What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Who's In?

Are you building an RV-15?

  • Yep

    Votes: 62 21.5%
  • Nope

    Votes: 139 48.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 87 30.2%

  • Total voters
    288
The group of guys I fly with have already told me to order 2 kits immediately when they are available - they know I'll be watching.
 
Maybe

I’m a maybe trending towards most likely. For me it depends on if they do provide the flush rivet option being considered.
 
I happen to have an O360 N.E.B. that would bolt right on to an RV15........:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Not sure I have another build in me. All ready have one Lind up for as soon as I finish my RV-6.

Getting close, should have cowling modified by end of the week. Then back to plumbing the engine. Oh ya got to run the starter wires, and ground cables.
Then off to the finish work on the wings. “If the part’s that are on back order come in “

RD
 
Not sure I have another build in me. All ready have one Lind up for as soon as I finish my RV-6.

Getting close, should have cowling modified by end of the week. Then back to plumbing the engine. Oh ya got to run the starter wires, and ground cables.
Then off to the finish work on the wings. “If the part’s that are on back order come in “

RD

"BBS" Dad as in Bulleting Board System?
 
If I had the time again...

My first build has taken so long that there isn't enough time left on planet earth to contemplate another!

But the RV-15 would actually be more suitable for the type of flying that I do now...

Another issue is the cost and the way just about everything has gone up due to inflation.
 
Greg quoted on the Experimental YouTube channel that it will be an option.

On one of the slides in the presentation, there were a couple of kids sat in the back of the 'Pine Pigeon' cabin mockup…
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-08-08 at 16.17.20.png
    Screenshot 2022-08-08 at 16.17.20.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 194
We're in. We were interested when they teased it, intrigued when the video leaked, and excited when we saw it at OSH and went to the forums the Van's guys held.

I'd love serial 15002, but I'll settle for top 25 :)
 
With eleven planes completed I think I should do one more to make an even dozen.
After 26 years of flying Rockets I am not crazy about going slower but it would be nice to have a bit more cabin room. I was one of the early RV14 builders, with a parts kit, and it was fun to build something new and different.
 
Realize

You do realize that you are really asking who wants to be a repeat offender and build a RV15?

Because most of these people on VAF are already builders/ owners of a RV.
 
My preferred airplane to fly is a Rocket but my first build was an RV4, and I have built a RV7, and an RV10 and a RV14. I have flown all the test hours off those planes as well.
 
It only takes two things to build your own airplane (RV15):

1. All of your time

2. All of your money

At this point in my life I’m running out of both. My last RV build, an RV6, should be ready for inspection at the end of this month. That’s when I throw in the towel.
 
RV15: Next Phase

Always wanted to build, but can’t do it at this phase of my life. Too busy with work. So, the next greatest thing is owning a 7a, flying it for work, and doing modifications. Love the speed and performance, and just flew from Telluride to Chicago, non-stop. ****, can’t beat that!

Alas, looking forward to retiring in ~8 years and slower flying into some grungier strips (Chicken strip, Mercy Hot Springs, etc). That 15 looks perfect for ease of access, a beefy engine for mountain flying, and ease of construction.

Thanks Folks at Van’s, timing is right for me. Can build the 15 and sell my 7a when the avionics and engine get dropped in. I’m sure there are others that are planning the same thing?!
 
Not interested--it's not the airplane for the kind of flying I plan to do, I probably couldn't afford it, and after this long still building my -7 I don't think the wife will go for building another one anyway. But I wouldn't turn down a chance to fly one sometime...

That said, because I'm a nerd I'm really interested in it from an engineering perspective. Seeing the design tradeoffs and interesting features is fun, and trying to guess the changes between the prototype and the "production" model would be a good drinking game...
 
Found it interesting to compare the different directions Vans and Sling have taken to address the High Wing design. Rotax 915 vs IO390, strut less vs struts, 4 vs 2 place, Back country vs less rugged undercarriage. Different markets and customers, or different company cultures, it is intriguing how different the two companies solutions are to similar design challenges and will be interesting to see how both designs develop over time. Some elements of both appeal, but neither do enough to drag me out of the comfy familiarity of my 9, at the moment anyway.
 
I'm glad they opened up the poll again so I could vote.

I've been waiting for the RV-15 since a few months after I sold my RV-8 but Van's decided to build another spam can for my taste so I'm going to pass on it. Yes, it has some technical differences, like the independent landing gear, but that's also been already kind of done by Luscombe.

If they had made it tandem seating then it would have been a game changer, since you can't get any nice new all metal tandem planes, unless you're wiling to spend $350k+ for a refurbished old ex-military plane.


I almost spent $250k last month for a plane I used to own 20 years ago, and it was a real old ex-military tandem plane.

