Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
What should Vans do next?
- Thread starter Loman
- Start date
N941WR
Legacy Member
Check this thread.
Phil
Well Known Member
Good question.. Here's my thoughts.
1) The RV-11 does nothing for me. It's just not exciting.
2) I'm cool with an Amphibian, sounds like fun and I'd love a float plane. Just keep it affordable, because it's just to kick around here locally on the weekend.
3) A twin sounds great too. I'd love a twin RV to tour the country with an extra engine pulling me along. This one got my vote primarily because there aren't many twin kits out there and a new one is way too expensive for most of us.
4) I'm excited about the personal jet thing. I really loved the jet that Sonex had on display at Oshkosh. If you could give me one of those at a reasonable price and with the option to hang a 2nd engine off the back, I'd be all over it today.
Personally I really wanted to vote for the jet, but I just don't see the engine prices making it too feasible at this time. I hope that changes. So it ultimately didn't get my vote. BUT I WANT IT!
1) The RV-11 does nothing for me. It's just not exciting.
2) I'm cool with an Amphibian, sounds like fun and I'd love a float plane. Just keep it affordable, because it's just to kick around here locally on the weekend.
3) A twin sounds great too. I'd love a twin RV to tour the country with an extra engine pulling me along. This one got my vote primarily because there aren't many twin kits out there and a new one is way too expensive for most of us.
4) I'm excited about the personal jet thing. I really loved the jet that Sonex had on display at Oshkosh. If you could give me one of those at a reasonable price and with the option to hang a 2nd engine off the back, I'd be all over it today.
Personally I really wanted to vote for the jet, but I just don't see the engine prices making it too feasible at this time. I hope that changes. So it ultimately didn't get my vote. BUT I WANT IT!
Last edited:
Louise Hose
Well Known Member
I'm looking for the motorglider!
An affordable motorglider might be just the ticket for Paul and me in a decade or two. Certainly a great complement to our current fleet!
An affordable motorglider might be just the ticket for Paul and me in a decade or two. Certainly a great complement to our current fleet!
I'm surprised that there isn't more support for a high wing bush type plane....seems to me that is the one part of the market that could be justified (that being the Glastar/Sportsman, Moose, Tundra, Bearhawk, etc..).
That's what I'd like to see! There are a lot of "neato" ideas that we'd all like to see, but the reality is it has to make business sense. An amphibian does not, nor does a jet at this point, or even a motorglider - light twins are going for giveaway prices right now so I doubt there is much market there given insurance and maintenance. If any of the aforementioned had a huge market there would be more players in said market. The only market that is successful enough to sustain many multiple (and good quality) suppliers is really what I referred to; but then again that's just my opinion.
Cheers,
Stein
That's what I'd like to see! There are a lot of "neato" ideas that we'd all like to see, but the reality is it has to make business sense. An amphibian does not, nor does a jet at this point, or even a motorglider - light twins are going for giveaway prices right now so I doubt there is much market there given insurance and maintenance. If any of the aforementioned had a huge market there would be more players in said market. The only market that is successful enough to sustain many multiple (and good quality) suppliers is really what I referred to; but then again that's just my opinion.
Cheers,
Stein
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Crossover Kit
A kit consisting of a 7 wing that would mount to the 9 center section along with 7 tail feathers included in the same kit. I for one would consider purchasing such a kit.
A kit consisting of a 7 wing that would mount to the 9 center section along with 7 tail feathers included in the same kit. I for one would consider purchasing such a kit.
I agree. A more utilitarian 2 + 2 airplane. One that you could actually
get a bicycle or a bunch of camping gear in. Not aerobatic with larger
tires. I know the RV-10 fits this sort of. But something you could build
for the same $$$ as a RV-7/8/9. 180/200 hp and 145/150 KTAS.
Maybe a streched 9 on steriods.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Bryan that's called RV-7that's what you're describing there...
What would the benefit of "9 center section" be?
Just a guess here---
He currently if flying a 9, perhaps he would like a 7?? The kit he is describing will allow the 9 to become a pseudo 7.
Remember the airfoil is different, and who knows about the spar attach.
Thus the need for a "9 center section"
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Bryan that's called RV-7
What would the benefit of "9 center section" be?
That's easy. There's already a 9 center section in my airplane. I've got the desire to build again, but it might be neat to not have to build the entire plane. Why not a crossover kit to allow a new project to fulful that desire to create again and the result would be a new plane feel for an old friend?
