VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Now that the RV-12 is out the door, what should the next RV be?
Nothing for now - focus on efficiency, cut costs and prices, survive. 209 30.20%
A factory-built version of the RV-12 36 5.20%
The RV-11 Motorglider 120 17.34%
An amphibian 54 7.80%
An updated single-seater 111 16.04%
A twin, using the new IO-233 or Rotax engines 71 10.26%
A turboprop 36 5.20%
A jet! 55 7.95%
Voters: 692. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 03-01-2011, 09:30 AM
Dennis_I's Avatar
Dennis_I Dennis_I is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sweden, 67" North
Posts: 68
Default

RV-8 Fastback Pleeeeeeeeease!
__________________
Dennis Isaksson
G?llivare, Sweden

Grew up with an RV-4, SE-XIO

Now: RV-8, Showplanes Fastback. #83218 Under construction, SE-XXO

Engine and avionic installation in progress
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:46 AM
Sunriver Ken's Avatar
Sunriver Ken Sunriver Ken is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sunriver, Oregon/Surprise, Arizona
Posts: 128
Default E-LSA RV-12L yep Lycoming

I did not go though the entire 13 pages of inuts so this may be redundant but as a "serior citizen" flying a 9A I can see the time when simpler and lower-cost-per flying-hour will be a "mission" for my plane.

I have flown the RV-12 and like almost everything about it. My biggest complaint is the complicated propulsion system. How about an E-LSA RV-12L. Yep, do everything they have with the Rotax but use the new LSA Lycoming.

I am confident Vans did all the homework before deciding on the Rotax but four of the five planes I have flown have had Lycomings and these engines have proven very reliable and relatively easy to work on.

Just my thoughts
__________________
Fly safe,
Ken Day
Independence, OR
RV-9A O-360/CS - SOLD
RV-12 SOLD
AA1C 150HP - FLYING
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-01-2011, 05:39 PM
Squeak Squeak is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 270
Default Tandem Seating LSA

Thatcher Aircraft Company announced new model CX5 tandem seating, tailwheel or tri-gear. http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/arti...2_thatcher.asp Hoping for Van's next project to be tandem seating LSA powered by the new 0-233 Lycoming.

Squeak

Last edited by Squeak : 03-01-2011 at 06:19 PM. Reason: will be sport pilot eligible
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:26 PM
Phyrcooler's Avatar
Phyrcooler Phyrcooler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pazmanyflyer View Post
Have you guys read about the Thatcher CX5? http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/arti...2_thatcher.asp Itis not an RV or aerobatic but its LSA design is certainly a consideration per some of the requests I've read from earlier posts here. Yes I do think that Vans can do something very similar with the -4 as also mentioned.
Wow... very interesting. I hope the folks at Van's are taking notice. Others are getting the idea. I'll be watching the development... but really pulling for Van's to head in this direction. PLEASE!
__________________
Still in research & dreaming phase - Wanting a Low-wing TANDEM LSA!!
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-05-2011, 07:55 PM
jimevison jimevison is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Scranton Pa
Posts: 34
Default Electric Motor?

I'm surprised that the Poll offers no option of Electric Propulsion. There's a lot of interest here. Battery technology is progressing while cost is falling. Capacity to weight ratio has improved and there's trickle down from automotive development. There's an electric Skyhawk, the Yuneec and Sonex is investing. Van's outlook has always been conservative, to improve on established designs. Perhaps the idea is too radical?
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-06-2011, 07:16 AM
aturner's Avatar
aturner aturner is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clarion, Pennsylvania
Posts: 550
Default

Ken Kruger did a presentation at Oshkosh 2009 on what an electric powered RV might look like. Van has repeatedly written papers in the RVator newsletter on electric propulsion (an example of the sort of story I am going miss with the discontinuation of the RVator). And, Van owns an electric sailplane.
__________________
-Andy Turner
RV-10 N784JC

Last edited by aturner : 03-06-2011 at 07:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-07-2011, 06:51 AM
turbo's Avatar
turbo turbo is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Stuart, FL /Hartford, CT/Virgin Gorda,BVI
Posts: 3,122
Talking how about ........

a jet?
__________________
TURBO YES =VAF= Payed Jan2019
Ed D'Arcy
RV6-A 5,200+ hrs, R-44 1,600 hrs, Helicycle 320 hrs, gyro sold,35,000 miles flown in 2015
Stuart, Fl / S WINDSOR,Ct / Virgin Gorda, BVI - under major repair from hurricane damage
VAF #840 EAA AOPA FAC FABA QB SPA
addicted pickle ball player
https://i.postimg.cc/tn3h4svg/IMG-3101.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-09-2011, 03:40 AM
dhpeterson dhpeterson is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1
Default Dream vs. reality

The dream:

Between the RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9, Vans has some mighty fine 2-seat single engine (SE) aircraft. I don't see much value in re-inventing that particular wheel and I trust others would agree.

