Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Economic Musings and Dreams of Low and Slow RV Flight (RV-15?)
- Thread starter DeltaRomeo
- Start date
Put me on the list. I have about 600 hours with the wind in my hair, mostly in Phantom ultralights, and it is fun flying. I think you may be a little low on the initial cost, but the operating costs would be great. I would fly more if it were cheaper. There are things like this out there now, however. They just don't have the Van's name on them.
Bob
Bob
Been to the Red Barn or Paradise City lately? Ghost towns, nothing like they once were. It's all gone. You see, two-seat "ultralight trainers" outsold single seat ultralights by about 10 to 1. When we bought into the Great Deal (drivers license medical for the practical elimination of two seat ultralights), it was the end.
Plenty of cheap single seat designs out there right now. Always has been. They don't sell.
BTW, cheap airframes are easy. Cheap flight is an engine problem.
POSTSCRIPT: Doug, I have a $1 bet for you. I say Vans has new design prelim work somewhere in progress, and it's electric.
Plenty of cheap single seat designs out there right now. Always has been. They don't sell.
BTW, cheap airframes are easy. Cheap flight is an engine problem.
POSTSCRIPT: Doug, I have a $1 bet for you. I say Vans has new design prelim work somewhere in progress, and it's electric.
Last edited:
Paul Tuttle
Well Known Member
Sign me up.
Doug,
I think it's a great idea. I flew a Quad city Challenger for over 400 hrs and it was huge fun, although there are things I like and don't like about the design. Some points I really liked were the low operating costs, approx $20.00 per hour, float and ski capability and overall simplicity of this type of aircraft. I was always a little leery of the two stroke engine and did actually end up visiting a farmer unannounced one day. I think if an Ultra Light kit came from the Van's design team with the same qualities we've come to know with the other RVs, it would get noticed in a big way by this growing sector of the aviation community.
PS. did you draw that yourself
[ed. Photoshop! dr]
Doug,
I think it's a great idea. I flew a Quad city Challenger for over 400 hrs and it was huge fun, although there are things I like and don't like about the design. Some points I really liked were the low operating costs, approx $20.00 per hour, float and ski capability and overall simplicity of this type of aircraft. I was always a little leery of the two stroke engine and did actually end up visiting a farmer unannounced one day. I think if an Ultra Light kit came from the Van's design team with the same qualities we've come to know with the other RVs, it would get noticed in a big way by this growing sector of the aviation community.
PS. did you draw that yourself
[ed. Photoshop! dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug, I think you have a good idea. An idea that has been broached alot lately with the fuel prices soaring. Are you inventing a new ultralight? Personally, I think the next development isnt in airframe, or wings. It's in powerplants. INEXPENSIVE to buy, very reliable, ecomonical per hour, decent power. That development might be in electric, or electromagnetic drives or something (Paul Dye where are you?)
I think it would be neat to have something like this, that would cruise in the 130's, burn 2-3 gal/hr, and cost $10,000 turn key.
Ultralight costs with RV12 performance/
Ok I'm crazy--
I think it would be neat to have something like this, that would cruise in the 130's, burn 2-3 gal/hr, and cost $10,000 turn key.
Ultralight costs with RV12 performance/
Ok I'm crazy--
William Slaughter
Well Known Member
I'm with Dan and Tom on this one. For the short duration, around-the-patch mission profile, electric is going to be the way to go.
Phlyan Pan
Well Known Member
I too am in the "no single seat" camp. If I wanted to fly low and slow I could easily find a single seater for less than $15k that is cheap to operate.
One of the most fun things to do in an airplane is share it with someone else. Especially someone who's never done it before.
One of the most fun things to do in an airplane is share it with someone else. Especially someone who's never done it before.
RV-15
I saw a video recently of an interview w/Ken Kruger. Ken was talking about a high wing, big tires, big engine machine for Alaska type flying and back country camping. I think that is what's in the mix at Van's "Skunkworks."
The RV-15 would be a good project, but everyone would have their own ideas on the airplane design......two people, where is the gas tank going to be located, do the wings stay on, what engine, etc.......?
The KK-1 is around here a lot and is a neat airplane with a volkswagon engine, which wouldn't be a bad choice for the economy end.
I saw a video recently of an interview w/Ken Kruger. Ken was talking about a high wing, big tires, big engine machine for Alaska type flying and back country camping. I think that is what's in the mix at Van's "Skunkworks."
The RV-15 would be a good project, but everyone would have their own ideas on the airplane design......two people, where is the gas tank going to be located, do the wings stay on, what engine, etc.......?