Edit. I didn't mean for it to come with a 9 center section, just the ability to attach to one.
Radomir
Well Known Member
Ah.. well..you just need an adapter I'm sure you could fabricate one... Make a short plug that goes into the fuselage.. and sticks out just like the center section does on the -10 It'd make it easier to put those close tolerance bolts... That way you could even keep your wingspan...
I'm sure you could fabricate one... Make a short plug that goes into the fuselage.. and sticks out just like the center section does on the -10 It'd make it easier to put those close tolerance bolts... That way you could even keep your wingspan...
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Crossover Kit
It also would allow for a model change without selling your existing plane and incurring the liability that goes with it. Then instead of 40 hours in phase one after building a complete plane you could put yourself back into phase one and fly off 5 hours. Also my paint job could be salvaged with only the wings to paint. Even more money saved! The more I think about it the more I like it.
It also would allow for a model change without selling your existing plane and incurring the liability that goes with it. Then instead of 40 hours in phase one after building a complete plane you could put yourself back into phase one and fly off 5 hours. Also my paint job could be salvaged with only the wings to paint. Even more money saved! The more I think about it the more I like it.
Last edited:
Stay in business. I know kit purchases are down this past year. He should focus on the business that is successful while trying not to layoff to many people. He can always do some work on his motorglider idea when he's got spare time.
I don't think the RV 12 backlog is quite caught up, but i don't have an inside scoop at the factory.
I don't think the RV 12 backlog is quite caught up, but i don't have an inside scoop at the factory.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
A pre-punched Rocket....
...that wasn't an option to vote on.
With Van's smarts, he could design a tapered-wing, pre-punched quickbuild iteration of a Rocket to be IO-540 powered. By using large fowler type flaps and smaller ailerons, like the -9, could keep landing speeds around 55MPH and a clean airframe for 200+ knot cruise....oh, and side-by-side.
Regards,
...that wasn't an option to vote on.
With Van's smarts, he could design a tapered-wing, pre-punched quickbuild iteration of a Rocket to be IO-540 powered. By using large fowler type flaps and smaller ailerons, like the -9, could keep landing speeds around 55MPH and a clean airframe for 200+ knot cruise....oh, and side-by-side.
Regards,
Something that does 300kts+
There are really only two markets that are out there in experimental (and personel use GA, for that matter) that Van does not compete. First is the high wing utility aircraft mentioned by Stein. The second is the Lancair market. So how about a 2 or 4 place retract with big engine or a turboprop?
I vote for Van to be in survival mode but that is a given with Van.
There are really only two markets that are out there in experimental (and personel use GA, for that matter) that Van does not compete. First is the high wing utility aircraft mentioned by Stein. The second is the Lancair market. So how about a 2 or 4 place retract with big engine or a turboprop?
I vote for Van to be in survival mode but that is a given with Van.
Last edited:
FlyingArcher
Well Known Member
A Trainer
Really would love a rugged -9A or -12, mostly for the nosewheel so it could resist to the bad treatments some student pilots impose to our trainers here at the aeroclub - essentially Cessna 150s and Robin DR400.
Something like adapting the -10 nosewheel to the -9A would maybe do the trick
Really would love a rugged -9A or -12, mostly for the nosewheel so it could resist to the bad treatments some student pilots impose to our trainers here at the aeroclub - essentially Cessna 150s and Robin DR400.
Something like adapting the -10 nosewheel to the -9A would maybe do the trick
rv7boy
Forum Peruser
Well, a motorglider does a lot for me. If you thought you might lose your medical some day (isn't that all of us?) but still be fit to fly (and that may not be all of us but still a considerable number), then a motorglider is a viable option to the LSA. (Unless the FAA closes the present "loophole.")
Secondly, flying a glider and getting a 2,000+ fpm thermal like I did on my first glider lesson is definitely exciting.
The RV-11 is one kit I'd like to see Van produce. If he doesn't, I may have to build a Xenos. (Don't tell my wife.)
carguy614
Well Known Member
Me too....
Love the motorglider idea. Looks like Van has some interest as well in the project, and the sport. Lets see, looks like Van has some engineering and design work already completed. A real aircraft is under construction. And, a major force in kit airplane design and marketing is personally squeezing the rivets. All of this sounds very promising. A viable aircraft may well emerge someday. Given Vans track record, we can bet it to be a real market contender.
I thing that the future of sport aviation may include a larger motorglider segment. With fuel cost, and environmental pressure, as well as economic issues stirred into the mix, we may find ourselves embracing the concept much like our European brethren.
