What's new
Van's Air Force

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

The RV-16?

Probably in the minority here. . . but. . .

To paraphrase Gandhi, "Even with a minority of one, the truth is the truth." Consider this a minority of at least two! :D

I would like to see Van's revisit the top and bottom of the tandem line.

Time to do a 3 refresh. This would serve the budget minded builder nicely. Bring the single seat line up to the build quality of the -14.

Absolutely; I'd buy that tomorrow.

I know, I'm going against the grain with retractable gear and all. If it had the build qualities of the RV-14, It looks like it could be a solid replacement for the 8.

Aluminum, tandem, maybe a Rocket style sliding canopy, fastback, full controls front and back. Wing looks suspiciously speedy. It also looks quite roomy and the back seater has a better view of the world.

I don't care for the fastback, but I'm with you on all other points.

Make it a turboprop (with enough fuel for at least 3 hours + reserve) and I'm there. If it can be made sufficiently speedy to rival the PC-12 or TBM line, so much the better. Call 275 KTAS cruise a bare minimum and closer to 300 much better.

The unfortunate reality, though, is that none of these ideas are likely to suit enough of Van's target market to be worth the time and money required by a design effort. Van's will never offer a canard of any sort, is extremely unlikely to produce any sort of turbine kit, and I highly doubt they'll ever deviate from the RV "look" enough to add a high-wing to the line - no matter how many squeaky wheels (by no means a majority of actual customers) inexplicably advocate for a "bush" airplane.

Speculation and wishful thinking is occasionally diverting, but none of these airplanes will ever come from Van's. My two cents...and worth what you paid! :D
 
Time to do a 3 refresh. This would serve the budget minded builder nicely. Bring the single seat line up to the build quality of the -14. Make it big enough to fit the modern humanoid and maybe even a couple of wing and powerplant options like the Panther.

Although I agree with what you?re saying, I?d disagree with the need. As much as I love Van?s aircraft,....and I know that some people will want to throw rotten eggs at me for saying this, but I think in the single seat market the Panther is a roomier and certainly easer airplane to build than the -3 ever was. I?d personally take a Panther over a -3 any day. So with the limited interest in that single seat market, I think the panther has it covered.
 
I would take a crowbar to my wallet right away, like first ten orders, for either a 6 place RV10/Vans 206 with a turbo 540 or something nostalgic with perhaps a Rotec radial. I really like the LoCamp design.
 
For a fist full of dollars or a few dollars more.

If you are spending for a 6 seat IO 540 machine why not get VANS in production of a quick build version of one of these:

https://youtu.be/IkxiGV6xLm8

Riveted aluminum construction and you can land on grass, gravel, water, snow and ice with no risk to the prop.

https://youtu.be/c5myPs3H-qE
The blue and white lead AC is a four seat IO-390 version.

You can even land on a runway if you want.

But remote mountain lakes are really the ultimate get away.

https://youtu.be/1NHOjLySuqk

Less money than an Icon A5. Unlike the ICON that can barely carry 2 people and a credit card you can have 1200 -1500 of payload. Use it as you see fit.

The SEAWOLF had a turbo 540 and a 3650 lb MGTOW.
The straight Renegade 250 has about 1200 of payload with the back seats out and no autopilot. 3140 MGTOW
With AP and four seats has just over 1000 Lbs useful load
 
Last edited:
Cool, but not much use in AZ. Just had a buddy sell one for that very reason. As a teen, I worked as a line boy at an FBO in Idaho in the late 70’s. I got invited to join a demo ride that my boss was going on with the Lake rep. At the last second, I got bumped for a cameraman. Half hour later they were turtled in frigid winter water in a nearby reservoir. They all survived thanks to a nearby fisherman with a boat who got right to them.
Everybody’s needs, wants, and desires are different.
I could very much use a heavy hauler for Flying Samaritan’s trips. A C206/207, or Saratoga would be great but I’m spoiled by E-A/B

As far as a LoCamp type, that’s just flying for the grin of it.
 
Last edited:
My take

For us older folks, the market is really to a high wing that is easier to get in and out. I dont know how many times i read a person selling their rv because they or there spouse can no longer crawl inside.
 
Replying to Snowflake regarding the VariEze: No, I didn't fly the VariEze.

