What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Introducing the RV-15!

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the final version won’t have the struts. Just my guess.

I wouldn't venture too far out on that limb!

As has been said previously, struts make the airplane stronger, lighter, and add considerably more headroom in the cockpit.
 
Strut Design

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the final version won’t have the struts. Just my guess.

Removing the struts would be a major redesign at this point and a whole new flight test regimen. The presence of a spar in front of the pilots face would probably necessitate moving the whole wing (and CG) up. That would require significant fuselage changes, and maybe a taller vertical stabilizer. The structure within the wing would have to be strengthened because the wing strut actually relives a lot of stress.

So far it checks some boxes for me. My only concern now is cruise speed. I'm no aerodynamicist, but the presence of the strut, and the windscreen abrupt frontal angle makes me worried the speed will be in the range of the Rans S-21.
 
I’m going to go out on a limb and say the final version won’t have the struts. Just my guess.

It would be odd for them to bring out what they're calling the engineering prototype, only to do a complete re-design later,,,
 
Struts make a wing very strong and very light. A passthrough spar would take up a lot of headspace and make removing the wings 10 times harder.

Van was able to make the landing gear all but disappear for speeds under 250 mph... maybe he will do the same for the struts.

I really don't expect the top speed to exceed 140kts. with a landing speed of no less than 38kts. I hope I am wrong on both ends.

There isn’t enough meat in the overhead structure for a cantilever carry through. That’s why all bush planes have struts. The weight penalty for a cantilever wing would be substantial. Bush planes are all about payload.
 
Struts

If looking for speed, maybe reduce the wing area and offer retractable slats a la A-4, (gravity) or that new Savage Norden (powered).

The guy who made the "Chipper" had fixed slats you could unbolt and keep in the tailcone; I thought that was a good idea. Fly 500 nm to your "playground" and then bolt on the slats.

I bet 75% of us prospects are thinking "yeah I'll put bush tires on it" while we complain about the struts....
 
Sorry to have to be in the group on the other side of the fence, but my first impression is not positive. I’m sure it will fly great and people will make great machines out of them, but as compared to the cubs, kitfoxes, rans, and others, the aesthetics are somewhat lacking. I do realize it is just a prototype that isn’t completed yet, but the bones don’t live up to the sleek designs of ALL of the rest of the Vans aircraft. It looks like a less refined Cessna at this point. Maybe it’s flying characteristics will overcome its current looks…….

Bush planes are functional. They are meant to be tough, useful, carry a big load, land short. And being a homebuilt it has to be easy to build. What part of that do you want to sacrifice so that it is sexy or look different? To me that would make no sense. Bush pilots don’t want or need a lancair. That would be completely pointless.
 
Give it a chance and accept it for what Van’s says it is: A back country *capable* aircraft. Not a back country *optimized* aircraft. They are not the same.

Likely it will be a nice flying aircraft. But nobody should be expecting it to compete with the Highlanders and Zeniths in the STOL competitions, nor to be landing in the serious Alaskan backwoods with the modified Super Cubs, etc.

What will be interesting will be the modifications that builders start making after a few customer-built examples are flying…

- Pat

It looks to me like it will be stol enough, but it will kick the **** out of those aircraft in cruise, which to me makes way more sense.
 
Who is going to be first to get the Fowler Flap track forehead indentation??

No cargo door? Maybe the seats are set on a double extend track and will go to the panel with the stick full fwd.

Where is the fuel? I don't see it in the wing.
Are there four bell cranks for each aileron?

I expect the production version will have fairings on those tracks. Test aircraft are always a bit rough
 
Someone above mentioned the difference between back country capable and back country optimized. For me, the ability to get to the back country is part of the equation. I can land my J-3 anywhere, but it won’t haul two people plus gear and it would take over 6 hours to get to a really cool back country strip I have in mind. My RV-14 can get there with two people and gear in 2.5 hours, but I have to hope the runway is smooth when I get there. If the RV-15 can outrun, say, a Piper Archer and safely handle the less extreme strips in the back country, it will make a very good fit for a lot of people’s 90% mission and cover a lot of the remaining 10%.

Well said. The vast majority of builders don’t need to win stol drags or land on sand bars. We want to haul gear, get to where we are going and get in and out of a reasonably tight strip. That’s how they will sell airplanes. Do that and nobody will care about the people whining that it is not sexy or “innovative “ (it actually looks really innovative to me, but you have to look beyond the superficial).

I’m very impressed, but not surprised. I wonder if Van himself had much input into the design or if it is a new team?
 
While I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be two-seats with a HUGE baggage area, I’d still not be surprised if Van’s surprise us with the news that it’s actually a 2+2 layout - 215hp and constant-speed (my speculation that it’s RV-14 firewall forward) is pretty decent to haul that kind of configuration.
 
