What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What Van needs is a...

Captain_John

Captain_John

Well Known Member
Clean sheet design like a high wing bushplane that is powered by this SMA/Thielert/Superior/Safran diesel engine thingy!

The engine would HAVE TO BE AT AN UNCERTIFIED PRICE because (lets all face it) it needs refinement. We would gladly be the BETA TESTERS!

Not to bash the 14 because yes, it is nice. I just don't think it is what we really need. It is the Frankenstein machine made from legacy components to make the ultimate "traditional" type of RV.

To make a "clean sheet" like the bush plane that I suggest would be a departure from tradion and a ground breaker for the industry.

New airframe for Van and the chance for Safran to work out the bugs.

What we would learn about the engine in our airframes in one year would be more than they could do in a decade!

Hmmmm, if common sense ruled the world... Nevermind, what was I thinking?

Forget I said anything.

;). CJ
 
Fully agree. Somewhat disappointed in the lack of imagination and pioneering design in the -14. If the no-medical license passes, with its limit of 180hp, that will have to limit interest in the -14.

I really thought they would go in the low-and-slow direction. Well, maybe the -15.
 
No Frazer,

The engine component is quite different.

So too is the size. I propose 230-ish hp and Bearhawk sized.

:). CJ
 
Captain_John said:
Not to bash the 14 because yes, it is nice. I just don't think it is what we really need. It is the Frankenstein machine made from legacy components to make the ultimate "traditional" type of RV.

;). CJ
Click to expand...

the 14 is exactly what I would have expected from Van. He has always used stuff from the previous models. Why would he change from a successful formula? I think it is a perfect next model for the highly successful brand that Van has made his trademark.
My prediction is there will never be a high wing RV.
 
I must admit, the 14 release was underwhelming for me. I hoped for a ground breaking design. Something off the beaten path to celebrate 40 years. A bubba 7 was not what I envisioned. I'm sure it will sell though. I'm not criticizing, as Van's knows how to run his business, just saying I had hoped for more of a splash.
 
ColoRv said:
I must admit, the 14 release was underwhelming for me. I hoped for a ground breaking design. Something off the beaten path to celebrate 40 years.
Click to expand...

I fell the exact same way. I think the 14 is great, but come on, why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home.... :rolleyes:

I don't see what the 14 will trully do better than the 6, 7 or 9...

I certainly was hopping for a high wing design too!!
 
lockeed said:
....why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft?....
Click to expand...

There's lots of places where there's no fuel for an hour or more each way. Sure would be nice to get there and have enough fuel to do some local flying before heading out for fuel....

Dave
 
I agree & commented on the original 14 post that, "I didn't get it"
I too was looking for something special and not just a supersizing of the 7/9.
 
What I Would like!!!!!

... I was somewhat disappointed as well, but I do like some of the changes, and wish my RV9-A could be retrofitted with some of them. I like the 2" or so wider cabin, (us real men need that), the main gear & the RV-10 nose gear, The extra fuel capacity is very nice when you want it as well. This plane was predicated and aimed at the cross country flight market but I feel they overlooked several changes that would have made this the quintessential, state of the art airplane for my purposes. Were I to add to the RV-14 what I would like, it would be as follows. I would like to have seen a beefed up version of the RV-9 wing with thicker skins and stronger spar with utility category numbers, as it is a far superior airfoil, in both slow and fast configurations over the RV-10. I think they should lengthen the fuselage, perhaps 36" or so with 24" to the rear and 12" in front just behind the firewall. It would have virtually no impact on speed, only adding a few pounds. This addition in the front could be a small baggage compartment like in the RV-8, that would also afford some extra pilot control over C/G and loading on cross country trips. The 24" addition to the fuselage in the rear would greatly improve the airplane as a instrument platform and cancel off most of the yaw issues in rough air in tern making it a more desirable cross country plane. My experience with the RVs I have flown, shows me they are not very good as an IFR platform. If the specs posted so far for the RV-14 are correct, (sporting 50 more HP and consuming 30% more fuel) I would also hope for more than a 5 or 6 mph in speed improvement for that fuel penalty. My RV-9 lands slower, lands shorter, takes off shorter, climbs as good or better, cruises at a comparable speed and does it on considerably less fuel. I don't get it? :confused:
Thanks, Allan:confused:
 
I too was hoping for something different, but more importantly I was hoping for some engineering. This is 3rd hand info but PLEASE tell me this is not true:

Quote from a Vans employee at Osh "The static margins on the two airplanes (RV-14 and RV-10) are very similar due to the wing design so there is no reason to load test to failure. That's old school engineering"

Again this is 3rd hand info so someone please tell me this statement is not true. How can one make that statement?

