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

[airguy]

Originally Posted by N941WR

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

True, but a lack of attention always means a lack of sales. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Originally Posted by bkervaski

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

A valid argument can be made that a single turbine is as safe as a twin recip, from the MTBF and mortality-per-failure standpoint. There is a lot of comfort to be had with the absence of Vse blueline. Turbines tend not to fail catastrophically, and twin pilots without good recurrent single-engine practice are a liability.

To each their own. I won't build or buy a twin - but I'm very interested in a single turboprop.

[grubbat]

Blue line, VMC, things that you learn when flying a twin comes to mind but so many possible causes. Nevertheless, if twins weren’t safer, then airlines would only fly with one engine. Twins are considered unsafe by pilots who can’t fly them. Twins are unsafe by pilots who refuse to be current. Many stats will show what happens when a pilots isn’t current in their training. Same can be said for the base to final spin in singles, exceeding VNE that causes the tail to depart in a single, and so on. Over the mountains with the family and in the clouds, a twin is my best friend. Single engine performance in my twin Comanche was Good.
No, the engine out does not take you to the crash site.

So, haters gonna hate, but a twin10 should be in my den. The ultimate building experience. Make some mods to fuse of the -10, fab a spar for to handle an assortment of engines, dump the toothpick gear and design a part 23 gear, and let the hair go with the hide.

Originally Posted by 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

[Scott Hersha]

I think the next kit from Vans will be another of the same - an upgraded RV10, similar in technology to the RV14. Quicker, easier build, and importantly, an excellent Mosaic candidate (like the RV14) for someone setting up a build center.

[rcarsey]

There's only a few options that I can see for a new model.

1. Motorglider. Anyone not familiar with them, they are basically airplanes with a wing loading of less than .6 lbs/sqft. You need a glider rating -- and an add-on is a very short affair. And NO medical or basicmed is required. Van's himself owns two gliders and is an enthusiast. Supposedly the RV-11 is the motorglider.
   
2. Turbine. Did someone say "Total Performance"? Similar to SubSonex. Lots of professional-track pilots would love to have turbine time... I wouldn't mind having a personal toy like that either...
3. The RV-5 "frankenplane". This thing has been resurrected more times than an ObamaCare repeal bill.. Van's keeps dropping hints about it. And it seems when they re-designed the Van's website, they activated the URL: https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-5/ as a placeholder... similar to https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-15x/

Twin. I don't think the demand is there. Who wants double the maintenance? If you have the money to afford that.. you probably aren't going to want to be building anyway..

[n6233u]

I would like to see a glider w/optional motor, it would be perfect for aging pilots who can only fly LSA or gliders.

[David Paule]

Originally Posted by rcarsey

....Anyone not familiar with [motorgliders], they are basically airplanes with a wing loading of less than .6 lbs/sqft....

Close but not exactly. It's not wing loading based upon area, as the term customarily means, but weight divided by span squared.

For example, at Van's RV-3B gross weight of 1,100 pounds, it would need a wingspan of at least 42.12 feet to be a motorglider.

FAA's actual criteria is 3.0 kg/m^2, or (their conversion) .62 lb/ft^2. It's in AC 21.17-2A, if you're interested.

Dave

[rv7charlie]

Wish I had the reference handy to verify this, but I don't. According to something I read somewhere (doncha love that?), the FAA has that rule for certifying gliders as gliders, but it doesn't apply to experimentals. So...

[David Paule]

I think Sonex uses it to get the Xenos motorglider kits licensed as gliders.

Dave

[rv7charlie]

They probably did, but I'm pretty sure they didn't need to. Would the old 'primary glider', the 1st thing Paul Poberezny restored, meet the criteria? I suspect not. If you built one from plans today, would the FAA refuse to license it as an exp. homebuilt glider?

[rv7charlie]

What I was trying to say, is that this:
FAA's actual criteria is 3.0 kg/m^2, or (their conversion) .62 lb/ft^2. It's in AC 21.17-2A
wouldn't be applied to your homebuilt model 'xyz' glider when you apply for its exp a/w cert as a glider. Which might mean that, for instance, something that looks a lot like an RV-12 (or RV-9), (with a 'friendly' inspector) might conceivably be licensed as a motor glider.

I'll bet that a -9, with just a bit of wing tip tweaking, will out-glide every one of the 'primary gliders' that many learned to fly in back in the 20s & 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_glider
Paul P.'s primary glider type, at 15-1 glide ratio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WACO_Primary_Glider
WW2 troop/cargo glider, at 12-1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4