What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

yep...

As much as I would love to see that 6 seater, the potential market would be very small...

...and it all comes down to the bottom line.
 
Finally got sucked in to this discussion

So... if the RV-15 is a bush plane-ish critter, what might be expected, and what is to be learned from other kits on the market...

1. All-aluminum construction: Van's knows all about that, knows how to do gorgeous NC parts. Existing kits on the market are from Murphy Aircraft. Lots of capability in Murphys, but slow and pricey by RV standards;
2. Tailwheel / nosewheel / floats: the GlaStar planes were among the first where the gear was designed to be switched, and this could be done in a day. Nice planes, good handling, but way pricey and maybe 30 knots slower than a comparably powered RV. I looked at a damaged GlaStar some years ago as a possibly project, and a new wing kit alone was much more than an entire RV kit. The GlaStars also have folding wings which sound cool but may not really have that much utility in real life. I'd be very happy to have a Sportsman 2+2, and I'd probably live with the slower speeds, but my RVs are doing well by me, thank you!
3. Cub clone: there's a gazillion of these on the market, some of them pricey. Neat features to be seen include wider fuselages, being able to sleep in the plane, etc;
4. Other interesting planes: the Bearhawk is very capable and deserves a good following. The Vashon Ranger (LSA) has the interesting feature that if flown solo, it can be a (tricycle gear) bush plane that you can sleep in and carry a ton of camping gear and junk. I've flown several of the RANS aircraft, none recently, and was impressed with their handling characteristics, but in the wrong way. Like I said, none recently;
5. Anybody ever priced tundra tires? We're talking kilobucks. And if you're landing on pavement, tundra tires make taildragger handling harder. At Anchorage, they added a gravel runway for the tundra tire planes.

So where's the exploitable, marketable gap in the market? I think it's an all-metal, tandem seating, two seat Cub-ish semi-bush plane with tailwheel or nosewheel available, but probably not field convertible as easily as a GlaStar. Expect performance more or less comparable to existing planes, but maybe a little faster because an aluminum wing can hold its airfoil shape better than fabric covered (I think). Float attach, maybe.

I greatly prefer high wing airplanes for the shade, the view of the ground, and the generally better ride in turbulence. For me, 150 knots is the minimum speed desired for usable cross-country flying, but of the Cessna singles, only the 201s can achieve that. The RV-7/9 fuselages are at the bottom end of tolerable fuselage width. But that's just me, and I don't think there's a lot of market share there if you really need 150 knots because that dictates a bigger engine, etc. etc.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Then again...

The market for Cessna 172s and the like is getting hot. The RV-10 is really nice, but it's pricey. Maybe...
 
I side by side high wing would be great! So would an updated 9 (I know there's the 14 - a little pricey). I just can't wait to see what's coming from the magic kingdom of Van's.

Bob
 
I remember looking at some Rans plans years ago and thinking they were pretty good. They had 3D renderings and exploded parts diagrams back when the Vans plans were hieroglyphics on clay tablets. What sort of difficulties have you experienced with the S-21 kit? Not disputing you, just trying to learn, since I too would like to build a Rans someday... unless a tandem high-wing RV materializes...

This is not the place for this discussion, sorry.
 
...all my thoughts on the subject. Give it a read if you're bored, or like Super Cubs <g>.

Link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7jgx-6MVMksVX6sNHoyUoIrXbCw_zwJ/view

v/r,dr

Doug,

I agree with you Doug; however, I would like to see a 2+2 "bush" plane. Call it a 180 hp Cessna 170 with 8" wheels (Larger, if the pilot wants).

Van's could design it like the -7 & -8 where they can be built with any engine from 150 to 200 HP and with or without a CS prop.

I don't need to build another two seat RV, I have one that I love but we already use it like a Super Cub and would like room to take my wife and another couple out for dinner or myself, my wife, and son can load it up and go camping for a weekend.

The RV-9 with a strut plugged in at the tie-down ring fitting, longer wing tips, the same RV-9 taildragger firewall and engine mount with the wing mounted up top would be amazing.

The RV-7 & -9 tail cone, VS, and rudder could be reused along with the -9's HS but with five rib tips installed on each side, instead of just three would increase the strength.

The goal would be a plane that can comfortably land and take off in 1500', not 200' like many of the highly modified Super Cub's can, and can cruise at 150 to 160 MPH but still stall in the 40's like the -9 does.