The RV-14 has different wing attachment dimensions, different chord, spars...etc. This makes no sense to me.

Ryan
 
craigvince said:
... what's the difference between 160kts and 170kts?
Click to expand...

10 knots.

Seriously...10 kts less for a not-insignificant amount more $ seems to be a step backwards.

I understand product line architectures and reuse, including everything from reusing requirements and designs, all the way through common parts and reuse of verification and validation activities, so from that standpoint, I guess it makes some sense. AND staying with core competencies is a good idea, usually.

But I was hoping for something other than an "RV-Portly". Seems like they started with a set of requirements based on increased pilot girth, found that to come close to the same numbers they had to use a bigger engine, etc.

Oh, well...guess my seaplane or amphibious aircraft will have to wait :)
 
lockeed said:
I fell the exact same way. I think the 14 is great, but come on, why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I really enjoy having a 6 hour range.... allows lots of flexibility on cross country... stop for fuel when its cheap not because you need it. Its also handy when weather causes you to deviate from your intended route.

That said, I think the longest leg I've ever flown was about 5 hr hobbs.

TODR
 
Captain_John said:
...doesn't the Bearhawk have a tubular fuse?

Maybe I am wrong?

:confused: CJ
Click to expand...

It does - and that fact is certainly one of the plusses.

The point being, Van is a businessman. Why would he jump into a market populated by so many stellar competitors? Remember, he's dominating the current market because he has a good product - not because he's Van. He's not King Midas - every airplane he produces is gold.

Finally, it makes little sense to stray far from existing parts -Tooling and NC programming is very expensive. The cost of an all new design will be passed on to the consumer. Making changes without technical merit is a bad business decision - especially in a "requirements driven" market like this. Sure, some dream about a new model every year - but few would actually pay for it.
 
lockeed said:
... why would you want 6-7 hours range in a recreationnal aircraft? You need a gooood bladder for that... Or you need to leave you wife home.... :rolleyes:...
Click to expand...

...Because some people use their airplanes for more than a breakfast run to the next town. Last year coming back from OSH I found the range of the -6 we were flying with quite limiting. He had to land and I still had more than an hour to go in the -8. Major pain. As for the bladder situation - two words - "relief tube".
 
Ramendala said:
...The RV-14 has different wing attachment dimensions, different chord, spars...etc. This makes no sense to me.

Ryan
Click to expand...

Negative, Ryan..it's the SAME wing, with the same chord and the same attach points..4 bolts outside the fuselage, just like my -10. I was there and spoke with Ken. The front and rear spars are simply RV-10, with the same attach method. The shorter wing becomes stiffer and why it's a 6G wing.

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
Negative, Ryan..it's the SAME wing, with the same chord and the same attach points..4 bolts outside the fuselage, just like my -10. I was there and spoke with Ken. The front and rear spars are simply RV-10, with the same attach method. The shorter wing becomes stiffer and why it's a 6G wing.

Best,
Click to expand...

phew...thanks Pierre.

That maybe would have been a better response. "Same wing as our proven RV-10, just a stubby" :)
 
Low & Slow?

Toobuilder;684013 The point being said:
Why don't people on here consider the Zenith STOL series, is it just because they want something from "Vans". They seem to be close to what everyone is asking for, all metal high wing, lots of engine choices and I think it can be flown with the doors off.

Just curious, it's not what I'm looking for, I'm still deciding between the RV-12 and CH-650
Click to expand...
 
Toobuilder said:
The point being, Van is a businessman. Why would he jump into a market populated by so many stellar competitors? Remember, he's dominating the current market because he has a good product - not because he's Van. He's not King Midas - every airplane he produces is gold.

Finally, it makes little sense to stray far from existing parts -Tooling and NC programming is very expensive. The cost of an all new design will be passed on to the consumer. Making changes without technical merit is a bad business decision - especially in a "requirements driven" market like this. Sure, some dream about a new model every year - but few would actually pay for it.
Click to expand...

I learned that he?s [Richard VanGrunsven] disappointed in how the light-sport aircraft movement has evolved. I also learned that, despite the success of his ?touring? airplane designs, Dick actually sees a need for more creative approaches to airplane ownership, and a greater emphasis on ?fun? versus ?cross-country? flying, in the years to come. ?I?ve come to the realization that a personal air-plane as a transportation vehicle is not that realistic,? he says. ?I?m not writing off the transportation aspect, but just stating that in my own mind, with the higher price of fuel, etc., we need more emphasis on ?pure,? fun flying.
Click to expand...
EAA Sport Aviation, July 2012.

