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?

Never Underestimate

Never Underestimate the Ingenuity of.....

Airplane Builders

I think a high wing 180 to 220 hp 2 place tail dragger, cantilever wing with hard points on front and rear spar. and we are done. Fowler flaps too.

Let the builders modify with bike racks, etc.

But make the airplane a basic high wing in style of the old cessnas. Rugged, all metal, bucked rivets. K.I.S.S.

JMHO
 
I don't think a 1-strut design slows you down that much.


Plus, how do you do a sunroof with a no-strut design?
 
And how many people will still be deep into STOL in a few years? That’s what I am wondering…..

Look around..... You will find people that own 3, 6, or 8 versions of Van's airplanes and a high wing STOL aircraft. And some even have a single seat jet tucked under a wing....................:rolleyes:
 
First Post

This is my first post on this forum. I’ve always been interested in the Vans lineup, especially the R-14A. However, I’ve always favored high wings for the usual reasons. The rumors were the RV-15 would be a high wing so I waited. Now that it is official, I’m looking forward to hearing more details as they trickle in from Vans.

I’ve looked at the Sling High Wing and the Rans S-21 Outbound. Both seem very interesting, but I think the Vans would have an edge on both. The Sling is quite expensive, and I think Vans can beat the price. The S-21 is great in a lot of ways, except cruise speed. Granted, I don’t expect RV-14 cruise speed, but I really don’t want to go back down below 140 KTAS (I own a Cessna R182 “RG” now and get a rock-solid 156 KTAS). The other high wing EAB aircraft are just too slow to get my attention. I know many people want STOL capability. I hope Vans can appease the STOL crowd while not compromising cruise speed too much.

As far as pull rivets vs. pound. A reasonable mix of both would be ideal. I really don’t want to enlist the assistance from anyone to assemble the aircraft. Some argue that’s part of the fun. I think it’s part of the dread.

I’d be perfectly content with the Rotax 915iS. The Sling and S-21 both use it with success. Good HP to weight ratio. The ability to use auto fuel from the corner gas station (including ethanol) is a definite plus.
 
If they make a high wing, 6-cyl, 4-seater isn’t that just going to be a high wing rv10? Will there be enough difference in mission to have the market they need?

I think what is missing from the market is an experimental 4-cyl, 4-seat plane. If you make it low wing you can achieve the numbers of a Grumman Tiger. If you go high wing you can get all the utility of the increasingly popular IO390 conversions being done to the Cessna 175.

I think a taildragger with a big 4-cyl for 4-people is the way to go.
 
The Bearhawk 4 place can handle either a 4 or 6 cylinder engine depending on motor mount.


So that should be possible with an RV15 too.
 
I’ve looked at the Sling High Wing and the Rans S-21 Outbound. Both seem very interesting, but I think the Vans would have an edge on both.... The S-21 is great in a lot of ways, except cruise speed. Granted, I don’t expect RV-14 cruise speed, but I really don’t want to go back down below 140 KTAS ...The other high wing EAB aircraft are just too slow to get my attention. I know many people want STOL capability. I hope Vans can appease the STOL crowd while not compromising cruise speed too much.
I don't even read this forum much, let along comment, but this subject is interesting since I built a Rans S-21 and have flown it 31 hours so far. Lots of good and valid comments - I hardly knew which one to quote.

All airplanes are a compromise of some sort and Vans RVs probably are less so than most anything I can think of - They do a lot of things really well. But they are not back country planes due primarily to their tire size (5.00x5 typically) and the wheel fairings close proximity to the ground. I realize you can take the fairing off but you really need an 8:50x6 (about 22") tire size for most of the true back country strips (Johnson Creek and Smiley Creek hardly qualify.

Van used to be proud of the wide 4:1 speed ratio back when the RV-3/4 were the only models. It is a measure of a versatile plane and there aren't many planes that will do that. If you can believe the Rans published specs of 40 mph stall and 155 mph cruise, then the S-21 is very close and with a 160 mph top speed it does. How fast will the S-21 go with RV tire size and wheel fairings? It would probably be in the ballpark of an RV. But you can't and shouldn't expect a back country capable plane with larger tires and no fairings to go nearly as fast as an RV. But the S-21 is considerably faster than the cub type planes with 180 hp, albeit with a higher stall speed, and this is what I was attracted to when I decided to build it.

