What's new
Van's Air Force

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

The new RV shall be?

billytime1

Well Known Member
My turn to fall on the sword
Maybe vans could keep the current fleet of planes and offer a different wing foil , I know the 9 has something but a wing for the 7,8,14 that is more laminar . I’m sure there is a lot of engineering for the rest of the story..
Maybe call it the vans rv51
Billythekid
 
The RV-3, RV-4, RV-6(A), RV-7(A) and RV-8(A) all use the NACA 23013.5 airfoil (popular with lots of other planes including the DC-3 and Beech Bonanza).

The RV-9(A) uses a Roncz custom airfoil and the RV-10 and RV-14(A) both use the same Vans (designed by a NACA engineer) custom airfoil.

Laminar all by itself needs thick skins to maintain the critical shape. I don't know for sure but I think the RV-9(A) and RV-10 and RV-14(A) have at least partial laminar shapes.
 
electric diesel RV

No idea what the new RV will be but hybrid an electric are coming and are going to leave Lycoming and Vans sitting in the dust if they dont look out.

For instance think of a plane with say a 20Kwhour battery, about 40 hp stored. That would weigh about 70kg using current battery technology a small electric motor to drive the prop. This arrangement would have enough power to drive any RV for 20-30 mins so it could get to a safe landing spot and has virtually no moving parts to wear out.

Attach this to virtually any diesel car engine which can produce enough power to keep the battery trickle charged as you fly and you will have a very economical and safe way to fly. Jet A for fuel cutting your cost for fuel by a 2/3 $10 - $15,000 power plant for a 250-350 hp diesel car engine, Batteries cost around $120 a kw at present. So $3600 for the battery and about $1000 for electronics to manage power flow etc.

Somebody has to be working on such a thing, it would weigh about 100kgs more than a current power plant if including the battery but the extra power available from a modern diesel engine should overcome that
 
Last edited:
No idea what the new RV will be but hybrid an electric are coming and are going to leave Lycoming and Vans sitting in the dust if they dont look out.

For instance think of a plane with say a 20Kwhour battery, about 40 hp stored. That would weigh about 70kg using current battery technology a small electric motor to drive the prop. This arrangement would have enough power to drive any RV for 20-30 mins so it could get to a safe landing spot and has virtually no moving parts to wear out.

Attach this to virtually any diesel car engine which can produce enough power to keep the battery trickle charged as you fly and you will have a very economical and safe way to fly. Jet A for fuel cutting your cost for fuel by a 2/3 $10 - $15,000 power plant for a 250-350 hp diesel car engine, Batteries cost around $120 a kw at present. So $3600 for the battery and about $1000 for electronics to manage power flow etc.

Somebody has to be working on such a thing, it would weigh about 100kgs more than a current power plant if including the battery but the extra power available from a modern diesel engine should overcome that

Very niche-y. Electric sounds great in theory, and would be fun for people that like to mess with experimental stuff that doesn't fly much, but that's about it.
 
Sparky is heavy.

Very niche-y. Electric sounds great in theory, and would be fun for people that like to mess with experimental stuff that doesn't fly much, but that's about it.

Agreed. Yes, I'd love to try electric on a single or two seat small LSA for a neat, different, quiet, 60 minutes "around the airport" plane.

For everything else, I carry 1/15th of the fuel weight for what I need and pick up the rest along the way. Electric requires I carry it all along.
 
Sonex put a huge effort into an electric airplane.

Went nowhere, but their prototype did fly.
 
Electric/Hydrogen powered flight

Very niche-y. Electric sounds great in theory, and would be fun for people that like to mess with experimental stuff that doesn't fly much, but that's about it.

There needs to be a different battery technology before electric flight is more than a science fair project. It will come, though. Electric/Hydrogen powered flight seem to be the focus at the moment. https://qz.com/1943592/electric-airp...-breakthrough/
 
Maybe a taper wing and or composite as well .

I seriously doubt Vans is going to do a composite or tapered wing.. look at all of their designs, low aspect ratio, thick airfoils, gentle stall, low stall speed..

I personally would love to see a high wing, cantilevered version of a Cessna 170. Maybe a slotted flap for extra STOL performance. Flat one piece gear like the one piece Grove style. 170 knots and the ability to do back country stuff.
 
The New normal...

Interestingly enough I have spoken with Van personally many times over the past 30 years. The first being a very long distance call while stationed in Japan many moons ago(1989) with an RV4 kit question. To my surprise Van himself actually answered the builder support phone!
Several years ago I asked him a direct question at Oshkosh on this subject and as usual he gave a direct answer, "I will stick with designs that sell kits".

https://youtu.be/IaniNr-291s

That said, a friend is building a Rans S-21 and told me recently"Dude, Randy Schlitter can't make the kits fast enough, the build assist wait is over 2 years now"
So, if the marketplace is looking at tried and true designs being popular enough to sell more than a few kits (Legend Cub, Rans, Carbon Cub, Bearhawk, Aerodrome, Zenith, etc) will Vans Aircraft be far behind? My take is maybe, but if he keeps selling tri-gear fairly expensive, glass cockpit capable metal sport airplanes or bigger versions of those ( RV14) many people seem to like, why not? Laminar flow wing go-fast glass kit-planes haven't fared well in the marketplace over the past 30 years so I don't see VA going that direction anytime soon.

A Bearhawk competitor however, might just be in the works...:)
Time will tell...
V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Priorities

If I were in charge of sales and marketing at Vans, I would look at my competition for a new kit sale as an already flying aircraft, an already started kit, or a different design.