Little disappointed I won't be buying an RV-15 but hey Van's, if you're reading, how about an option for the RV-15 for tandem seating, if it's not too hard to install the system you already have in the RV-4 or RV-8? Then I'll change my vote and buy it !
 
Since I'll probably age out before my RV-3B is done, and I have a good old Cessna 180, it's a solid no for me.

Dave

BH Gnd 1 S.jpg
 
I own a 6, and am building a -10. My next plane will be a cub style. If you are going to go slow and land short, why not go really slow and land really short? Maybe a helicopter after that, and after that, something with a turbine.

I don’t like to climb the same hill twice. All metal, fabric, choppa, turbine…all of those represent a significant change in direction and a growth in skills not previously learned/tested.

We only have so much time here on earth. I don’t have enough extra time to do the same thing twice.
 
Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?
 
Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?

I'm sure brand loyalty due to great previous products has a lot to do with it. If it was tandem I'd buy one but to me it's just one more of the same, but most likely with better performance.
 
Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?

Van's biggest failure (in terms of kits sold) was also his best handling aircraft, the RV3.

People do expect the RV15 to handle GREAT for a high wing. And it will have all of the advantages of a high wing.

It will be fast..........160 s mph
It will be slow.........44 s mph stall
It will be priced....... mid 40's ?? no engine no panel no paint.

A high wing has many advantages over a low wing as you get older. If you don't want a high wing aircraft, then don't buy it.

The RV12 had a purpose. I didn't need that purpose, so I didn't buy one.
 
Who's already decided they're building an RV-15?

It would be interesting to see a survey like this on the carbon cub forum. The 15 has a very different mission than Van’s other models so surveying this crowd may not be a good indicator of overall acceptance.
 
It would be interesting to see a survey like this on the carbon cub forum. The 15 has a very different mission than Van’s other models so surveying this crowd may not be a good indicator of overall acceptance.

Haha! It would have like 3 votes total. That forum is a ghost-town ... with the exception of Dave's megathread.

(I'm building an EX-3 now)
 
I think the 15 is going to be as popular as the 14 and in no small part thanks to Doug and the forum. Without this community, we wouldn't have been able to build our 14 in the time we did.

Like anything, the 15 won't be for everybody. But, if they pull it off, and all indications are they will, it fills a void.

Too early to tell if we'll see any competing in STOL events but I have a sneaky suspicion they're holding back on the performance specs.

Personally, regarding the 15, it's almost like Vans called me and asked "Hey, we're designing an airplane for YOU, what do you need?"
 
I'll bite. Aside from a void in their lineup, what void do you think it's filling where there's not another plane that does the same thing?

Is there another kit with similar specs I can build?

Maybe you mean something like the 170, I have no interest in flying dinosaurs ... and I love building ...
 
Last edited:
The conundrum with answering this quiz is that Van's haven't really said what the RV-15 can do or what is its purpose (design objectives), other than it is " back country capable".

The suspension and the big flaps and big engine implies short rough strips, but is Van's also thinking that there will be another configuration for paved runways and relatively quick, comfortable and efficient cross-country travel?
 
Last edited:
The conundrum with answering this quiz is that Van's haven't really said what the RV-15 can do or what is its purpose (design objectives), other than it is " back country capable".

The suspension and the big flaps and big engine implies short rough strips, but is Van's also thinking that there will be another configuration for relatively quick and comfortable cross-country travel?

They expressed in the forums that they were after a "total performance" back country capable aircraft and acknowledged, refreshingly without over promising, that they have a lot of work to do and the prototype will change as well as the final specs.

Interestingly, the man "Van" himself had lots to say about things like stall speeds vs actual landing distance and how their goal was the shortest landing distance possible while maintaining their target safety envelope.
 
... that there will be another configuration for paved runways and relatively quick, comfortable and efficient cross-country travel?

Like for people who buy Range Rovers and live in the city and never get their tires even wet? :D
 
Held off on voting till now since I'm only maybe a maybe...

Yeah, count me in on that street tire variant! Even just something similar in back country capability to say a cessna 170 I'm sure would fill my mission just fine.
Mostly I want to go places economically and relatively fast... and that would mostly be on pavement... although I love the idea of landing on relatively shorter grass strips, but I have no ideas about really ever going to real "back-country"

I don't know...I'm several years out yet from retirement and only just daydreaming about a project to take on. Spent a lot of time with the RV-14 at their booth at Sun n Fun. Like it a lot but there are things that bother me about it...
this might address many or all of those bothers....but it also might give other things that bother...sounds like it won't be nearly as fast or efficient

Just too busy with kids and "life" right now...although I keep thinking I should start something.... building a work bench to get ready...something, anything. If I could settle on a model I should probably buy a sub-kit and start building a rudder or something....
 
I'll bite. Aside from a void in their lineup, what void do you think it's filling where there's not another plane that does the same thing?

It is clearly obvious at this point that it doesn't look like the RV-15 will fit YOUR needs but that doesn't mean it wont fill the needs of many others.

