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?

akschu

Well Known Member
Patron
I’m sure they have a size/weight of engine picked out. Do you think it’s a:

Light 2 seat like a kit fox or rans s-21? Something in the 800-900lb range with 100+ hp?

Perhaps a 2+2 setup like a Glassair or Bearhawk patrol in the 1100-1200lb range and 180+hp?

Or more like bearhawk 4place or moose size with 1500lb+ and 260+hp?
 
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!
 
My guess is the back end, wings & FWF of an RV-14 with a new centre fuselage.
Perhaps the RV-16 is a 4 seat version using RV-10 parts?
Pete
 
I’m sure they have a size/weight of engine picked out. Do you think it’s a:

Light 2 seat like a kit fox or rans s-21? Something in the 800-900lb range with 100+ hp?

Perhaps a 2+2 setup like a Glassair or Bearhawk patrol in the 1100-1200lb range and 180+hp?

Or more like bearhawk 4place or moose size with 1500lb+ and 260+hp?

I don't think it will be option A), since Ken already designed that plane:

https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger.php

I'd like to see option b) or c): a C180/185 clone, with a ly/con 6 cylinder that can cruise ~150+ :)
 
Here are my top three choices for the future RV15

Replacement for the C180, Glastar, or the Bearhawk

I prefer the C180 size aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • c180.jpg
    c180.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 386
  • glastar.jpg
    glastar.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 510
  • bear.jpg
    bear.jpg
    203.8 KB · Views: 435
How about an affordable version of Mike Patey's Scrappy. Talk about design innovation in a backcountry airplane!

I expect a scaled up Vashon Ranger with an IO-390. It would fit well with Van's manufacturing capabilities / kit designs. The tailcone design should be interesting for a tail dragger version presuming they are not getting in the tube frame fuselage business.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
 
How about an affordable version of Mike Patey's Scrappy. Talk about design innovation in a backcountry airplane!

I hope the Van's folks will design an airplane where the mission has something to do with actual flying. Scrappy was designed to solicit YouTube subscriptions and likes and promote things at air shows.

I don't think we'll see air adjustable ride height, NOS, carbon over tube, 11 displays, and a double slatted wing in anything from Van's. Maybe they'll throw the YouTube fans a bone and design in a chute though...that would be a twist.

I think the "affordable version" is a Cub variant that hasn't been turned into a spectacle.
 
My 2014 Prediction

From the 2014 photoshop fun. Just in case, this can be for my "Rick tells the future" folder

RV%2BBush%2B2.jpg
 
From the 2014 photoshop fun. Just in case, this can be for my "Rick tells the future" folder

RV%2BBush%2B2.jpg

Not bad
icon14.gif


That would work for me ;)

A few things to improve:
  • Stouter tailwheel assembly
  • Spring steel gear like the -8
  • Taller gear
 
Last edited:
I'll put in my guess for a side-by-side with a 915is up front. A turbo would be great for high/hot back country work.
 
All Aluminum

180Kts VNE

145Kts cruise

25Kts stall


side by side since there's already lots of tandem bush planes
 
915is = 141HP

A bit anemic for a bush plane :confused:

Perhaps at sea level, a Lycoming has more power than 141hp, but at higher elevation airports in the back country, a turbo 915is is still making 141hp, while that same lycoming is way down on power, probably less than 141hp (depending on the altitude)
 
Engine choice and competition

915is = 141HP

A bit anemic for a bush plane :confused:

Sling are already finalising a high wing version of their 4 seater TSI using this engine capable of 167 mph. Mind you it’s a bit slow off the ground at 700ft. However a 2 seater using this engine and not pull rivets etc could be a decent performer I would think.

Personally I hope they have an engine option which is Fadec controlled and uses Mogas. Either Rotax or ULpower?
 
I'll put in my guess for a side-by-side with a 915is up front. A turbo would be great for high/hot back country work.

Except for the price of the 915is... and grousing that 135 hp continuous wouldn't be enough?

Also an issue of center of gravity, since the power plant is pretty light. Don't really know how hard on the boost you can run a motor like that, all the time? There would be a lot of plumbing involved for water cooled heads and a large sized oil cooler, for that kind of HP coming out of a 1365 cc little motor.

But it would be premium 91 octane Mogas capable.
 
Last edited:
I hope the Van's folks will design an airplane where the mission has something to do with actual flying. Scrappy was designed to solicit YouTube subscriptions and likes and promote things at air shows.

I don't think we'll see air adjustable ride height, NOS, carbon over tube, 11 displays, and a double slatted wing in anything from Van's. Maybe they'll throw the YouTube fans a bone and design in a chute though...that would be a twist.

I think the "affordable version" is a Cub variant that hasn't been turned into a spectacle.