Van's, if you read this and agree, send me the first kit and I will be more than happy to be your test builder! If that doesn't work, let me know you are designing "my plane" and I will stop building the WagAero 2+2.
 
Either or...

Bill,
I?m not so sure it has to be ?either - or? on the occupancy. Just order the size cabin configuration you want. The design could be scalable. My J-3 has a similar wingspan as the super cub. Speaking of backcountry, I had a Maule that had a huge rear door for hauling stuff (1000lb useful load) which I did happily out of a short 1400ft strip. It also had a whopping 73gal of fuel for hauling fuel. It came with 0360 , 540, and just about any engine ever offered. I?d sell the J3 I suppose if Vans offered a bushplane.
 
Bill,
I?m not so sure it has to be ?either - or? on the occupancy. Just order the size cabin configuration you want. The design could be scalable. My J-3 has a similar wingspan as the super cub. Speaking of backcountry, I had a Maule that had a huge rear door for hauling stuff (1000lb useful load) which I did happily out of a short 1400ft strip. It also had a whopping 73gal of fuel for hauling fuel. It came with 0360 , 540, and just about any engine ever offered. I?d sell the J3 I suppose if Vans offered a bushplane.

I agree with you but my real point is they need to stay away from overpriced engines such as the (I)O-540 and 390.

We forget that the 150 HP O-320 was first used in a four place airplane. Today we consider any O-320 powered RV as being an UNDER powered RV
 
I agree with you but my real point is they need to stay away from overpriced engines such as the (I)O-540 and 390.

If memory serves correctly, before the RV-10 was released, the (I)O-540s (used) were relatively cheap. I seem to remember this is one of the reasons that the Rocket was a more realistic proposition. You could buy a low time (used) (I)O-540 for less than an (I)O-360. Supply and demand?
 
We forget that the 150 HP O-320 was first used in a four place airplane. Today we consider any O-320 powered RV as being an UNDER powered RV

Some do, some don't. The ones that consider an O-320 RV to be under powered are the same people that think a pick-up MUST have a V-8 engine, regardless of HP.
 
Last edited:
My choice would be a plane much like the RV-9, with a longer, stronger gear for the back-country places, an external baggage door, that has the current sort of kit quality and step-by-step instructions that the RV-14 does.

Add a larger, more capacious baggage compartment and a few other rough-field changes like more clearance at the tailwheel, and that would be it.

No need for a high wing with thoughtful design.

Dave
 
Re: David Paule?s Comment,

I totally agree with everything in your comment for the next Vans Aircraft model...except the low-wing configuration.

IMHO, Vans needs to add a high-wing model to their lineup at this point as I suspect there is a large percentage of prospective GA pilots/aircraft owners (i.e. ?older folks?) who require the easier ingress/egress into the cabin w/o having to climb up a wing.
 
I asked Mitch about dimpled skins. Trouble is that undimpled parts can be both left and right parts, but after dimpling, they?re either right or left. More parts, more space to store inventory, more chance of error, etc.
 
If memory serves correctly, before the RV-10 was released, the (I)O-540s (used) were relatively cheap. I seem to remember this is one of the reasons that the Rocket was a more realistic proposition. You could buy a low time (used) (I)O-540 for less than an (I)O-360. Supply and demand?

You are correct Sir.

A friend who was building something other than an RV at the time complained that the cost of the used IO-540 went up $10,000 with the announcement of the RV-10 and they haven't come down since.
 
My choice would be a plane much like the RV-9, with a longer, stronger gear for the back-country places, an external baggage door, that has the current sort of kit quality and step-by-step instructions that the RV-14 does.

I'm not a huge fan of the current trend in instruction sets. With the full size drawings that you received with the pre-RV10 kits you could look at the drawings and determine if the mod you are thinking about will work or now. With the step-by-step plans that is a very difficult thing to determine until everything is assembled.

A good compromise would be the step-by-step instructions and optional full size drawing sheets.

Add a larger, more capacious baggage compartment and a few other rough-field changes like more clearance at the tailwheel, and that would be it.
I agree, that would be nice on all models!

No need for a high wing with thoughtful design.

Dave

If you are going to build a bush plane, a high wing is almost mandatory. Some of the strips have low brush and you would destroy your low wing bush plane trying to land, park, or camp at some of the places I have seen. In addition, there is less chance of the mains kicking up a stone or stick and damaging the underside of the wing and flaps with a highwing.

Besides, they are easier to sit under when you are hanging out at OSH answering questions about your cool new high wing RV.

