What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Should Vans design a 6 seater?

Will you, or someone you know, buy a 6 seat kit from Vans?


  • Total voters
    192

wjfredericks4

I'm New Here
Hi Vans Community,

I'm new this this forum. (I did read the 'Read Me First'). I should introduce myself first. I have been flying since I was 13 years old. I'm a private pilot rated in gliders, single engine, multi engine, and instrument rating. I have about 850 hrs total time. I currently own a 1978 Piper PA-32 Lance. I used a Mooney M20J, which I loved that airplane, but when my wife and I had our second child, we couldn't fit in the Mooney any more. My wife, 2 kids in car seats, dog, and all of our bags simply would not fit in a 4-seater.

Additionally, in recent years, I have become much more interested in experimental amateur built. I’m now a lifetime EAA member too. Great magazine and I love Oshkosh each summer but I don’t get a chance to make it there much anymore. One recent factor is that I read the article in AOPA Pilot about the C182 vs. RV-10 and the RV-10 performed better than the C182 in every respect. Additionally, the new technology that is only available in the experimental market I believe will actually make for a safer airplane too.

I would like to see a modern replacement for the Piper PA-32 Lance/Saratoga and the Cessna 210 Centurion and the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza that is designed by Vans.
Key targets:
-6 seats in a club seating configuration in the back so my wife can have easy access to all the kids.
-1,400 lbs useful load (600 lbs of people, 200 lbs of bags/dogs, 100 gal of gas)
-Lycoming IO-580 (or similar) (~315 hp) (full FADEC and digital ignition would be great too)
-175 KTAS cruise speed @ 65% power (~205 hp) @ ~8,000 ft (more would be better but let’s be careful to not over compromise other areas of the design to get a few more knots). Those that want turbo charging could go higher and faster too.
-55 kt stall speed in landing configuration. (Note I think 61 kts is a bit too fast in the event of an off airport landing, kinetic energy is velocity squared, so reducing stall speed by 6 kts is 19% less energy to dissipate)
-‘RV Total Performance’ (handling qualities, easy of build, robust design, etc.)
-Retractable landing gear for the performance benefits, but I understand that RVs have always been fixed gear to date. A compromise would be to retract only the nose wheel. The nose wheel has more drag than the two mains combined. I would also be open to a 'conventional gear' (aka tail dragger) to mitigate the drag of the nose wheel.
-This would make for an awesome and affordable cross country airplane. 175 KTAS at ~14 gph with 100 gal of gas would be over 7 hours and over 1,200 nm of range. Granted reserves need to be subtracted from these numbers.

I would like to know how many other people would be interested in a 6-seat quick build kit from Vans? Please sound off with your thoughts on this topic. Do you think the above listed Key Targets are about right, or would you propose something different? Ideally this fosters lots of discussion and Van’s would view this as an informal petition to develop a 6-seater after they finish the high wing bush plane. I have decided, if Vans developed this kit, I will absolutely buy it. Who else would buy it?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Bill Fredericks
Williamsburg, VA
 
No

I think there is no need for a 6 seater in the recreational market. To me it seems a 6 seater wold be approaching the market for commercial operations, which experimentals cant participate in. JMHO
 
NO

So, your wish list just described several existing GA 6 seat airplanes on the market now in the $1M + range. What price point would you expect Vans to sell this plane? I am not in that market nor will I ever be.
 
It wouldn't be economical. The market would be small and the cost to develop and produce the kit would be considerable. I expect that this would end up something like the A380, which never had a large enough demand to survive.

Dave
 
No. My $.02

Longtime A&P here, private pilot ASEL, ASES. The jump from a two seater to a four seater has been demonstrated to be a large jump indeed by the RV-10. The jump to a six seater would be at least as large, again. Someone looking to build a six seat RV would likely be much better served to look into a Cherokee 6 or its descendants, or an A36 Bonanza, or one of the bigger single engine Cessnas.
 
I would absolutely buy and build a 6-seater kit airplane if it were reasonably priced. I like the idea of being able to carry an additional friend or two in comfort, or having the additional cargo capacity.

As the size and weight get bigger, though, the build complexity will change. More weight requires more power, more power requires more fuel, and so on.

