Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Once we are done with our 10, we want to build a high wing all metal plane with a performance in the range of a Cessna 180 (wouldn't need 4 seats though). Currently the S-21 is on top of our list and I know that we are not the only ones who are excited about it.

So, have you been looking over my shoulder as I have been searching for our next plane???

Right there with you on the S-21, at least from the specs published. Will be watching for what the "real world" stuff actually turns out when there are a few of them built by customers.

[YellowJacket RV9]

"Particularly the 9 appears IMHO redundant and it is not even aerobatic: 7 is the fun little sportsplane, the 14 a nice, roomy, comfortable but still aerobatic cruiser. But the 9? I seriously doubt that it wins too many new customers, but rather takes away from 7 or 14 sales."

The 9 shares so many parts with the 7 (pretty much everything besides tail and wings), and yet fulfills a totally different mission. To me, that seems like a good idea. Offer more options to your customers without a huge increase in startup / production costs.

There are plenty of -9 naysayers, and yet people like me keep building them and loving them. Performs beautifully on less HP, stable IFR platform, super-efficient high-altitude cruise, and a crazy low stall speed. Among people who don't want to fly upside-down, I don't see why anybody WOULDN'T want the 9. Remember, this is Van's personal pick when he needs to fly x-country. Even the 7 is a compromise, and when the day comes that I want a real "fun little sportsplane", I'd probably build a 3 or 4.

I would venture to say that the -9 models take away almost ZERO -14 sales, due to the huge difference in pricing. I could not financially swing a -14 (if I could, I'd spend a bit more and build a -10). Would I have built a 7 if the 9 weren't an option? Probably, but it would have been more of a compromise. Even if the 9 doesn't greatly expand the customer base, it makes for a more complete lineup at minimal additional cost to Vans.

Chris

[PilotjohnS]

Chris,
I just want to be clear on what you said, are you saying you like the 9a?

I love everything about the 9 that is why i am building it so i completely agreed with everything you said.

I am already researching clean up tips to get the range up and speed closer to vne without cranking up the power.

[AV8AZ]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Personally, I am convinced that a lower cost engine option for the 14 wold have
covered the market segment the 9 is occupying. The remaining funds should have been invested in a 7 kit update and / or the development of a fast high wing all metal aircraft.

The 7 and 9 came out at about the same time. Just over 1,500 7s are completed with just over 1,000 9s completed. 9 has strong market interest. I agree that the engine choice for the 14 was one that causes many, including myself, to pass on it.

In forecasting the future market, one should not neglect to consider the ramifications if the Primary Non Commercial certification proposal. The ability to restore a 172 (or any other factory plane) with the engine and options of your choosing would really reduce kit sales for a while. It'd arguably also increase the value of the vintage "factory" fleet considerably while simultaneously decreasing the value, at least modestly, of the experimental fleet. I bought my low-time M-20F for about half of what some 9s are selling for and/or for just a little over what s slow-build 14 kit alone sells for.

All this said, if the S-21 offers fuel capacity of over 50 gallons, I'll buy one in a second. Same thing if a match-holed RV-3 kit came on the market.

[Pat Stewart]

I would like to see a J3 Replica, slow, no radio, no avionics, no charging system. Power plant could be 60, 85, 90 hp continental and have it in the air for 35k. I love my RV's but also like to open up the doors in a J3 and go low and slow. The new examples are just way to high.

[BenNabors]

If I wanted to sell more planes, I would work on reduction of the time required to build. Part of this might be FAA regulatory, but how much education do you need drilling, deburring, and dimpling 20,000 holes? 10,000+ rivets seems to be more than education. Even redistributing the time utilization to meet the 51% rule from a quick build concept to having all the metal prep complete (Drilled, deburred, and dimpled, - and lets start a war - PRIMED ). I think if you could build an RV-3 in 500 hours, it would sell really well, particularly if it could smoke the pants off an RV-8 with better climb and top speed. I mean, think how many egotistical pilots are there out there that want a hot rod?

[vlittle]

Originally Posted by AV8AZ

The 7 and 9 came out at about the same time. Just over 1,500 7s are completed with just over 1,000 9s completed. 9 has strong market interest. I agree that the engine choice for the 14 was one that causes many, including myself, to pass on it.

In forecasting the future market, one should not neglect to consider the ramifications if the Primary Non Commercial certification proposal. The ability to restore a 172 (or any other factory plane) with the engine and options of your choosing would really reduce kit sales for a while. It'd arguably also increase the value of the vintage "factory" fleet considerably while simultaneously decreasing the value, at least modestly, of the experimental fleet. I bought my low-time M-20F for about half of what some 9s are
All this said, if the S-21 offers fuel capacity of over 50 gallons, I'll buy one in a second. Same thing if a match-holed RV-3 kit came on the market.

..ahem... these are E-AB aircraft. If you want 50 gallons, put it in. The S-21 has (will have) the useful load to support it with some trade-off in baggage. Right now, The S-21 looks to be similar to the RV-9 in performance, with the ability to equip it for rough fields and more cargo.

Right now, I am trying to decide between the S-21 and the Murphy Radical. The Radical seems to have better STOL credentials, but the S-21 is faster and has a similar range... and just might have folding wings.

[skylor]

Originally Posted by vlittle

Right now, The S-21 looks to be similar to the RV-9 in performance, with the ability to equip it for rough fields and more cargo.

According to the Rans specs, the S-21 appears to be significantly slower than the RV-9 even though it has more power: http://media.wix.com/ugd/6e941e_2c97...602ab2a731.pdf

75% power cruise = 155 MPH, whereas the 9A at gross (with the 160HP engine) is 186 mph. That's a pretty significant difference, and the Rans info doesn't even specify the conditions for their figure.

It never ceases to amaze me that in these recurring threads about what Van's should do next how many folks think Van's should create something that is distinctly non-RV like and is already pretty well covered by other manufacturers. Why would Van's Aircraft risk treading into a market that has lots of existing competition such as the high-wing utility aircraft? There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support? Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.

Skylor

[David Paule]

Originally Posted by skylor

....Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!

If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV....

I agree wholeheartedly with the last line.

I think the main reason that the 180/185 dropped from production was that that need was covered by the nosewheel 205/206, with bigger capacity.

My Cessna 180, though is an absolute keeper. A totally wonderful plane, and I'll be keeping it when my RV-3B is flying.

Dave

[Jesse]

For the RV-15 I would like to see a stretched RV-10 with the angle valve IO-540.

Another option would be an RV-14 with an IO-540 like is on the -10.