Sigh. It looks interesting, but no sale for me. I want 4-seats— essentially a high wing version of my RV-10 but with a 1200-1300 lbs useful load (vs my current 1050), removable rear seats and no rear cabin crossmember. I’d buy that kit in a heartbeat even if it was 15-20 KTS slower than my 10.
 
I had never thought of buying an engineering prototype...until now.

Love the struts attaching to the aircraft ahead of the door (landing gear and front spar). It'll make it a lot easier to get in and out!

Bob
 
Sigh. It looks interesting, but no sale for me. I want 4-seats— essentially a high wing version of my RV-10 but with a 1200-1300 lbs useful load (vs my current 1050), removable rear seats and no rear cabin crossmember. I’d buy that kit in a heartbeat even if it was 15-20 KTS slower than my 10.

There are plenty of Skywagons in circulation.
 
Who is going to be first to get the Fowler Flap track forehead indentation??

At least no one will get the V-shaped trench carved in their scalp from the open stiffeners on a Cessna trailing edge! I was really amazed how much blood circulates in your scalp.
 
Intervention!!

Hah. Hahahaha… HAHAHAHHAAHHAAHhahahAhahah. :eek:

I can at least dream about finishing it. Some day. :)

So, everyone up Greg's way, it's time for an intervention. A team of people need to go and grab his project. With a collective group of people Greg's 8 could be finished in no time. He deserves it!!
 
There are plenty of Skywagons in circulation.

Actually my preference would be a 206 as I don’t want a tailwheel aircraft. Unfortunately nice 206s for sale are pretty rare and usually command a premium. A new one is out of the question unless Warren Buffet or Elon Musk sends me a really nice birthday check this week.

I looked hard at the Bearhawk 5, and it came close, but that pesky tailwheel ultimately killed it for me.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion. As a configurator/designer of [fighter] aircraft for 37 years I constantly heard complaints and compliments on every aircraft I drew. Pretty much the same here about the -15 as everyone has their opinion of what is best. Many of the suggestions are good but may not be possible due to other design objectives, goals, and or market strategies.
Thanks Vans for a new sign and with the public release of your “baby”, I hope you don’t take criticism negative, incorporate suggestions as appropriate, and pay attention to all the positives as you go forward in refinement and updates as you head to kit production.
 
Plexi Doors

The plexiglass door seems pretty cool and of course the material could be up to the builder in the end, but with all the warning and care we take with our canopies it seems like plexiglass is doomed to be a scratched up mess in that application.
 
Track solution

Ok this is important stuff here folks. Let me just set the story straight on this. Greg was absolutely the first person to introduce himself with the flap tracks. Mitch was a few minutes later. I guess they both win. does anyone want to talk about primer? I can clear that one up too.

Buy 6 pack of Tennis Balls.
Slice
Put remove before flight flags on

Buy extra one for piot tube :cool:
For tall guys.

Boomer
 
oh well..

Oh well, it looks ok..but looks like its more bush plane than I want..so far at least. Personally, I am looking for a 2 seater thats easier to mount, with a roomier cabin as a replacement for my RV9a. Have zero interest in a Bush/STOL capable aircraft. Just want to give up as little speed as possible, AND with a nose wheel. I am with you Ed W. I have lots of tailwheel time, and I like them, and have owned several, and still have one. But It seems to me that I can fly more days of the year with a nosewheel, due to the ability to handle the winds on landing/takeoff that scare my wife/passenger. For me, its all about traveling. I am however still hopeful the 15 may evolve with options or mods to accomplish this.
 
Last edited:
There isn’t a kit on the planet easier to build than the Sportsman. It has tons of room and cargo capacity and doesn’t sacrifice performance for looks. It also has extremely forgiving handling at slow speed.

This thing looks exactly like I pictured a high wing RV. I’m sure it will look better with paint, but I do wonder about performance and slow speed maneuvering. My guess, it will be “good enough” for most of the market.

The sportsman and glastar have horrible aileron friction. I’ve flown one. I have made a point of wiggling the ailerons (with owner’s permission of course) on every one I see. They have high roll forces with poor centering. This is due to the large number of pulleys. I’m not sure if the folding wing feature contributes to this or not. Combine that with the weak pitch stability and the control harmony is awful. They tried a balance tab to fix it but those address aero forces, not friction. Then they put hideous stiff springs on then rudder so it feels like a stearman. I have not flown an airplane with less desirable handing qualities except for a tailless motor glider that was particularly awful. I’m sure sportsman fans will argue because everyone thinks their baby is beautiful, but some babies are ugly.

Vans go to great lengths, weight and expense to have low friction controls with balanced forces. Comparing the sportsman to the 15 will be comparing the worst with the best.
 
Bush pilots don’t want or need a lancair. That would be completely pointless.

Not pointless at all, different missions.

As an owner of a Rans S21-----reasonably a bush plane---- I wish I also had a fast plane for cross country. A RV9 would be a great hangar mate.
 