I’m pretty sure that scrappy was designed for actual flying. I’m also pretty sure that like many extreme designs it will serve as a test bed for various technologies and techniques that will find their way into other aircraft.
 
since the power plant is pretty light.

But it would be premium 91 octane Mogas capable.

Light weight is always preferred. Airplane can be designed around a light engine. Now if they can bring the price down to Lycoming level. The lack of power at sea level is a problem unless you have a light weight airframe like the Kitfox.
 
I’m pretty sure that scrappy was designed for actual flying. I’m also pretty sure that like many extreme designs it will serve as a test bed for various technologies and techniques that will find their way into other aircraft.

Right. Put another way, I don't think Van's is going to put out a test bed for various technologies and techniques that find their way into other aircraft.
 
I’m pretty sure that scrappy was designed for actual flying. I’m also pretty sure that like many extreme designs it will serve as a test bed for various technologies and techniques that will find their way into other aircraft.

I agree. IMHO, Scrappy is a spare-no-expense, corporate-sponsored, technology demonstrator and YouTube clickbait. Make no mistake...I've never missed a Scrappy Youtube update and I think the process is fascinating, but just like Draco, it has very little to do with real-world back-county flying by real-world back-country pilots. Scrappy's cutting-edge engineering seems to me to represent just exactly the opposite of Van's airplane design ethos. IMHO, it has exactly the same relevance to the market as all those extremely cool concept cars that the automakers always bring to the big national auto shows but will never see a dealer's showroom floor.

Airplanes like Scrappy move the engineering forward in great leaps so that companies like Van's can build airplanes that are only incrementally more sophisticated. Mike Patey in his shop/hangar building a spare-no-expense one-off exotic is different than Scott McDaniels building an entire line of kit planes that Van's has to sell to the masses to make a profit and keep the doors open.
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts:

I think the standard 4-cyl lycoming makes the most sense, that way vans can reuse the baffling, engine mount, etc. The nose bowl will probably need to be different to allow cooling at lower speeds. The 2200lb/180hp size works well for 2 people camping.

As for speed, there is no free lunch, I wouldn’t expect anything that can fly faster than 135kts to land in the low-mid 30’s, and everything changes when you add bush wheels.

The advantage that vans could capitalize on, and what makes a 180 such a fantastic airplane is that they are much cleaner than the flying wire/dual strut/fabric wing airplanes they would compete with.

Something like a rans s-21 with a 2000-2200 grosss and a o-360 would be great.
 
Cessna 170B with 4 cylinder Lycoming, control harmony (which the Cessna doesn’t have), 135K target cruise speed, baggage door, enough useful load to carry two full sized adults (in the four seat airplane), along with camping/fishing gear a reasonable distance - say 500 miles. They of course will have an ‘A’ model, which is sort of like….. well, you know, except this one will fly nice and be pretty (which the 172 is not).
That’s what I think, after discussing this with a very knowledgeable person that everyone knows. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
 
I believe that we could do better than 135 knots. IF no struts are possible, then does a cabin hanging below the wings really that much more drag than the standard RV. I am sure we can make the fuselage quite clean.

150 knots should be possible with four cylinders.
 
Speaking of the FAA expanded LSA from its current light-weight into a heavier weight Personal Aircraft class matching the performance of the current Cessna training fleet, the next RV15 can be factory built and certified as such. I am seeing a lot of light sport airplanes at the local flight schools now but most of them are the Czech variety.
 
I believe that we could do better than 135 knots. IF no struts are possible, then does a cabin hanging below the wings really that much more drag than the standard RV. I am sure we can make the fuselage quite clean.

150 knots should be possible with four cylinders.

Induced drag.

Do you want a high lift/slow wing that lands slow? Or a lower lift/fast wing that lands fast?

If they make something fast that needs 45kts landing speed then I’m sure the RV crowed will praise it, but it will be pretty useless in the back country, unless you call Johnson Creek backcountry.
 
Induced drag.

Do you want a high lift/slow wing that lands slow? Or a lower lift/fast wing that lands fast?

If they make something fast that needs 45kts landing speed then I’m sure the RV crowed will praise it, but it will be pretty useless in the back country, unless you call Johnson Creek backcountry.

Ummm....Yea, No....:eek:

If that's true nothing but a cub type a/c would qualify as a Bush/Backcountry airplane ands that's definitely not true.

Spend many a year flying C-180/185s in Alaska and they need more than 45kts by a bunch and nobody would say that wasn't a bush plane.
 
Ummm....Yea, No....:eek:

If that's true nothing but a cub type a/c would qualify as a Bush/Backcountry airplane ands that's definitely not true.

