What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Poll, What do you want the 15 to be?

What do you want the 15 to be?

  • Two Seats

    Votes: 99 45.6%
  • Four Seats

    Votes: 74 34.1%
  • Six Seats

    Votes: 13 6.0%
  • Low and slow

    Votes: 51 23.5%
  • As fast as the rest (Just high wing)

    Votes: 80 36.9%
  • Tandem

    Votes: 24 11.1%
  • Side-by-side

    Votes: 104 47.9%
  • Gas guzzer with huge payload

    Votes: 25 11.5%
  • Light and efficient, 200 ft takeoff roll

    Votes: 76 35.0%
  • This poll is stupid

    Votes: 54 24.9%

  • Total voters
    217
Status
Not open for further replies.
4 seats?.

You rarely see a C180 land with 4 people.. the cabin usually has 1 or two people, and their gear..
The 180 is the standard to go by. If Van’s takes a look at the C180 and improves on it. They will have a great airplane.
Let it lose 2 cylinders, and ,, 400 pounds. Keep the size and looks. It will still load 1000 pounds. 60 gallons of gas. 2 people and gear. Winner!
 
Last edited:
“Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.”
-Steve Jobs


I guess we all get a kick out of speculating, but frankly this type of market research is akin to populist politics rather than having leadership that history will look back on as being visionary.

Tom
RV-7, that wishes it was a zero emissions battery electric derivative.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how representative the current Vans Air Force population is of the market for the RV15 anyway. Most of us here have already self selected into fast sport planes vs big tire high wings, so do they try to appeal to their current customer base or expand into the STOL crowd that would otherwise be over on the Kitfox and Rans forums about now?
 
“Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.”
-Steve Jobs

This was my experience completely!! Steve Jobs got it right, why haven't others?
People don't buy things - they buy functionality. Add functionality at lower total cost and you have a replacement product. It is not the magic people might think, nor is it quick. Not even electronics.

The average life of a car is 18 yrs. So, if one wanted California to be an all electric car population on the roads, and only electrics were sold beginning today, 50% of cars would be electric in 18 yrs.
 
I wonder how representative the current Vans Air Force population is of the market for the RV15 anyway. Most of us here have already self selected into fast sport planes vs big tire high wings, so do they try to appeal to their current customer base or expand into the STOL crowd that would otherwise be over on the Kitfox and Rans forums about now?
You expand business by reaching to new customers, so reaching beyond the typical RV crowd would be expanding the business I should think. Some of the RV crowd will buy into the 15 though for sure. I registered for the site because of the RV-15
 
Logic would say it will be a 2 place and not a stol plane. Now it's just a matter of how big of an engine they feel is right and how fast. My guess is they will skip the Rotax size for 150+ hp based on the bulk of their current customers. Probably start with a 2 place to feel the market out then bring a 4 place later.
 
A poll of extremes makes it hard to get a good measure of how people feel.

Instead of just '2 seat' vs '4 seat', what about 2+2, meaning back seat big enough for 2 kids, but easy to take out to put lots of gear in instead?

Instead of 'as fast as the rest' vs 'low and slow', what about an in-between? Fast enough to be able to get to the back country efficiently from some distance away, and slow enough to be able to use a lot of the back country once you get there, but probably not gravel bars and sand dunes? So, something in the 130 kt range for cruise, and under 50 for landing.

It is this middle ground that seems to me to fill a niche that is not well served right now. Want a super-capable big hauler? Buy a C-180. Want to land on gravel bars? Buy one of the multitude of cub-clones.

But, what do I know?
 
I "want" the 15 to be a faster, easier to build Rocket...

But thats irrelevant. The 15 is whatever it is.
 
I wonder how representative the current Vans Air Force population is of the market for the RV15 anyway. Most of us here have already self selected into fast sport planes vs big tire high wings, so do they try to appeal to their current customer base or expand into the STOL crowd that would otherwise be over on the Kitfox and Rans forums about now?

Haha yep, these polls/discussions are the definition of bias. Another good example I can use in the classroom.

That being said, they are entertaining as it's fun to speculate/want.
 
Suburban

You rarely see a C180 land with 4 people.. the cabin usually has 1 or two people, and their gear..

Suburbans are rarely filled either, but people buy them up.

My vote is a 4 cylinder (and my guess is the power plant will be the IO-390 cause it would increase the volume of sales and hopefully lower the price by going to one shared engine type, with the popularity of the 14 already using it) Cessna 177 clone with big doors, four seats (or at least 2+2 seats), constant speed prop, side by side, no struts, tail wheel (for now), top speed around 150kts (but will cruise at 125-135 depending on power setting), stall around 45-50kts. Kind of a diminutive Cessna 180, with the good features of the 172/177 carried over.