Once you get into the power required to drag a heavy six seater around at what people would consider RV-worthy speeds and climb performance, you're talking an engine at least in the TIO-540 range, or maybe the iE2 if you want to get fancy. At that point, you're talking about Piper Malibu Matrix performance, and there are some Malibus out there on the market for reasonable prices--in the $300-$500k price range. If you wanted even more climb and speed performance, you'd be looking into the turboprop range unless you felt like giving an 8-cylinder engine a try.

Looking at some of the other experimentals out there that would compete in speed and complexity (if not in size), like the Lancair Evolution (no longer in production), where the kit price was in the $500k range by itself, excluding the engine, or the Velocity, which is similarly priced, you might be persuaded to simply go buy a used Mirage or Matrix, and keep the money you saved in trust for maintenance expenses on it.

I think if anyone has a chance at making a six-seat, high performing kit aircraft, it would be Van's Aircraft with an all metal design. I would buy one and build it and fly it.

As of when I write this, though, I'm in the minority--according to the poll, there are a number of people here who wouldn't even consider building a six-seat RV. There's nothing wrong with that, as it would be a tough sell to get me to build an RV-15...there are other nice high wing kit planes out there. Where Van's would have the advantage in that market would be their ability to make a kit that is complete and easily buildable.

That's also where Van's would shine in a six-seat homebuilt market--buildability. But there has to be a market for them to enter. If the demand is low, the price has to be high to pay for the development and tooling costs.

I really hope someday there is a bigger demand for such a thing.
 
I think it would be a great plane. However, RV10s already take considerable more time to build as compared to a 7, 8, 9 or especially the 14. Adding more seats again requires a bigger cabin, which means bigger fuselage structure, bigger wings, bigger tail. Point being, it will be a huge plane that takes 4000hrs to build. How many customers would Van's have with the patience to tackle or complete that project? Not that it wouldn't be do-able, but after so many ribs and so many fuselage bits, people get bored and want to see results. Progress would be too slow and reduce motivation to continue.

Then yes, it would be a very expensive kit. 350hp probably, and since Van's doesn't like turbos (nor do I want to pay for one), we're looking at rare and expensive engines. IO-580 or the IO-720 behemoth.

I'd love to have one. However, I wouldn't want to build it, wouldn't want to feed it, and wouldn't want to maintain it.
 
I'm just flapping my gums here

...with nothing but my gut to go on, but I can see Bob Barrows bringing a 6-place Bearhawk to market far more easily/sooner/more economically than Van's. I don't think welding up a longer chrome moly fuselage cage and wrapping it in a few more yards of Ceconite is near the challenge of designing and building a larger monocoque aluminum airframe. The interior will be far more spartan, though.
 
...with nothing but my gut to go on, but I can see Bob Barrows bringing a 6-place Bearhawk to market far more easily/sooner/more economically than Van's. I don't think welding up a longer chrome moly fuselage cage and wrapping it in a few more yards of Ceconite is near the challenge of designing and building a larger monocoque aluminum airframe. The interior will be far more spartan, though.

You do realize that Bearhawk brought their six-seater to market last year….right? :)

Bottom line though - you are correct that it was far simpler for them, with the tube/fabric fuselage than it would be for a full metal design. The few large homebuilt kits that have come to market in the past few decades have all pretty much failed because of low demand/production numbers - the market for something that expensive is just too limited to cover the development costs. Simple economics, and as someone said above - you can buy a lot of large factory planes for far less money, and bank the savings to pay for maintenance.
 
So, your wish list just described several existing GA 6 seat airplanes on the market now in the $1M + range. What price point would you expect Vans to sell this plane? I am not in that market nor will I ever be.

I believe an RV-10 kit is ~$60,000 not including engine and avionics. I would think $80,000 for a 6 seater kit would be reasonable.
 
I think it would be a great plane. However, RV10s already take considerable more time to build as compared to a 7, 8, 9 or especially the 14. Adding more seats again requires a bigger cabin, which means bigger fuselage structure, bigger wings, bigger tail. Point being, it will be a huge plane that takes 4000hrs to build. How many customers would Van's have with the patience to tackle or complete that project? Not that it wouldn't be do-able, but after so many ribs and so many fuselage bits, people get bored and want to see results. Progress would be too slow and reduce motivation to continue.

