Think about the weight of the batteries AND the engine in a small GA airplane. I'm not sure there would be an advantage over just a diesel powered engine.

Will this make flying cheaper? - probably not when you consider the initial investment in a STCd hybrid set-up and the cost of jet A. Will it be more environmentally friendly? - well, diesel exhaust and toxic metal batteries need to be considered.

I'm afraid there's no simple solution. Diesel engine development for GA has been PAINFULLY slow. I also worry about the reliability of water cooled engines (just my personal bias - I know all you Rotax guys love 'em). We seem to be making progress in lead free Avgas - I believe that's where we need to focus for now - that and getting more airports to supply ethanol free/lead free mogas to those of us who can burn it.

OK, OK - enough thread drift from me...
 
I have a background in electric vehicles and motor control and I have been patiently waiting for battery technology to provide us the energy density and safety for aircraft use.

I think the first mainstream application will be short-haul commuter flights in the 6-12 PAX range. There is a fleet of Beavers and Otters (aluminum ones, not the furry ones) serving the archipelago around and including Vancouver, Seattle and Victoria. These flights are all about 30-60 minutes in duration and many are by amphibious aircraft.

To expand their market (harbour to harbour service), quieter and less polluting aircraft are a big advantage. Operators would have quick change battery packs and charging facilities. Batteries could be contained in modified floats or amphibious hulls.

I still think it will be about 15-25 years for the techology to be perfected and accepted. By then, we won't even need pilots! So where's the fun in that?

So, we have to decide if we want fun or transportation? I vote for fun, otherwise why are we building?

So what would be the most fun? Motorglider? Personal jet? Extreme Aerobatics? STOL?

Or my vote.... a floatplane that could be folded up to the size of a dinghy and carried with me on my Tollycraft davits. That would be cool. My head hurts.
 
I think the market would be for a high wing 'supercub' type plane with the support and quality from Vans.

Something that could take floats.

I'd like to see a serious acro mount, but I'd bet there would not be enough demand to justify the cost.
 
Was it 180 or a 360 that happened here? Back on point, a quick build -3 model would be sweet. A quick build -4 would ne nice but in Vans eyes and for costs incurred, stick with the -8. Who knows?
 
RV - 18 only because I favor that number more. Ok so we have ideas based on desires from the RV GRIN! Let's help Scott and his team under the direction of his team leader Richard offer our building ideas that would save time and money in the building process and still fall into the 51% rule.

Now I favor a RV9A triple 777.

Starting with a PRE-MADE DROP IN PLACE windshield, slider canopy and frame assembly.
Number Two........One piece bolt-on in wings landing gear.
Number Three......Leading Edge Slats with standard wing flaps.
Number Four......... Honda 2016 CRV fuel injected engine. (Eliminates mixture control )
Number Five.........Dual Dynon Skyviews my preference ( or your favorite )
Number Six...........In-Tire pressure sensors
Number Seven.......Drop-in landing lights/lens assembly.
Number Eight.........Slide out three section instrument panel sections. ( a company already makes them )
Number Nine..........Four Venturi air induction for equal cooling to cylinders
Number Ten............In wing pop/Bev coolers.
Number Eleven........Gull wing doors/windows ( drop-in assembly ) option Two
Number Twelve........Baggage door. Fuselage modified because on Drop-In Canopy or G doors
Number Thirteen......In wing golf bag storage ( maybe pushing it here a little ) mostly right!
Number Fourteen......Voice control to shoot ILS approach ( �� )
Number Fifteenth......Bluetooth Command from ATC to plane to fly preferred GPS approach
Number Sixteen........Footstep lighting
Number Seventeen....Pandora Bluetooth Music. ( Already got this. )����������
Number Eighteen.......Automatic Maintenance Notifications

That's my RV9A triple 777

What are your burning desires this holiday season. ( this is a work session)

Ron in Oregon
RV9A Flying 2016
 
I think a Vans Rocket would make the type more popular. I suspect that Van does not want to step on John's toes though. I would not be surprised if the future Harmon Rocket market is the only reason Van continues to support the -4 production. Kind of an under the table endorsement of the type.
 
