What's new
Van's Air Force

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

2+2 rear seating

LeeBurk

I'm New Here
I've looked in these threads and may have missed it, but does anyone know or has anyone heard or has the factory said what type of rear seats they're planning? I know it's not a true four place but was wondering about the Atlee-Dodge style folding rear seats. I have a couple of friends with them in their 180s/185s. They're light weight, and stow against the side wall without taking up hardly any cargo space. Work perfect when you need an extra seat tor two for short hops/trips and aren't packing a lot of extra stuff.
 
I haven’t seen anything but have wondered if having them rear facing would be beneficial for weight and balance by putting the heaviest part of the passengers further forward to allow for lighter adults/ big kids.
 
You would probably want something that sits lower to the floor. Not a lot of space back there, for people that is
 
I don't care for rear facing seats. I don't ride around in a vehicle facing backwards and I don't like flying in club seats facing backwards. Just my preference.
 
Whoa @Carlos151 what are those?

No need for the +2 when I build my -15 ;)
Both dogs are Bouvier des Flandres
Just a couple of Mark 1 Mod 0 small lap dogs :D
Should have no problem fitting in the back; I hope....
 

Attachments

  • C62057DA-061A-4049-8FE0-96E5C9524E2E.jpeg
    C62057DA-061A-4049-8FE0-96E5C9524E2E.jpeg
    154.2 KB · Views: 199
Do I Understand This Correctly?

LeeBurk, are you thinking about putting seats in the baggage compartment of an RV-9? I guess there’s room and weight capacity for, say, a two-year-old. Would putting a human back there violate the airplane’s certification? I’m sure the -9 is listed as a 2PCLM. (2 place closed land monoplane). But my biggest question would be why do you hate this person? 😀
 
LeeBurk, are you thinking about putting seats in the baggage compartment of an RV-9? I guess there’s room and weight capacity for, say, a two-year-old. Would putting a human back there violate the airplane’s certification? I’m sure the -9 is listed as a 2PCLM. (2 place closed land monoplane). But my biggest question would be why do you hate this person? ��

Note this is the RV-15 Forum……
 
LeeBurk, are you thinking about putting seats in the baggage compartment of an RV-9? I guess there’s room and weight capacity for, say, a two-year-old. Would putting a human back there violate the airplane’s certification? I’m sure the -9 is listed as a 2PCLM. (2 place closed land monoplane). But my biggest question would be why do you hate this person? ��

Besides Paul correctly pointing out this is the RV-15 Forum, not RV-9, what certification violation are you referring to? It's E-AB so the builder/owner can do whatever they want, at least legally even if impractical or imprudent, in the US. Not sure where you're getting this 2PCLM category or where it would be listed as such.
 
Last edited:
What he said…

Besides Paul correctly point out this is the RV-15 Forum, not RV-9, what certification violation are you referring to? It's E-AB so the builder/owner can do whatever they want, at least legally even if impractical or imprudent, in the US. Not sure where you're getting this 2PCLM category or where it would be listed as such.

Amen!
Quote from an FAA guy looking at my newly completed RV4 at an obscure flyin in the SEUSA back in the day:

“Experimental,? What it should say is Yo-yo, You’re on you’re own”

If you want a capable 4 place airplane that can carry a load, go fast and has an impeccable track record, go buy a Bonanza. (What I have now) If you want to build for years, seemingly 90% done 90% to go forever and jump thru seemingly endless hoops to fly one you built yourself, baggage compartment seating arrangements notwithstanding, then build a Kitplane.
I know…:)

V/R
Smokey

PS: quote from my wing commander interview when I got hired at the Bama Guard flying F16’s: “Who ya for?” (Bama memorabilia everywhere in his office)
I said: “whoever is playing those guys, pointing at his memorabilia. “What, you go to Auburn???” Get outa here, you’re hired!”
:)
 
Mm, Took Myself Down the Rabbit hole

I saw this post on the list of Today's Posts, did not know it was on the RV-15 Forum. I checked LeeBurk's profile and it said his main RV interest was the -9, so I figured he was asking about adding a jump seat to a -9. My misteak. If the experimental type certificate is issued for a two place airplane, seems to me that flying with more than 2 aboard would not be looked kindly upon. EAB is not a license to do whatever you want although of course it's a license to do much more than an approved type cert gives, but even if it was, FAR 13 (the careless and reckless "we can always getcha" rule) would still come into play... after the accident of course. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
 
I saw this post on the list of Today's Posts, did not know it was on the RV-15 Forum. I checked LeeBurk's profile and it said his main RV interest was the -9, so I figured he was asking about adding a jump seat to a -9. My misteak. If the experimental type certificate is issued for a two place airplane, seems to me that flying with more than 2 aboard would not be looked kindly upon. EAB is not a license to do whatever you want although of course it's a license to do much more than an approved type cert gives, but even if it was, FAR 13 (the careless and reckless "we can always getcha" rule) would still come into play... after the accident of course. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