The KK-1 is around here a lot and is a neat airplane with a volkswagon engine, which wouldn't be a bad choice for the economy end.
rocketbob
Well Known Member
Exactly. I bought a decent little C150 to get me around until I get my rocket done, when my -6 got tore up at SNF. Paid 10K for it. Going to OSH I burned twice as much fuel to get there and back than I did in my -6 in the previous 11 trips there.
David Paule
Well Known Member
Whether for electric or simply low fuel consumption, it's going to need a relatively long wing. That requires a relatively large tail volume, which usually means a longish tail boom or aft fuselage.
Both drive the initial cost up and increase the difficulty of building it.
For me, provide considerably better visibility, add a seat, the longer wings etc., a reliable powerplant of some kind and I'd be in. Of course it'll have to wait for me to finish the RV-3B kit that hasn't even arrived yet....
Dave
Both drive the initial cost up and increase the difficulty of building it.
For me, provide considerably better visibility, add a seat, the longer wings etc., a reliable powerplant of some kind and I'd be in. Of course it'll have to wait for me to finish the RV-3B kit that hasn't even arrived yet....
Dave
JonJay
Well Known Member
I don't see the head room in it for a manufacturer like Van's to make any money. There are quite a few plans out there, like Afordaplane, and kits like Belite, but they appear to be pretty much garage shop operations, nothing near as sophisticated as Van's.
But, I am no expert. If Van's see's a market and profit to be made, they would certainly be all over it.
But, I am no expert. If Van's see's a market and profit to be made, they would certainly be all over it.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
re-inventing the wheel...again?
One result of the freedom to build and fly .....is that numerous aircraft that are created to fulfill a certain mission. ...sometimes ad nauseum; witness the 100 or so LSA that popped up, some of which are great, others ....well.....
here's one I thought was worth a look, that emulates the RV kits in intent and execution to a large degree....... anyone out there have an opinion on it?????
the Savannah
http://www.skykits.com/index.html
odd though, the site now has a re-direct to another vendor/dealer?????
One result of the freedom to build and fly .....is that numerous aircraft that are created to fulfill a certain mission. ...sometimes ad nauseum; witness the 100 or so LSA that popped up, some of which are great, others ....well.....
here's one I thought was worth a look, that emulates the RV kits in intent and execution to a large degree....... anyone out there have an opinion on it?????
the Savannah
http://www.skykits.com/index.html
odd though, the site now has a re-direct to another vendor/dealer?????
Tomcat RV4
Well Known Member
RV 15
Sounds like fantastic idea,however I agree there are lots of aircraft available,however you lycoming people are going to have to research and be ready to use and improve some of auto conversions available...VW derivitives,subaru, Geo, honda etc.... [ed. KK-1 was designed for a VW. dr]
Sounds like fantastic idea,however I agree there are lots of aircraft available,however you lycoming people are going to have to research and be ready to use and improve some of auto conversions available...VW derivitives,subaru, Geo, honda etc.... [ed. KK-1 was designed for a VW. dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
RV-15
This is a challenging market segment. As some have mentioned above, there is no shortage of single seat cheap homebuilts on the market. However, as you point out, none of them are RVs.
The demographics are with you on this as the sport flier population ages and the economy continues to challenge most everyone. At our airport we've gained multiple Avid Flyers this year. They are marginally powered so they are treated as single-seaters. The business model problem is that these were all had for well under $10K. But again, not one has the support enjoyed by the RV community.
One recommendation... It should be relatively easy to get in and out of. This is one of the most common issues I hear about (especially with antique aircraft).
Power-wise, I agree with Dan that this would be a great application for electric.
Personally, I'm dreaming of an electric motorglider from Vans. Bring on the RV11!
This is a challenging market segment. As some have mentioned above, there is no shortage of single seat cheap homebuilts on the market. However, as you point out, none of them are RVs.
The demographics are with you on this as the sport flier population ages and the economy continues to challenge most everyone. At our airport we've gained multiple Avid Flyers this year. They are marginally powered so they are treated as single-seaters. The business model problem is that these were all had for well under $10K. But again, not one has the support enjoyed by the RV community.
One recommendation... It should be relatively easy to get in and out of. This is one of the most common issues I hear about (especially with antique aircraft).
Power-wise, I agree with Dan that this would be a great application for electric.
Personally, I'm dreaming of an electric motorglider from Vans. Bring on the RV11!
WingsOnWheels
Well Known Member
If the RV-15 were a two-seater with at least 450lb full-fuel payload I would be interested. Otherwise I would just buy a used challenger with a 4-stoke.
csmith3603
Active Member
New STOL RV-XX
Yep those RV-Masters are now trying to corner the Zenith Market?
