RV-15, as NOT back country?

[Blw2]

What are your thoughts on the -15 for a more typical GA mission.... not big tire back country?

Is it realistic to think that a builder might put smaller street tires on, or even some minimalist wheel fairing?

In my flying experience of all East coast, I've landed on grass quite a few times, but that's not what I would classify as back country...that's more like front country...and certainly doesn't need the big tires (drag & higher cost for replacement). I get that they can make landings more forgiveable, but I'm not thinking it's a great idea if they are never really needed

I really have NO idea where I would ever go to land on a gravel bar, or a beach, or true back country. I recon that describes quite a few pilots, but yet there seems to be a big trend lately for "back country beasts" (ala the AOPA sweepstakes C-170)

As I daydream about a retirement project in a few years, I've been leaning hard to the RV-14. Mission as I see it now would be cross country, short and long trips, for me and my wife. And probably quite a bit of local flights too. Low fuel burn and at least moderate cruise is important. Instrument capability is a plus.

A big tripping point for me is the canopy in the 14...really all the vans models. I get that they offer amazing visibility, but.... I'm drawn more to the -10 doors, or truthfully even more to the -15

I've grown very fond of a two-door configuration and windows that can be opened in flight. Most of my time is in high winged cessna models and I like the awning over the door, and relatively easy entry....although as I imagine using it as I get older, I'm warming to the low wing idea, mostly for refueling

So, I'm starting to consider that the -15 might actually fill my mission too....and even though it's probably a few years out, it might work out for my timeline...(although I have been thinking recently of getting started on some small sub kit(s) now, pre-retirement... Anyway, I haven't looked in great detail at it, but from my initial thinking, the only big tripping points I see for the -15 are high wing refueling and larger engine burning more fuel....

 

[DeltaRomeo]

Hi Brad,

My ‘usual’ local mental gyro recalibration flight is around the area low and slow looking at nature. During the cooler months around N.TX I fly the RV-6 almost exclusivly. During the hot months (it was 105* here yesterday) I fly a 77 yr old 65hp beat up Cub w/everything I can open opened. I think the -15 will give me the best of both worlds: 1) the shade I crave during hot weather, 2) amazing viz (hopefully w/the doors off) and 3) most of the speed performance I occasionally want if I need to travel.

The other day in the Cub I saw a turkey jumping up to hit the vane of a deer feeder so it could eat. That’s a -15 typical mission to me <g>. My logbook tends to support this….reads like something out of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom: “5 turkeys, 20 wild hogs, 6 deer (one buck at least 8 pt).

Looking back, I had no idea I would be this interested in just lower altitude, lower speed ‘nature touring’. Just sort of happened. I love my -6, but I’ll probably love the -15 more. All this to say I probably won’t land on many sandbars, but I’ll almost certainly try to figure out a way to take a SLR with a 300mm lens (no doors, remember)? Regardless of the size of the tires on my -15, when there are no conflicts I’ll land in the grass next to our paved runway to extend the life of the tires and brakes (like I do with the cub).

The -15 will probably be my final airplane, and what a choice!

I’m looking forward to getting the first tail kit. Had to say it - a guy can dream <g>.

v/r,dr


PS: Some recent pics from the 'Wannabe 15', which will be for sale when my -15 flies:

 

[Bavafa]

Have you considered a Trike (Weight shift) for the slow and low type flying. Ample airflow thru your hair, superior view down below.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

Have you considered a Trike (Weight shift) for the slow and low type flying. Ample airflow thru your hair, superior view down below.

Have considered it, yes, but I’m an RV guy through and through. ;^) I really want the -15. I do want to travel a little with it, and hopefully the wife might find it easier getting in/out of a -15 (as opposed to the -6).

 

[FlyNSoCal]

RV-15A with Wheel Fairings?

What are your thoughts on the -15 for a more typical GA mission.... not big tire back country?

Is it realistic to think that a builder might put smaller street tires on, or even some minimalist wheel fairing?

There’s probably a large percentage of folks who want a high wing and have no plans for backcountry use. Since Vans focus for the RV-15 is backcountry use, those folks are probably looking elsewhere (like the Sling H/W), unless they are ok with the compromises of the design.