Electric

After reading Tom and Vern post it got me to thinking about the Solar Impulse it just flew around the world is that enough range and it had battery power so the tech is out there and it stays aloft for days at a time so the smart people at Vans should be able to build a little plane to sit out in the sun and take a person up for at lest 2 hours for cheap ever couple of days if the sun shines.
Bob
 
My suggestion...

I feel there is a small gap in the 4-place market. A total performance affordable 4-place, O-320/360 powered. -9 with a rear bench. Very similar to a Tiger, but prettier with normal wings and homebuilt/new.
 
How about an RV purpose-designed to take the Rotec radial, or even an M-14P?

Beat me to it. A tandem 2 place taildragger built around the M-14P would be awesome. While we're at it, make it with retractable gear. (As long as we're dreaming)

But seriously, a Vans Rocket would do it for me. Planning on building an 8 as soon as I get my garage built but would definitely bite the bullet and go for the Rocket if it were available. (Would opt for the F1 Rocket if they were still producing kits but I'm guessing that a Vans Rocket would win out)
 
+1 for an all metal Glasair Sportsman competitor. Reasonable cruise and short field performance in an all-metal, high wing package, with the option to put it on floats and skis. There is a reason why Cessna 180s are so popular…

I also wish that Van’s would improve their production process of the metal parts. I recently had a chance to check out Zenith and Rans kits – much less, if any, deburring required. I understand that they use a different process than Van’s to cut the metal parts.
 
Last edited:
+1 for an all metal Glasair Sportsman competitor. Reasonable cruise and short field performance in an all-metal, high wing package, with the option to put it on floats and skis. There is a reason why Cessna 180s are so popular?

I also wish that Van?s would improve their production process of the metal parts. I recently had chance to check out Zenith and Rans kits ? much less, if any, deburring required. I understand that they use a different process than Van?s to cut the metal parts.

Yup, market expansion for Van's. Making yet another low-wing sport airplane (YALWSA) is just fragmenting their existing market.
 
I second the comment re: metal part production process.

I was looking at that latest RANS airplane at Oshkosh with an aerospace engineer friend of mine (he knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do!!!) and he pointed out a lot of different things with the high quality of the parts on that new RANS plane. Quite impressive!
 
I second the comment re: metal part production process.

I was looking at that latest RANS airplane at Oshkosh with an aerospace engineer friend of mine (he knows infinitely more about this stuff than I do!!!) and he pointed out a lot of different things with the high quality of the parts on that new RANS plane. Quite impressive!

I agree with this. The RANS S-21 is what I would have wanted from an RV-15: larger cabin, high wing, reasonable cruise (150+ mph), gentleman aerobatic capable, STOL capability, low landing speed, BRS compatible, 800 pound useful load, wide range of engine options, ability to swap gear from tricycle to conventional, floats, and to top it off, matched hole parts that don't need final sizing or deburring.

With highest respects, IMHO, things have gotten away from "total performance" with the RV-14. I suspect that in the long run that more sales would have occurred had the 7, 8, and 9 (and maybe even the 3 and 4) been retooled for (even) quicker assembly and offered with updated plans. IMO the market for 200hp+ two-seaters is getting ever smaller. And between RANS and Murphy, the all aluminium high wing market is pretty competitive already.
 
[...] The RANS S-21 is what I would have wanted from an RV-15 [...]

I didn't want to mention the model, but this is exactly the plane I was thinking of. Van's and not Ran's should have launched it.

I could bet that there is quite a bit of cannibalism between RV-7, 9 and 14. Particularly the 9 appears IMHO redundant and it is not even aerobatic: 7 is the fun little sportsplane, the 14 a nice, roomy, comfortable but still aerobatic cruiser. But the 9? I seriously doubt that it wins too many new customers, but rather takes away from 7 or 14 sales.