Then yes, it would be a very expensive kit. 350hp probably, and since Van's doesn't like turbos (nor do I want to pay for one), we're looking at rare and expensive engines. IO-580 or the IO-720 behemoth.

I'd love to have one. However, I wouldn't want to build it, wouldn't want to feed it, and wouldn't want to maintain it.

Solid copy on build time. The kit could have many interchangeable parts with the RV10. Tails can be identical to the RV-10. Wings identical except for 2 more feet of span and a bit thicker wing spar. Over half of the fuselage frames would be the same but a plug would be added in the middle to add the extra row of seats. Lastly the larger engine of an IO-580 would be offset by the longer fuselage which would give the tails more lever arm to maintain the same static stability as the RV10.
 
You do realize that Bearhawk brought their six-seater to market last year….right? :)

Bottom line though - you are correct that it was far simpler for them, with the tube/fabric fuselage than it would be for a full metal design. The few large homebuilt kits that have come to market in the past few decades have all pretty much failed because of low demand/production numbers - the market for something that expensive is just too limited to cover the development costs. Simple economics, and as someone said above - you can buy a lot of large factory planes for far less money, and bank the savings to pay for maintenance.


I actually was not aware of Bearhawk and their model 5 that can fit 6 seats. I just checked it out. It is more of a back country bush plane. Gets in and out of short grass strips, but my mission is paved airports and go fast for long distances. The fabric skin and spartan steel tube fuselage would be perceived poorly by passengers too. I guess it would be possible to put in a nicer interior to mitigate that. I would like something at least 40 kts faster than a Bearhawk though. That IO-580 in a lower drag design could go so much faster.
 
I'm not in the market for another kit of any size but the arguments against a 6-seater sound a lot like the ones I heard about the -10. Just sayin...
 
Would there be enough room in a RV10 if the rear seats were flipped backwards?

The weight and CG due to rear passengers would move forward a little.

Legs , dog and baggage can share some space...........
 
Something tells me the OP is an engineer. If that's the case, my recommendation would be to build an RV-10. By the time you finish, the kids will be in college, and you will have plenty of room to fly with your wife and dog. :)
 
You do realize that Bearhawk brought their six-seater to market last year….right? :)

Bottom line though - you are correct that it was far simpler for them, with the tube/fabric fuselage than it would be for a full metal design. The few large homebuilt kits that have come to market in the past few decades have all pretty much failed because of low demand/production numbers - the market for something that expensive is just too limited to cover the development costs. Simple economics, and as someone said above - you can buy a lot of large factory planes for far less money, and bank the savings to pay for maintenance.

Full disclosure: no, I did not remember about a Bearhawk 6-place already on the market - and this despite the fact that Bob is a personal friend whom I see at least annually and whose A&P assistant helped me build my current engine.

I think you are spot on, Paul, about the demand and cost equations and the overall market. You are certainly in a position to give a very informed opinion.
 
Ever compare specs between the Bearhawk and a -10? The cabin of a Bearhawk is very noticeably narrower. Their 6 seater I'm sure is going to be one tight boy in the back row!

Instead of a 6 seater I would like to see Van's get a -10 out the door in less than a year. :)

I also think the 4 seat market is very under represented in EAB.
 
I also think the 4 seat market is very under represented in EAB.

I think the high cost to build is the reason why we don't see many of them. When Lancair went upscaled with the Evolution, it left the sorta affordable composite market behind and caused significant financial trouble for the company. At least Vans did it right with the RV10 that you can build in your garage and not require a factory assembly, and costing less than a newish 172. Even the current Lancair revamped kit will require some factory build support before shipping the kit home

Speaking for myself, the RV10 is outside my cost to build and cost of ownership because when you go to a 540 engine, everything takes a big step increase in price.
 
Ever compare specs between the Bearhawk and a -10? The cabin of a Bearhawk is very noticeably narrower. Their 6 seater I'm sure is going to be one tight boy in the back row!

Instead of a 6 seater I would like to see Van's get a -10 out the door in less than a year. :)

I also think the 4 seat market is very under represented in EAB.