I have never had a glider ride. I know nothing about the sport. But I am immensely intrigued with the concept.
Should I liken this to sailboat/motorboat discussion?
Regards, Chris
Love the motorglider idea. Looks like Van has some interest as well in the project, and the sport. Lets see, looks like Van has some engineering and design work already completed. A real aircraft is under construction. And, a major force in kit airplane design and marketing is personally squeezing the rivets. All of this sounds very promising. A viable aircraft may well emerge someday. Given Vans track record, we can bet it to be a real market contender.
I thing that the future of sport aviation may include a larger motorglider segment. With fuel cost, and environmental pressure, as well as economic issues stirred into the mix, we may find ourselves embracing the concept much like our European brethren.
I have never had a glider ride. I know nothing about the sport. But I am immensely intrigued with the concept.
Should I liken this to sailboat/motorboat discussion?
Regards, Chris
I don't think that I'd ask Ferrari to build my next pick-up truck, just because they make great sports cars.....
Likewise, while I'd love to have the business ethics, construction techniques, and reputation of Van's behind a project like a bush plane, I dont' know why we'd expect them to be able to design and produce a kit for one that would be as far above the norm for the genre as the current RV's are above theirs.....
Likewise, while I'd love to have the business ethics, construction techniques, and reputation of Van's behind a project like a bush plane, I dont' know why we'd expect them to be able to design and produce a kit for one that would be as far above the norm for the genre as the current RV's are above theirs.....
Van already has a great mix of aircraft...
...to meet a wide range of interest in the home built, all aluminum, low wing market. What I would "like" to see is an "upgrade" option to the existing fleet of the RV-6 line (yes, I just completed my RV-6A). I would like a replacement set of wings, and this new wing would pivot and fold back (ala Grumman F6F style) for storage and road transport. Crazy idea, engineering / design intensive, and potentially not well received, but it is what I would like to see.
And if Van doesn't go that rout?? I am very happy with what I have.
...to meet a wide range of interest in the home built, all aluminum, low wing market. What I would "like" to see is an "upgrade" option to the existing fleet of the RV-6 line (yes, I just completed my RV-6A). I would like a replacement set of wings, and this new wing would pivot and fold back (ala Grumman F6F style) for storage and road transport. Crazy idea, engineering / design intensive, and potentially not well received, but it is what I would like to see.
And if Van doesn't go that rout?? I am very happy with what I have.
ergie63
Active Member
factory builds
I would encourage factory builds of the -12 so that there are LSA trainers out there. As I understand it E-LSAs cannot be used for hire. So to keep potential future customers in the family, start 'em out in a factory-built RV. They already have a construction pipeline via their QB suppliers.
Once that was stable, it would an expression of their expertise to extend the concept to the rest of the product line and start selling factory built aircraft in the primary category. After all Van said in Kitplanes last year (June 2008) that the idea has merit.
I would encourage factory builds of the -12 so that there are LSA trainers out there. As I understand it E-LSAs cannot be used for hire. So to keep potential future customers in the family, start 'em out in a factory-built RV. They already have a construction pipeline via their QB suppliers.
Once that was stable, it would an expression of their expertise to extend the concept to the rest of the product line and start selling factory built aircraft in the primary category. After all Van said in Kitplanes last year (June 2008) that the idea has merit.
I'm with you guys. The first thing I'd like to see is a pre-punched tapered wing option/retrofit for the 6/7/8. I'd give up some roll rate and short-field performance for increased top speed, higher wing loading (better ride), and overall sexiness.
Also, a prepunched, Van's-supported "F-5" Rocket would be awesome. I'd vote for tandem seating, personally, but a Lancair Evolution-class RV that could take an IO-540 or a PT-6 would be hella cool.
Go back to the original RV idea!
You guys seem to forget that the original idea of the RV is "Total Performance". There are other kit manufacturers that offer faster, slower, more acro, STOL, etc. But no other does them all so well in one package.
You guys seem to forget that the original idea of the RV is "Total Performance". There are other kit manufacturers that offer faster, slower, more acro, STOL, etc. But no other does them all so well in one package.
TAKE CARE OF
I voted for Vans takes care of business.
Aircraft history is littered with defunct companies.