I don’t think they can out-180 the Cessna 180, but it’s a beast and drinks gas. And I think the small tandem or even side-by-side STOL market is covered.

That leaves some sort of upscaled 172, or maybe what the 177 should have been with a proper power plant and Vans design experience.
 
Your All Missing the Boat

Until you take off from a hot, dry prairie runway and land in a secluded, cool, high altitude lake, then you really have not had a taste of what aviation can really do.

https://youtu.be/NpjL9das-Xs


https://youtu.be/1NHOjLySuqk


The Seawind did not have the tail feathers far enough aft but it did offer a 200 MPH air speed ability to cover the miles.

Pontoon AC are horrid machines that need 14 to 16 foot tall hangar doors.

The Lake 250 was a very refined hauler with great water and flight handling and it was 1000 lbs lighter than the Sea Wind, but the bulky sponsons provided about 20 kts of drag

Flying Boat lake amphibians fit in normal hangars and are aerodynamically CLEAN as soon as they are off the water.
I think a Lake 250 type hull with RV-10 wings would provide 4 seats plus baggage
or 2 seats plus lots of camping gear and baggage ability.

A home built Lake 250 Amphibian that flies at 200 kts but lands at 52 kts would get me on the VANS customer list faster than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Until you take off from a hot, dry prairie runway and land in a secluded, cool, high altitude lake, then you really have not had a taste of what aviation can really do.

https://youtu.be/1NHOjLySuqk

The Seawind did not have the tail feathers far enough aft but it did offer a 200 MPH cross country to cover the miles.

The Lake 250 was a very refined hauler with great water and flight handling - but the bulky sponsons provide about 20 kts of drag.

I think a Lake 250 type hull with RV-10 wings would provide 4 seats plus baggage
or 2 seats plus lots of camping gear and baggage ability. Pontoon AC are horrid machines that need 14 to 16 foot tall hangar doors. Flying Boat lake amphibians fit in normal hangars and are aerodynamically CLEAN as soon as they are off the water.

A home built Lake 250 Amphibian that flies at 200 kts but lands at 52 kts would get me on the VANS customer list faster than anything else.

Great except Van's has already stated that the 15 is a High-wing, back country capable (whatever that means) design. So I don't know where amphibian/flying boat comes into the discussion.

Personally, I'd like to see something akin to GlasStar Sportsman, but a little larger with true 4 seats (not 2+2), convertible (or at least buildable) between tricycle, taildragger, or ski/floats, and with a useful load in the 1400-1500 lbs range. I'd be willing to sacrifice some speed to achieve this. If Van's came out with this I'd sell my RV-10 today and plop down a deposit.
 
IMHO the market (like it or not) are guys and gals who are getting older who want low and slow. Look at the success of the 9 and 14....
 
Last edited:
IMHO the market (like it or not) are guys and gals who are getting older who want low and slow. Look at the success of the 9 and 14....

I’m sorry but your generalization doesn’t include me. I want to travel distance and land on unimproved and high altitude and fairly short. So a compromise. Doesn’t have to be 200’ but something better than the glastar sportsman. I’d like four place with removable back seat, so two person and lots of baggage, camping gear and mountain bike. Big door would be great. Hope you’re listening Van!
 
Whatever

I am going to build whatever Vans comes out with : fast or slow, low or high altitude. I miss not making a racket, wearing a headset, and making alum chips to track into the bed at night.

But plan to finish the 9A first. Should be done before first kits are out.
 
Last edited:
Atlantic crossing

Should be able to cross the Atlantic via Canada, Greenland and Iceland. So 4 seater with removable back seats for the camping and/or survival gear. Should do 180 mph. Should cruise at 8 gall per hour. Not to much to ask
 
Well said...

I am going to build whatever Vans comes out with : fast or slow, low or high altitude. I miss not making a racket, wearing a headset, and making alum chips to track into the bed at night.

But plan to finish the 9A first. Should be done before first kits are out.