My main concern regarding landing speeds is what happens in the event of an engine out. Prior to seeing this aircraft, unfortunately, I had read a number of NTSB reports on canard aircraft engine-out accidents - frequent scenario is major aircraft damage.

The seller reported to me it's very sensitive in pitch, which I could tell just by looking at the elevator on the canard move a lot as the little sidestick moved a tiny amount. I would prefer a center stick with more stroke, similar to any Van's model.

I did, at 6'3", drop myself down into the cockpit. I fit, barely. (Primarily because this example has an extended nose and adjustable rudder pedals.) It wasn't terribly uncomfortable for 5 minutes, but I can't see myself lodged in there for hours at a time. Literally have to move your legs out of the way to spin the nose gear crank. (Forgot to add to my wish list - fixed tricycle gear.)

I have heard reports they are nimble aircraft. But reading statistics on the number built vs. the number of accidents is pretty sobering. Anyway, I should not disparage what was an amazing development at the time, just wanted to put together my wish list for a high performance, economical aircraft.


-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH
 
For us older folks, the market is really to a high wing that is easier to get in and out. I dont know how many times i read a person selling their rv because they or there spouse can no longer crawl inside.

I built and owned a Rans S-20 Raven. Although it was a high wing it had its ingress and egress challenges as well. I had 8:50 tires on it. The struggle was getting your inside leg around the stick. If you had a long enough inseam you could keep one foot on the ground and grab the bird cage above and slide in. Otherwise, you would step on the tire and sit on the seat 90 degrees, then push on the tire with your outboard leg and get you other leg around the stick. Not insurmountable but if you forgot something or flew someone that wasn't limber or you have to get in and out several times, it becomes a chore. In addition, at 6'2" ,I could not stand by the door without being stooped over as the upward swinging door was ever present resting on the bottom of the wing.

Conversely, The 46 inch shoulder space was wonderful.

High wings can have their challenges as well.

Jim
 
RV Whatever...

Replying to Snowflake regarding the VariEze: No, I didn't fly the VariEze. Anyway, I should not disparage what was an amazing development at the time, just wanted to put together my wish list for a high performance, economical aircraft. H

Being a Jurassic RV4 builder from a pre-internet, pre pre-drilled RV kit era, economical high performance sport aircraft back then was Vans forte’. My finished RV4 was a marvel; 925lbs, 150 Knot cruiser that I could do aerobatics, dogfight with my F16 bros and land on grass strips. All this for under 25 Grand total (1995) cost.
Times as they say have changed.

Vans aircraft went from a backyard business to arguably a major light aircraft producer. Back then RV completion bragging rights posted in the RV8R were low empty weight and low total cost. Now it seems the reverse is true, the heavier, more costly, the better.
Honestly I haven’t really cared for any of the designs post RV6. My own desires for a personal aircraft reached perfection with my HR2, basically a Super RV4.

That said, Ive spoken with Van many times over the past 30 years, his success coming from uncanny market savvy and old fashioned ingenuity. I don’t think he will build anything that doesn’t satisfy a market. The newer RV sales figures are proving that Van once again knows his audience.

The next RV? Given the last new airplane was a “Fat Six” (RV14), the next one might be a fat-ter RV10+. Bigger kits, bigger customers, bigger bucks.

Time as they say, will tell....

V/R
Smokey

Of My list of potential RV16 similar current type candidates would run the gamut from the Sonerai 2 to the Maule M4. Those airplanes however are available already and are relatively affordable in their own rite.
 
Last edited:
For us older folks, the market is really to a high wing that is easier to get in and out. I dont know how many times i read a person selling their rv because they or there spouse can no longer crawl inside.

Yes, the wife and I are now in that camp. Started looking at 172's.
 
An updated Rocket with a TSIO550 that can do 225+ KTAS is the ticket. Give me a comfortable, fast tandem with LONG legs and my wife and I are IN!
 
Trainer - my guess

If there is a sales 'winner' in the SLSA trainer market, I'm not aware of it. I don't know why the RV-12 apparently isn't being flown much as a trainer.

So, my guess is that Van's will go all-in and try to design and build the next C-152 - a high wing aircraft possibly using the RV-12 wing design. Maybe a Rotax 912xxx and about 30 gallons of fuel. Light tri gear - cantilever wings. Cruise at 120K and cost under 100K for vfr and 120K IFR capable. Could be built as ELSA, SLSA or EAB. I can see Van's going into production of these.