I disagree completely and your position is not supported by any reg, AC, or FAA order that governs E-AB certification. You are, say it with me, LEGALLY free to modify an existing E-AB kit or plans to whatever design you want within the parameters of AC 20-27G and FAA Order 8130.2J. IOW you most certainly can modify a 2-place design into one with more seats if you desire. Heck look at the Twin Jag and Duo Deuce. Those both started life as regular RV-6As and were modified into twins! There’s no type certificate or any other artifact that you have to adhere to. Now having said that, legal is not synonymous with safe or practical. Whomever does your AWC inspection might take a dim view of you hypothetically taking a 2-place design and turning it into something else without engineering data to back it up.
 
Last edited:
My first post on VAF was about this: an RV-6 with two little-kid seats in the back:

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?p=714415

For weight-and-balance, the airplane was stretched and has an IO-540 up front. So, similarly to the aforementioned twins, it arguably should not be called an RV-6.

For the record: As an engineer (who currently has a lot more light-airplane experience than I did 11 years ago), these mods feel sketchy. Can an RV-6 tail - even on a stretched tail cone - balance and stabilize an airplane over that wide a CG range? What's the landing speed with all that weight? What aeroelastic modes could resonate below the RV-6's VNE? How easy would it be to exceed VNE with all that power? How crashworthy are those seats and seatbelts? Yes, it's possible to answer these questions, but it would take a lot of testing and analysis to answer them reliably. Still... the airplane does say "Experimental"!
 
For the record: As an engineer (who currently has a lot more light-airplane experience than I did 11 years ago), these mods feel sketchy. Can an RV-6 tail - even on a stretched tail cone - balance and stabilize an airplane over that wide a CG range? What's the landing speed with all that weight? What aeroelastic modes could resonate below the RV-6's VNE? How easy would it be to exceed VNE with all that power? How crashworthy are those seats and seatbelts? Yes, it's possible to answer these questions, but it would take a lot of testing and analysis to answer them reliably.
Maybe the thought is that they've taken an aerobatic airframe and converted it to a people hauler that will (likely) never see anything near aerobatic loads?

Doesn't answer the aerodynamic questions, of course...
 
With the updated information, do you think it would be feasible to install rear facing seats, if someone accepts this orientation (not everyone's cup of tea)? They seem to abandon the +2 idea but they only talk about it because of head clearance which could be somewhat mitigated by flipping the seats around like in the Sportsman.Just wonder if useful load, CG etc would make it practical.
 
I saw this post on the list of Today's Posts, did not know it was on the RV-15 Forum. I checked LeeBurk's profile and it said his main RV interest was the -9, so I figured he was asking about adding a jump seat to a -9. My misteak. If the experimental type certificate is issued for a two place airplane, seems to me that flying with more than 2 aboard would not be looked kindly upon. EAB is not a license to do whatever you want although of course it's a license to do much more than an approved type cert gives, but even if it was, FAR 13 (the careless and reckless "we can always getcha" rule) would still come into play... after the accident of course. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

E-ABs have a type certificate? I think the fact that they don't is why Experimental aircraft are issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate and why we are not beholden to the various STC's that the Certified fleet obligated to.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to the original question...

Take a look at the Glasair Sportsman for 2+2 seating. Originally the kit was offered with forward-facing seats. Given the taper of the fuselage these forward-facing seats are limited to short people - 5'2" is about the practical height limit.

Glasair got smart and designed rear-facing seating. These are quite comfortable for even six footers. The rear-facing position also puts the passenger's mass closer to the centre of gravity - an added bonus. Putting REAL people in those back seats is done with regularity, and in comfort. The large side windows and large access door make the back seat quite comfortable to access, too.

Would Atlee-Dodge seats work in the same location? Of course they would, provided one could find sufficient structure to provide support to the passenger during the large decelerations experienced in a crash.

I'll add that I have not installed the rear seats in my Glasair Sportsman - this saves quite a chunk of cash every year when it comes time to renew the insurance policy.
 
Personally, I am very disappointed. I am sure Vans did market research, but to design this plane for a 2 place market is hugely disappointing. Would it really have changed that much in design to make it a 4 place with the option to remove rear seat? Having a cavernous baggage compartment without the option for two more people is sad. There are TONS of two place bush planes already available. I was really hoping for a 170/Pacer/Stinson/Maule replacement. Even lip service to a rear seat would have swayed me. These all do very well on 180 - 210 hp.
 
Personally, I am very disappointed.

Would it really have changed that much in design to make it a 4 place with the option to remove rear seat?