The Bearhawk 5 (6 seater) is wider than the 4 place bearhawk.
 
Something tells me the OP is an engineer. If that's the case, my recommendation would be to build an RV-10. By the time you finish, the kids will be in college, and you will have plenty of room to fly with your wife and dog. :)

LOL! yes, I am an engineer (aeronautical engineer in fact). My intent would be to build it in a year, but I can't deny the possibility that you are right. I actually considered designing my own airplane. I technically have the capability of doing so, but designing and building a 6 seater myself from a blank piece of paper would certainly take until my kids are in college, so I ruled that option out.
 
If you can find a Stallion kit floating around, that would likely fit your mission almost perfectly. It's basically a modernized 210. If you find 2 kits let me know, as I'm in the same boat as you regarding a family plane.
 
What's the breakeven for Van's on a new kit? Do they need to sell 50 or 500? Any guesses?

As I recall, Epic started off as a 6 seater kit, and they use a turbine. They made enough money after only a few dozen planes to shift to a factory model. For those questioning the demand, if there are 100 interested parties, would that be worth it?

I don't know what an Epic kit cost or what was included (Van's kits only include about 30%-40% of what you will spend to fly), so maybe they had a higher margin per plane, too.
 
As far as I know, there's not a whole lot of six-seat kit aircraft out there. If that's THE primary constraint, and you need speed over STOL, and you're willing to build serial #1, and you're willing to build it out of fiberglass, then maybe the Veloce 600 would match your requirements?
 
Hi Vans Community,

I'm new this this forum. (I did read the 'Read Me First'). I should introduce myself first. I have been flying since I was 13 years old. I'm a private pilot rated in gliders, single engine, multi engine, and instrument rating. I have about 850 hrs total time. I currently own a 1978 Piper PA-32 Lance. I used a Mooney M20J, which I loved that airplane, but when my wife and I had our second child, we couldn't fit in the Mooney any more. My wife, 2 kids in car seats, dog, and all of our bags simply would not fit in a 4-seater.

Additionally, in recent years, I have become much more interested in experimental amateur built. I’m now a lifetime EAA member too. Great magazine and I love Oshkosh each summer but I don’t get a chance to make it there much anymore. One recent factor is that I read the article in AOPA Pilot about the C182 vs. RV-10 and the RV-10 performed better than the C182 in every respect. Additionally, the new technology that is only available in the experimental market I believe will actually make for a safer airplane too.

I would like to see a modern replacement for the Piper PA-32 Lance/Saratoga and the Cessna 210 Centurion and the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza that is designed by Vans.
Key targets:
-6 seats in a club seating configuration in the back so my wife can have easy access to all the kids.
-1,400 lbs useful load (600 lbs of people, 200 lbs of bags/dogs, 100 gal of gas)
-Lycoming IO-580 (or similar) (~315 hp) (full FADEC and digital ignition would be great too)
-175 KTAS cruise speed @ 65% power (~205 hp) @ ~8,000 ft (more would be better but let’s be careful to not over compromise other areas of the design to get a few more knots). Those that want turbo charging could go higher and faster too.
-55 kt stall speed in landing configuration. (Note I think 61 kts is a bit too fast in the event of an off airport landing, kinetic energy is velocity squared, so reducing stall speed by 6 kts is 19% less energy to dissipate)
-‘RV Total Performance’ (handling qualities, easy of build, robust design, etc.)
-Retractable landing gear for the performance benefits, but I understand that RVs have always been fixed gear to date. A compromise would be to retract only the nose wheel. The nose wheel has more drag than the two mains combined. I would also be open to a 'conventional gear' (aka tail dragger) to mitigate the drag of the nose wheel.
-This would make for an awesome and affordable cross country airplane. 175 KTAS at ~14 gph with 100 gal of gas would be over 7 hours and over 1,200 nm of range. Granted reserves need to be subtracted from these numbers.

I would like to know how many other people would be interested in a 6-seat quick build kit from Vans? Please sound off with your thoughts on this topic. Do you think the above listed Key Targets are about right, or would you propose something different? Ideally this fosters lots of discussion and Van’s would view this as an informal petition to develop a 6-seater after they finish the high wing bush plane. I have decided, if Vans developed this kit, I will absolutely buy it. Who else would buy it?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Bill Fredericks
Williamsburg, VA

You're basically describing a mid-70s A36 bonanza. With current prices those are around $160k+. I'd say a Vans kit, fully furnished, would likely exceed that.
 
