Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
What should Vans do next?
- Thread starter Loman
- Start date
Hey....not ALL of us!!
Sorry Paul. What I meant was 99.44% of the builders.
William Slaughter
Well Known Member
Rocket. Pick up the F1 program, perhaps?
ron sterba
Well Known Member
RV-13 not a plane.
Went to VANS late last year and told them that all things considered that the RV-13 should be a BOAT! Water type. Heres how I came to that thought. We get our pilots license 20-50 years of age in certified aircraft. We buy all the tools for building a RV. Its our pride and joy! We fly the heck out of the RV. Health starts to change ,we go to LSA. The grandkids are around and we teach them building skills. We build a RV together. Grandkids take us for a ride. We can't stay aloft very long. So what to do with all the tools and building skills? We build a 12'-16' flat bottom boat and that old O-200 thats run out in the barn,We slap it on the back of thee boat, order a STERBA PROP, call BOAT US and order a anchor and some line. WALLA! hence the cycle starts all over. Vans stays in business and expands company. Companies split up and are traded on the stock exchange. RV stock holders are RICH! Production starts on a RV15 8 passenger plane. The FAA awards all RV builders A&P/A&I licenses. We start building Aluminum lawn chairs with rag-wing fabric and call the company CHAIRS-R-US. and So the cycle repeats itself!! Ron in Oregon
Went to VANS late last year and told them that all things considered that the RV-13 should be a BOAT! Water type. Heres how I came to that thought. We get our pilots license 20-50 years of age in certified aircraft. We buy all the tools for building a RV. Its our pride and joy! We fly the heck out of the RV. Health starts to change ,we go to LSA. The grandkids are around and we teach them building skills. We build a RV together. Grandkids take us for a ride. We can't stay aloft very long. So what to do with all the tools and building skills? We build a 12'-16' flat bottom boat and that old O-200 thats run out in the barn,We slap it on the back of thee boat, order a STERBA PROP, call BOAT US and order a anchor and some line. WALLA! hence the cycle starts all over. Vans stays in business and expands company. Companies split up and are traded on the stock exchange. RV stock holders are RICH! Production starts on a RV15 8 passenger plane. The FAA awards all RV builders A&P/A&I licenses. We start building Aluminum lawn chairs with rag-wing fabric and call the company CHAIRS-R-US. and So the cycle repeats itself!! Ron in Oregon
Don't remember what I voted, but a two-seat light twin would be awesome.
Rotax would be ok, but they are expensive. The new IO-2xx would be fine, or better yet the Gemini or WAM diesels to allow using gas-station diesel fuel.
Best of all would be if, after selling a few hundred kits, they certify it. That would make a great twin-engine trainer.
Rotax would be ok, but they are expensive. The new IO-2xx would be fine, or better yet the Gemini or WAM diesels to allow using gas-station diesel fuel.
Best of all would be if, after selling a few hundred kits, they certify it. That would make a great twin-engine trainer.
Jim P
Well Known Member
Had to go back and review the thread, this is getting lengthy.
Lots of suggestions around some sort of bush plane in the list, but I'd really like to see a stretch -7 or 9 with enough room for a mid-sized kid or expanded cargo capability, maybe up to 200#. Move the wing back a bit, put a plug in the aft fuse and give it a 2+1 capability. The 10 is a great airplane, but I suspect there's a void between the -7/9 and 10 for those with only 1 kid or needs for extended baggage but a little too light on the financials for a -10.
Lots of suggestions around some sort of bush plane in the list, but I'd really like to see a stretch -7 or 9 with enough room for a mid-sized kid or expanded cargo capability, maybe up to 200#. Move the wing back a bit, put a plug in the aft fuse and give it a 2+1 capability. The 10 is a great airplane, but I suspect there's a void between the -7/9 and 10 for those with only 1 kid or needs for extended baggage but a little too light on the financials for a -10.
bkc3921
Well Known Member
I'm with the upgrade guys
I would like to see Van hire me (yes, I would be happy to move to Oregon..will even bring wife and dog!) to re-write all of the instruction manuals. As an anal organizational freak, 2 things bother me the most: 1) installing a part in Chapter 3..and then being forced to remove it in Chapter 5!! 2) Not being able to locate and make all builder fabricated parts at the same time, as they are scattered throughout the plans!!......p.s. in this age of computers..each set of plans should include ONLY the drawings for the kit you have..not something like "RV-8 similar!"..this can get expensive when you are measuring/cutting/fabricating parts....(please don't ask me how I know this...)........