Since the C-180 has been mentioned as a plane for the RV-15 to emulate, it's specs are interesting to compare with a stall of 55 mph, a cruise of 163 mph and a useful load of 1100 lb. That's with 6:00x6 tires. The S-21 is 8-10 mph slower but stalls 10+ mph slower and burns 3-4 gph less fuel. Van's will have their work cutout to improve very much on the C-180 if it's a 4 place or the Rans S-21 if it's a 2 place - An IO-390 would do it with a 2000 lb gross.
 
The C-180 as Kip stated is stalling/landing at 55mph, while it is a bush work plane, it is not a STOL or short strip plane is seems. I mean 55+ is gonna take some real estate to land takeoff.

The S-21 I fly is in fact stalling at 42, I regularly touchdown at 44-45mph, stopping in under 400’.

It would be impossible to compare a Rans S-21 to a Cessna 180, no way no how!

Vans fans seem to like speed, if you have a plane that cruises over 135mph and lands at 40mph or slower it is a serious winner. I am sure Vans can do that.

The Bearhawk Patrol is a 135-145mph cruiser and stalls at 35. The Bearhawk 4 Place (4 seats) cruises at 160+ and stalls at 40. Pretty high bar to meet.
 
Welcome to VAF

Jay, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

Love the videos of your landings. Gives me something to aspire to.
 
Jay, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

Love the videos of your landings. Gives me something to aspire to.

Thanks Mike, planning my next trip to Idaho later this month weather permitting.

The RV-15 sounds compelling. IF ONLY they would leak some info.
 
The C-180 as Kip stated is stalling/landing at 55mph, while it is a bush work plane, it is not a STOL or short strip plane is seems. I mean 55+ is gonna take some real estate to land takeoff.

The S-21 I fly is in fact stalling at 42, I regularly touchdown at 44-45mph, stopping in under 400’.

It would be impossible to compare a Rans S-21 to a Cessna 180, no way no how!

Vans fans seem to like speed, if you have a plane that cruises over 135mph and lands at 40mph or slower it is a serious winner. I am sure Vans can do that.

The Bearhawk Patrol is a 135-145mph cruiser and stalls at 35. The Bearhawk 4 Place (4 seats) cruises at 160+ and stalls at 40. Pretty high bar to meet.

I took a quick look at the Bearhawk forum and couldn't find anyone claiming over 138 mph TAS for cruise. I'll ask Bob Barrows for the real skinny next time he's by this way.

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/be...-news/46837-4-place-cruise-speed-survey/page2
 

Attachments

  • D84AB9C9-B93A-4C39-849E-41CFD5920B60.jpeg
    D84AB9C9-B93A-4C39-849E-41CFD5920B60.jpeg
    91.1 KB · Views: 213
  • CCCC94AC-86E9-4555-9F6D-A727467815D0.jpeg
    CCCC94AC-86E9-4555-9F6D-A727467815D0.jpeg
    72.1 KB · Views: 220
I get that. But those are claimed figures; the user group is reported/actual numbers - just the same as we do here to Van's numbers from time to time.

e.g. - taken from the Bearhawk forum:

Configuration:
260 shp IO-540, low loss K&N air filter, One Electronic ignition, 3 bladed composite prop, 8.5x6 tires, VGs, lots of bug splats.

Typical Cruise Performance;
125 KTAS around 6000 ft, 65% power (MAP~23 in) 2150 RPM, 10.1 GPH, average 35 deg LOP.

So, the bar Van's needs to clear with the RV-15 may not be so high after all. I bet they can do it.
 
Bill

Here is a flight from FlightAware today of a Bearhawk 5 place

Edited to add, this is with 31” Bushwheels
 

Attachments

  • 129102B9-FF3D-405C-A49C-A58486059A9A.jpeg
    129102B9-FF3D-405C-A49C-A58486059A9A.jpeg
    61 KB · Views: 272
FlightAware only reads out my GPS ground speed; it has no way of knowing my TAS/winds aloft. Suspect same is true for the other ADS-B aircraft out there.

Per Mike M., Barrows' A&P mechanic of the last 30 years, "most cruise at 145-150 mph TAS; economy cruise is 125." I'll take that as gospel.
 
Last edited:
C-172

I get that. But those are claimed figures; the user group is reported/actual numbers - just the same as we do here to Van's numbers from time to time.

e.g. - taken from the Bearhawk forum:

Configuration:
260 shp IO-540, low loss K&N air filter, One Electronic ignition, 3 bladed composite prop, 8.5x6 tires, VGs, lots of bug splats.