..... everyone has their opinion of what is best. Many of the suggestions are good but may not be possible due to other design objectives, goals, and or market strategies.

Great design is the art of intelligent compromise.
 
If they do have a float option wing struts are almost mandatory for handling the aircraft around docks. The advantages of a wing struts on a high wing aircraft outweigh the disadvantages.

140-50kt cruise with a mid to high 30kt stall would be a great machine.

I do wonder if it’s going to be a 2+ 2 which would hit a nice niche, you can take 2 people and ALL of your gear or 4 lighter people and 1/2 tanks for a Sunday flight.

I’d personally be curious if they will give 2 fuel capacity versions with one having more traditional size like 50 gallons and a 70 ish gallon one for people that like to go more in the back country and need 2 way fuel
 
First customer kit should go to DR!

As Doug has promoted this concept and maintained a tally of interested builders for several years before it was even announced, he should be graced with receiving the first available kit.:D

Thanks Doug!

[ed. Mark head is in the right spot <grin>. Listen to this guy....he knows what he's talking about. v/r,dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sportsman and glastar have horrible aileron friction.

That might be peculiar to the one you flew. I've flown factory demo GlaStar, Sportsman 2+2, and the Symphony certified version and written pilot reports on all of them. All of them had nice, mission appropriate handling qualities.

My expectation of the RV-15 is that it should be similar to the Sportsman 2+2 in mission and speeds, but, with a different airfoil and big Fowler flaps, hopefully a bit more speed range. Pushrod controls replacing cables should do good things, too -- look what a difference it made in the SeaRey amphibian, at least, if the controls were properly adjusted.

One potential gotcha I can foresee is a high sink rate on a too-slow, power off approach. Lotsa planes do this... but big flaps and a constant speed prop should also be good for dissipating speed in the flare. Now if you really want to slow down, add speed brakes! Work great on sailplanes and on the sailplane-ish Pipistrels.
 
If the tires are 6" and 15" dia then the cabin is 44" ish, and the wing skin length is 12.5' ish. Edit: Making the wing +cabin + 8" tips 30”

Could you calculate the length of the cowl from the front, just behind the prop, to the firewall? Just curious how this length compares with other models like the RV-14 and RV-10.
 
I think it looks great

It has the typical mix of low drag and "buildability" that makes Van's Aircraft great. For a back country aircraft it looks sleek, and the struts are an overall weight saver for a durable design with head room. I realize it's a prototype that is probably operating at a low weight, but that takeoff roll with no flaps is impressive.

I am sure that it will be heavily modified by future builders. Bigger tires, customer cargo tie-downs, and so on.

Well done!

I have my hands full with a 14
 
Hey Greg, Mitch, Van's team

Looking good! Congratulations on getting to where you are now despite the mayhem and the growing pains of the last two years.

Understood that this is an engineering prototype, but please be sure to include the leading edge light bays from (or the size of) the RV-14, along with wingtip corner pockets from the RV-7/8 and a tail light fairing.
For a back country aircraft I'm sure your customers are going to want to have all the light they can get! And I have just that light for the -15 in development...



PS: If the Hoerner wingtips are staying, we are still getting clear lenses to suit the W-415 wingtip made from your original forms by the OEM, so a corner light bay would not be too hard to add in!
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anybody makes lift struts with a pressure recovery cross section, but the armchair engineer wonders if that might be good for another few knots...
 
Landing Gear?

Does the main gear hinge with a horn that actuates a transverse shock absorber?

Jim Sharkey
RV-6
 
I was about to pull the trigger on buying a plane…. When my eyes saw what could not be un-seen… they put the RV-15 on the you-tubes

The $64,000 question is … is it a 2 seater or 4 seater

I’m on the edge of my seat… with check book in hand

A guys got to know
 
Rv 15

Big flaps and big tires helped the look .

With the price range of kits Vans offers where do you think this will fall …slow build ? Maybe start a Poll ?
 
One more desirable feature would be control locks as part of the kit. Floatplaners would probably like lifting rings.

It was also interesting to see somebody pull down on a wingtip and get the other wheel off the ground. That might be a nice alternative to jacking but lots of details to get in line...
 
I think it looks great
icon14.gif

26-inch Alaska Bushwheels for scale
 

Attachments

  • 293036623_7693975960673268_6326620166120211514_n.jpg
    293036623_7693975960673268_6326620166120211514_n.jpg
    514.2 KB · Views: 249
It appears very purposeful and well built. Nice features from what we can tell. For those with a mission need or an aging pilot requiring an insurance oasis this could fit. Congratulations to Vans on a job well done & hope to see it at Oshkosh.
 
N415XV

So is N415XV the four seat prototype with the 540? Didn’t Van usually build a couple prototypes to test the various engine options?
 
Back
Top