For the older pilots and passengers, high wings are also much easier to get in and out of than the buckets that are out current two seat RV's!
 
Last edited:
Compromise

I cast my vote again (vote early, vote often) for a high wing speedster. If Vans wants to use big flaps to slow it down that is fine by me. Cantilever wings would be nice ala Cessna 177. Tail dragger is fine.
 
I'd think the next airplane will be final matched drilled and dimpled. Can you imagine how much time will be saved?

Match drilling (as opposed to pre-punching to final size) would be an expensive hand operation for Vans to undertake and would require them to increase the kit price. I'm fine with the current process. It's a good balance between ease of assembly and cost.

Pre-dimpled? I say no. I learned by experience how dimpling before priming just makes the surface prep that much harder. The dimples tear up the Scotchbright pad quickly and it's more difficult to get a proper scuff around the dimple. I use a 2 part epoxy Akzo primer and it has no problem handling the dimpling process without damage.
 
An RV...RV!

My buddy DR brings up a much maligned point, one shared by many of us "back-country" RVer's.
Why not an RV-Bush Plane? If you build it, they will come...

My vote?
Something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EuqgOYYwz0

photo sharing
The RV15?

Time will tell whether the most successful aircraft kit manufacturer in the world will deviate from their money making formula, but I for one am hopeful...

V/R
Smokey

PS: It will have big shoes to fill...

My 180MPH Super Cub @U72...
 
Last edited:
ah, just like the 12, put 2 pieces of metal together, stick the rivet in and pull. Perfect...

Instructions just like the 12 and 14, landing gear like the 14 and side by side.

Thank you!

Bob
 
Super cub gear on a 9

My buddy DR brings up a much maligned point, one shared by many of us "back-country" RVer's.
Why not an RV-Bush Plane? If you build it, they will come...

My vote?
Something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EuqgOYYwz0

photo sharing
The RV15?

Time will tell whether the most successful aircraft kit manufacturer in the world will deviate from their money making formula, but I for one am hopeful...

V/R
Smokey

PS: It will have big shoes to fill...

My 180MPH Super Cub @U72...

Just put really tall super cub type gear on a 9 and the job will be done for most bush work. The RV 9 - B
 
Last edited:
It's one thing to make a Cub in metal, and quite another to include good bush characteristics and speed. Remember the motto - "Total Performance."

Dave
 
Super C170

There was a Super C170 at Oshkosh this year 2018, a home built version of That is what I’m talking about. The owner said he had lots of interest in his plane! Some wanted to buy it. He is building 10 of them to sell. Certified. :cool:

A Home Built with sticks, side by side, Or one seat up front. Extended baggage. Baggage door. 4 cylinder! =. Home Run!!!
 
Last edited:
There was a Super C170 at Oshkosh this year 2018, a home built version of that is what I?m talking about. The owner said he had lots of interest in his plane! Some wanted to buy it. He is building 10 of them to sell. Certified. :cool:

A Home Built with sticks, side by side, Or one seat up front. Extended baggage. Baggage door. 4 cylinder! =. Home Run!!!

Ding,ding, ding....
We have a winner!
 
There was a Super C170 at Oshkosh this year 2018, a home built version of that is what I’m talking about. The owner said he had lots of interest in his plane! Some wanted to buy it. He is building 10 of them to sell. Certified. :cool:

A Home Built with sticks, side by side, Or one seat up front. Extended baggage. Baggage door. 4 cylinder! =. Home Run!!!

It's called a Bearhawk. The 4-Place and the Patrol do all of this. You can do 4-cylinder or -6. I had Bearhawk 4-Place with IO-540 and sold it last year. It was by far the best bush plane I've ever flown. I could get into and out of anywhere I wanted to go with all my stuff. With so many high wing backcountry airplane choices out there, I would be surprised if Vans decided to try to disrupt that market. I would welcome it of course, but I would be surprised. Here's a photo...sorry it's so large. This is at a cow pasture in a valley at 9,000 MSL in Utah. Piece of cake. I used the bear fence to keep the cattle from rubbing up against the airplane.

http://halie.com/oeV.jpg

[ed. replaced large photo with link to large photo (to preserve proper word wrapping. v/r,dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. I'm in the process of scratch building a 4pl Bearhawk right now. I (foolishly) sold my RV-8 last December, then realized I would be too long finishing the Bearhawk so bought a Maule with the proceeds to fly in the meantime. My Bearhawk will be O-540 235hp and Hartzell powered, but there are all kinds of them out there with an O-360 180hp and fixed pitch prop.