Personally, I am convinced that a lower cost engine option for the 14 wold have
covered the market segment the 9 is occupying. The remaining funds should have been invested in a 7 kit update and / or the development of a fast high wing all metal aircraft.

Once we are done with our 10, we want to build a high wing all metal plane with a performance in the range of a Cessna 180 (wouldn't need 4 seats though). Currently the S-21 is on top of our list and I know that we are not the only ones who are excited about it.


[...] And between RANS and Murphy, the all aluminium high wing market is pretty competitive already.

I am not so sure, if this is the case - I understand that the Murphys take pretty long to build and that the kit quality leaves quite a bit to be desired. I therefore think that the S-21 will be the only truly fast to build, high wing cruiser on the experimental market.

IMHO a pretty smart decision by Ran's, considering how popular Cessnas are and for what crazy prices old 180s (or Cessnas in general) are being sold. I also wondered if Van's ever realized how many Glastars / Sportsman's showed up at Oshkosh, despite of their high prices!?

I really don't understand, why the Van's team dislikes high wings so much. When I spoke with one of their staff at Oshkosh, telling him how much I wish they would come up with an all metal Glasair Sportsman competitor, he looked at me in disbelief, pointed a fabric covered STOL plane on another booth and asked if I am sure that I wanted something like THAT. :rolleyes:
Richard VanGrunsven overheard our discussion, but didn't join. I am pretty sure that I saw some disgust about my request on his face... ;)
 
Once we are done with our 10, we want to build a high wing all metal plane with a performance in the range of a Cessna 180 (wouldn't need 4 seats though). Currently the S-21 is on top of our list and I know that we are not the only ones who are excited about it.

So, have you been looking over my shoulder as I have been searching for our next plane???

Right there with you on the S-21, at least from the specs published. Will be watching for what the "real world" stuff actually turns out when there are a few of them built by customers.
 
"Particularly the 9 appears IMHO redundant and it is not even aerobatic: 7 is the fun little sportsplane, the 14 a nice, roomy, comfortable but still aerobatic cruiser. But the 9? I seriously doubt that it wins too many new customers, but rather takes away from 7 or 14 sales."

The 9 shares so many parts with the 7 (pretty much everything besides tail and wings), and yet fulfills a totally different mission. To me, that seems like a good idea. Offer more options to your customers without a huge increase in startup / production costs.

There are plenty of -9 naysayers, and yet people like me keep building them and loving them. Performs beautifully on less HP, stable IFR platform, super-efficient high-altitude cruise, and a crazy low stall speed. Among people who don't want to fly upside-down, I don't see why anybody WOULDN'T want the 9. Remember, this is Van's personal pick when he needs to fly x-country. Even the 7 is a compromise, and when the day comes that I want a real "fun little sportsplane", I'd probably build a 3 or 4.

I would venture to say that the -9 models take away almost ZERO -14 sales, due to the huge difference in pricing. I could not financially swing a -14 (if I could, I'd spend a bit more and build a -10). Would I have built a 7 if the 9 weren't an option? Probably, but it would have been more of a compromise. Even if the 9 doesn't greatly expand the customer base, it makes for a more complete lineup at minimal additional cost to Vans.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Lets be clear

Chris,
I just want to be clear on what you said, are you saying you like the 9a?:)

I love everything about the 9 that is why i am building it so i completely agreed with everything you said.

I am already researching clean up tips to get the range up and speed closer to vne without cranking up the power.
 
Personally, I am convinced that a lower cost engine option for the 14 wold have
covered the market segment the 9 is occupying. The remaining funds should have been invested in a 7 kit update and / or the development of a fast high wing all metal aircraft.

The 7 and 9 came out at about the same time. Just over 1,500 7s are completed with just over 1,000 9s completed. 9 has strong market interest. I agree that the engine choice for the 14 was one that causes many, including myself, to pass on it.