I think that many schools are looking for the next gen C-152 and this aircraft might also appeal to those who want to own a Van's high wing ELSA or SLSA. Good skills to the design team an Van's
 
I think the high wing 2-seat market is pretty saturated, but not so much 4-seaters.

I'd love to see a high-wing 4-seater of the Cessna Skywagon variety. Not much out there on the experimental market, and 180's are commanding a lot of money these days. Yes, the Dream Tundra is cool, but I'll bet people would pony up for a Vans design.

I'd also like to see them get back to their roots with a budget-focused model like an update on the RV3. I think there's plenty of people out there who would love to get into a Vans but can't justify the money for a 14 or even a 7/9. A smaller engine combined with amazing new avionics options out there for low $ would mean you could probably build a really nice plane on a much lower budget. And if I had to chose not flying, or flying alone, I know which I would choose...

Chris
 
I think the high wing 2-seat market is pretty saturated, but not so much 4-seaters.

I'd love to see a high-wing 4-seater of the Cessna Skywagon variety. Not much out there on the experimental market, and 180's are commanding a lot of money these days. Yes, the Dream Tundra is cool, but I'll bet people would pony up for a Vans design.

I'd also like to see them get back to their roots with a budget-focused model like an update on the RV3. I think there's plenty of people out there who would love to get into a Vans but can't justify the money for a 14 or even a 7/9. A smaller engine combined with amazing new avionics options out there for low $ would mean you could probably build a really nice plane on a much lower budget. And if I had to chose not flying, or flying alone, I know which I would choose...

Chris

I completely agree with the need for a good 4 seat backcountry plane. I walked around Oshkosh looking for anything new and the best I saw was the new Legend MACO. It has 3 seats and some great numbers. It is another 150k-250k cub as a kit. For a two seat the Highlander and Kitfox are amazing and can be built for 80k with ease. That S-21 is one really nice plane too. Not the STOL as the Highlander or Kitfox but I really like the balance of cruise vs STOL.

The only thing really close is the Bearhawk but it is just too small. And the Draco kit is just too complicated:D.

I just don't know if it is possible to make a 3000 lb plane that can land and takeoff in 100ft. That is what people with these planes want to do. And if you can't land that short then your landing at all the strips that a current RV can get into.
 
Minor Correction....

I completely agree with the need for a good 4 seat backcountry plane. I walked around Oshkosh looking for anything new and the best I saw was the new Legend MACO. It has 3 seats and some great numbers. It is another 150k-250k cub as a kit.

That would be MOAC, (Mother Of All Cubs).
 
I think the high wing 2-seat market is pretty saturated, but not so much 4-seaters.
That's true so long as we only use those two criteria, i.e. high wing and 2-seat.

If I asked you to find me a high wing 2-seat kit at OSH, you could probably throw a rock in any direction and hit one. If I asked you to find me a high wing 2-seat that isn't made of fabric and is able to see 140kt or better in level flight, you'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with something.
 
Maybe since Van started off putting a better wing on an existing kitplane, he should target improving another existing kitplane... The BD-4? Not that it's a bad airplane on its own, but it does have a less-common wing design with the tubular spar and composite sections slid over it. Grumman did this as well, I think. Perhaps a more optimized, efficient design would freshen the BD-4 and make it more attractive?

Otherwise it seems it ticks a lot of boxes for people... High wing, easy access (no strut), tail or tri-gear options, good performance, 172-like carrying capacity.
 
Well this thread spells it out pretty clearly. The market demands...

At least 5 different aircraft:

1. Revised RV-3-like aircraft, RV-14 level of construction ease.
2. Super efficient one person cross-country cruiser, perhaps like a revised RV-3 w/canards, aerobatics not required.
3. Super low cost bush plane.
4. Heavy hauler bush plane.
5. 200+kt. cross country 2-seater.
?

Maybe this is why it's been a while since the -14 introduction and we haven't seen another RV design coming down the pipe.

Marketplace too confusing, can't figure out what to do!

-Paragon
 
That's true so long as we only use those two criteria, i.e. high wing and 2-seat.

If I asked you to find me a high wing 2-seat kit at OSH, you could probably throw a rock in any direction and hit one. If I asked you to find me a high wing 2-seat that isn't made of fabric and is able to see 140kt or better in level flight, you'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with something.

Checkout Rans' S-21. That checks all of those boxes.
 