I really hope Van's does NOT come out with a four place, high wing bush plane because then I would be forced to buy the kit and build it.... :p
 
Next RV

How about a 2 place methylox orbital rocket?

The -7 fulfills my need to explore the atmosphere quite beautifully. Space is the next obvious step...

:D
 
Ok. Clearly the all metal bush plane concept is popular but what about if Van's did a bush plane and also made it aerobatic :) that would check a lot of boxes for me and provide a unique market offering. Kind of like a experimental Citabria.... Something that lands slow enough to be considered STOL but fast enough to be a useful cross country machine.
 
I think that you have to decide what mission a particular aircraft is going to be used for when designing it because if you're not careful you'll end up with something that's not really particularly good at anything because it's a compromise of everything. I have a side by side hot rod (that the wife likes) that's fast and efficient, and is capable of crossing country flights and ready for acrobatics if I choose to do any yanking and banking. So, in a perfect world I'd love to have an all aluminum, two door, tandem, STOL, big tire, big suspension, heavy load carrying, amphibious, 200 MPH, acrobatic capable, bush plane....but I don't think that's going to happen. In that respect I think I'll stick to my original wish list and cast my vote again for everything listed above....minus the speed. I'm no aeronautical engineer but I would think if an aircraft were built strong enough to carry heavy loads that it could be used for acrobatic maneuvers.......even if that's not what it was really originally designed for. So, if Vans does produce a back country airplane one day I really hope that they stay laser focused on that particular "backcountry" mission and not try to do everything and to fit into category. I don't want a fast four or even a two seat side by side cross country airplane...I have one. What I want is that mission specific bad boy that I can go play with off road in that 100-200 mile radius of my home base. If I want to take it further than that,...so be it...I'll just plan for it. If the wife doesn't want to go play in the tandem bush plane than she can wait until we go somewhere in the side by side speedster...it'll be her choice, but I think once she were to experience the capabilities of a true bush plane and the adventure that can be had in it, than I don't think the seating arrangement will be much of an issue, especially because ninety percent of the adventures in that bush plane will take place within an hour or so of our home base. Maybe I'm just lucky but my gal really isn't picky about what kind of airplane we fly or the seating seating arrangment....she's just thankful that we have something that we can go play in and enjoy the adventures that we experience together and the memories that we make in it.
 
This thread is a bit of a painful topic for me.

I shopped and shopped and shopped before I finally pulled the trigger on my RV 12 kit in 2014. I wanted more of a bush plane, but for my first build I wanted something that I could finish successfully. I went with the Vans brand solely for the buildability, economics, builder support. And that was after visits to many, many kit manufacturers.

Back when I was shopping, there were so many RV 12?s that were being finished in a reasonable amount of time without too much fuss that I couldn?t pass up such a well put together product. But it?s not really what I wanted. I wanted something that was fairly easy to build, relatively inexpensive to buy and operate, and that could go off field. I was willing to sacrifice speed for STOL capability. It was my assessment that the super cub knock off?s were either too expensive, too complicated, or didn?t have enough builder support given my skill set and budget.

My RV 12 has been a fun little airplane. It checked all of the boxes except for the off the field capability. I landed at Boulder Mountain airstrip in Utah last fall, and it did well. But I find myself flying all over Utah looking down at the ground and wishing that I could explore some of the more remote airstrips.

Now that my confidence in building has grown, I am more inclined to venture into more difficult projects. The Bearhawk and a scratch built Piper Super Cub are the most intriguing to me. If Vans offered a product in that genre, it would be a no-brainer for me. That would be my next build. Even though the bush plane market is a bit crowded, no one can compete with Vans design, curb appeal, thoughtfulness, economies of scale, builder support, and flying characteristics. If Vans entered the bush plane market, it would be like Southwest Airlines entering the airline market years ago. Vans would do it simply, efficiently, and more economically than the competition. They would capture a portion of the market that is currently untouched.
 
Case for RV Super Cub

**** YES. Great start Doug, I've been ready to build another aluminum riveted high wing for some time, I'd really like it to be from the RV family. Side by Side, floats, better Vcruise. Thanks for getting this started, hope this is the place to add favorable comments, couldn't figure how to add to your .pdf.
 
RV15. RV Super Cub

RV Super Cub.