You're basically describing a mid-70s A36 bonanza. With current prices those are around $160k+. I'd say a Vans kit, fully furnished, would likely exceed that.

Yes, a kit A36 or PA-32 would be great. The biggest expense with these planes is getting parts and none of them are getting any younger. To have a reasonable 6-seat is going to get harder and harder as the current fleet gets older and older.
 
Yes, a kit A36 or PA-32 would be great. The biggest expense with these planes is getting parts and none of them are getting any younger. To have a reasonable 6-seat is going to get harder and harder as the current fleet gets older and older.

That's true.. the good ones (1970-1983 A36s, IMHO) are getting older and fewer. But for only 1MM you can buy a brand new bonanza today! The parts are still the same.

The only bonanza part issues I'm aware of are the magnesium skins for the ruddervators on the v-tail (not the A36).

Haven't heard of any part shortages, except maybe seat recline cam locks... but lots of new old stock out there. A kit version would be interesting, but not seeing the value proposition.
 
As far as I know, there's not a whole lot of six-seat kit aircraft out there. If that's THE primary constraint, and you need speed over STOL, and you're willing to build serial #1, and you're willing to build it out of fiberglass, then maybe the Veloce 600 would match your requirements?

Conceptually, the Veloce 600 is exactly what I was hoping for. However, I'm very leery about building a composite airplane. Bond joints are risky, and the have to be done right under controlled conditions. Additionally, there is no good way that I can inspect them because I couldn't afford the x-ray, and other 'black magic' sensor technologies that I don't understand how they work, to be able to properly inspect a composite airplane the way it should be inspected to ensure the structure remains sound.
 
You're basically describing a mid-70s A36 bonanza. With current prices those are around $160k+. I'd say a Vans kit, fully furnished, would likely exceed that.

It is close but it doesn't have much interior volume and it doesn't have 'Van's total performance'. For example it's glide ratio with a dead engine is pretty bad and the stall characteristics are also pretty aggressive. There is a reason it was named the 'Doctor Killer'
 
Bame

Pretty sure the “doctor killer” nickname was more representative of a typically low experience pilot flying a high performance aircraft than any real issue with the aircraft. Granted, the early V tails had problems but they were for the most part addressed.

Really no different than the bad rap the MU-2 gets; it is a phenomenal aircraft, it is not forgiving of those who lose focus of its characteristics…
 
Im in your corner Bob…pilot issues were much more common that plane issues. Actually the early Vtails were fairly trouble free but as they continued to increase gross weight and increase the size of the Vtails by cantilevering the forward section of the tail then issues began…especially when exceeding red line. That was finally solved by adding a cuff to the fuselage to support the tail.

As to comments about stall characteristics….the Bonanza was a pussycat in stalls a bit like some of the RV models that share its wing design. :)
 
It is close but it doesn't have much interior volume and it doesn't have 'Van's total performance'. For example it's glide ratio with a dead engine is pretty bad and the stall characteristics are also pretty aggressive. There is a reason it was named the 'Doctor Killer'

WJ -

I'm not sure what you're looking for with interior volume.. but an A36 has quite a bit of it. Especially with a popular modification to make an extended baggage for pre-1984 models. See the attached photo. Post-1984 the horizontal partition is removed.

Robert already corrected you on the doctor killer issue :) Really a testament to the design; in that the aircraft is very slippery, and if you exceed VNE, parts will fail. Should be obvious that you should not do that. Also noteworthy there have not been any recent (past 25 years?) incidents after the AD fixed all the v-tails. I comfortably flew a 1955 vtail for many years, and it was/is a very well behaving aircraft. The reputation is undeserved, IMO.

But if you're talking 6 seat bonanzas, you're not talking v-tails (35 series). All 6 seaters come with a conventional tail, and are called a 36/A36/G36 model, respectively. By the way, the useful load of mine is 1400 lbs and it has a range of approximately 1000 nm with reserves. Plus it has air conditioning. The 36 bonanza gained weight over the years, so that useful load went down accordingly.