Checkout Rans' S-21. That checks all of those boxes.
I was looking hard at the S-21. But even with 180hp you're not going to see 140kts or better out of an S-21. At least not unless Rans is being very pessimistic about the speed numbers they report.
 
I was looking hard at the S-21. But even with 180hp you're not going to see 140kts or better out of an S-21. At least not unless Rans is being very pessimistic about the speed numbers they report.

Before I gave up flying, I called Randy and asked him about eeking out 140 knots from the 21. Even the smaller tires in the kit are pretty large. We talked about putting RV-10 mains and pants on it. Maybe you do some intersection fairings for the struts. With that, he felt you could maybe get to 140kts. If I were going for all out speed, I'd put the 915iS in it and cruise way up high.

He also said it wouldn't be out of the question to chop the wings if you really want to get more speed. I looked at the drawings and it didn't look THAT hard.

KF
 
That would be MOAC, (Mother Of All Cubs).

Yup, thanks for the correction.
I spent a long time at that booth and really liked the plane. They did a great job designing it.
In the end, the RV's are still the overall winner.
 
I completely agree with the need for a good 4 seat backcountry plane. I walked around Oshkosh looking for anything new and the best I saw was the new Legend MACO. It has 3 seats and some great numbers. It is another 150k-250k cub as a kit. For a two seat the Highlander and Kitfox are amazing and can be built for 80k with ease. That S-21 is one really nice plane too. Not the STOL as the Highlander or Kitfox but I really like the balance of cruise vs STOL.

The only thing really close is the Bearhawk but it is just too small. And the Draco kit is just too complicated:D.

I just don't know if it is possible to make a 3000 lb plane that can land and takeoff in 100ft. That is what people with these planes want to do. And if you can't land that short then your landing at all the strips that a current RV can get into.
The bearhawk is too small? Compared to a 206, sure. I'm not sure what is bigger or can haul more.

The Helio Courier is 3600lbs and can take off and land as short as anything out there, certainly sub 100ft without a full load just like every bush plane youtube video that bears no resemblance to real bush flying. That is the you tube stars are complete empty and real bush flying is at or beyond max gross.. All metal, 6 seats.
 
Last edited:
The RV-3 update is called a "Panther." While Van's doesn't sell it, it's readily available now from another vendor, and comes in several versions.

....The aircraft [Veri-Eze] has swept main wings that are complex and unnecessary....

If you think the sweep is unnecessary on a Vari-Eze or similar airplane, you should work through the static longitudinal stability math.

Dave
 
I don't know why the RV-12 apparently isn't being flown much as a trainer.

The RV12 nose gear is totally inadequate for ab initio training....just not robust enough to put up with the punishment. Cessna made the same mistake with their now defunct 162 Skycatcher.
 
RangerR7

The Vashon Ranger is an all metal high wing with Continental O-200D , designed for training and back country, by Ken Krueger ex-Vans. It is factory built LSA... not a kit. It has been on the market since mid 2018, I wonder how it will fare? I think that if Vans made a high wing LSA then it might be like the Ranger.
 
The Vashon Ranger is an all metal high wing with Continental O-200D , designed for training and back country, by Ken Krueger ex-Vans. It is factory built LSA... not a kit. It has been on the market since mid 2018, I wonder how it will fare? I think that if Vans made a high wing LSA then it might be like the Ranger.

The biggest drawback I can see on the Ranger is that it is a little short on useful load. About the same as a Cessna Skycatcher, which is to say, not a lot. This is a problem with a lot of the LSA choices, and where Van's RV-12 is a cut above. When dealing with an aircraft that is limited to 1320 lbs max gross, it's trough to keep the empty weight down to where a decent useful load is available and still have the rugged structure that we're talking about here. It will be interesting to see how the Ranger fares in the marketplace. Looks like a nice airplane, but better for small (i.e. light) people!
 
I've been a huge fan of the Vashon Ranger R7 since first seeing that cool vinyl wrap and basic robust design. The useful load is definitely the major, maybe only significant drawback. But, after reading up on everything I could about it, I'm convinced it is designed for a much higher gross weight, and is limited only by their desire to sell it as an LSA. If it were to be offered as a kit, it could not only have a higher gross weight, but builders could have other engine options to give it a bit more power. Or throw in a rotax, like all the O-200D haters are saying Vashon should have.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top