I have been reserving this N6YH for my next airplane for some years now.
N6YH, N6 Yah. Hoo!
I hope Vans develops an airplane for it.
Cessna 170 size,,, one or two front seats,,, sticks, Lycoming 0-320,,, to IO-390
Mine will get a O-360, Simple panel. Two seats up front
N6YH.
 
Last edited:
Glastar competitor..but better

Vans wants to sell more airplane kits right?..considering that the potential buyers are somewhat of a finite market, meaning that I dont think they, or anyone else could design a kit that would bring alot NEW potential homebuilders into the market, Then they need to concentrate on designing a kitplane that will increase their marketshare of this given market. I would hope they understand this concept first off.
So, all the talk here of, "already this or that company covering that kind of airplane"..seems to me to be inescapable, and what ever comes next is going to have to WIN marketshare from somebody else.
Now, "NEW" vans customers is what they need, and whatever design comes about will have the benefit of the existing customer base to help jump start it.
I believe that Vans has pretty well got the low wing speedster market, and enough models that any new model along those lines simply fragments their marketshare. 90% of that market is already covered with the multitude of models available now. IN fact, I believe its already somewhat fragmented among those trying to decide choosing between a 9 and a 7 or a 14..or a 10.
If I were CEO of Vans, and the long term future of the company was my biggest consideration, (which it would be If I were the CEO) Then I would look at this finite number of folks willing to build themselves a flying machine, and target the designs that are in the highest demand among builders. This seems like a no-brainer to me..but what do I know..
Why are there alot of companies building STOL bush planes? demand from the market is why. Biggest segment maybe?
As a VAns customer, I also am looking at the Next kit in my future, and none of the current aircraft they offer is a big enough difference from my 9A to warrant starting a build.
I think that the Glastar style highwing competitor would bring in the most "NEW" customers, and as we have seen here, would appeal to many of the base also.
It could be designed in accordance with the "Total performance" mantra and easily be faster that a Glastar..because a all aluminum exact clone would be lighter..and thereby faster with the same wing. Im not advocating this BTW..just stating . I think a cantilever wing with no struts, for both ease of entry, and speed would be a good start. Nothing much easier to get in and out of that a 177 cessna cardinal. Who would not like that?..and nobodys got one for homebuilders. Opps..Ken K has a drawing of one that looks like he might be looking for a company to build. I bet it will be a hit if it comes to fruition. I spoke with Randy S several time about designs when he was drawing the s-21, and he went with the strut wing because it was an easier evolution of his existing models and that really cool leading edge extrusion thats a wing spar.. I mentioned a strutless wing should be his next project..fast airfoil with alot of flap.
For VANs, a nice wide fuselage..available with tailwheel or nose wheel, fast thin wing and fat STOL wing..heck there's already 3 or 4 models to to develop that could share a single fuselage. Seems pretty good for a manufacturer.
This kind of design would cover features and missions That are in demand, that the current offerings do not, hence.. more marketshare.
 
Aluminum High Wing

Yea, I like that continuance of the total performance mantra. Assuming there is a strong market for a 2 seat STOL that's built around the 0-320/360. This light aluminum wing and frame could fill a void with even a small increase in performance. Strut or not to strut, whatever is the best design for the mission. However, the "total performance" calling card would be replaced from top to bottom speed: to... ?Top weight and bottom STOL performance!?. How do you like that? Huh? "Here you have the most modern 2-place STOL in pre-punched aluminum", that is finished in 500 hours. I have looked also- There are now fewer kits in this category. Rans and Bearhawk are not 2-place 160/180 HP. yea, the Carbon...Eliminate the tube and rag- go aluminum! So I think the question for VAN's team is: What is the increase in performance and decrease in kit build time- will it be worth it? A small increase in usable weight of 5% is not going to cut it. But if you add another +4% to the airfoil STOL and keep the top end speed and add ease of kit construction with a reasonable tail kit price...... The data on paper of possible improvements will only go so far. Knowing the conservative thinking of Van and crew, Will they bite? Would it be worth at least a look? An exercise on paper?
HECK yea, I absolutely think so!!
 
I agree Van's could and would take a large share of the high wing bush market if they entered. If Van's builds it they will come. Van's is king of the kitplane world and when they offer a product everyone knows it will be quality.
 
Larger wheel/tire options for all A models.