The mistake they made with the RV-12 was tthere Comittment only to
RowTex 912 over seas manufacture that can't match a Lycoming or Continental AIRCRAFT engine.
The RV-7/8/9 rule....
Yep those RV-Masters are now trying to corner the Zenith Market?
The mistake they made with the RV-12 was tthere Comittment only to
RowTex 912 over seas manufacture that can't match a Lycoming or Continental AIRCRAFT engine.
The RV-7/8/9 rule....
bhassel
Well Known Member
RV-15
Affordable flying is the way to go right now at least for my wallet.
There are designs available for single seat VW based planes. The BK Flier comes to mind as well as the Thatcher CX-4 (although a two seat version the CX-5 should be flying this year). the legal eagle, Hummel and others. Two seat affordability would be great.
I have't seen the plans on the Thatcher but the BK Flier is being designed by someone that was frustrated by attempting to build a Hummelbird. Since I'm building a Hummel Ultracruiser I can understand the lack of detail in the buiding manual being really frustrating.
Van's has the kit prices nailed. Everyone seems to be within a couple of thou of each other for kit prices on two seaters - it's the other stuff that varies widely. To keep costs down this project would need to almost be scratch built (like the 3). Nothing wrong with that - its' fun (would be more fun if the quality of the plans and manuals were up to Van's standards).
I know when I asked about the KK-1 plans (even though I shouldn't have) one of the staff members let me know pretty quick that they stay in business because of the kits, no money in plans - especially when you have to support it.
I'd love to see/buy into something that Van's would design/sell like your concept of an RV-15. It wouldn't even have to be high wing! Throw a VW on the front and go!
From a business perspective, Van's has the infrastructre already to support, design and sell. They also have the market 7,000+ RV'ers. Is there wiggle room to do it and make them some money? I sure hope so!
Bob
Affordable flying is the way to go right now at least for my wallet.
There are designs available for single seat VW based planes. The BK Flier comes to mind as well as the Thatcher CX-4 (although a two seat version the CX-5 should be flying this year). the legal eagle, Hummel and others. Two seat affordability would be great.
I have't seen the plans on the Thatcher but the BK Flier is being designed by someone that was frustrated by attempting to build a Hummelbird. Since I'm building a Hummel Ultracruiser I can understand the lack of detail in the buiding manual being really frustrating.
Van's has the kit prices nailed. Everyone seems to be within a couple of thou of each other for kit prices on two seaters - it's the other stuff that varies widely. To keep costs down this project would need to almost be scratch built (like the 3). Nothing wrong with that - its' fun (would be more fun if the quality of the plans and manuals were up to Van's standards).
I know when I asked about the KK-1 plans (even though I shouldn't have) one of the staff members let me know pretty quick that they stay in business because of the kits, no money in plans - especially when you have to support it.
I'd love to see/buy into something that Van's would design/sell like your concept of an RV-15. It wouldn't even have to be high wing! Throw a VW on the front and go!
From a business perspective, Van's has the infrastructre already to support, design and sell. They also have the market 7,000+ RV'ers. Is there wiggle room to do it and make them some money? I sure hope so!
Bob
randyintejas
Well Known Member
I agree, it's gotta be a two seater. At some point everyone wants to share the flight. The wives of the world may only ride in it once but, if you want to build there had better be a place for her butt too.
Midday update: day one (30 people ready to order).
(30) people have emailed me that they are ready to place an order for the plane described in the PDF document.
Just a midday PIREP….document has been 'live' for 1/2 a day. Seems to be some interest.
(30) people have emailed me that they are ready to place an order for the plane described in the PDF document.
Just a midday PIREP….document has been 'live' for 1/2 a day. Seems to be some interest.
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
missing the point
Been watching this thread with interest. Doug shared his interest in low-n-slow with me a couple weeks ago and has kept me in the loop as he developed his article. Obviously my Legal Eagle project pushed him over the edge and got him to thinking about alternatives to "conventional" RV flight.
But some of the replies in this thread have completely missed the point of Doug's probe. I have to wonder if some of the responders even read most of Doug's article.
The biggest misconception so far is overlooking that Doug is emphatically talking about a single seat aircraft. Read his article to see why. The concept of a very light very simple airplane is outside the box for the typical RVer, however. That is why we are seeing comments like two seats, 400mi range, 130mph, etc, etc, in other words....an RV-12.
