Who's In?

[- Poindexter -]

Always wanted to build, but can’t do it at this phase of my life. Too busy with work. So, the next greatest thing is owning a 7a, flying it for work, and doing modifications. Love the speed and performance, and just flew from Telluride to Chicago, non-stop. ****, can’t beat that!

Alas, looking forward to retiring in ~8 years and slower flying into some grungier strips (Chicken strip, Mercy Hot Springs, etc). That 15 looks perfect for ease of access, a beefy engine for mountain flying, and ease of construction.

Thanks Folks at Van’s, timing is right for me. Can build the 15 and sell my 7a when the avionics and engine get dropped in. I’m sure there are others that are planning the same thing?!

[rmartingt]

Not interested--it's not the airplane for the kind of flying I plan to do, I probably couldn't afford it, and after this long still building my -7 I don't think the wife will go for building another one anyway. But I wouldn't turn down a chance to fly one sometime...

That said, because I'm a nerd I'm really interested in it from an engineering perspective. Seeing the design tradeoffs and interesting features is fun, and trying to guess the changes between the prototype and the "production" model would be a good drinking game...

[uk_RV9A]

Found it interesting to compare the different directions Vans and Sling have taken to address the High Wing design. Rotax 915 vs IO390, strut less vs struts, 4 vs 2 place, Back country vs less rugged undercarriage. Different markets and customers, or different company cultures, it is intriguing how different the two companies solutions are to similar design challenges and will be interesting to see how both designs develop over time. Some elements of both appeal, but neither do enough to drag me out of the comfy familiarity of my 9, at the moment anyway.

[DeltaRomeo]

I’m in like a fox.
V/r,dr

[Pilot135pd]

I'm glad they opened up the poll again so I could vote.

I've been waiting for the RV-15 since a few months after I sold my RV-8 but Van's decided to build another spam can for my taste so I'm going to pass on it. Yes, it has some technical differences, like the independent landing gear, but that's also been already kind of done by Luscombe.

If they had made it tandem seating then it would have been a game changer, since you can't get any nice new all metal tandem planes, unless you're wiling to spend $350k+ for a refurbished old ex-military plane.


I almost spent $250k last month for a plane I used to own 20 years ago, and it was a real old ex-military tandem plane.

Little disappointed I won't be buying an RV-15 but hey Van's, if you're reading, how about an option for the RV-15 for tandem seating, if it's not too hard to install the system you already have in the RV-4 or RV-8? Then I'll change my vote and buy it !

[David Paule]

Since I'll probably age out before my RV-3B is done, and I have a good old Cessna 180, it's a solid no for me.

Dave

[Latech15]

I own a 6, and am building a -10. My next plane will be a cub style. If you are going to go slow and land short, why not go really slow and land really short? Maybe a helicopter after that, and after that, something with a turbine.

I don’t like to climb the same hill twice. All metal, fabric, choppa, turbine…all of those represent a significant change in direction and a growth in skills not previously learned/tested.

We only have so much time here on earth. I don’t have enough extra time to do the same thing twice.

[Toobuilder]

Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?

[Pilot135pd]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?

I'm sure brand loyalty due to great previous products has a lot to do with it. If it was tandem I'd buy one but to me it's just one more of the same, but most likely with better performance.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

Since there are very little actual performance numbers out yet, wondering what criteria people are using to pull the trigger? Is it just because Vans designed it so no matter what, you will conform to fit? Brand identity?

Van's biggest failure (in terms of kits sold) was also his best handling aircraft, the RV3.

People do expect the RV15 to handle GREAT for a high wing. And it will have all of the advantages of a high wing.

It will be fast..........160 s mph
It will be slow.........44 s mph stall
It will be priced....... mid 40's ?? no engine no panel no paint.

A high wing has many advantages over a low wing as you get older. If you don't want a high wing aircraft, then don't buy it.

The RV12 had a purpose. I didn't need that purpose, so I didn't buy one.