We, the builders and fliers of Vans Aircraft have a winner here. I hope all of you continue to spread the RV experience. Give Cessna, Grumman, and Piper flyer's a go at your controles every chance you get. As their airplanes get older and slower, and we spread the fun around, the RV world will expand. Our numbers will grow, and Vans will be there for us in the future. We have a good thing, don't ask them to reach too far. Aircraft businesses are too valuable to let fail.
I have a bush plane, I think Stein has one as well. There are plenty of other choices out there. Enjoy your RV Total performance!! we have it all. Spread the fun around....
I voted for Vans takes care of business.
Aircraft history is littered with defunct companies.
We, the builders and fliers of Vans Aircraft have a winner here. I hope all of you continue to spread the RV experience. Give Cessna, Grumman, and Piper flyer's a go at your controles every chance you get. As their airplanes get older and slower, and we spread the fun around, the RV world will expand. Our numbers will grow, and Vans will be there for us in the future. We have a good thing, don't ask them to reach too far. Aircraft businesses are too valuable to let fail.
I have a bush plane, I think Stein has one as well. There are plenty of other choices out there. Enjoy your RV Total performance!! we have it all. Spread the fun around....
Last edited:
Jon Clements
Well Known Member
.....
Nice call Jay but........
I still reckon an aerobatic variation of the RV-10 in taildragger format would be a big seller.
They could call it the RV-10.......and change the current model to the RV-10A (of course)...!!!
That would be the definition of Total Performance to me........
Nice call Jay but........
I still reckon an aerobatic variation of the RV-10 in taildragger format would be a big seller.
They could call it the RV-10.......and change the current model to the RV-10A (of course)...!!!
That would be the definition of Total Performance to me........
I'd have to seriously consider a more acro oriented...
version of an RV-3/4/8.
Thicker wing foil, stronger empennage and whatever else was needed to compete safely head to head with something like a one design type series.
It would still be a decent cross country plane but provide more envelope for those days you go up and don't go anywhere in particular and just mess around locally...which is how I mostly fly my plane.
version of an RV-3/4/8.
Thicker wing foil, stronger empennage and whatever else was needed to compete safely head to head with something like a one design type series.
It would still be a decent cross country plane but provide more envelope for those days you go up and don't go anywhere in particular and just mess around locally...which is how I mostly fly my plane.
rbibb
Well Known Member
I voted for a production RV-12 because:
a) It could, IMHO, be a viable replacement for the C-152 and offer flight schools of all sizes and alternative trainer platform that could take a student through complete Private curriculum and even partially toward an Instrument rating.
b) I do not see any other viable alternatives on the market to address that need. The Cessna product might but the RV-12 offers some advantages (cost/ability to repair) that a glass product doesn't offer.
The RV-12 offers the best opportunity for Van's to continue to grow which will be necessary to assure long term financial health, hence viability.
All of the other options offer some opportunity to grow but the RV-12 offers the biggest bang for the buck - again in my opinion.
From a business standpoint that makes it the winner.
a) It could, IMHO, be a viable replacement for the C-152 and offer flight schools of all sizes and alternative trainer platform that could take a student through complete Private curriculum and even partially toward an Instrument rating.
b) I do not see any other viable alternatives on the market to address that need. The Cessna product might but the RV-12 offers some advantages (cost/ability to repair) that a glass product doesn't offer.
The RV-12 offers the best opportunity for Van's to continue to grow which will be necessary to assure long term financial health, hence viability.
All of the other options offer some opportunity to grow but the RV-12 offers the biggest bang for the buck - again in my opinion.
From a business standpoint that makes it the winner.
brianwallis
VAF moderator
yup....
I'm gonna have to back up Jay on this one..... However.... If I had my druthers.... They would be knocking out a pre-punch -3 and a pre-punch -4 with optional fastback! (and keeping the cheeks)
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Another LSA
But more exciting!
The RV-12 flies beautifully - I can attest. However, she isn't the prettiest sister in the family. As you look around the LSA market... there aren't ANY that really give me that "GOTTA HAVE IT" sensation. There's no excitement!
I think that a TANDEM LSA either RV-4 styled or even OPEN COCKPIT would be phenomenal. Do it pulled rivet, with engineering and instructions comparable to the RV-12 and you'd have another 'best seller' on your hands!
DJ
But more exciting!
The RV-12 flies beautifully - I can attest. However, she isn't the prettiest sister in the family. As you look around the LSA market... there aren't ANY that really give me that "GOTTA HAVE IT" sensation. There's no excitement!