I want a high wing for the usual reasons, and my mission is to fly the lower 48 after I retire, so cruise speed is a big factor. Another factor is gust sensitivity and ride in turbulence. The kite-like wing loading necessary for short strip operations make the RV-15 vulnerable. I’m really trying to soften my stance and contemplate the benefits of the backcountry thing, but nothing has resonated with me. Maybe there are nice backcountry strips that can handle small tires on a trike, and have restaurants and hotels within walking distance, I don’t know.

I considered the RV-14A as well, but the hot bubble canopy and ingress/egress as I get older make it less desirable. Hearing stories of trying to break through a canopy after being flipped upside down doesn’t help. If it had side doors and a solid roof like the RV-10, I’d give it serious consideration.

I hear ya about the difficulty refueling high wings, but I figured it may be a wash. The effort required to climb in and out of a low wing a couple times during preflight may be the same effort to refuel a high wing.

I’m looking forward to hear the final specs for the RV-15 so I can determine if I can accept the compromises. It still checks most of my boxes. The build will probably be easier than most other kits out there. Heck, the fuel tank design alone sounds amazing (install the tank from below, maybe no sealant). I just hope the kit fits in my garage!

 

[Phyrcooler]

There’s probably a large percentage of folks who want a high wing and have no plans for backcountry use. Since Vans focus for the RV-15 is backcountry use, those folks are probably looking elsewhere (like the Sling H/W sleek looking for sure), unless they are ok with the compromises of the design.

I want a high wing for the usual reasons, and my mission is to fly the lower 48 after I retire, so cruise speed is a big factor Same re: cruise speed. Another factor is gust sensitivity and ride in turbulence. The kite-like wing loading necessary for short strip operations make the RV-15 vulnerable. I’m really trying to soften my stance and contemplate the benefits of the backcountry thing, but nothing has resonated with me. Maybe there are nice backcountry strips that can handle small tires on a trike, and have restaurants and hotels within walking distance, I don’t know.

I considered the RV-14A as well, but the hot bubble canopy and ingress/egress as I get older make it less desirable. Hearing stories of trying to break through a canopy after being flipped upside down doesn’t help. If it had side doors and a solid roof like the RV-10, I’d give it serious consideration.

I hear ya about the difficulty refueling high wings, but I figured it may be a wash. The effort required to climb in and out of a low wing a couple times during preflight may be the same effort to refuel a high wing.

I’m looking forward to hear the final specs for the RV-15 so I can determine if I can accept the compromises. It still checks most of my boxes. The build will probably be easier than most other kits out there. Heck, the fuel tank design alone sounds amazing (install the tank from below, maybe no sealant). I just hope the kit fits in my garage!

Interesting thread to me as I contemplate my aviation future. You’ve also shared many similar thoughts that are running through my head. I’m newly back into flying after a very extended hiatus. My current mission could be met by a 9A. I had alway planned on building, and do have requisite skills and background. However, I’m feeling my age, and realize I don’t want to spend the typical 3 - 5 years in the garage these “older” kits require. And having seen (and actually helped on) a couple projects) including the 12 and 14, my frustration threshold has definitely lowered towards these older kits like the 9. Ease of build is definitely on my mind. Then I’ve stumbled on some videos of folks airplane camping (such as Johnson Creek…) and my mind starts to wonder. Is my mission expanding? So, will the 15 be 1) Easy to build 2) won’t break the bank with a $50k motor 3) back country capable BUT still reasonably fast cross country - 140kts+ cruise? We’ll have to see what Vans ultimately puts forth. Where on the spectrum between speed and utility will it fall? Could it be a mamma bear… and be just right?

In the meantime, I’m shopping for a simple, lower budget flying 9A to get myself airborne, contemplating options, and watching the 15 with interest.

 

[Pilot135pd]

....I really have NO idea where I would ever go to land on a gravel bar, or a beach, or true back country. I recon that describes quite a few pilots, but yet there seems to be a big trend lately for "back country beasts" (ala the AOPA sweepstakes C-170)...

Like people who buy Land Rovers and don't take them out of their garage when it's raining on the concrete streets in their city.