I would like to see Van hire me (yes, I would be happy to move to Oregon..will even bring wife and dog!) to re-write all of the instruction manuals. As an anal organizational freak, 2 things bother me the most: 1) installing a part in Chapter 3..and then being forced to remove it in Chapter 5!! 2) Not being able to locate and make all builder fabricated parts at the same time, as they are scattered throughout the plans!!......p.s. in this age of computers..each set of plans should include ONLY the drawings for the kit you have..not something like "RV-8 similar!"..this can get expensive when you are measuring/cutting/fabricating parts....(please don't ask me how I know this...)........
IMHO......
I don't see the payoff for Van's to put limited resources into improving documentation or in retooling of the existing products. The real bread and butter products for them are the 7/8/9/10/12 and they all have good to outstanding docs and matched hole tooling.
The real need is a new product to extend the line and offer features with widespread interest...like the previously mentioned place high wing option. BUT extend the concept to offer two versions; 1) a 540 powered 4 place version to haul families and easier access and good baggage capability and 2) a 2+ tailwheel version that would have beefed up gear and perhaps a 360 power for light empty weight.
I had a 360 powered BD4 for some 20+ years and really enjoyed it and its speed and utility. BUT, it was b**t ugly, had limited load capability and no slow speed capabilty. An high wing RV14 would offer a lot of attractive features and capability.
I don't see the payoff for Van's to put limited resources into improving documentation or in retooling of the existing products. The real bread and butter products for them are the 7/8/9/10/12 and they all have good to outstanding docs and matched hole tooling.
The real need is a new product to extend the line and offer features with widespread interest...like the previously mentioned place high wing option. BUT extend the concept to offer two versions; 1) a 540 powered 4 place version to haul families and easier access and good baggage capability and 2) a 2+ tailwheel version that would have beefed up gear and perhaps a 360 power for light empty weight.
I had a 360 powered BD4 for some 20+ years and really enjoyed it and its speed and utility. BUT, it was b**t ugly, had limited load capability and no slow speed capabilty. An high wing RV14 would offer a lot of attractive features and capability.
Flying Scotsman
Well Known Member
Maybe Van's should just sell CAD databases and raw ore so people can smelt their own raw materials.
bush 10
Although not one of the original poll options, I'm also very much in favor of Stein's option - high wing bush plane, maybe both a 2 and 4 pax version. This is close to Van's basic design philosophy, but he always includes short field, but wavers towards cost and speed to off field performance.
BTW if you do a search on what 10TJ did to his rv10 you'll find he may have already designed a pretty good bush 10, albeit still low wing. It already beats a C-180 in terms of short field performance and may provide sufficient ruggedness to handle the abuse. Basically he modified the nose strut, put C-206 wheels and brakes to name a few of his mods. Lossed a few knots on the high end, but if his low wings can handle the abuse, he may already be close to the right answer without a new design.
ajay
Although not one of the original poll options, I'm also very much in favor of Stein's option - high wing bush plane, maybe both a 2 and 4 pax version. This is close to Van's basic design philosophy, but he always includes short field, but wavers towards cost and speed to off field performance.
BTW if you do a search on what 10TJ did to his rv10 you'll find he may have already designed a pretty good bush 10, albeit still low wing. It already beats a C-180 in terms of short field performance and may provide sufficient ruggedness to handle the abuse. Basically he modified the nose strut, put C-206 wheels and brakes to name a few of his mods. Lossed a few knots on the high end, but if his low wings can handle the abuse, he may already be close to the right answer without a new design.
ajay
David Shelton
Well Known Member
Soaring
I agree. A more utilitarian 2 + 2 airplane. One that you could actually
get a bicycle or a bunch of camping gear in.QUOTE]
Sorry Tom, I couldn't resist... RV-10 Cargo Pod
I vote for a motorglider. I already have something to travel in so now I need something that's purely for fun. Soaring is a blast... and it's actually economical too!
flyboykelly
Well Known Member
I'd like to see a fast back option on the RV-8 and for the company to just survive. Too many kit manufacuring companies have gone out of buisness going down the road of too many airplanes too fast.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
MSFT-1
Well Known Member
I recently saw a Tecnam P2006T Twin
It is a certified airplane, but it has some pretty interesting characteristics:
Twin Rotax 912 (100hp each)
145kt true cruise speed
10gph total at cruise on autogas
About $500k.
Admittedly this is not the right price range for most successful homebuilts, but it shows that a twin Rotax setup is doable.
It is a certified airplane, but it has some pretty interesting characteristics:
Twin Rotax 912 (100hp each)
145kt true cruise speed
10gph total at cruise on autogas
About $500k.
Admittedly this is not the right price range for most successful homebuilts, but it shows that a twin Rotax setup is doable.
Here is a twin-Rotax kit plane that beats the Tecnam in every way, and for more realistic home-built prices.