Spend many a year flying C-180/185s in Alaska and they need more than 45kts by a bunch and nobody would say that wasn't a bush plane.

This is one of the hazards I thought about as soon as I saw 'back country capable' mentioned. Here comes the pissing match about what is and isn't 'back country', and how Van's isn't a true bush plane unless you can land in 50' after water skiing.

Whatever we get, I think the idea of 'total performance' means a lot of people are going to be disappointed that it's not designed to go out and emulate their favorite YouTube personalities.
 
Whatever we get, I think the idea of 'total performance' means a lot of people are going to be disappointed that it's not designed to go out and emulate their favorite YouTube personalities.

Exactly. The expectation is for something magic that nobody else has done. Van's really doesn't do that. They build aircraft that fly better than their semi-equivalents (the Thorpe -18 or Mustang Two, for example).

Maybe they can come up with a 180 hp high wing that flies well and will go 140 knots while carrying around a set of big tires, two people, and baggage. But it ain't gonna do that *and* stall at 40 mph. Or maybe it is a 4 seater that is lighter than, and offers improved performance and handling over a C-182. But it isn't gonna be magic.
 
Induced drag.

Do you want a high lift/slow wing that lands slow? Or a lower lift/fast wing that lands fast?

If they make something fast that needs 45kts landing speed then I’m sure the RV crowed will praise it, but it will be pretty useless in the back country, unless you call Johnson Creek backcountry.

I would guess that “side country” would be more practical for the RV crowd. Something to get in and out of 2000’ while loaded would be my target rather than STOL. Oh and it needs to be aerobatic too.
 
Exactly. The expectation is for something magic that nobody else has done. Van's really doesn't do that. They build aircraft that fly better than their semi-equivalents (the Thorpe -18 or Mustang Two, for example).

Maybe they can come up with a 180 hp high wing that flies well and will go 140 knots while carrying around a set of big tires, two people, and baggage. But it ain't gonna do that *and* stall at 40 mph. Or maybe it is a 4 seater that is lighter than, and offers improved performance and handling over a C-182. But it isn't gonna be magic.

The S21 from Rans comes close to these numbers I believe.
 
At the Rans booth, I was told they are now stating 2025 delivery dates, so there seems to be a market that isn’t saturated.
 
I'll put in my guess for a side-by-side with a 915is up front. A turbo would be great for high/hot back country work.

This seems unlikely to me... The Rans S21 is already very good with that powerplant, and I think the execution of their kit has been excellent. I think Vans will attack the 4-seat market.

Steve
 
A high wing, tailwheel rv10 would be fine for me. ( Basically a slightly roomier and faster Cessna 180.) However the fact that they were asking about pulled rivets leads me to believe its going to be more in the RV12 class.
 
At the Rans booth, I was told they are now stating 2025 delivery dates, so there seems to be a market that isn’t saturated.

Oh wow, this makes me want to retract my last statement... I had no idea Rans were booking orders that far out. I was on the list for an S21, but decided I want a 4 seater. Maybe I'm just wishful-thinking that Vans will do a 180/182-class aircraft with a 6-banger.

With regard to the previous comments about Vans not making magic, the fact that they out-Cirrused Cirrus with an all-metal airframe and Hershey bar wing seems a bit magical to me...

I was going to order an RV10, but I think I'm going to wait and see what the -15 turns out to be!

Steve
 
“We want it to be innovative,” Johnson said. “I don’t want to reinvent the wheel.”
 
Oh wow, this makes me want to retract my last statement... I had no idea Rans were booking orders that far out. I was on the list for an S21, but decided I want a 4 seater. Maybe I'm just wishful-thinking that Vans will do a 180/182-class aircraft with a 6-banger.

With regard to the previous comments about Vans not making magic, the fact that they out-Cirrused Cirrus with an all-metal airframe and Hershey bar wing seems a bit magical to me...

I was going to order an RV10, but I think I'm going to wait and see what the -15 turns out to be!

Steve

It may be worth having a look at the RV14 Forum and work out the development timeline from Van’s unveiling the flying prototype to the point where all of the kits were available and the manual was ready for first time builders. They took a few years getting the kits together and getting the very experienced early builders to work through the major problems[edit: that’s a bit steep! More like iron out the kinks and work on the optimal build sequence, improving the initial build manual along the way…]. I think it was roughly 2012 first reveal and 2016 (? - I’m sure someone can correct this without me doing any research :D ) when all of the kits were available to mortals. They drip fed the kits during that period but there were a number of first time builders who jumped in early with each kit and had a prolonged wait for the next kit to be available. If those timescales are roughly accurate it could be 2026 before you get your last kit, so maybe first flight in this decade?