I really wonder how much Dick runs Vans Aircraft anymore.
 
RV dream

RV14
Has anyone thought of a three place? The 10 is way out of my budget but I could sell my 9. Then build a 14 with a little interior modification & grand kids and Pop would be off. Yea this might be dreaming but aren't all builders dreamers?
GP
 
Doing some hangar flying today while I was working on my -10 several hangar rats comented on the -14. One comment that made sense is the RV-14 is for foreign markets. :eek: Think about it, 50 gallons of fuel? Very robust main landing gear for unimproved landing strips, large cabin is just a plus. The largest buyer of RV kits is the company in Brazil that takes 6-12 kits a month last I heard. I would guess their input into new products gets a lot of consideration.


JMHO. ;)
 
I disagree with Van needing a high wing stol. There are too many good planes that do that already. Anyone every look at the Rans S-7 it has stol capabilities it is cheap and you can fly doors off.

Van's should concentrate IMO on exactly what he wrote in the magazine the other day... "pure fun and economical airplanes"

My vote is up dating the RV-3 design! and after that finishing development on a self launch glider! These would be both fun, economical and bring more people into the hobby!

The RV-14 brings no new significant capability to the line up except for making a more expensive 2 seat airplane. The RV14 refinements should have just been integrated in the existing RV-7.
 
Last edited:
What Vans needs is ........to concentrate on their core market so that they remain a strong and viable company. Presumably the introduction of the RV14 follows that philosophy.

What Vans doesn't need is to become distracted and invest their limited technical resources into producing a number of specialised models of aircraft that will sell in only small numbers while vastly increasing Vans stock inventory and exhausting their scarce development funds.

Personal "wish lists" for bushplanes, powered gliders and amphibians aside, if Vans goes under, all existing owners and builders of RVs will find themselves without parts and support. Now that WOULD be a disaster.

My RV7A has now been superseded, but my hope is that the RV14 sells like hotcakes and that Vans goes on to bigger and better things. That will ensure an ongoing supply of spare parts for my RV7A and thus protect my investment in the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Bob,

Let me be the first to say YES!

You are absolutely correct!

You are describing the conservative core philosophy that most aviators agree with.

I know that we all adore the rugged simplicity and parts commonality of the RV series of aircraft.

A departure from that to a high wing design would go against Vans preference to low wings and require new tooling and many "clean sheet" thoughts. Combine this with a diesel engine and we do not have something that Van would traditionally create.

I really admire Van and my "7" that he designed for me. I just wish that he would make my favorite bush plane too in the same quality and completeness as he did make my "7".

I also think that others feel the same way too.

This thread proves it.

:rolleyes: CJ
 
Captain Avgas said:
What Vans needs is ........to concentrate on their core market so that they remain a strong and viable company. Presumably the introduction of the RV14 follows that philosophy.

What Vans doesn't need is to become distracted and invest their limited technical resources into producing a number of specialised models of aircraft that will sell in only small numbers while vastly increasing Vans stock inventory and exhausting their scarce development funds.

Personal "wish lists" for bushplanes, powered gliders and amphibians aside, if Vans goes under, all existing owners and builders of RVs will find themselves without parts and support. Now that WOULD be a disaster.

My RV7A has now been superceded, but my hope is that the RV14 sells like hotcakes and that Vans goes on to bigger and better things. That will ensure an ongoing supply of spare parts for my RV7A and thus protect my investment in the aircraft.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct!!!!!!!!!! Allan
 
I also agree with Captain Avgas and wish vans great success with the 14 bet the bigger / taller guys are happy just like when Vans moved the little wheel to the front for all that didn't want or like tail wheels.
It kind of entered my mind to get out of my build but after looking at the 14 during OSH I'll continue with my 7, I think the 7 looks sleeker.
 
Adam Wright said:
I disagree with Van needing a high wing stol. There are too many good planes that do that already. .... and after that finishing development on a self launch glider!
Click to expand...
Well.... there are plenty of self-launch gliders ... given that Van's strength is in aluminum, I think producing a composite ship would be difficult. Let's face it, most Van's builders would rather not do any composite work ;)

So you're really talking about an aluminum glider. You could do it, but would you get a 40:1 glider with a good polar? And the flying qualities of, say, a Duo Discus?