I think that a TANDEM LSA either RV-4 styled or even OPEN COCKPIT
would be phenomenal. Do it pulled rivet, with engineering and instructions comparable to the RV-12 and you'd have another 'best seller' on your hands! DJ
Last edited:
johnny stick
Well Known Member
A plane for us old farts
How about a high wing 4 seater? I am geting older and my wife has a hard time climbing up onto things, ahigh wing would be nice so when I am in my walker, I can still get into the thing. Please?
How about a high wing 4 seater? I am geting older and my wife has a hard time climbing up onto things, ahigh wing would be nice so when I am in my walker, I can still get into the thing. Please?
cyberpilot10
Well Known Member
my vote
I would love to see them find a way to make the quick build a little less expensive.
my 2 cents
I would love to see them find a way to make the quick build a little less expensive.
my 2 cents
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
YES!!!!
Yes Joe, This is the best idea. Forget a new kit. How about fixing the current plans/instructions to the 10/12 format.
Yes Joe, This is the best idea. Forget a new kit. How about fixing the current plans/instructions to the 10/12 format.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Now there's something new. A tandem LSA with a bubble canopy would be interesting indeed.I think that a TANDEM LSA either RV-4 styled or even OPEN COCKPIT
DJ
As for the motorglider idea, I see three problems:
#1 - don't we have enough of them already? HK36 Katana motorgliders can be found, and Grob 109Bs are available too. Self-launching sailplanes are really a different breed and offer much better soaring performance than a traditional "motorglider" layout. The Stemme S-10 was an attempt at compromise, and it's really expensive and complex. Motorgliders aren't all that common because they are poor sailplanes. A $20k used Discus or Libelle 201 will outperfom any motorglider when soaring is concerned.
#2 - Van's knows aluminum. I can't think of a recent medium or high performance self-launching sailplane or motorglider design that is all metal. This either means that it would be heavy and draggy when compared to a glass ship, or it would be a new material for Van's to start working with; neither sounds good to me.
#3 - What would a Van's design bring to the table? The whole idea of the RV, to me anyway, is that it offers something that you can't get with a "factory" airplane. The "total performance" of the -3/4/6/7/8, the "relaxed performance" of the -9/12 or the "fun traveling machine" of the -12. We already have factory-built self-launching gliders and motorgliders.
I suppose if Van's can make a motorglider with a 35:1 L/D, min sink of 1.3kt and a cruise speed of 110kt, all for less than $125,000, that'd be something new. But otherwise, I don't think it's worth of the Van's name.
My vote would be for a revamp / prepunched version of the -3B and -4, along with better assembly drawings / manuals for all of the older models. A ~75% complete -12 would also be interesting, which is allowed under the E-LSA rules. Upgrading the -10 for a turbo-normalized engine, perhaps? A Van's version of the T-6 II (basically a turboprop -8) would be interesting, but the powerplane would cost A LOT.
TODR
G
GregHenson
A four-place high-wing
I also like Stein's idea for a four-place high-wing; an idea that Van floated before embarking on the -10. Personally, I believe there would be a considerable market if Van could design such an aircraft with the -10's flying qualities.
I also like Stein's idea for a four-place high-wing; an idea that Van floated before embarking on the -10. Personally, I believe there would be a considerable market if Van could design such an aircraft with the -10's flying qualities.
Materials Kit
I know this is bucking the current trend of faster and easier build, but I would like to see something on the lines of a materials kit. Closer to what the original RV-3, -4, &-6 was.
With all this pre-punching, there is no option for minor mods.
I realize there is no market for this type of kit, as everyone nowadays wants "quick & easy"!
I know this is bucking the current trend of faster and easier build, but I would like to see something on the lines of a materials kit. Closer to what the original RV-3, -4, &-6 was.
With all this pre-punching, there is no option for minor mods.
I realize there is no market for this type of kit, as everyone nowadays wants "quick & easy"!
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Any of the following three I got merrit.
1) 4 place high wing bush plane
2) Prepunched single seater aerobatic and cheap to compete with Sonex Onex
3) Motorised glider
I guess only time will tell. But for now I guess they need to consolidate and optimise while doing market research before embarking on next big thing.
Rudi
1) 4 place high wing bush plane
2) Prepunched single seater aerobatic and cheap to compete with Sonex Onex
3) Motorised glider
I guess only time will tell. But for now I guess they need to consolidate and optimise while doing market research before embarking on next big thing.
Rudi
LifeofReiley
Well Known Member
Van's needs to update and put a Full Blown QB RV3 Kit into the market... they would sell a **** load of them!!!