So addressing these categories, I'd look at:

1. Improving the finished RV-12 line, potentially expanding it to the 915, or when MOSAIC pans out, a turn-key RV-14 or even RV-10​

2. A revamped RV-8 or RV-10 that builds like an RV-14​

3. A different design based on what's hot in the market - backcountry flying. The Rans S-21 sells well at the low end and the Carbon Cub sells well at the high end, but new designs take time to get truly right.​

If I were a betting man I'd expect to see Vans continue to evolve 1 & 2 before they fully address 3. Vans doesn't need to fill every hole in the market, but I do think you'll see Vans further explore the backcountry flying scene - it's too big of a market segment to ignore.
 
The RV-3, RV-4, RV-6(A), RV-7(A) and RV-8(A) all use the NACA 23013.5 airfoil (popular with lots of other planes including the DC-3 and Beech Bonanza).

The RV-9(A) uses a Roncz custom airfoil and the RV-10 and RV-14(A) both use the same Vans (designed by a NACA engineer) custom airfoil.

Laminar all by itself needs thick skins to maintain the critical shape. I don't know for sure but I think the RV-9(A) and RV-10 and RV-14(A) have at least partial laminar shapes.

As the designer of the RV-10,14 airfoil, I can say that what you say is true. Although, I think the RV-3 might be a 23012 (rather than 13.5). Not positive of that.

Thicker skins do help a lot. On another thread somewhere I wrote of an old NACA flight test studying why the P-63 did not achieve the expected laminar flow, where as the P-51 did (more or less). One reason was the thickness of the wing skin.

Ultimately, if you are going to have a skin seam at the spar, that is the limit of laminar flow. Eliminating the skin seam at the spar would require a wider sheet for the LE skin, and some other skin joint aft of the spar somewhere. That would be difficult to get smooth.
 
I seriously doubt Vans is going to do a composite or tapered wing.. look at all of their designs, low aspect ratio, thick airfoils, gentle stall, low stall speed..

I personally would love to see a high wing, cantilevered version of a Cessna 170. Maybe a slotted flap for extra STOL performance. Flat one piece gear like the one piece Grove style. 170 knots and the ability to do back country stuff.

It is really tough to design a high wing airplane with a cantilever wing. The spar wants to go through the pilot's head. The only penalty from the struts is on top speed. Not going to be 170 kts.
 
It is really tough to design a high wing airplane with a cantilever wing. The spar wants to go through the pilot's head. The only penalty from the struts is on top speed. Not going to be 170 kts.

How about C-210 style or C-177? C-195? Have the wing completely over your head?
 
It can be done

The new Sling Tsi high wing is another example of a design without a strut. If they can do it then surely Vans can too?:confused:
 
It is really tough to design a high wing airplane with a cantilever wing. The spar wants to go through the pilot's head. The only penalty from the struts is on top speed. Not going to be 170 kts.

You can move the wing and spar back to behind the pilot/passenger with an aft CG design by having an aft mounted pusher engine configuration or adjusting lift balance with a canard and wing arrangement.

You can make a strutted wing work at higher speeds, according to Boeing and NASA, if you use it to get a very fuel efficient wing with lots of additional aspect ratio, twist, and taper. That additional wing L/D makes up for the strut drag. That wing though may be to complicated of a shape for a sheet metal home built.

Pusher engines, canard/wing, and composite high aspect ratio wing do not sound like Vans. [unless Van is resurrecting his work on a sailplane]. Also none of these are appropriate for a “back country STOL” aircraft, as Steve was responding to.
 
Last edited:
Yessir, Jim Bede figured that out a long time ago...
I give you the RV16, maybe :)



V/R
Merry Christmas
Smokey

PS: Steve, another great airplane and one of my personal favorites also shares the 23012, the Mighty Taylorcraft!

RV-16? You skipping the -15 altogether? Lol yeah its gotta be a 2 place, high wing.. then a few years later, it'll grow to 4 place. Hopefully 4 place tailwheel. . Also wouldn't mind seeing the RV-10 get a tailwheel option..wonder why they did nose wheel only on the -10?
 
Skipping rope...

RV-16? You skipping the -15 altogether? Lol yeah its gotta be a 2 place, high wing.. then a few years later, it'll grow to 4 place. Hopefully 4 place tailwheel. . Also wouldn't mind seeing the RV-10 get a tailwheel option..wonder why they did nose wheel only on the -10?




Yessir, I figured the RV15 is already designed and my guess is it's not what were chatting about, maybe...
The BD4 was way ahead of it's time, and the market. A 4 place, 150 Knot, kit plane, in 1975? Imagine that. I friend with a 200HP version stayed along side my HR2 easily at 170 Knots.

Go figure...
:)
Smokey

PS: My good friend KK who helped design the -10 once told me that from the gitgo there was never any intention to make the 10 a TD. "Marketing again my friend"
 
Last edited:


Yessir, I figured the RV15 is already designed and my guess is it's not what were chatting about, maybe...
The BD4 was way ahead of it's time, and the market. A 4 place, 150 Knot, kit plane, in 1975? Imagine that. I friend with a 200HP version stayed along side my HR2 easily at 170 Knots.

Go figure...
:)
Smokey

However, the BD-4 is a great example of the main spar being in the way in the cockpit - you end up having to slouch bellow it, and then you can’t see over the glare shield - its like one of those lowered-top gangster cars.....

Paul
 
However, the BD-4 is a great example of the main spar being in the way in the cockpit - you end up having to slouch bellow it, and then you can’t see over the glare shield - its like one of those lowered-top gangster cars.....

Paul

Another post that makes me wish there was a 'like' button ;)
 
Back
Top