As far as total performance, my A36 has a stall speed of roughly 60 kts dirty, and I regularly cruise at 175 KTAS all day long.

Only a door on the co-pilot seats, and the cabin is 42 vs 48? for the RV-10. Not a problem, even fat guys can fit up in a bonanza :)

Yeah, the glide performance of a bonanza isn't great. I'm not sure what it is for an RV-10; but honestly this isn't a parameter that I concerned myself with during evaluations. I would (did) trade glide ratio for higher wing loading and top speed.

Obviously I'm justifying my choice with selection bias, so I'm not sure what you're looking for w.r.t. performance. Keep in mind all airplane designs are compromises for a multitude of variables. For my mission, the A36 fits exactly. Unfortunately, the RV-10 would not, because it doesn't have the seats/useful load. The RV-10 also costs more (by a lot), equipped similarly to the A36. And as a bonus I don't have to worry about liability to the manufacturer on the A36. So basically I'm spelling out the reasons why I went my route, recognizing these decisions are a case-by-case basis. Figured I'd respond though to correct the record on bonanzas. Cheers!
 

Attachments

  • baggage.jpg
    baggage.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 693
WJ -


Only a door on the co-pilot seats, and the cabin is 42 vs 48? for the RV-10. Not a problem, even fat guys can fit up in a bonanza :)

Cheers!

I continue to look closely at an A36, but honestly the cabin width is holding me back. What good are 6 seats if even skinny people are sitting on each other's laps. I just can't justify spending that kind of money on something mmy friends and family won't be comfortable in. I'll probably end up with a Saratoga. No where near as nice to fly, but if you buy a 6 seater you aren't really buying it for you, are you. It's all about what you are hauling. And they don't care about a few knots or slick handling.
 
True

Yeah, 42” is good if you are average size. I am 6’1” and 265 lbs…it’s a bit on the tight side for me.
 
I'm not in the market for another kit of any size but the arguments against a 6-seater sound a lot like the ones I heard about the -10. Just sayin...

This is spot on.

Also notice that people on this forum are here because the fly 2 and 4 seaters. Not a good place to make a poll for who is interested in a 6 seater.

Personally, I’d love a 6 seater. A bit more useful load and room in the 10 would be great.
 
Between this thread and the RV-twin thread, it's got me thinking of the Velocity Twin. While I'm sure they're great planes, not sure how many they've sold. Point being small market that's probably saturated by one offering already. Be nice to have an aluminum QB only offering. I say QB only because it would be a massive airframe to build, and most people would loose interest. Maybe reduce part count substantially some how? Minor subsections already assembled (aka 1/2 QB) so it's not all bare parts?
 
Comp Air

If you can find a Stallion kit floating around, that would likely fit your mission almost perfectly. It's basically a modernized 210. If you find 2 kits let me know, as I'm in the same boat as you regarding a family plane.

You don’t hear much about CompAir anymore. Their 6.2 would seem to fit the OP requirements. http://www.compairaviation.com/ca6-2_specs.html

See Kitplane interview and discussion on 6.2 from last week. Of course it isn’t flying yet! :). http://www.compairaviation.com/press/5-19-22_Kitplanes.html
 
Between this thread and the RV-twin thread, it's got me thinking of the Velocity Twin. While I'm sure they're great planes, not sure how many they've sold. Point being small market that's probably saturated by one offering already. Be nice to have an aluminum QB only offering. I say QB only because it would be a massive airframe to build, and most people would loose interest. Maybe reduce part count substantially some how? Minor subsections already assembled (aka 1/2 QB) so it's not all bare parts?

The Velocity Twin is a rather expensive kit, at $143,000 base price. Add retractable gear and the firewall forward kit and you're north of $170,000 just for the kits. The market would open up considerably if the price point were lower, in my opinion. A lower cost competitor might be just the thing for that market.
 
RV-15 is now going to be a 6-seat backcountry high-wing with a gross weight of 4500 lb!

With a turboprop engine that burns 6 gallons per hour and make 650 hp, coupled to a fully reversible, constant speed propeller so that you can go 350 mph in cruise and land going backwards...
 
Back
Top