The area where you would do better than factory-built ships is price. But if it's only a 30:1 glider with, say, a 200fpm min sink, well, that's not really competitive. You can get that with a $15k PW5 or $30k LS4.

I would really rather see Van's focus on simultaneously improving the breed (e.g., -14) and expanding into new markets where they can leverage their strengths (-10, -12).

My personal hope is an improved -4, matched hole / modular construction, but I doubt that will happen.

TODR
 
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-11int.htm

fig_11_sm.jpg


This is not a current photo, as far as I know the plane project has been in limbo for 4 or 5 years at least.

Kinda wish it was flying, and kits available.
 
JoeM said:
Why don't people on here consider the Zenith STOL series, ...
Click to expand...

Because life is too short to fly an ugly airplane and the country is too big to fly a slow one.

Since my son has just about outgrown the baggage compartment in our -9, I'm in the market for a larger airplane. At $150K for the -10, minimum, that is not in my budget.

The -14 was not designed for me or most of us on this forum. It was designed for those who have not built yet. If the build time is really down to the level of the -12, that will bring in a lot of potential builders who are sitting on the fence.

As for a high wing RV, when I was building my -9 wings I kept thinking about a 2+2 back country airplane that has speed and can stall slow, like the -9. It doesn't have to be a hard core bush plane like the Just Aircraft Highlander but if it performs equal to or better than a Maule, then I'm in.

As for a matched hole -3. If Van's actually built one, how many of us would write that check? I'm guessing Van's learned with the -4 that single seat planes really don't sell all that well.

The -8 replaced the -4 for most people and they are happy to continue to knock out -4 kits as they don't cost that much to produce since the builder does most of the work and the engineering is paid for.

The real question is, does the -14 spell the end of the -7?
 
Captain Avgas said:
What Vans needs is ........to concentrate on their core market
Click to expand...

Well, originally their core market was real builders wanting a single-place plane. Wait, then their core market expanded--successfully--to a tandem two-place, Wait, then their core market expanded--successfully--to a side-by-side two place and tri-gear and more kit, less hand-building! Wait, then...well we all see the pattern. Vans has no "core" market. A truly successful business MAKES a market. This has been true for centuries.

My RV7A has now been superceded
Click to expand...

Is the RV7A not going to be sold anymore? I don't see how it's been superseded. I'm pretty sure if I were in the market for a kit like the 7A, I'd buy the 7A, not the 14.
 
IMO, the -7 will never be superseded by anything. It simply gives the most bang for the buck.

....and for those thinking it's too twitchy for IFR/IMC flying, think again. I flew my even twitchier -6A in IMC many times. You simply have to be more careful to keep them wings-level.

Best,
 
Buggsy2 said:
Well, originally their core market was real builders wanting a single-place plane. Wait, then their core market expanded--successfully--to a tandem two-place, Wait, then their core market expanded--successfully--to a side-by-side two place and tri-gear and more kit, less hand-building! Wait, then...well we all see the pattern. Vans has no "core" market. A truly successful business MAKES a market. This has been true for centuries.
Click to expand...

The reality of the matter is that Vans have made the decision to utilise their resources to update their best selling aircraft (the RV7) with a new model (the RV14) that exhibits a number of incremental design improvements all encapsulated within their time proven formula of a low wing, aluminium, monocoque construction. I'd say that this is a prime example of a company making a strategic commercial decision to focus on its core market in uncertain economic times. In other words Vans are defending their turf and consolidating their position in the market rather than heading off in all directions to make attacks into uncharted territory held by others.

Military stategists understand that it takes twice the resources in terms of money, machinery and manpower to attack as it does to defend an entrenched stronghold. Shrewd marketing managers know that the same principle applies in the corporate wars.


Buggsy2 said:
Is the RV7A not going to be sold anymore? I don't see how it's been superseded. I'm pretty sure if I were in the market for a kit like the 7A, I'd buy the 7A, not the 14.
Click to expand...

At this point in time Vans continues to sell all parts for all superseded models. So you can still purchase an RV3, RV4 or RV6. And based on that, people will still be able to purchase an RV7 for some time into the future. Whether they opt to is another question.