Typical Cruise Performance;
125 KTAS around 6000 ft, 65% power (MAP~23 in) 2150 RPM, 10.1 GPH, average 35 deg LOP.

So, the bar Van's needs to clear with the RV-15 may not be so high after all. I bet they can do it.

This sounds like the speeds of a Cessna 172. Not interested.

But the news release did say, "back country capable".
It did NOT say. " back country airplane"

So, reading the tea leaves, I would say it is a high wing RV9.
(OK now I am pleading, make it a high wing RV9)
 
FlightAware only reads out my GPS ground speed; it has no way of knowing my TAS/winds aloft. Suspect same is true for the other ADS-B aircraft out there.

Per Mike M., Barrows' A&P mechanic of the last 30 years, "most cruise at 145-150 mph TAS; economy cruise is 125." I'll take that as gospel.


The screen shot from the Bearhawk website shows 150 TAS in cruise at 62% power for the 260hp

135-140 TAS for the 180hp

I figure 62% is pretty economy in most folks mind. If you are going for max range then you are in the ballpark at 125, but cruise and best range are different animals.

Bottom like, it is very fast for a plane that lands at 40mph
 
The C-180 as Kip stated is stalling/landing at 55mph, while it is a bush work plane, it is not a STOL or short strip plane is seems. I mean 55+ is gonna take some real estate to land takeoff.

The S-21 I fly is in fact stalling at 42, I regularly touchdown at 44-45mph, stopping in under 400’.

It would be impossible to compare a Rans S-21 to a Cessna 180, no way no how!

Vans fans seem to like speed, if you have a plane that cruises over 135mph and lands at 40mph or slower it is a serious winner. I am sure Vans can do that.

The Bearhawk Patrol is a 135-145mph cruiser and stalls at 35. The Bearhawk 4 Place (4 seats) cruises at 160+ and stalls at 40. Pretty high bar to meet.

With a Sportsman STOL kit, I understand the Cessna’s low end is significantly lower :D

I just want a 180 that I can install awesome avionics in and do my own maintenance on, or a slightly faster Bearhawk that I don’t need to learn to do fabric to build.
 
Last edited:
Pick O the Litter...

Guys,
I was blessed to grow up with a 57' Cessna 180 (my Dad's), built time towing banners in Scouts, Maules and Super Cubs and eventually flew the F16C for a quarter century as well as many others. That said, I still compare every GA airplane and my three RV's to the 180. Even my wife's Maule M5 which is a GREAT airplane still doesn't quite match the 180's total performance but is a contender for greatest GA bushplane of all time IMHO. And...you can still order a new Maule today.

Our 180 (well rigged and very straight) cruised at 155 mph at 23/24 with 700:6's, slightly slower with 850:6 and less yet with AK Bushwheels. I could approach at 60 MPH full flaps (with all my dad's tools and portable air compressor on board) and routinely operated from a 900' long farm strip.
It will carry anything you can stuff in it.

As far as the Bearhawk goes, several years ago I helped my neighbor "Mike" and master craftsman friend "Ronnie B" build a BH-4 with a King Kong Barrett IO-540 that dyno'd 330HP mated to an MT Aerobatic 3 blade prop. I helped perform all the test flights and data gathering, in a word, WOW. It would easily get off the ground loaded in 350 feet, climb 2500 fpm and cruise at 170 MPH at 23 squared. Later Mike would sell it to a Canuck and my wife and I delivered it from FL. The trip included the obligatory stop at Leadville where I filled it full (65 gal) and took off still out climbing anything on the field.

I fell in love with the Bearhawk on that trip and am waiting for the RV15 to emerge before I decide my next project.:)
The BH will be hard to beat.

Side Note: My F16/RV bro "Flash" is building a BH4 and flew the prototype BH5 extensively (including OSH 2021) and his take is simple: awesome. 155 MPH at 20/24, stall under 40 with lots of room :)


So...the RV15 has some big shoes to fill or challenge. I agree it will be something of a Cessna 180 comparatively which makes sense for Vans Aircraft. The C180 was also converted to training wheels and the C-182 was born. A RV15A I'm sure will be an (unavoidable) option.
Regardless, many of us have high hopes for a breakthrough design with old world backcountry talents...


