"Rv 16"

It seems the more models these guys come up with , the price keeps going up. Is the rv16 going to be 51k out the door. Is not the 4 and 6 a sturdy platform great in its own time tested way. Excluding the 10 of course, it seems interesting that the manufacturing of the 6 is being downplayed, or the options surrounding it are decreasing. Can anyone explain why vans mountain is going in so many different directions. And away from what seems to be old school ways. At what point does the upward spiral stop making dollars and cents.

The prices are going up, but so is the quality of the kits and the engineering that goes into it. All that fabrication, pre punched holes, plug and play wiring harnesses etc. cost money.

The way I see it you either pay for the kit with your time or your money. I chose to pay for mine with my time, so im doing a slow build.

Here's the thing, a two place airplane airframe basically will cost $20k, regardless of manufacturer for an aluminum skin and stringer configuration, tube and fabric is more, all composite is more. Avionics, $5k to $40k, engine $10k to $40k, prop $1k to $10k, interior $1k to $5k. So overall $37k to $115k for a 2 seater, a very wide range regardless of airframe. The question is not which mfg for the airframe, that cost is pretty consistent, the question is what kind of airframe performance wise, then engine, avionics, prop, and interior, that is where the real cost difference is.

Tim

Billythekid said:

It seems the more models these guys come up with , the price keeps going up. Is the rv16 going to be 51k out the door. Is not the 4 and 6 a sturdy platform great in its own time tested way. Excluding the 10 of course, it seems interesting that the manufacturing of the 6 is being downplayed, or the options surrounding it are decreasing. Can anyone explain why vans mountain is going in so many different directions. And away from what seems to be old school ways. At what point does the upward spiral stop making dollars and cents.

Click to expand...

Van's is a business. Their goal is to make money, and they aren't going to introduce new products that aren't likely to earn a good return. The "old school ways" of more basic kits aren't popular in the market; the potential market for advanced kits is much larger and more profitable. The advanced kits are more likely to be completed rather than abandoned, and will therefore sell more sub-kits; more people are going to be willing to start an advanced kit because they perceive it as something within their skills. Plus, the newer models are perceived by a lot of people to be more useful (more cockpit room and higher gross weights). All of these mean that advanced kits will sell more and result in more completed, flying airplanes than old-school kits.

Part of the reason Van's has been successful is that they are making products that the market wants. The market wants advanced, easier-to-build kits and larger, more capable (in certain areas) airplanes, and is willing to pay for those things. Basic, "old school" kits and scratchbuilding were more popular "back in the day", but that wasn't because the market preferred them--it's just that there weren't any other options. And because of that, the experimental world was much, much smaller. Annual homebuilt completions are nearing annual certified piston single production numbers; that would never have happened without advanced kits.

kits

Proofs in the pudding with 25 thousand RV6 kits sold and only 2500 plus finished that's proof that builders need more complete kits and less build time.On the other side of the coin if you like building that means lots of good deals out there on Rv6 kits saved me lots of money.Also just because its the newest model does not mean its better I think its safe to say the wing and tail of the RV6 is better than RV7 .
Bob

I believe we are watching the evolution of a full fledged aircraft manufacturer. They do better design through analysis, testing and validation of designs. They learn with every test and every design. This learning drives some overhead cost, as we all know in our own building. And, although this will drive cost, in the Vans philosophy of value, it should be a better alternative to the current certificated offerings.

There may come a time when Mr RV is aged and the company looks like a ripe tomato to a commercial outfit for cost effective design and manufacturing, and may be purchased and "transformed" in the business sense. Hopefully, he has made alternative provisions to avoid this potential future.

6 Gun said:

I think its safe to say the wing and tail of the RV6 is better than RV7.

Click to expand...

On what data do you draw that conclusion?

BillL said:

Hopefully, he has made alternative provisions to avoid this potential future.

Click to expand...

He did. Vans Aircraft is employee-owned.