I also think with the RV-12 they have tapped the LSA market-place with a tidy little aircraft that can steal some market share from the likes of Zenith etc. The RV-12 could do with some cosmetic improvements but this is not the most important thing to work on.

I can see two potential directions for Vans in the next 3-5 years:

Option #1 - Using the expertise to date in SE low wing design, create a 6-seat aircraft that basically builds on the RV-10 - either directly or in concept. This would be the "Cherokee Six" to Van's current "Cherokee" (the RV-10).

I'm not an expert in propulsion but I presume a 300 hp IO-540 would do the trick, as it did for the PA-32-300.

Optional extras: Retractable gear option, making it very similar to a Piper Lance.



In some ways, this development might then lead naturally to ...


Option #2 - A twin engine 4-seat (RV-10 derived) or 6-seat airframe. Two IO-320's or 360's. If this was based off option #1, then it would be the "Seneca" to the 6-seat "Cherokee Six". With Van at the pencil, I imagine it could end up being the best performing (economy etc) small twin since the Twin Comanche! (Which I had the pleasure of flying in just last week as it happens. In the back seat on the way back I found myself wondering .. if I took an RV-10 fuse, beefed up the centre section, changed the wing ... !)



Now, crashing back to reality ...

What Vans should probably do .. hunker down and make sure they survive the coming mess!

We can but dream. Van has shown us how.

Last edited by dhpeterson : 03-09-2011 at 03:42 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-09-2011, 01:00 PM
java's Avatar
java java is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhpeterson View Post
The dream:

Between the RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9, Vans has some mighty fine 2-seat single engine (SE) aircraft. I don't see much value in re-inventing that particular wheel and I trust others would agree.

I also think with the RV-12 they have tapped the LSA market-place with a tidy little aircraft that can steal some market share from the likes of Zenith etc. The RV-12 could do with some cosmetic improvements but this is not the most important thing to work on.

I can see two potential directions for Vans in the next 3-5 years:

Option #1 - Using the expertise to date in SE low wing design, create a 6-seat aircraft that basically builds on the RV-10 - either directly or in concept. This would be the "Cherokee Six" to Van's current "Cherokee" (the RV-10).

I'm not an expert in propulsion but I presume a 300 hp IO-540 would do the trick, as it did for the PA-32-300.

Optional extras: Retractable gear option, making it very similar to a Piper Lance.



In some ways, this development might then lead naturally to ...


Option #2 - A twin engine 4-seat (RV-10 derived) or 6-seat airframe. Two IO-320's or 360's. If this was based off option #1, then it would be the "Seneca" to the 6-seat "Cherokee Six". With Van at the pencil, I imagine it could end up being the best performing (economy etc) small twin since the Twin Comanche! (Which I had the pleasure of flying in just last week as it happens. In the back seat on the way back I found myself wondering .. if I took an RV-10 fuse, beefed up the centre section, changed the wing ... !)



Now, crashing back to reality ...

What Vans should probably do .. hunker down and make sure they survive the coming mess!

We can but dream. Van has shown us how.
I'm not seeing either of these happening. I don't know the answer to the question, "How many piston single, six seat aircraft have been sold in the past year?" but my guess is the number is small... even smaller if you consider those sold purely for private purposes (experimental unuseable for commercial purposes). Ditto on the twin idea. VERY few for personal aircraft, and the pool of potential buyers (twin rated) is surely a small fraction of the total pool interested in an experimental. These are both also high $ aircraft (relatively), which doesn't lend well to experimental either.

My best guess would be a motor glider (...because Van likes them and has already started the RV-11 design/prototype), or a high wing "bush" plane. The latter fits well in the experimental category and is an untapped market for Van's. It is a pretty well served market already, however, so they would need to steal market share to make it viable (from the likes of Glastar, Smith Cub, CubCrafters, Zenith, BushCaddy, etc.) I see it as the orphan love child of a Zenith and Glastar. Good speed to add to rugged unimproved strip performance like the Sportsman 2+2, but with all-aluminum construction like the CH-750. A nosewheel version would be available (because they sell).

Then again, what do I know?
__________________
JV

Calgary, Alberta, Canada
RV7 QB - Airframe largely complete, sans canopy and glass... unfortunately sold
RV6 - O-360-A1A, Hartzell CS, dual G3X VFR... purchased

Dues paid 2015

"Being defeated is only a temporary condition; giving up is what makes it permanent."
-- Marilyn vos Savant
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-09-2011, 01:12 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,219
Default

I've probably said it before in this space, but stretch the RV-9 into a 4 seater. Give us an experimental (and higher performing) alternative to the AA-5B.

Most folks don't need a true "Fill 4 seats, the tanks, and the baggage area" airplane like the RV-10. But they would be satisfied carrying 3.5 hours of fuel, baggage, and either 3 adults or 2 adults and 2 children at 150+ knots. In that mission, a stretched R-9 would fill the bill and could do 95% of the existing RV-9's mission at a marginally higher initial cost instead of the 50% cost increase from the 2 seat aircraft to the RV-10.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.