Alternatively, if you work regularly on it, and the delivery times for the existing kits don’t stay so elongated, it is feasible that you could order a 10 now and be complete by the time the early adopters have done the R&D on the 15 for you. Then you can decide if the 10 is fine or start on the 15 and sell the 10 when you need to release funds for the big purchases.
 
Last edited:
It may be worth having a look at the RV14 Forum and work out the development timeline from Van’s unveiling the flying prototype to the point where all of the kits were available and the manual was ready for first time builders. They took a few years getting the kits together and getting the very experienced early builders to work through the major problems[edit: that’s a bit steep! More like iron out the kinks and work on the optimal build sequence, improving the initial build manual along the way…]. I think it was roughly 2012 first reveal and 2016 (? - I’m sure someone can correct this without me doing any research :D ) when all of the kits were available to mortals. They drip fed the kits during that period but there were a number of first time builders who jumped in early with each kit and had a prolonged wait for the next kit to be available. If those timescales are roughly accurate it could be 2026 before you get your last kit, so maybe first flight in this decade?

Alternatively, if you work regularly on it, and the delivery times for the existing kits don’t stay so elongated, it is feasible that you could order a 10 now and be complete by the time the early adopters have done the R&D on the 15 for you. Then you can decide if the 10 is fine or start on the 15 and sell the 10 when you need to release funds for the big purchases.

Thank you very much for all that info. I didn't realize quite how long the -14 took. That's roughly along the lines of what I saw with the Rans S21, but it's always sobering to put a date on it!

Fortunately, my horizon is a ways out. I've had my PPL for a while, but I spent some time in the military and haven't flown at all in 6 years (except as a gunner). I'm going to be redoing ground school and then getting current for at least the remainder of this year. I plan to start on my IR shortly after that. I'm hoping that Vans will have released some more info about the aircraft, and maybe even shown the prototype by the time I've done my checkride and am back in the saddle.

If I like what I see, I figure it wouldn't hurt to get some rental hours under my belt before I start building. I should probably experience some different kinds of flying, and maybe a couple more types before I commit to a build. Aside from that, I live in Boston, right next to KBOS. I'll be here for the next 3 years and won't have a garage until my stint here is done. Right now I'd have to rent space to start a build, so I'm pretty glad the -15 got announced and tempered my urge to order an RV10 empennage kit...

Cheers,

Steve
 
Alternatively, if you work regularly on it, and the delivery times for the existing kits don’t stay so elongated, it is feasible that you could order a 10 now and be complete by the time the early adopters have done the R&D on the 15 for you. Then you can decide if the 10 is fine or start on the 15 and sell the 10 when you need to release funds for the big purchases.

You sir, have laid out an excellent strategy. Build 2 more airplanes! I like it...but I'll be doing a -14 while I wait instead of a 10. :)
 
I'd like to see something with the exact same specs as an RV14 just with a high wing and maybe a little deeper baggage option. Aerobatic, fast, clear patrol doors, extended baggage option. Most people that own stol planes do not need one that can takeoff and land in 300 feet. All of the RV products are capable of handling most of what the average person considers bush flying. They just need a high wing, stouter gear and tailwheel. Basically I'd love an all metal side by side Citabria/Decathlon.
 
I'd like to see something with the exact same specs as an RV14 just with a high wing and maybe a little deeper baggage option. Aerobatic, fast, clear patrol doors, extended baggage option. Most people that own stol planes do not need one that can takeoff and land in 300 feet. All of the RV products are capable of handling most of what the average person considers bush flying. They just need a high wing, stouter gear and tailwheel. Basically I'd love an all metal side by side Citabria/Decathlon.

Which is almost the new side by side Bearhawk Patrol…it just needs some more metal.
 
Which is almost the new side by side Bearhawk Patrol…it just needs some more metal.

The Companion? I got to be honest, I don't really see the point in that airplane. It's basically a 4 place with the rear seats removed. I'd just build the 4 place. But I want something faster, all metal, and aerobatic would be a plus. I live on the east coast. With the exception of private property there really aren't any airports even a Cessna 150 couldn't handle. If it broke ground in 500' that is plenty.

The S21 is pretty darn close to my ideal plane. I wish it were 20 knots faster and the kit were cheaper.
 
The world has plenty of two place bush planes with 4 cylinder engines. What is needed is a cleaned up and refined C180 replacement. Big 6cyl bush plane with big back seat and huge baggage. With RV quality and good design. Faster than a Murphy or a stock 180. Simple large flap system, manual or electric. Dimensions of a C180. The most successful all around bush and utility plane ever built. We need the option for a new one kit built to Vans excellent standards and quality.
 
Apparently a lot of people didn't, back when the Cyclone 180 was introduced. Of course it didn't have Van's behind it.

Dave
 
Back
Top