Aerocat Amphibian
On this design you could easily substitute a pair of WAM 120s or Gemini 100/125s (if they are actually in production), or the less expensive 135 HP Jabirus as well. There are lots of engine choices at the low end of the power spectrum...
w1curtis
Well Known Member
Many of these choices (A twin, using the new IO-233 or Rotax engines, A turboprop, A jet) are incongruous with Van?s philosophy ? simple, efficient, cost effective.
How about certification of the RV-10! Every time I fly the RV-10 I?m amazed how much they ?got right?, its efficiency and performance. This did not work out so well for Lancair/Columbia but their philosophy is soooo much different from Van?s.
For now though I think he should ?go to Disney world.? When he gets back, update the 7/8/9 kit plans to the same format as the 10 & 12, then he can start looking into certification of the 10 to compete with Cirrus, Cessna, et al.
How about certification of the RV-10! Every time I fly the RV-10 I?m amazed how much they ?got right?, its efficiency and performance. This did not work out so well for Lancair/Columbia but their philosophy is soooo much different from Van?s.
For now though I think he should ?go to Disney world.? When he gets back, update the 7/8/9 kit plans to the same format as the 10 & 12, then he can start looking into certification of the 10 to compete with Cirrus, Cessna, et al.
It must be an older vintage kit. The 8 (and 8A) plans issued with all fuselage kits since the -1 kit came out (about 4 years ago) have a point in the manual that says "If building from a Q.B. kit start here" (or something like that).
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
I need two more!
(Need is the key word, my wife and I always laugh about the word need)
I absolutely love my RV-10 and know the RV-12 will be great once finished, there are two more planes I want Van's to make though.
Like others have posted, I would love to see an unlimited aerobatic plane (basically an RV-8 stressed to +-12 g's) and a real 6-8 place turbo-prop (maybe fixed gear/pressurized) from Van's.
Those four planes would be the greatest. I agree that a bush plane would be neat too and that would be the fifth plane. (I need a bigger hanger now)
Of course my dream Van's kit is the SpaceShipOne kit from Vans.
Man it is fun to dream!
(Need is the key word, my wife and I always laugh about the word need)
I absolutely love my RV-10 and know the RV-12 will be great once finished, there are two more planes I want Van's to make though.
Like others have posted, I would love to see an unlimited aerobatic plane (basically an RV-8 stressed to +-12 g's) and a real 6-8 place turbo-prop (maybe fixed gear/pressurized) from Van's.
Those four planes would be the greatest. I agree that a bush plane would be neat too and that would be the fifth plane. (I need a bigger hanger now)
Of course my dream Van's kit is the SpaceShipOne kit from Vans.
Man it is fun to dream!
Van refines and evolves very well - stick with what works
Finish the RV-11 and bring it to market. Van has a personal interest in it and he is very interested in performance. He will adopt other materials and evolve the technology if he determines that is the right way to achieve his performance goals. I think there is enough interest in the RV-11 to allow it to recover development and production costs and make a profit while complementing the rest of the RV line with minimum risk.
Bob Axsom
Finish the RV-11 and bring it to market. Van has a personal interest in it and he is very interested in performance. He will adopt other materials and evolve the technology if he determines that is the right way to achieve his performance goals. I think there is enough interest in the RV-11 to allow it to recover development and production costs and make a profit while complementing the rest of the RV line with minimum risk.
Bob Axsom
ron sterba
Well Known Member
I think they call it a 9A Bryan
The 7 & 9 share the same fuselage if thats what you meant about the center section. RON
The 7 & 9 share the same fuselage if thats what you meant about the center section. RON
ron sterba
Well Known Member
I told Vans the next kit shouldn't be a plane but a AIRBOAT
When theres no more medical and the kids are gone,money is limited you teach the grand kids to rivet. you build a boat and mount that O-200 on the boat and use the filed down old prop from the garage and enjoy your last HUR-RA!!! Ron in OREGON
When theres no more medical and the kids are gone,money is limited you teach the grand kids to rivet. you build a boat and mount that O-200 on the boat and use the filed down old prop from the garage and enjoy your last HUR-RA!!! Ron in OREGON
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
Scott McDaniels, I called Vans a day or so ago and asked about updated plans for the quick build. I was told that they have not been updated to make it easier to sort through the written instructions.
24 April 2010 Update: Based upon Scott's input, I will look closer at the kit and instructions to see if I missed something (don't tell anyone but I have been wrong before).
24 April 2010 Update: Based upon Scott's input, I will look closer at the kit and instructions to see if I missed something (don't tell anyone but I have been wrong before).
Last edited:
I guess I wasn't clear...