 

[Pilot135pd]

Interesting thread to me as I contemplate my aviation future. You’ve also shared many similar thoughts that are running through my head. I’m newly back into flying after a very extended hiatus. My current mission could be met by a 9A. I had alway planned on building, and do have requisite skills and background. However, I’m feeling my age, and realize I don’t want to spend the typical 3 - 5 years in the garage these “older” kits require. And having seen (and actually helped on) a couple projects) including the 12 and 14, my frustration threshold has definitely lowered towards these older kits like the 9. Ease of build is definitely on my mind. Then I’ve stumbled on some videos of folks airplane camping (such as Johnson Creek…) and my mind starts to wonder. Is my mission expanding? So, will the 15 be 1) Easy to build 2) won’t break the bank with a $50k motor 3) back country capable BUT still reasonably fast cross country - 140kts+ cruise? We’ll have to see what Vans ultimately puts forth. Where on the spectrum between speed and utility will it fall? Could it be a mamma bear… and be just right?

In the meantime, I’m shopping for a simple, lower budget flying 9A to get myself airborne, contemplating options, and watching the 15 with interest.

I was like "when did I reply to this thread and why is it coming up on NEW POSTS?

Then I realized the avatar just looks like mine until I read the reply, it wasn't me.

 

[Vansconvert]

0ld guys

Then there are the old guys like me, who are huge RV fans, but sold their RV because it's too hard to get in and out of but a high wing would be much easier.

 

[Phyrcooler]

I was like "when did I reply to this thread and why is it coming up on NEW POSTS?

Then I realized the avatar just looks like mine until I read the reply, it wasn't me.

Based on join date, I lay claim… aw never mind! Nice Avatar! Can’t remember my incentive to put that avatar up, it’s been so many years. Interestingly, while west coast based now, I grew up South of you (SE of Palestine).

 

[ksauce]

I, too, am not super interested in extreme back country operations. I want to be able to go up, pull the power way back, and enjoy the scenery while burning as little gas with as little noise as possible. I'm also hopeful that it's possible to put wheel pants on the 15 (maybe using the -10 mains), work in some other efficiency tweaks, and get 150kts in the instances when I do want to go somewhere.

What I really want is a high wing -14 (including the acro) with a wider cabin and a bit more useful load.

 

[N8DAV8R]

This thread resonates well with me too, for most of the same reasons mentioned. My opinion is that people wanting to haul mountain bikes to the sand bar is over-represented on YouTube and Instagram but the decisions makers fell for it.

Glad to see some discussion on the -15 picking back up though. It seems like that other subject just sucked all the air out of the room. I have the -15 at the top of my 'next build' list because of my wants as a builder, not as a pilot.

 

[ArlingtonRV]

I am in the same boat. I do want to do a little off roading in the -15, but my normal mission is more tame. I plan to have 2 sets of wheels, six inch mains with wheel pants for normal operations and some larger, though not 26 inch at all, tires for more off road use. Should be able to swap back and forth in a couple of hours. Sort of along the lines of floats in the summer and wheels in the winter, only in this case it would be big wheels in the summer, small wheels in the winter.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

This thread resonates well with me too, for most of the same reasons mentioned. My opinion is that people wanting to haul mountain bikes to the sand bar is over-represented on YouTube and Instagram but the decisions makers fell for it.

Not exactly….
The same airplane that can haul mountain bikes to a sand bar will also haul them (and lots of camping gear and other stuff) to places that any other RV can also go, but not with all of the gear.
My wife an I airplane camp with our RV-6A but we have to pack gear food as if we going back packing because of the space and weight limitations. So once we arrive we have to rent or borrow bikes, a kayak, etc. We go lots of places that just having a couple bikes to explore the area or travel into town when it is just a bit to far to walk would totally change the experience.
The RV-15 will carry our two mountain bikes, our inflatable kayak, all our camping gear, and everything else we will need for a few days of adventure, and in most instances, the destination will be somewhere we could go with our current airplane but the experience will be very different.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

I'll share the perspective of a person who flies an aircraft with performance and features similar to the RV15; in this case, a Glasair Sportsman.

Like many here, I wanted an airplane that could do everything. The Sportsman fills that bill quite readily. Low and slow, high and fast, hard runway, soft runway and backwoods strip.

After much consideration and a rather nasty shock from the insurance company I have not put the Sportsman on taildragger gear - it's considerably cheaper to insure on trike gear. (Sorry, not wanting to open a debate on trike vs taildragger - the insurance company certainly wouldn't entertain any such debate.)

I truly enjoy the high wing, bubble doors and fantastic visibility offered by the Sportsman. I also treasure its seating position which is so very comfortable. I also enjoy being able to load the airplane with full fuel, my wife and me and 300lbs of gear. This versatility is fantastic, especially when taking this airplane on longer travelling legs where the 134kt speed is no slouch in the performance department. (Mine is equipped with an O-360; the O-390 will go faster with correspondingly greater fuel burn.)