I was really hoping for a 170/Pacer/Stinson/Maule replacement.

yes, the design would have changed more than what you expect.

I do have the RV-15 grin (much different than the RV grin) after every flight and not disappointed one bit.

Those other aircraft that you mentioned are great if this one does not fit. Best wishes on finding the right fit/airplane.
 
They are all options but not experimental. Van’s has hit the ball out of the park with every plane they have designed (except the -12, in my opinion) so I’m sure the -15 will be a great plane. But making it an experimental C170 with 180-210 hp and a removable rear seat would have had a ton more buyers. I had hoped the success of the -10 would have opened some eyes to realize there is a huge market for 4 place aluminum experimentals. I am just one person, but I would have ordered a 4 place -15. No interest in another 2 place semi-bush plane. I think every single buyer of a 2 place -15 would have still ordered the slightly larger baggage compartment 4 placer with the seats deleted. It is what it is, but still disappointing.
 
Personally, I am very disappointed. I am sure Vans did market research, but to design this plane for a 2 place market is hugely disappointing.

Market research, sure. You have to keep in mind this is the same company that thought people would want to put their RV-12 on a trailer.

Now it's mountain bikes instead of a kid or two.

I think I still want to build one anyway. Latest in the the evolution.
 
Total Performance, almost?

When I purchased my RV4 kit there was only one other kit available, The RV3. At that time the RV4 appealed to me as it checked a lot of boxes for the least bucks. It still does.
I told Van last summer while chatting less than 10 feet away from the RV15 prototype that “I think you could have stopped at the RV4 as far as I’m concerned” his response was classic:
“A business has to adapt to the market to grow”

If you’re a loyal “Van Fan” then the 15 seating arrangements won’t matter that much. For me the Kit aircraft in that category with the most bang for that amount of bucks is the Bearhawk 4 or 5 with the Murphy Radical a close second. The RV15 falls well short at least in its current configuration.

My Dos Centavos :)
Smokey

Interestingly I purchased an older model Bonanza that has much more of my bang for buck items than the RV10 (or 15) for a third or even fourth of the investment.
 
Last edited:
I think it comes down to what most of us want the airplane to do. Yeah, 2 seats with baggage is 75% of my flying, but I'm not going to build this airplane for 75%. If I wanted a 75% airplane, the RV-7 kit I started 18 years ago (when I was 19...) would be done and probably have 4000hrs on it.



If I wanted a 75% airplane, the Citabria I bought as my first airplane would probably still have hangar space in my hangar.



This airplane needs to be a 99% airplane for me to build it, and for that it needs to be able to put 4 adults in it and lift them. Not necessarily baggage, but a Super 170 or Cessna 180 class airplane.



If I wanted 2 seats and backcountry I'd build a MOAC. If I wanted 2 seats and dirt strips I'd build a 9. I'm sure there are a fair percentage of these kits that will sell, but it's a miss for me... All the more disappointing because its soooo close to perfect. Guess I'll be waiting for the 16 or 18? :)
 
Maybe the -16 will be the Four seater we all want!! Personally I’m a little disappointed how slow the advertised cruise is.. was hoping for a high wing version of the -14 and -10.. get rid of the wing strut and perhaps get a little more cruise speed out of it..
 
Maybe the -16 will be the Four seater we all want!! Personally I’m a little disappointed how slow the advertised cruise is.. was hoping for a high wing version of the -14 and -10.. get rid of the wing strut and perhaps get a little more cruise speed out of it..

Once the kit version strut (a custom airfoil shaped extrusion) is incorporated, having the strut will have a relatively small influence on the speed performance of the RV-15.
getting rid of the strut all together would have some major negative influences on numerous other details of the design that make a cantilever wing just not make much sense.

If the goal had been to design a high wing airplane that had RV-14 type speed performance, that could have been done, but only at the expense of all of the other performance aspects the RV-15 was designed to meet.
The laws of physics apply equally to every airplane design. A designer has to pick and choose what performance aspects they want to focus on the most.
For the RV-15, maximizing cruising speed was not the first one on this list (but every effort possible is being used to make it quite fast for what it is).
 
Thanks for the educational response Scott. I guess I was hoping that the design was more focused on maintaining the speed we all got accustomed to. The back country performance (short takeoff and landing) of the current models seems really good.. I can land in a 700 foot desert step already with my -4 (I’ve done 660 feet). I could probably do better with a CS prop, 8.50 tires and stouter gear. High wings would provide the clearance from bushes..
 

Attachments

  • B9553A4B-F77E-4DEC-8647-9A1AB5562AC2.jpg
    B9553A4B-F77E-4DEC-8647-9A1AB5562AC2.jpg
    550.9 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:
Back
Top