Tail group

In the Model Specific there is a thread by Bill L on what does the Harmon or F1 Rocket do to beep up vert front spar the F1 use spar doublers and the Harmon Rocket just uses the 4 tail with vne of 300 mph which is the same as 6.
Bob

It's been said already: They cost more because more is done by the factory, so more will be completed. My RV6 tail took a year and wound up in a scrap yard at $0.50 a pound. My RV8 tail will be done in 3-4 months and will wind up flying [he said, in a fit of unwarranted optimism].

For those wanting less pre-fabbing, there's still the Mustang II and T18. You can even build a Zenith from scratch. Or a Wittman Tailwind.

But what about this RV16? Is there such a thing?

I actually wish they'd "backport" (That's an IT term ...) latest improvements to previous models. Right now if you want a better kit, you also MUST buy a particular kind of aircraft (i.e. the RV-14). I know some things improve over time (I've read of composite parts seemingly getting better over time for example?).

I would gladly pay a few AMUs more on a 7/9 kit to get an improved landing gear, and a more "complete" solution à la RV-14 ...

StuBob said:

For those wanting less pre-fabbing, there's still the Mustang II and T18. You can even build a Zenith from scratch. Or a Wittman Tailwind.

Click to expand...

You can build the Mustang II from plans to a full kit. But its true, the full kit is not as refined as an RV kit. You still get a full set of drawings and a build manual no matter which you choose, so you can make any of your parts if you screw up something and dont want to wait for a factory replacement. More of a thinking mans kit vs bolt A in hole B etc and that tends to make each Mustang somewhat customized - like a Harley. No two are exactly alike in refinement. Each to his own.

The conclusions on this thread are correct. Van's is making the transition to "soup to nuts" kits that follows, in my opinion, the "locked down control" of the RV-12, reflecting what the market is demanding. While I understand many will like to simply make decision by writing checks for optional kits, for me this is not the right direction.

I built an RV-8A back when you had to make wing and fuselage jigs. I then built and RV-10 and found the full pre-punch, no jig construction a natural refinement available with modern CNC equipment.

Of late I have been helping and RV-14 builder with panel and wiring. As I got into it I was amazed at all the decisions made for the builder before he even touched the plane. Things like multiple Molex brackets for pre-made wiring harnesses, pre-punched antenna mounts, fixed landing light configuration, and most troubling is the kit does include the panel blanks. Calling Van's the quote was "those will be provided by whomever does your panel". Making matters worse is the horrible three piece panel design. The builder has fewer options to make the plane his own.

Again - Van's would not do this if the customer was not demanding it. The big jump in price for the RV-14 reflects this new market. Too bad the "old school" way of learning from other builders to find out what you like, don't like or make better is fading away.

Carl

The new kits and the old kits are vastly different. I'm building an RV-3B and you can read about my slow progress here.

The new RV-14 has plans that are so improved, and kit itself is so much better, that even though the subkits are sill being released, some airplanes are this far along.

Are they worth the money? That's up to you: Van's sells kits that range from mine up through the RV-14. All the double-digit kits are like this, at least so far, and in my opinion are worth the extra cost.

Dave

6 Gun said:

In the Model Specific there is a thread by Bill L on what does the Harmon or F1 Rocket do to beep up vert front spar the F1 use spar doublers and the Harmon Rocket just uses the 4 tail with vne of 300 mph which is the same as 6.
Bob

Click to expand...

If you are speaking specifically about the fwd spar attach of the 4 being the same as the 6...... it is also the same on the 7 (and the 8)

kamikaze said:

I would gladly pay a few AMUs more on a 7/9 kit to get an improved landing gear, and a more "complete" solution ? la RV-14 ...

Click to expand...

Nothing prevents the marketplace from doing exactly this. Other vendors, like Antisplat and Grove, have introduced improvements to the older designs. E-AB aircraft builders can pick up and use these improvements without certification costs.

One other thing to consider is the cost of the punching presses, and CNC equipment. Not to mention the people to run them, and the engineers to transfer their ideas to CAD so the equipment can make parts.
I heard that Vans was now building the exhaust for the 14. As Larry and clint can attest, it takes skill to use a CNC mandrel bender.
So---what does it take to operate these things? Funding. By the costs of kits, parts and accessories. Profit goes to paying for the people, and the automation to make the kits.

Tom