Someone referred to the aircraft under question as a kite. You bet it is! Until you have flown a very light aircraft you can't imagine how a sub-300 lb aircraft handles. But this type of aircraft serves very nicely for the mission profile under question--late evening flights around the local area at low altitude, a few touch-n-goes, all for a few dollars of car gas.
I understand the dilemma. Once you leave the realm of extremely light, extremely simple aircraft (like my Legal Eagle) weight/power/equipment/mission creep sets in. The neat thing about the very light aircraft is that there just isn't enough aircraft to make it do something it wasn't designed to do. Not enough speed, not enough fuel, not enough room, etc. That is why UL's aren't regulated, not much you can do with them except drive 'em around the local area. That also keeps them in the UL box because a builder can't satisfy the usual urge of more power, more speed, more seats, etc.
But Doug is going to have a hoot building and flying his Legal Eagle. I'm sure he will share the adventure as he progresses, and it'll be interesting so see if momentum builds for something similar with a Vans brand. A very light aircraft kit with "Vans Aircraft" on the shipping crate would be an intriguing concept. Lots of details to consider, but I commend Doug for putting the discussion on the front burner.
I consider my Eagle to be the perfect anti-RV. It is everything the RV-6 isn't, and it lives in a corner of aviation the RV-6 is incapable of seeing. Very different mission profiles for very different realms of flight. But both planes can satisfy the urge to commit aviation itch to the same degree at the appropriate time and place.
Been watching this thread with interest. Doug shared his interest in low-n-slow with me a couple weeks ago and has kept me in the loop as he developed his article. Obviously my Legal Eagle project pushed him over the edge and got him to thinking about alternatives to "conventional" RV flight.
But some of the replies in this thread have completely missed the point of Doug's probe. I have to wonder if some of the responders even read most of Doug's article.
The biggest misconception so far is overlooking that Doug is emphatically talking about a single seat aircraft. Read his article to see why. The concept of a very light very simple airplane is outside the box for the typical RVer, however. That is why we are seeing comments like two seats, 400mi range, 130mph, etc, etc, in other words....an RV-12.
Someone referred to the aircraft under question as a kite. You bet it is! Until you have flown a very light aircraft you can't imagine how a sub-300 lb aircraft handles. But this type of aircraft serves very nicely for the mission profile under question--late evening flights around the local area at low altitude, a few touch-n-goes, all for a few dollars of car gas.
I understand the dilemma. Once you leave the realm of extremely light, extremely simple aircraft (like my Legal Eagle) weight/power/equipment/mission creep sets in. The neat thing about the very light aircraft is that there just isn't enough aircraft to make it do something it wasn't designed to do. Not enough speed, not enough fuel, not enough room, etc. That is why UL's aren't regulated, not much you can do with them except drive 'em around the local area. That also keeps them in the UL box because a builder can't satisfy the usual urge of more power, more speed, more seats, etc.
But Doug is going to have a hoot building and flying his Legal Eagle. I'm sure he will share the adventure as he progresses, and it'll be interesting so see if momentum builds for something similar with a Vans brand. A very light aircraft kit with "Vans Aircraft" on the shipping crate would be an intriguing concept. Lots of details to consider, but I commend Doug for putting the discussion on the front burner.
I consider my Eagle to be the perfect anti-RV. It is everything the RV-6 isn't, and it lives in a corner of aviation the RV-6 is incapable of seeing. Very different mission profiles for very different realms of flight. But both planes can satisfy the urge to commit aviation itch to the same degree at the appropriate time and place.
Last edited:
jcaplins
Well Known Member
I can't justify a 2nd plane till the 1st one is done. Actually, I can't really "justify" the 1st one, but that's not stopping me.
But, I would love to have something along the lines of a Super Drifter or Aircam. I just can't see where they justify their airframe costs, other than that's what some are willing to pay.
A super drifter/Aircam clone with something like the AeroVee engine would be ideal for me. 10k airframe, 10 engine/inst. - I just might be able to justify that. Gotta be able to put it on floats, too.
But, I would love to have something along the lines of a Super Drifter or Aircam. I just can't see where they justify their airframe costs, other than that's what some are willing to pay.
A super drifter/Aircam clone with something like the AeroVee engine would be ideal for me. 10k airframe, 10 engine/inst. - I just might be able to justify that. Gotta be able to put it on floats, too.
Why here?
Why would you propose an Anti-RV with all of the world wide interest in this most successful collection of RV airplanes in this site that is dedicated to that collection of airplanes?
Bob Axsom
Why would you propose an Anti-RV with all of the world wide interest in this most successful collection of RV airplanes in this site that is dedicated to that collection of airplanes?