Amen.
My elder RV statesman RV15/16 guess:

1. Cantilever Wing, (Skylark/C195/C210/Monocoupe,BD4)
2. Commonality of parts ie: modified 9 wing and tail, possibly full flying tail. Flaperons maybe.
3. Large baggage or jumpseat. Ski/Float attach options, aux fuel tip tank options. Large tire (AK Bushwheel) or wheelpant options.
4. Under $50K price tag...:)

If they make two...
RV15: 2 place
RV16: 4 place

My Dos Cenatvos...
Smokey
 
You rarely see a C180 land with 4 people.. the cabin usually has 1 or two people, and their gear..
The 180 is the standard to go by. If Van’s takes a look at the C180 and improves on it. They will have a great airplane.
Let it lose 2 cylinders, and ,, 400 pounds. Keep the size and looks. It will still load 1000 pounds. 60 gallons of gas. 2 people and gear. Winner!

I had a 180hp Cessna 170B, which is essentially the airplane you describe and I can verify it was a winner! About the only things it needed were a few more inches of cabin width and about 20kts. Both are easily obtainable with a modern design.
 
" People don't know what they want until you show it to them. . . . . . Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.”
-Steve Jobs

Excellent quote. I am an airplane configurator in my day job and that quote is so true. Nobody, even team members, rarely give input when the sheet of paper is blank but they come out of the woodwork after I have drawn an airplane to tell me what they don’t want.

You expand business by reaching to new customers, so reaching beyond the typical RV crowd would be expanding the business I should think. Some of the RV crowd will buy into the 15 though for sure. I registered for the site because of the RV-15

I would bet this is exactly true.
Although I would think it would be cool to have a fast high wing, think Tailwind, it would not expand Vans market share. It would probably take away sales from the RV7 or 9.
 
Look like a Cardinal 177

Look like a Cardinal 177, gets off like a Maule, cruise like a Vans and is quick to build as some of us are running out of time and energy.:D
 
Is the 15 with us?

I haven’t been paying attention. Maybe I missed the revealing of the 15.

It is a good idea to look at similar legacy airframes for guidance on how they are being used, but the state of the art marches on. I wouldn’t build a C180 clone.

I am a fan of Bearhawk Patrol for it’s STOL ability, load carrying, and speed envelope, as well as simplicity of design and no-frills cost.

What do I want? More, of course! More speed (and less on landing), payload, utility, comfort, visibility, durability, and safety.

Vans must believe that they can design this type of AC with better performance, cost, and utility than others who have been at it in the experimental world for a long time. Not an easy task using aluminum as the primary material and legacy, flat engine technology.

For Vans to break through to the next level of design for any airframe, I believe new engine technology must get incorporated into the initial design. I don’t know how that happens, but metal airplanes have been taken as far as they can go.
 
RV15 AND RV16

At the risk of repeating myself..this is copied from a post I made back in jan of 2020..how time flys..but seems pretty applicable here..

"Do they want to increase market share among homebuilder's, for the long term future of the company, preserve and create more jobs at the factory, and sell as many airplane kits as possible? How about a RV15, AND a RV16 with one fuselage.
IN my view, if the latter is the answer, how about this for a game plan.
It has to be a high wing, as thats a market they are not in, and its really big.
There are two major sub-segments of that market.. the folks that are attracted to the bushplane mission, and the folks that are attracted to the high-wing traveler mission.
An entry into this high wing market kinda need 2 airplane designs. They have already proven successful in pleasing 2 segments of the same market targets with the RV-9 and the RV7, aerobatics capable, and non aerobatics capable, nose wheel and tailwheel. Look how easy that was. One fuselage design and just 2 different wing designs. and tailwheel or nosewheel choices at the time of build. I dont think there is really a need to make a "convertable" of either config.
This same coverage of the different market sub-segments could be approached the same way.
One wide , easy entering fuselage design, with 2 wing options. A fat STOL airfoil with big flaps for one, and a nice high altitude performing airfoil, like the RV 9's for the other. jeez..they already have most of the parts on the rack for that one, if the 9's airfoil would work on a high wing design?? Dont know why it would not.
Start right in the middle of the market with a design to accommodate all the 4 cylinder lycoming variants, from a salvaged 320 from a piper to the newest IO390's. That puts it into the budget envelope of the most buyers.
AND, as for me, IF I were the CEO, I would start with the slick high wing speedster. Why?, because others are concentrating on STOL as the priority, and nobody is doing the traveling version, tweaked for speed. AND, if as I mentioned, the RV-9 Roncz airfoil proved suitable, its already in production. Just a new fuselage design, and a tweaked already available wing is all it take to get the first prototype in the air. Lowest risk, fastest market entry, and if it works, They have a direction to go with designing the rest of the high wing options."
 
In flight doors

I would like to see doors that can be opened in flight, or taken off completely. This would give that "Piper Cub with the door open feel" when flying it on low and slow pleasure flights.


[Thread closed since it is obsolete now that the RV-15 has been revealed; S.Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top