When the RV6 was superseded by the RV7 the new model featured greater gross weight, a bigger wingspan, more room in the cabin, superior wing connectivity, more fuel, easier construction...and a higher price (sound familiar). Many grumbled at the price increase and said the RV6 would continue to sell but sales evaporated almost overnight. As it turned out the grumbling came almost exclusively from existing RV6 builders and owners (see the pattern). New buyers just wanted the latest and greatest and moved on. And not only were they prepared to pay more money for more features but they showed a willing propensity to purchase much more expensive Quickbuild kits in growing numbers.

To debate whether the RV7 has been superseded by the RV14 is just an exercise in semantics. The bottom line is whether the RV7 will continue to sell in any significant numbers...and based on history I doubt that it will.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
Because life is too short to fly an ugly airplane and the country is too big to fly a slow one.

I'm in the market for a larger airplane. At $150K for the -10, minimum, that is not in my budget.

The -14 was not designed for me or most of us on this forum. It was designed for those who have not built yet. If the build time is really down to the level of the -12, that will bring in a lot of potential builders who are sitting on the fence.

As for a high wing RV, when I was building my -9 wings I kept thinking about a 2+2 back country airplane that has speed and can stall slow, like the -9. It doesn't have to be a hard core bush plane like the Just Aircraft Highlander but if it performs equal to or better than a Maule, then I'm in.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was hoping for a larger -9 that would haul a lot more stuff or maybe room for a third seat. But still go 155 knots (with 180 hp). And hopefully cost less than 90K. I would have built one. The -14 is not an upgrade to my -8a, just different. Time for a Bonanza?
 
Van's didn't design the 7 to replace the 6 because this community, or anyone else, wanted a new design. They did it to take advantage of the automated tooling they had invested in to produce the 8. Simple economics; the 6 was very labor intensive for them to produce. They used their considerable history with the 6 to make some "improvements". The 7 replaced the 6 quickly because it was no longer being produced by Van's, simple as that.
I do not believe Van's designed the 14 to replace the 7 or any other airplane. Using the 6/7 argument just does not make sense as the circumstances don't match up.

I do believe they designed the 14 to reach a different market than the folks that are here in this forum. We are already fans and for the most part where happy with the current product offering. Heading off into a compeletly new direction when there are a lot of very good products in those market segments doesn't make sense to me.

However, Van's should be flattered. It seems that some of the folks here are so in love with them that they would like to see a product in every category; LS, STOL, High Wing, Glider,....Bomber (just threw that in there.)
That is pretty good customer loyalty.
 
I think Vans probably has a couple extra wing kits laying around the shop, why not mod up the 4, strap 300hp on the front , throw a second set of wings on top of the fuselage, double the G tolerance, add aileron scoops.... Wallah Smoke and mirrors you have a "Vans 4.5 Super Bi-plane"! All of a sudden you got yourself a double looker aerobatic plane.

Okay, maybe I am just dreaming.


But then again, it would go along with his "fly for fun of it" mission wouldn't it?:eek:
 
Motor Glider

I still say market another set of plug in wings for the RV-12 and turn it into a motor glider.... Owner could then have choice between 2 missions with the same airplane.
 
I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the announcement of the RV-14.

Given the financial crisis going on, I personally believe announcing another kit that is slightly larger than an existing model and costing $90,000+ to complete is just not good timing. Frankly, I expect that the majority will be customers who had already decided to build one of the other kits and may switch to the Rv-14.

Giving the statements from Van in the past over his displeasure of the cost of LSA and the recent experience gained by Kruger and Scott in building the KK-1, I was really hoping that they would introduce a new kit that would cost @ $25,000 to build and fly. Yes, it would have required Van's to depart from the certified Lycoming and Rotax engines, but I believe engines like the AeroVee, and others, have proven reliable enough. To me, the Sonex and/or Onex is an example.

I really believe the customer base in this price range could be very large to include not just the first-time builder, but those who have other aircraft who simply want a second that is cheap to build and fly. Given Van's typical kit quality and popularity, it certainly would be attractive and priced right so the decision to purchase would be much quicker than the other higher cost models. It would also provide Van's a complete fleet of aircraft that a builder could migrate to as their needs change over the years.

Giving that every alphabet organization is trying to promote aviation and to attract new and old pilots and getting them in the air, I just don't think introducing yet another $90,000+ aircraft that will take you 3+ yrs to complete is going to accomplish much.

Just my $.02 worth.
 
I like the idea of offering a 2nd set of wings for the 12 to make it a motor glider. I doubt if it is that simple; but what could be better than getting 2 planes for different missions for the cost of a pair of easily removable wings!

Especially when the cost of avgas is killing those of us on a fixed income.:D

John Morgan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top