Bob Axsom
[ed. Because I'm trying to show that there is genuine interest within the existing RV crowd for this type of aircraft. Case in point: The document has been 'live' for 1/2 day and over 30 people have emailed me saying they are ready to order if Van's ever offers something similar to this. They (like me) want it to say Van's on the side... dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
missing the point...again
Bob, I'm sure Van had to respond to the same kind of question in the early '80's. "Why would you propose an RV-3 with two seats when you have the best performing homebuilt in the world?"
The same question came up in the 2000's. "Who would possible want a 130mph RV with a Rotax engine when you have the finest performing homebuilts in the history of aviation?"
Doug is conducting a marketing survey with the intentions of seeing if there is sufficient interest in expanding the RV universe, not restricting it. Bob, you enjoy flying fast. Some of us also like to fly fast........and slow.
Bob, I'm sure Van had to respond to the same kind of question in the early '80's. "Why would you propose an RV-3 with two seats when you have the best performing homebuilt in the world?"
The same question came up in the 2000's. "Who would possible want a 130mph RV with a Rotax engine when you have the finest performing homebuilts in the history of aviation?"
Doug is conducting a marketing survey with the intentions of seeing if there is sufficient interest in expanding the RV universe, not restricting it. Bob, you enjoy flying fast. Some of us also like to fly fast........and slow.
Last edited:
Stogie 6
Well Known Member
RV-15 and what it is/is not...
..."Someone referred to the aircraft under question as a kite. You bet it is! Until you have flown a very light aircraft you can't imagine how a sub-300 lb aircraft handles. But this type of aircraft serves very nicely for the mission profile under question--late evening flights around the local area at low altitude, a few touch-n-goes, all for a few dollars of car gas.
I understand the dilemma. Once you leave the realm of extremely light, extremely simple aircraft (like my Legal Eagle) weight/power/equipment/mission creep sets in. The neat thing about the very light aircraft is that there just isn't enough aircraft to make it do something it wasn't designed to do. Not enough speed, not enough fuel, not enough room, etc. That is why UL's aren't regulated, not much you can do with them except drive 'em around the local area. That also keeps them in the UL box because a builder can't satisfy the usual urge of more power, more speed, more seats, etc."
I have been bitten by the single seat flier. I am currently (and will continue to) build an RV-6A. I have access to a Piper Cherokee but everytime I look at it just to get a quick 20 minute fix...I am out a few bucks. I am now a proud owner of a Kolb Firestar KXP. I get a 30 minute session when the winds are not blowing too strong and fly with other experimental mindsets. We have a blast. It fills that mission envelop that I need.
Good thread and discussion.
..."Someone referred to the aircraft under question as a kite. You bet it is! Until you have flown a very light aircraft you can't imagine how a sub-300 lb aircraft handles. But this type of aircraft serves very nicely for the mission profile under question--late evening flights around the local area at low altitude, a few touch-n-goes, all for a few dollars of car gas.
I understand the dilemma. Once you leave the realm of extremely light, extremely simple aircraft (like my Legal Eagle) weight/power/equipment/mission creep sets in. The neat thing about the very light aircraft is that there just isn't enough aircraft to make it do something it wasn't designed to do. Not enough speed, not enough fuel, not enough room, etc. That is why UL's aren't regulated, not much you can do with them except drive 'em around the local area. That also keeps them in the UL box because a builder can't satisfy the usual urge of more power, more speed, more seats, etc."
I have been bitten by the single seat flier. I am currently (and will continue to) build an RV-6A. I have access to a Piper Cherokee but everytime I look at it just to get a quick 20 minute fix...I am out a few bucks. I am now a proud owner of a Kolb Firestar KXP. I get a 30 minute session when the winds are not blowing too strong and fly with other experimental mindsets. We have a blast. It fills that mission envelop that I need.
Good thread and discussion.
cessnadriver1
Member
I have been a reader of this site for about a year now and recently decided to join. I am replying to this thread with the knowledge of a 21 year old business major so take this musing with a grain of salt.
Now, would i like to see Vans produce this type of aircraft; probably not. The term "total performance" has been the forefront of Vans aircraft and they must be extremely cautious with every model that they produce. If a company has a statement like this it must be followed. Every model that they produce they are seeking to be the forefront of total performance while making new models. The RV-10 is completely different from the RV-3 but they both exceed their categories and missions by providing total performance with a varying amount of seats. The company is also seeking to not cannibalize sales with their different models.
If Vans produced an aircraft like this it would have to be a spinoff of total performance. I could see Vans marketing an item like this under "total utility" but not under there current business plan.