In forecasting the future market, one should not neglect to consider the ramifications if the Primary Non Commercial certification proposal. The ability to restore a 172 (or any other factory plane) with the engine and options of your choosing would really reduce kit sales for a while. It'd arguably also increase the value of the vintage "factory" fleet considerably while simultaneously decreasing the value, at least modestly, of the experimental fleet. I bought my low-time M-20F for about half of what some 9s are selling for and/or for just a little over what s slow-build 14 kit alone sells for.

All this said, if the S-21 offers fuel capacity of over 50 gallons, I'll buy one in a second. Same thing if a match-holed RV-3 kit came on the market.
 
Last edited:
RVJ3

I would like to see a J3 Replica, slow, no radio, no avionics, no charging system. Power plant could be 60, 85, 90 hp continental and have it in the air for 35k. I love my RV's but also like to open up the doors in a J3 and go low and slow. The new examples are just way to high.
 
Time is the key

If I wanted to sell more planes, I would work on reduction of the time required to build. Part of this might be FAA regulatory, but how much education do you need drilling, deburring, and dimpling 20,000 holes? 10,000+ rivets seems to be more than education. Even redistributing the time utilization to meet the 51% rule from a quick build concept to having all the metal prep complete (Drilled, deburred, and dimpled, - and lets start a war - PRIMED :D). I think if you could build an RV-3 in 500 hours, it would sell really well, particularly if it could smoke the pants off an RV-8 with better climb and top speed. I mean, think how many egotistical pilots are there out there that want a hot rod?
 
The 7 and 9 came out at about the same time. Just over 1,500 7s are completed with just over 1,000 9s completed. 9 has strong market interest. I agree that the engine choice for the 14 was one that causes many, including myself, to pass on it.

In forecasting the future market, one should not neglect to consider the ramifications if the Primary Non Commercial certification proposal. The ability to restore a 172 (or any other factory plane) with the engine and options of your choosing would really reduce kit sales for a while. It'd arguably also increase the value of the vintage "factory" fleet considerably while simultaneously decreasing the value, at least modestly, of the experimental fleet. I bought my low-time M-20F for about half of what some 9s are
All this said, if the S-21 offers fuel capacity of over 50 gallons, I'll buy one in a second. Same thing if a match-holed RV-3 kit came on the market.

..ahem... these are E-AB aircraft. If you want 50 gallons, put it in. The S-21 has (will have) the useful load to support it with some trade-off in baggage. Right now, The S-21 looks to be similar to the RV-9 in performance, with the ability to equip it for rough fields and more cargo.

Right now, I am trying to decide between the S-21 and the Murphy Radical. The Radical seems to have better STOL credentials, but the S-21 is faster and has a similar range... and just might have folding wings.
 
Last edited:
S-21 Specs and High-Wing's

Right now, The S-21 looks to be similar to the RV-9 in performance, with the ability to equip it for rough fields and more cargo.

According to the Rans specs, the S-21 appears to be significantly slower than the RV-9 even though it has more power: http://media.wix.com/ugd/6e941e_2c9760607fc946acb89191602ab2a731.pdf

75% power cruise = 155 MPH, whereas the 9A at gross (with the 160HP engine) is 186 mph. That's a pretty significant difference, and the Rans info doesn't even specify the conditions for their figure.

It never ceases to amaze me that in these recurring threads about what Van's should do next how many folks think Van's should create something that is distinctly non-RV like and is already pretty well covered by other manufacturers. Why would Van's Aircraft risk treading into a market that has lots of existing competition such as the high-wing utility aircraft? There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support? Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

Skylor
 
Last edited:
....Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV....

I agree wholeheartedly with the last line.

I think the main reason that the 180/185 dropped from production was that that need was covered by the nosewheel 205/206, with bigger capacity.

My Cessna 180, though is an absolute keeper. A totally wonderful plane, and I'll be keeping it when my RV-3B is flying.

Dave
 
For the RV-15 I would like to see a stretched RV-10 with the angle valve IO-540.

Another option would be an RV-14 with an IO-540 like is on the -10.
 
Back
Top