As long as we are suggesting whats next..I have a really helpful suggestion I think. How about Vans developing a larger wheel and or tire options for the tricycle gear machines..include the 7, 9 14, and maybe even the 10.
Those of us who have the desire to frequent turf runways, or are based at one would surely benefit from a choice. And I bet it would drum up alot of biz pretty quickly for re-fits.. I for one would sacrifice the few knots for the extra bit of safety a larger nosewheel would provide, along with a bit bigger mains.
 
This would change everything for me!

I?m working on my PPL. 15 hour into it, I have 15 hours of tail draggger time. Why? Because I know I will likely own one of two planes: an RV-7 or a C170b. I know I cannot have everything I want in one plane, and sacrifices will need to be made, but my dream machine would look like this...

- High wing for off airport (gravel bar and bush) landings. [C170b]
- Tail wheel again for off airport use (and the cool factor helps) [RV-7, C170b]
- 4 Cylinder Engine for cheaper operating costs [RV-7, C170b]
- 4 Seats cause I want to take the family [C170b]
- All metal construction [RV-7, C170b]
- Acrobatic for fun [RV-7]
- Great support if I have to build it, and I?d like to build it, not buy it [RV-7]
- Excellent cruising speed [RV-7]

And this is why I will likely buy a C170b. I can rent a Citabria to do acrobatics at my club. I can live with not building my plane if it comes down to it. I can afford to take a bit more time getting somewhere. But I don?t want to sacrifice... I want a plane that can do all these things (even acrobatics if possible). So Van?s I challenge you to do something amazing, daring, and that will have the industry talking for years. Build the RV-15... and put four seats in it! (Please)
 
Cessna 170B also has a 6-cylinder Continental engine, unless it's been converted.
I used to have one. It is a great airplane. It is NOT fast and it will not haul a big load.
 
I used to have a Cessna 170B too, and at gross weight, it's definitely a bit marginal, at least up here in Colorado. It was an honest 110 mph airplane and had good visibility. It lacked enough rudder control for confidence in gusty crosswinds. On cross-country flights, I burned 7.5 gph. I wouldn't compare one to an RV-7 at all.

I sold it when I bought my 1955 Cessna 180. It has none of those faults. It cruises above 155 mph, and has plenty of control power. Visibility wasn't as good as the 170. At gross weight, the 180 still has ample performance. It carries four people easily. And it burns about 10 1/2 gph. While not as fast as an RV-7, it's close enough and carries significantly more.

Now that I'm building an RV-3B, I'm keeping the C180.

Dave
 
Engines and Behinds....

Mel and Bob I agree with your statements in principal and should have been more specific. My C170b will have a 4 cylinder once I’m done with it. And while the C170b does have 4 seats, it is by no means a heavy hauler. My passengers are small. Given my wife and two kids weight less than me (170lbs) when combined, with them, myself, and full fuel, I’ll be able to take some small bags still. I might need to make the boy walk when they get older though... or stop feeding them. Like I said, sacrifices may be necessary.

Dave I am envious. I would love a C180. I hear the operating costs are pretty intense though. Although like you I figure the C170 may be a stepping stone to the larger C180.
 
Last edited:
Mel and Bob I agree with your statements in principal and should have been more specific. My C170b will have a 4 cylinder once I?m done with it. And while the C170b does have 4 seats, it is by no means a heavy hauler. My passengers are small. Given my wife and two kids weight less than me (170lbs) when combined, with them, myself, and full fuel, I?ll be able to take some small bags still. I might need to make the boy walk when they get older though... or stop feeding them. Like I said, sacrifices may be necessary.

Yep, like I said, the 170B is a great airplane. I really enjoyed mine. Putting a Lyc O-360, and constant speed prop on the nose really helps the performance. The only comment I don't understand is concerning the rudder. I never ran out of rudder on mine. Especially if you compare it to a swept tail C-172.
 
I'll be glad to discuss the C170 or the C180 further, off-line. If you send me an email, that would be easiest. Click on my name above left and go from there.

As for the RV-15, I've said before that I think it should be a ruggedized RV-9 with the RV-14 construction flow and plans quality, and with a longer landing gear, taller tail gear and 6" wheels and external baggage door. The landing gear should be comfortable with the larger tires without shimmy. The O/IO-360 engines should be stock for this version. Perhaps some beefed-up crash protection if that's appropriate.

I believe that it would expand the RV line and do it in an evolutionary way. The top speed would probably go down somewhat with the bigger tires and longer gear, though. How much I don't know.

Dave
 
Back
Top