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

[grubbat]

After much thought and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the next step for Vans is a twin. I know I know, it?s too complicated, it?s too expensive. Experimentials folks can?t fly twins and they will go bald if they try. Two engines are too expensive and nobody can afford two. Vans has to decide if they are going to grow the business and innovate or if they are going to create another cub lookalike . Basically that?s the only choices. If there is anyone that could successfully design a twin, it?s vans. They would corner the market and the certified world would have a fit. Let?s call it the twin10 instead of the RV15. The twin10 with two extra seats would be an instant best seller. However, Vans needs to definitely do one thing different going forward: get rid of that stupid TAS limitation on their planes and use IAS like the rest of the world. When I?m decending from FL16 at 220mph indicated in my Comanche, I know the tail won?t come off because I forgot to calculate TAS. Yes, glass does that for you but hey, make the airframe handle IAS like the rest of aviation and dump that TAS limitation. Carry on.😄

[PilotjohnS]

Originally Posted by grubbat

After much thought and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the next step for Vans is a twin. I know I know, it?s too complicated, it?s too expensive. Experimentials folks can?t fly twins and they will go bald if they try. Two engines are too expensive and nobody can afford two. Vans has to decide if they are going to grow the business and innovate or if they are going to create another cub lookalike . Basically that?s the only choices. If there is anyone that could successfully design a twin, it?s vans. They would corner the market and the certified world would have a fit. Let?s call it the twin10 instead of the RV15. The twin10 with two extra seats would be an instant best seller. However, Vans needs to definitely do one thing different going forward: get rid of that stupid TAS limitation on their planes and use IAS like the rest of the world. When I?m decending from FL16 at 220mph indicated in my Comanche, I know the tail won?t come off because I forgot to calculate TAS. Yes, glass does that for you but hey, make the airframe handle IAS like the rest of aviation and dump that TAS limitation. Carry on.😄

I think Vans does not use different physics than the others; I just think Vans chooses not to artificially limit the Vne down low thru a IAS limit.

[rocketman1988]

The tas Vne on the -10 was calculated move. Think about it. Just look at the forums. Guys putting bigger engines, turbos, oxygen, turbines, and guys talking about pressurization. Putting a TAS limit on the airframe nullifies most of these mods while limiting liability for the company. It is a beautifully simple solution. You exceed the factory airframe limits, you are a test pilot and they are more or less off the hook...

[airguy]

I can see a definite market for a Pilatus PC-12 competitor, doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market. You hang a turbine up front and you'll attract a lot of attention.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by airguy

I can see a definite market for a Pilatus PC-12 competitor, doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market. You hang a turbine up front and you'll attract a lot of attention.

Yes, but "attention" doesn't always mean sales.

[bkervaski]

doesn't need to be a twin to get in to the higher performance market

Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by bkervaski

Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.

There has been a lot of debate regarding if twins are safer than singles when an engine fails on either.

The reason being is that with a single, you have to land and there is a lot of structure between you and the ground. With twins the pilot screws up and the plane rolls over and everyone dies.

Lots of debate, as I said.

Look into the Velocity V-twin. Nice plane but EXPENSIVE to build.

[Canadian_JOY]

The video below is graphic and sobering. It shows a recent crash of a Beechcraft Duke. For me it called into question all the "conventional wisdom" about the safety of the second engine. Until the NTSB report is released we won't know probable cause. Whatever it was, two engines did not prove a safer solution.

https://www.instagram.com/skywonders...=1sh9bduuackcw

[rocketman1988]

Not to mention twice the cost, twice the maintenance, and a higher insurance premium...

[vlittle]

I'd like to weigh in. I already made my choice (S-21), but the tech has evolved sufficiently so that something like an electric RV-12 would appeal to a whole new generation of buyers. This will increase the market size by appealling to a younger demographic.

By way of evidence, a local float-plane airline (Harbour Air) is converting several DH2 Beavers to electric propulsion for their island-hopping flights, starting next year. This is one of the largest float operators in the world, so this is a serious statement (and one I predicted a few years ago).

I don't do a lot of long x-country flights anymore, but I do many short flights to see family or buy $100 burgers.

The capital cost of an electric RV-12 may not be less, but operating and maintenance costs would be much lower. A lot less stuff in the hangar would be required as well. Oh, there may also be an environmental benefit.

Someone please dust off this post in 5 years and see how close to the mark I was.