What does Vans want?
I think this entire thread could be condensed greatly if only the Vans company would chime in and tell us, What do they want to accomplish with their next offering? And prioritize the parameters.
Do they want bragging rights in the aviation world for the fastest 2 or 4 seat aircraft kit? then by all means proceed with a huge engine'd little plane..or a turbine.
Do they want to offer a twin retractable to have a fast heavy hauler?
Tall about the fringes of the market!..sheeesh..
Do they want to enter STOL bushplane market?
IS market fragmentation of their existing products a factor in consideration?
or..
Do they want to increase market share among homebuilder's, for the long term future of the company, preserve and create more jobs at the factory, and sell as many airplane kits as possible? How about a RV15, AND a RV16 with one fuselage.
IN my view, if the latter is the answer, how about this for a game plan.
It has to be a high wing, as thats a market they are not in, and its really big.
There are two major sub-segments of that market.. the folks that are attracted to the bushplane mission, and the folks that are attracted to the high-wing traveler mission.
An entry into this high wing market kinda need 2 airplane designs. They have already proven successful in pleasing 2 segments of the same market targets with the RV-9 and the RV7, aerobatics capable, and non aerobatics capable, nose wheel and tailwheel. Look how easy that was. One fuselage design and just 2 different wing designs. and tailwheel or nosewheel choices at the time of build. I dont think there is really a need to make a "convertable" of either config.
This same coverage of the different market sub-segments could be approached the same way.
One wide , easy entering fuselage design, with 2 wing options. A fat STOL airfoil with big flaps for one, and a nice high altitude performing airfoil, like the RV 9's for the other. jeez..they already have most of the parts on the rack for that one, if the 9's airfoil would work on a high wing design?? Dont know why it would not.
Start right in the middle of the market with a design to accommodate all the 4 cylinder lycoming variants, from a salvaged 320 from a piper to the newest IO390's. That puts it into the budget envelope of the most buyers.
AND, as for me, IF I were the CEO, I would start with the slick high wing speedster. Why?, because others are concentrating on STOL as the priority, and nobody is doing the traveling version, tweaked for speed. AND, if as I mentioned, the RV-9 Roncz airfoil proved suitable, its already in production. Just a new fuselage design, and a tweaked already available wing is all it take to get the first prototype in the air. Lowest risk, fastest market entry, and if it works, They have a direction to go with designing the rest of the high wing options. After all, Time is money, and it seems to me they have been dragging their feet long enough. How old is this thread? Most all of us builders know what the term "analysis paralysis" is, and I think theres a bad case of it going on in Oregon.
I encourage all to chime in if you agree...