Mike's Monnster Bearhawk.

V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
I was at the Van's announcement thinking, 'Damnit! Now I have to sell my plane once I get it flying so I can build a 15'... but then I happened over to the Javron tent and saw their new side by side model... Now I'm torn.

All things being equal I'll give my nod towards Vans of course.. so Van's PLEASE make it at least equal!!
 
I was at the Van's announcement thinking, 'Damnit! Now I have to sell my plane once I get it flying so I can build a 15'... but then I happened over to the Javron tent and saw their new side by side model... Now I'm torn.

All things being equal I'll give my nod towards Vans of course.. so Van's PLEASE make it at least equal!!


The Javron factory is about 10 miles from here. Our local EEA chapter toured there a few weeks ago...those guys are some serious airplane builders.
 
I don’t know all the particulars, but the Zlin Norden seems to be cutting edge in wing design. The 15 could take some of those ideas.
 
Cruise Speed

I don’t know all the particulars, but the Zlin Norden seems to be cutting edge in wing design. The 15 could take some of those ideas.

I hope Vans doesn't take Zlin's cruise speed ideas. Some of those models don't break 100 mph.
 
Apparently Vans is reading these so here we go: one of my top priorities is headroom and general spaciousness.
 
Last edited:
Head Room

Apparently Van's is reading these so here we go: one of my priorities top is headroom and general spaciousness.

The strutted high wings generally have more room by design because the spar carry-through is minimal. The headroom region is squared-off, giving more left to right room vs. the low wing with rounded canopies. Vertical room is pretty good too since the pilot's head can occupy the space typically reserved for a full section spar.

If it is a cantilever wing (no lift struts) the main spar could affect vertical distance from head to spar, depending on where the spar is. If it is like the Cessna 210 or 177 Cardinal, it would be behind the pilot and not be a hindrance, and provide the same benefits as the strutted wing design. On the new Sling High Wing, it may be above the pilots head, leaving headroom in question.
 
I don’t know all the particulars, but the Zlin Norden seems to be cutting edge in wing design. The 15 could take some of those ideas.

Agree. If they truly want to innovate electric retractable slats have to become part of the equation. Changing 12% of the wing area on the fly with the push of a button is what will truly change the operating envelope.

Aside from the development of the BRS parachute, leading edge slats are the most important safety device an aircraft can posses but to me this is an added bonus and not the number one reason why they need to be present on the RV-15’s wing.
 
Slats

Fixed slats are awesome until you're going somewhere. I don't know that the A-4 gravity slats would make sense but the Belite 'Chipper' (RIP) was going to have removable slats. Fly 200 nm, then pull them out of a ski-tube in the aft fuselage and clip/bolt them to the wings.
 
It seems like from Van’s response that the plane already mostly designed so I guess this thread should be more about features than its overall design.

That said, some features that would be welcomed:
-Large doors and baggage doors so you can really utilize the space
-Large fuel tank options. 6-hours+ of fuel should be standard so you can get in and out of remote places on a full tank from your origination point
-Skylights
-Tailwheel
-parachute options
 
It seems like from Van’s response that the plane already mostly designed so I guess this thread should be more about features than its overall design.

That was my understanding as well when I was at the presentation. Therefore, I didn't at the time and still don't know why they are still being so cryptic about massive details like whether it is 2 or 4 seat. But Van's is a great company so I'm betting there is a reason. They did however use the words "tandem" vs "side by side" at one point in the presentation so I'm betting I know the answer... If that's the case, Bearhawk here I come. haha
 
Are we talking about a plane that is a kit with performance of a Helio Courier? That would be real Total Performance in the Vans tradition.

I bet there is a series of planes, 2 place & 4 place low to high hp. But which will come first?
 
Agree. If they truly want to innovate electric retractable slats have to become part of the equation. Changing 12% of the wing area on the fly with the push of a button is what will truly change the operating envelope.

I was never a fan of slats operated by the operator, electric or otherwise. Spring load slats work great and are there before you know you need them.

Bob
 
I was never a fan of slats operated by the operator, electric or otherwise. Spring load slats work great and are there before you know you need them.

Bob

I can see how you’d like automatic slats but I think electric retractable slats are superior for a number of reasons. The Norden’s slats only weigh 22 pounds and have one electric motor with both slats panels interconnected for safety in case of motor failure.
 

