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

[jnorris]

Originally Posted by mfleming

• RV-14 fuselage & Wings
• IO-540
• Sliding Canopy (tested and approved for open during flight)
• Flutter tested to 280KTs

Yep, now yer talkin'!! Sign me up!!

[PilotjohnS]

Originally Posted by jnorris

Yep, now yer talkin'!! Sign me up!!

To be really innovative, make it a cantilever high wing

[Mach.26]

Originally Posted by PilotjohnS

To be really innovative, make it a cantilever high wing

So basically a Cessna 210. I think low wings are sexier and they just look faster but I guess anything would be cool if it can cruise at 200+ knots! I like the pushing vne part....

[joeboisselle]

Originally Posted by Mach.26

So basically a Cessna 210.

Seems like most of the ideas spelled out on this thread have been done already or don't fit Vans style. I can understand brand loyalty, but...

Specifically, DR's quest for a Supercub from Vans has me puzzled as to why? The PA-18 is probably the most copied design already. It's tube and fabric and high winged. RV's are not.
To make things even less likely, Cubcrafters with their homebuilt Carbon Cub EX kit is a 4 hour drive from Vans. RV's and CC's are everywhere up here. I don't know what the unspoken rules are in kit manufacturing about treading on your neighbors turf, but I doubt either is going to venture into the others'.

(If this has already been mentioned, sorry I haven't read all 350+ posts on this thread)

[Capt]

I think Vans have covered most of the wants of kit builders out there with their current designs, they have done their research. Sure there will always be those that want faster, bigger more seats etc but everything in aviation is a trade off! I've got an 8, it's about the best design Vans ever made I reckon, fighter looks & handling, very capable for what it is, the third wheel is where Vans intended it to be in their original concept/s and it's easy to fly/land, what more could I want without costing more to do the same thing.....FLY👍

[N941WR]

One of the downsides to the current fleet of RV designs, as a friend reminded me the other day, is that we all sit in a big bucket that are difficult for less mobile pilots and passengers to get in and out of.

Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.

[airguy]

Originally Posted by N941WR

Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.

You just described the RV10.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by airguy

You just described the RV10.

No, the RV-10 is not available as a Taildragger, requires an expensive six cylinder engine, does not like rough fields, and is difficult to get in and out of for less mobile people.

[Canadian_JOY]

Originally Posted by N941WR

One of the downsides to the current fleet of RV designs, as a friend reminded me the other day, is that we all sit in a big bucket that are difficult for less mobile pilots and passengers to get in and out of.

Thus a fast C170 / 172 with Van's pedigree would be very desirable.

Besides, of the eight designs currently available, six are two seaters. A 2+2 model would be a perfect fit in their lineup.

More correctly, you've described a Glasair Sportsman 2+2! (not that I'm biased or anything LoL) Your comments closely mirror some of my decision-making criteria in selecting the Sportsman. The accessibility of the cockpit has become a much more critical consideration as my wife has experienced a significant reduction in her mobility. The RV8A that once caught her eye would now be a total impossibility for her. She can get in and out of the Sportsman pretty well, as can my octogenarian father and our EAA chapter's 91 year old senior statesman. As much as everybody may want a Vans airplane, close scrutiny of mission profile may force one to choose another brand.

Designing a viable high-wing aircraft would take a considerable departure from the "tried and true" methodologies found in the current Vans low -wing airplanes. Unlike in low-wing airplanes where the spar carry-through's often become part of the seat support structure, in a high-wing airplane it's a different game altogether. Vans would have to be willing to step well outside their comfort zone to tackle a design that's as far from their core competencies as a high-wing airplane would be.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY

More correctly, you've described a Glasair Sportsman 2+2! [...]

And this would be a very good thing! Reasonably fast, versatile and still capable of landing in backcountry strips.
I'm wondering if all the naysayers in this thread ever wondered why Cessna 172, 180, 182 and 185 are still so popular, despite of their age?

Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY

[...] Designing a viable high-wing aircraft would take a considerable departure from the "tried and true" methodologies found in the current Vans low -wing airplanes. [...]

Yes. But much, much, MUCH smaller companies like RANS or Glasair also managed to design great high and low wing aircraft. Heck, there are even brand new companies with brand new designs still entering the market (Vashon, Sling, etc..). If they can do it from scratch and be successful, I don't see any reason why Van's couldn't do it, if only they wanted to.