Now, would i like to see Vans produce this type of aircraft; probably not. The term "total performance" has been the forefront of Vans aircraft and they must be extremely cautious with every model that they produce. If a company has a statement like this it must be followed. Every model that they produce they are seeking to be the forefront of total performance while making new models. The RV-10 is completely different from the RV-3 but they both exceed their categories and missions by providing total performance with a varying amount of seats. The company is also seeking to not cannibalize sales with their different models.
If Vans produced an aircraft like this it would have to be a spinoff of total performance. I could see Vans marketing an item like this under "total utility" but not under there current business plan.
Actually, it was the other around.
In this case Van was somewhat forced by customers to build the RV-4 in the early '70s.
He resisted the addition of the second seat.
Just like he resisted placing the people side-by-side.
Just like he resisted offering a 4-seat airplane.
Just like he resisted offering a TD RV-9.
And the beat goes on.
In this case Van was somewhat forced by customers to build the RV-4 in the early '70s.
He resisted the addition of the second seat.
Just like he resisted placing the people side-by-side.
Just like he resisted offering a 4-seat airplane.
Just like he resisted offering a TD RV-9.
And the beat goes on.
bhassel
Well Known Member
RV-15
There is a market for affordable & inexpensive flying. An affordable single seat plane of the type that Doug is talking about won't compete even with the RV-3. The concept is low and slow - no fire breathing, warp 7 monsters that real pilots fly...
Yes there are several on the market as I pointed out above, even more if you take into account wood based designs or tube and fabric. None of them say Van's.
The single seat market is scattered a little by the fact that advertising is low, lot's of folks don't know they exist or maybe mostly our dreams are of 200 mph cruisers but our reality is 1.2 to 1.9 gallons an hour down in the tree tops (ok out here junipers and pinon).
If Van's could do something they could leverage the infrastructure they already have in place. Even just a materials kit with welded parts available would be great and allow a little room for some money to be made. This is not a get rich quick scheme by any means, but it could provide a truly affordable upgrade path to the other great models than Van's has. The uninitiated would get turned onto a Van's design. With support from this group - what could be better?
It's a dream, but affordable no matter how small...
Bob
There is a market for affordable & inexpensive flying. An affordable single seat plane of the type that Doug is talking about won't compete even with the RV-3. The concept is low and slow - no fire breathing, warp 7 monsters that real pilots fly...
Yes there are several on the market as I pointed out above, even more if you take into account wood based designs or tube and fabric. None of them say Van's.
The single seat market is scattered a little by the fact that advertising is low, lot's of folks don't know they exist or maybe mostly our dreams are of 200 mph cruisers but our reality is 1.2 to 1.9 gallons an hour down in the tree tops (ok out here junipers and pinon).
If Van's could do something they could leverage the infrastructure they already have in place. Even just a materials kit with welded parts available would be great and allow a little room for some money to be made. This is not a get rich quick scheme by any means, but it could provide a truly affordable upgrade path to the other great models than Van's has. The uninitiated would get turned onto a Van's design. With support from this group - what could be better?
It's a dream, but affordable no matter how small...
Bob
dmaib
Well Known Member
I did read the entire article from Doug, and I am enthusiastic about this idea. I have been "lusting" after a low, slow, doors off airplane for quite a while. Nothing I enjoy more than a quick 20 minute flight down the beach, or a few touch and go's just before sunset. I enjoy it so much that I occasionally do just that kind of thing in my RV-10. It's fun, but no wind in my hair (what hair?
), plus the Ka-ching!! factor.But, my wife really likes flying, and I have plenty of buddies that also love flying. So, a Cub type airplane really fits the bill, but two seats are fairly important to me.
OK I said my piece but
I fully understand the concept I built free flight model airplanes and competed at the National Championship level in my youth if you want to stretch the scope. They are all connected through flight, etc. but I don't see Van's designing a Class D gas VTO free flight. Fragmentation in a product line is not a good thing in my opinion. All of the Van's aircraft designs have evolved from a basic concept starting with a Stitts Playboy (or two) and the family resemblence in structure has evolved each derivation to be the best at what they do. The RV-11 was a more reasonable extension of the line into a new market area but we know how that ended. I'm sorry Doug I cannot even wish you good luck with this one. When I tell people I fly and RV aircraft I don't want the image in their mind to be a kite.