How about if we flip the discussion and ask you to list all of the other kits that already directly complete with the mission profile that the RV-15 is designed too.


A few of the key ones for the 15 are -

Very good cruise speed to landing speed ratio. 140 kts (to get you to your adventure site relatively quickly) to 400 ft take-off / landing distances.

Equal comfort seating for two, with no difficult gymnastics required to get into the front and/or back seat (one thing we have learned in 50 years is that this is a real issue as the pilot population average age keeps creeping up), and the fact that for a lot of the pilot population, having their passenger seated beside them is a huge selling point (compare the # of RV-6's and 7's sold compared to the # of RV-4's and 8's)

Huge baggage area
I have already calculated that I will be able to carry two mountain bikes (only disassembly will be removal of the front wheels), my tandem seat inflatable kayak and associated gear, all camping gear needed for two people including an inflatable air bed (I am getting older too), a good sized cooler with all food needed for more than just a weekend adventure, and all of the other misc things that I might want. We think that capability work for most peoples needs, what every they may be.

A landing gear design that gives the same level of energy absorption / suspension as other aircraft have, but without using the huge / soft (and very expensive) tires that many other aircraft require, to get the same performance.

Very quick and easy to build once the expanded detail construction manual has been fully developed and released.

These are some of the more significant design details that we think make the RV-15 stand out in the market, but there are many other smaller ones as well.

Two things that it does miss is that it is not tandem seating and it is not a full on 4 place airplane.
That is for a very specific reason... it influences many of the other design benefits, such as large baggage area, etc.
Extensive research showed that the majority of people flying the same mission with 4 place aircraft (C-170, C-180, etc.) do so with the rear seat removed, so they are operating them as a two place anyway. Doing so is just compromising the overall performance because you are flying an overall larger airplane when you otherwise wouldn't have too.
The side by side detail I have already commented on.


We have learned a few things after 50 years in this business. A significant lesson learned is that we can't please everyone. But that doesn't mean what we do in a design is wrong, or we probably wouldn't have lasted for this long.
 
... although I love the idea of landing on relatively shorter grass strips, but I have no ideas about really ever going to real "back-country"

I know it probably seems like worlds away from a lot of the U.S, but out here in the west, particularly here in the Pacific north west, there is a huge number of airstrips that are not particularly short (often times because of their elevation), or particular rough, but that are located in the "back country" and having an airplane that is biased more towards the capabilities of a true back country airplane can still be beneficial.

The RV-15 will be capable of using the rougher / shorter back country strips, but I think the average user will be someone that doesn't regularly fly it to that extreme of its capabilities.
 
The RV-15 will be capable of using the rougher / shorter back country strips, but I think the average user will be someone that doesn't regularly fly it to that extreme of its capabilities.

Well said ... I have a serious personal goal of competing in some STOL events in the coming years ... would be awesome to roll up at one of those in an RV-15 :eek: :D :p
 
Maybe,

I currently fly the RV10 and CC EX2. The biggest issue with the EX2 is the cabin heat, hardly exists. The RV15 needs to have great heat, I am sure it will based on the RV14 engine set up. There is nothing worse than being out in the cold for hours ice fishing only to get in an airplane that will not warm you up, fun is all gone. The EX3 solves that but then one needs to look at cost over mission.

The RV15 may not get in as short as a CC but how often does one really need too. I find myself on one gravel bar that I go to often that may be to tight for the RV15. All the others are plenty big enough. Do I really need to go there. Haven't decided. Going where no one can go is quite fun.

The other item is the luggage. I can only fit one mountain bike in the back if I don't take a passenger. It's fun, but more fun with two. My son and I load the ten up with two mountain bikes often and go to many places with airports. It would so nice to go to back country spots with two bikes and two people with no worry of beating up the ten.

Then there is the 2 dogs. They would love to always come with us. Can't load them in the back of the cub but RV15 no trouble.

I am finding many reasons to build the RV15, but I must say, I really do love flying the cub.............above -10c :D
 

  • Easy to get into.
  • Like to pack the kitchen sink when you travel but can't afford an RV (10 or otherwise)?
  • Love the old-style plane looks but don't like the smell of your grandmother's couch?
  • Like to upgrade anything on an old plane but can't afford to?

I'm sure there has to be more out there!

Bob
 
RV15

Looking for a high wing to replace my RV6 but no time to build, cost of the RV15 used when any available $150K+. Will explore the Glastar or Sportsman instead.
 
I'm in 100%. I realize no numbers are published yet, but a careful look at the prototype tells the story... lots of room, shock absorption on main gear and tw, huge fowler flaps, lots of wing area, stabilator... the details are there! My only concern is if they start taking wing area or flap away from that recipe... it has to be at least as useable as my A1b Husky in the low speed envelope.
 
Back
Top