About four years ago Van's introduced a fully prepunched fuselage kit for the RV-8 (prior to that only the outer skins were prepunched, very little of the sub structure was).
It is refered to as the -1 fuselage (all part #'s have a -1 at the end of them).
Anyone that has purchased (from Van's) a fuselage (standard build or Q.B.) in the past 3 years or so would have a -1 fuselage.
The -1 fuselage construction manual was written in a format very similar to the RV-10, and it has a point designated where to begin construction if you are building from a Q.B. kit.
Vans next ideas
1. Bring the RV-11 to market.
2. Modernize the RV-3 kit so it can more effectively compete with Sonex's new Onex. Just watch - Sonex is going to make an absolute killing on that one...
I asked two different guys at Van's about modernizing the RV-3. They just flat out didn't seem interested. WTF...!?!
- Patrick
1. Bring the RV-11 to market.
2. Modernize the RV-3 kit so it can more effectively compete with Sonex's new Onex. Just watch - Sonex is going to make an absolute killing on that one...
I asked two different guys at Van's about modernizing the RV-3. They just flat out didn't seem interested. WTF...!?!
- Patrick
Look at how many RV-3 kits are sold each year. It would be a LOT of man hours to re-Engineer a kit that they do not sell a lot of. The re-Engineering of the kit would RAISE the price of the KIT a LOT. The RV-3 will not meet the requirements for an LSA. The Onex is listed as a Sport Pilot airplane. In other words, it is an LSA.
From the Onex web page:
The Onex is a simple and economical single-place all metal aircraft design that promises to continue the lineage of outstanding Sonex Aircraft sport pilot performance.
The RV-3B is a real airplane that requires a pilot's license and medical. The Onex says Sport Pilot so it sounds like you will not need a medical. The Onex will also have a cruse speed limitation of 134 MPH else it will also require a pilots license and medical to fly and no longer be a Sport Pilot airplane.
As a DAR, I have done initial airworthiness inspections on several Sonex and Waiex. IMHO, they are a very nice simple airplane. IF I could not get a medical certificate to fly an RV, a Sonex would be at the top of my list.
Tony Spicer
Well Known Member
Gary,
Please allow me to correct several of your statements regarding the Sonex/Onex. Neither are LSA's. Both are EAB's that meet the sport aircraft criteria. Both are "real" airplanes. The majority of pilots flying the Sonex as sport pilots are private pilots flying without medicals. I'm sure they would be offended if someone didn't think they were real pilots.
There is no "speed limit" on LSA compliant aircraft. What the rule says is that on a standard day at sea level the speed at maximum continuous power cannot exceed 120 knots. What's max continuous power on the Onex AeroVee engine? There is a speed limit on the Onex, and that would be the Vne of 216 mph.
Tony
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
I would like to see a pre-punch RV-3 with removable wings that would make a trailerable.
This would eliminate the need for a hangar and would substantially reduce the cost of flying.
This would eliminate the need for a hangar and would substantially reduce the cost of flying.
wrongway john
Well Known Member
Van?s has already got speed and the total performance package covered quite nicely.
Yep, it?s not on the list, but I would love to see what Van could do with a bush plane with super STOL specs, tundra tires and all. These are quite popular, and I'm sure if Van's had something to do with it, he'd give the competition a run for their money in this aspect as well.
Yep, it?s not on the list, but I would love to see what Van could do with a bush plane with super STOL specs, tundra tires and all. These are quite popular, and I'm sure if Van's had something to do with it, he'd give the competition a run for their money in this aspect as well.
harrisonaero
Member
Many older folks that want to fly an LSA don't want to climb into a low-wing aircraft. A high-wing, bush capable LSA would be a big seller.
As would a heavy-hauler four place STOL.
Now with match-hole construction the argument of a metal bush plane not being easily field-repairable goes away. Just rework the assembly (r&r) rather than repair. Even more easily accomplished with a pulled-fastener LSA.
As would a heavy-hauler four place STOL.
Now with match-hole construction the argument of a metal bush plane not being easily field-repairable goes away. Just rework the assembly (r&r) rather than repair. Even more easily accomplished with a pulled-fastener LSA.
Last edited:
And it's all still sort of available via Roger Rourke and Bill Scheunemann...... !
With the current lineup, I can't think of anything to spread the choice. I don't think Van's has ever represented the bush or the full on aerobatic community, there are other good designs and products out there.
If you want mainstream, high performance, well designed and superbly supported aeroplanes, we already have it
With the current lineup, I can't think of anything to spread the choice. I don't think Van's has ever represented the bush or the full on aerobatic community, there are other good designs and products out there.
If you want mainstream, high performance, well designed and superbly supported aeroplanes, we already have it