Bob Axsom
I fully understand the concept I built free flight model airplanes and competed at the National Championship level in my youth if you want to stretch the scope. They are all connected through flight, etc. but I don't see Van's designing a Class D gas VTO free flight. Fragmentation in a product line is not a good thing in my opinion. All of the Van's aircraft designs have evolved from a basic concept starting with a Stitts Playboy (or two) and the family resemblence in structure has evolved each derivation to be the best at what they do. The RV-11 was a more reasonable extension of the line into a new market area but we know how that ended. I'm sorry Doug I cannot even wish you good luck with this one. When I tell people I fly and RV aircraft I don't want the image in their mind to be a kite.
Bob Axsom
taildragger1
Member
someone had a plane on barnstormers last year that was a high wing built with a RV 4 wing and tail. looked a whole lot like the drawing.
9 hour update: 37 people ready to order (and some feedback)
Nine hours into this marketing experiment, I’ve had (37) people email me that they are ready right now to place an order for a Van’s, single seat, high wing, more affordable ‘Cub’. The comments in those emails are very similar to my own situation….some included here stripped of all info that would identify the person….
Nine hours into this marketing experiment, I’ve had (37) people email me that they are ready right now to place an order for a Van’s, single seat, high wing, more affordable ‘Cub’. The comments in those emails are very similar to my own situation….some included here stripped of all info that would identify the person….
This aircraft would be great for the budget as I now tool around in a 182. Am looking hard at the 12, but this sounds awesome!
Sounds like a fantastic way to get (and stay) in the air for a college grad price. Put my name down
U are a mind reader. I have to sell XXXXXXXX cause of all the reasons you stated, so put me down as one of the 249. No viable partner found yet. Going to SNF only to work Homebuilt Parking and find a buyer for the RV-7. Sometimes life gets in the way of our passion
I feel for you; X just out of college, X in college, X major surgeries in X years, business in the toilet, XX years old, airplane going up for sale. Put me down for an inexpensive RV ride
I would certainly be interested in building an airplane like this to compliment my RV-6, so put me on the list
Count me in on this one. Even if it doesn’t make all the criteria it would be worth it and I could probably afford it. It can be done – just imagine how great it would be if Van’s did it!
I have been thinking about buying a Highlander kit. I would rather buy an RV kit for this purpose. This would be a great compliment to the RV-10!
You are killing me with the RV 15. I am in the last year of building my RV 9 and the cost have exceeded any estimate that I ever dreamed of……put me down as definitely interested in the concept of a RV-15 if it can transport me back to anywhere near the days of $8 an hour flying the cub.
What a great concept! While I’m just about to finish my RV-9A, the thought of $6 + 100LL makes me cringe!!! I have a friend here who just purchased a ’41 Cub and it’s a “hoot” to fly around the country side. I’ve already decided that my next project will be something that is economical for the low and slow flights that keep me going. Please add my name to the list for the RV-15.
I've put XXX hrs on the -8 I finished in XXXX, and I'm currently halfway through building a RANS S-7, which I'm sure I'll love nearly as much (obviously for entirely different reasons!). I would love to have access to a cheap, metal single-seat "altitude therapy" machine. Having Van's name on it would make it priceless! I'm pretty sure i'd end up building 3 (1 for each son and myself)
I love the idea, I have been considering a kitfox for EXACTLY what you are talking about...just having fun. The 12 is good...but cub-like it is not.
Great concept. I have an RV6A and love flying Cubs. Please add my name to the list.
I'm in. Just finally starting my -9. Also have an unstarted -3 tail. My delay (post divorce) was 100% economic, and even now I'm unsure how quickly I'll get flying due to costs. I'd do this first instead, if it were available now.
I was already dreaming of building something like a Cub or a Rans S-7 next, so consider me a fan. When I mention this thought to people, I usually say something like: "What I really want is something to complement the RV for when I don't want to go anywhere and I want to feel the breeze while looking down. Basically a flying motorcycle for looking at cows and trees.”
I would be all over the RV-15. I am a partner in a -12 which is a cool plane, but other than a failed attempt to get to OSH last summer my flying tends to be of the local low-and-slow bug smashing variety. If I could get into a sub-$30K RV that was even cheaper to operate than the RV-12 and could be flown doors-off, I’d put my deposit down tomorrow.
Sounds like a fantastic way to get (and stay) in the air for a college grad price. Put my name down
U are a mind reader. I have to sell XXXXXXXX cause of all the reasons you stated, so put me down as one of the 249. No viable partner found yet. Going to SNF only to work Homebuilt Parking and find a buyer for the RV-7. Sometimes life gets in the way of our passion
I feel for you; X just out of college, X in college, X major surgeries in X years, business in the toilet, XX years old, airplane going up for sale. Put me down for an inexpensive RV ride
I would certainly be interested in building an airplane like this to compliment my RV-6, so put me on the list
Count me in on this one. Even if it doesn’t make all the criteria it would be worth it and I could probably afford it. It can be done – just imagine how great it would be if Van’s did it!