Attachments

  • EF33E84C-CA92-4435-870B-7B1EF84C71C3.jpeg
    EF33E84C-CA92-4435-870B-7B1EF84C71C3.jpeg
    637.3 KB · Views: 165
That's cool, but the Peg is spring loaded so aerodynamic loads above a certain speed (I forget), the slats stay retracted. Once you get slow enough the slats pop out on their own.

Bob
 
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.
 
I laughed out loud when I read that someone wanted a bush rig that is only slightly slower than a cessna RG.

I'm probably the Cessna R182 guy you're referring to. I can assure you I'm not looking for a "bush rig". I just want a high wing RV, speed close to existing RVs, that isn't crippled by the STOL obsession. Read my post again.
 
Last edited:
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.

Pretty much nailed it. They Super 170 is amazing except for that yoke :)
 
The Benchmark.

Having grown up with a Cessna 180, I'm well aware of it's aerial prowess and now, used cost. Interestingly enough, most are comparing the Bearhawk with the RV15 but noone has mentioned a company who has been making similar kits for awhile, Murphy Aircraft.

The Rebel or Moose seem to be in the RV15 competitor category but their newest kit looks to be right up Van's proverbial alley, The Yukon.

http://www.murphyair.com/detail/yukon.html

Looks very familiar...
:)
V/R
Smokey
 
Having grown up with a Cessna 180, I'm well aware of it's aerial prowess and now, used cost. Interestingly enough, most are comparing the Bearhawk with the RV15 but noone has mentioned a company who has been making similar kits for awhile, Murphy Aircraft.

The Rebel or Moose seem to be in the RV15 competitor category but their newest kit looks to be right up Van's proverbial alley, The Yukon.

http://www.murphyair.com/detail/yukon.html

Looks very familiar...
:)
V/R
Smokey
Murphy doesn't have the best track record. The pulled rivets are pretty ugly and the ergonomics are a little strange in them. Way too slow to be what I hope Vans brings to the table. I'm hopeful they bring something like a Super Rans S21 with a HP range of 150-215 with a cruise speed of around 175 mph.
 
Murphy doesn't have the best track record. The pulled rivets are pretty ugly and the ergonomics are a little strange in them. Way too slow to be what I hope Vans brings to the table. I'm hopeful they bring something like a Super Rans S21 with a HP range of 150-215 with a cruise speed of around 175 mph.

If you are cruising at 175mph, what do you expect landing speeds to be? It would be a pretty big envelope to land below 50mph with a cruise (as in NOT top speed) at 175.

Personally I just don’t see a bush plane going 175. It is just a high wing fast plane.
 
If you are cruising at 175mph, what do you expect landing speeds to be? It would be a pretty big envelope to land below 50mph with a cruise (as in NOT top speed) at 175.

Personally I just don’t see a bush plane going 175. It is just a high wing fast plane.

Around 50 mph. If the RV-14 can cruise near 200 and stall in the high 50's I don't see why you couldn't have a high wing that does 175 and stalls in the low 50's.
 
Having grown up with a Cessna 180, I'm well aware of it's aerial prowess and now, used cost. Interestingly enough, most are comparing the Bearhawk with the RV15 but noone has mentioned a company who has been making similar kits for awhile, Murphy Aircraft.

The Rebel or Moose seem to be in the RV15 competitor category but their newest kit looks to be right up Van's proverbial alley, The Yukon.

http://www.murphyair.com/detail/yukon.html

Looks very familiar...
:)
V/R
Smokey

I agree with you on the Murphy airplanes Smokey, but unfortunately no one in the industry ca figure out company is actually in business or not. We generally can’t get ahold of them anymore, and it’s been that way for a number of years now.
 
If you are cruising at 175mph, what do you expect landing speeds to be? It would be a pretty big envelope to land below 50mph with a cruise (as in NOT top speed) at 175.

Personally I just don’t see a bush plane going 175. It is just a high wing fast plane.
I agree. The goal post here should be a 4:1 speed ratio AND the ability to land at about 45 mph - but no more than 50 mph. That relates to a short landing distance. With enough power you will be able to take off shorter than you can land, except maybe at very high density altitudes.

Rans claims a 40 mph stall (optimistic) and a top speed of about 160 mph. One S-21 builder I know has a 200 hp O-360 engine and wheel fairings on his 22" tires. His top speed is 182 mph and I'm guessing his landing speed is 45-48 mph.
 
Back
Top