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

[David Paule]

There are excellent folding wing designs for cantilevered low-wing designs. Look at U.S. WW II carrier aircraft for examples. Pull a pin or flip a lever and push the wing back.

As I mentioned above, the RV-12 has better visibility than any, repeat any, of the high-wing aircraft that I've flown, and I've flown a bunch of them. So it can quite clearly be accomplished. Still, if you really want good visibility, the engine can't be in your line of sight, although the RV-12 does a pretty decent job of making that a non-factor.

I'll add ease of entry and exit, since that's a valid point.

Personally, I wouldn't expect that Van's would have a 120 mph kit for sale unless it were something to broaden their entry into the LSA market, such as tandem or taildragger RV-12 derivative. The sort of airplane that's been debated in this thread accepts those speeds but probably would not be in that current weight class. As has been pointed out, there's a lot of competition is that Supercub class. If it came from Van's, I'd expect a faster cruise speed.

Dave

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by PaulvS

Add for high wing:

4. Easier to get into and out of, and load/unload.

5. Sit in the shade both in the air and outside on the ground.

6. Less risk of getting trapped upside down if it flips in a crash.

7. Ability to enter and exit the aircraft in heavy rain without getting drowned...or getting the interior soaked. An advantage not to be underestimated.

8. Vastly superior wing clearance in off-field or forced landings.

Personally I don't think a low wing aircraft ticks the crucial boxes for a bush plane. I would be very surprised if Vans would design such a folly.

[gasman]

Van's is sitting and waiting for the new LSA rules..............

Van, make it tall enough to walk under the wing and not get the Cessna forehead tattoo.

[PilotjohnS]

Vans has a winner with the RV9 in the sense that is has a slow stall speed but a high cruise speed. I hope Vans doesnt change this total performance. But a tall gear is fine except if it slows the plane down, I would take the higher cruise and the “Cessna Stars” anyday. Just gotta learn to duck.

[enterprise]

Originally Posted by memberberries

I'm not a fan of the Rotax 915 at 37k for 141hp at 186lbs. Thats big motor money for one that really doesn't do a whole lot more than say a UL350is at 22K for 130hp at 173lb. Unless you're at high DA and need the forced induction. Too spendy a powerplant for my budget.

The main advantage to the turbo is getting to keep that 141hp up to cruise altitude and having a fuel efficient motor when you get there. If we are comparing apples to apples with a RV-9 with a brand new IO-320, I don't think the cost delta will be that large.

The UL power engines are very impressive. When I picked the RV-12is project, the other choice for me was a Zenith 750 cruiser with the UL 350. I like the idea of a modern ECU controlled purpose built engine.

[Scroggin]

Its got to be a metric plane😬 throws hand grenade and runs.

[DeeCee 57]

John S, according to that table https://vansairforce.net/community/s...mparison+table speed ratio wise places the -9 in 3rd position...

-3B with 4.06
-4 with 3.93
-9 with 3.92
-8 with 3.81
Etc.

All those being taildraggers.
The worst of all, a nose dragger:
-12 with 2.96

As a personal note, I’m no fan of the -9, but having a speed ratio as large as possible for a future aircraft will always be a plus.
Looking at the history of Van’s models, the contrary is happening...

[RYOUNG]

Having just gone through the process of engine selection for my RV-8, I selected the IO-390 despite cons of weight, forward cg, etc,etc....however, I do not appear to be alone as others on this forum are also going through this process of engine selection. I just had an epiphany! What if Van’s developed an RV-8 “plus” kit to help offset some of the cons associated with using this engine. Maybe a shorter engine mount, cowl mods, other ways to move the cg aft that would restore the good handling of the O/IO-360 equipped 8’s. I am already making adjustments to help with cg like aft mounted battery, Sky Designs alum gear (saves 15 lbs), Hartzell composite prop (Saves 10-15 lbs), anything else that might help. I believe Van’s might have a market for this.

[huse0054]

Originally Posted by RYOUNG

Having just gone through the process of engine selection for my RV-8, I selected the IO-390 despite cons of weight, forward cg, etc,etc....however, I do not appear to be alone as others on this forum are also going through this process of engine selection. I just had an epiphany! What if Van’s developed an RV-8 “plus” kit to help offset some of the cons associated with using this engine. Maybe a shorter engine mount, cowl mods, other ways to move the cg aft that would restore the good handling of the O/IO-360 equipped 8’s. I am already making adjustments to help with cg like aft mounted battery, Sky Designs alum gear (saves 15 lbs), Hartzell composite prop (Saves 10-15 lbs), anything else that might help. I believe Van’s might have a market for this.

I would be first in line for this.

[Moose8154]

Originally Posted by huse0054

I would be first in line for this.

Why not use the latest UL520 turbo - 220hp, IO-320 weight - what's not to like?