I have been thinking about buying a Highlander kit. I would rather buy an RV kit for this purpose. This would be a great compliment to the RV-10!
You are killing me with the RV 15. I am in the last year of building my RV 9 and the cost have exceeded any estimate that I ever dreamed of……put me down as definitely interested in the concept of a RV-15 if it can transport me back to anywhere near the days of $8 an hour flying the cub.
What a great concept! While I’m just about to finish my RV-9A, the thought of $6 + 100LL makes me cringe!!! I have a friend here who just purchased a ’41 Cub and it’s a “hoot” to fly around the country side. I’ve already decided that my next project will be something that is economical for the low and slow flights that keep me going. Please add my name to the list for the RV-15.
I've put XXX hrs on the -8 I finished in XXXX, and I'm currently halfway through building a RANS S-7, which I'm sure I'll love nearly as much (obviously for entirely different reasons!). I would love to have access to a cheap, metal single-seat "altitude therapy" machine. Having Van's name on it would make it priceless! I'm pretty sure i'd end up building 3 (1 for each son and myself)
I love the idea, I have been considering a kitfox for EXACTLY what you are talking about...just having fun. The 12 is good...but cub-like it is not.
Great concept. I have an RV6A and love flying Cubs. Please add my name to the list.
I'm in. Just finally starting my -9. Also have an unstarted -3 tail. My delay (post divorce) was 100% economic, and even now I'm unsure how quickly I'll get flying due to costs. I'd do this first instead, if it were available now.
I was already dreaming of building something like a Cub or a Rans S-7 next, so consider me a fan. When I mention this thought to people, I usually say something like: "What I really want is something to complement the RV for when I don't want to go anywhere and I want to feel the breeze while looking down. Basically a flying motorcycle for looking at cows and trees.”
I would be all over the RV-15. I am a partner in a -12 which is a cool plane, but other than a failed attempt to get to OSH last summer my flying tends to be of the local low-and-slow bug smashing variety. If I could get into a sub-$30K RV that was even cheaper to operate than the RV-12 and could be flown doors-off, I’d put my deposit down tomorrow.
Last edited:
Jerry Fischer
Well Known Member
hydroguy2
Well Known Member
excellent Bob. spoken like to true gearhead. That said I'm itching to build and a single or 2place low and slow is the direction I'm heading. I've been thinking of a WW1 replica fighter, also looked at the Legal eagle. But I would love to share with my grandkids, so a 2 seater, Double eagle might work. I spent several evenings/mornings at the Red Barn area Osh2011. So...Put me on the list. There are many days I only go out and do a 0.3hr loop around the lake or go try to spot Elk and antelope in the foothills.
Last edited:
cjensen
Well Known Member
Putting my name on the list...part of the reason the 7 is gone is because of the things Doug mentions. I am building a Tailwind to get that mission profile back, but the next (concurrent?) build is going to be a single seater...already have plans for the Legal Eagle and Baby Ace. I'd LOVE to see something in this category from Van's...
Savannah's are very popular in Australia, They're rugged STOL aircraft available as kits or factory built, but aren't the type of aircraft DR is talking about.
http://outbackaircraft.com/
Last edited:
Low and Slow
Doug,
Great idea but my wife really likes to go with me. I got the bug to build something else low and slow, I settled on the Just Highlander. Been building since mid November and having a blast. Someone on this site actually turned me on to the Highlander about a year ago. This will be my 3rd build and will complete my goal of building with 3 different techniques.
Build 1 was mostly composite PulsarXP
Build 2 was metal, RV7A...not getting rid of this one, I love it.
Build 3 is rag and tube Highlander
The highlander will also expand my flying experience since it's a tail wheel. Over 2500 hours but only 8 or so in a tail dragger.
Gary
Doug,
Great idea but my wife really likes to go with me. I got the bug to build something else low and slow, I settled on the Just Highlander. Been building since mid November and having a blast. Someone on this site actually turned me on to the Highlander about a year ago. This will be my 3rd build and will complete my goal of building with 3 different techniques.
Build 1 was mostly composite PulsarXP
Build 2 was metal, RV7A...not getting rid of this one, I love it.
Build 3 is rag and tube Highlander
The highlander will also expand my flying experience since it's a tail wheel. Over 2500 hours but only 8 or so in a tail dragger.
Gary