The idea of flying the airplane "low and slow" is a great idea but it just doesn't happen. I mean it simply doesn't happen. The airplane is capable of doing it and ticking along at 5gph is kind of neat, but once one knows the airplane can go faster it's just so hard to keep the airplane down in the "beating the air to death" speed range. As a result I find myself often sightseeing at a mid-range cruise, something like 7gph and 116kts. The sweetest spot for the way the airplane feels is down at about 105kts; below that it feels like one is not flying very efficiently as the nose is higher in the air.

Don't get me wrong - the airplane handles very nicely at low speed. I just find myself naturally gravitating to not only looking out the window below me but also to wanting to know what's over on the other side of the next ridge so the speed stays up a bit more than I expected it would.

There you have it, I guess, an honest confession from a speed freak. OK, I'm not a speed freak, but moving along effortlessly at higher speeds is pretty addictive!

(Another confession - my newest acquisition is NOT a fast airplane but rather is a classic taildragger that does a hundred mph. I suspect this one will be more of my backcountry "lookin' out the window" airplane.)

 

[N8DAV8R]

Not exactly….
The same airplane that can haul mountain bikes to a sand bar will also haul them (and lots of camping gear and other stuff) to places that any other RV can also go, but not with all of the gear.
My wife an I airplane camp with our RV-6A but we have to pack gear food as if we going back packing because of the space and weight limitations. So once we arrive we have to rent or borrow bikes, a kayak, etc. We go lots of places that just having a couple bikes to explore the area or travel into town when it is just a bit to far to walk would totally change the experience.
The RV-15 will carry our two mountain bikes, our inflatable kayak, all our camping gear, and everything else we will need for a few days of adventure, and in most instances, the destination will be somewhere we could go with our current airplane but the experience will be very different.

Right. We have all heard the marketing descriptions that support that, and I didn't say that nobody would take advantage of it. It's just my opinion that the use case is overblown in the broader market. It's going to be a great airplane that fills a niche. A niche that Van's doesn't currently fill. But a niche none the less.

There was similar rationalization with the RV-12. There were design compromises that were made so that the wings would be removable and it could go on a trailer. Save on hangar rent yadda yadda. It seemed like a great idea, but almost nobody actually does it.

Just an opinion. I still want to build one. Probably sell it and move on to something else once it's done but that works for me. I just want to build, and I want to experience the next chapter of Van's evolution for myself.

 

[Blw2]

Exactly! Looks like several of you are thinkin' the same thoughts that I am.

 

[gasman]

For those not interested in back country, maybe Van's can offer a shorter (speed) wing as an option.

And there is a very smart guy in the upper north west that is capable of designing and producing the remaining parts that will make
the RV15/15A, the most capable aircraft that Van's has to offer. I predict that the RV15/15A will outsell the RV 3, 4, and 14 combined.

 

[FlyNSoCal]

RV-15A Speed Wing Option

For those not interested in back country, maybe Van's can offer a shorter (speed) wing as an option.

I suggested that on another forum Greg Hughes was on. It never got a response. A speed wing would address my only two concerns I have with the current prototype: 1) Faster cruise, 2) Higher wing loading so you are not grounded by modest wind gusts, and it offers greater stability as IFR platform.

 

[MacCool]

My opinion is that people wanting to haul mountain bikes to the sand bar is over-represented on YouTube and Instagram .....

I think that's certainly true, but I suspect that Van's knows that and that the RV-15 is about carrying stuff, not landing on a sand bar.

That said, it would be fun to watch Mike Patey build an RV-15

 

[Blw2]

...............The idea of flying the airplane "low and slow" is a great idea but it just doesn't happen. I mean it simply doesn't happen. The airplane is capable of doing it and ticking along at 5gph is kind of neat, but once one knows the airplane can go faster it's just so hard to keep the airplane down in the "beating the air to death" speed range. As a result I find myself often sightseeing at a mid-range cruise, something like 7gph and 116kts. The sweetest spot for the way the airplane feels is down at about 105kts; below that it feels like one is not flying very efficiently as the nose is higher in the air...............

I can see your point for sure. That said, I also think back on all the times I've said that my few hours trying to learn how to fly an old 7AC Champ was absolutely the most fun in all the flying I've done. I loved that it felt at home down lower than even a cessna 172 does...flying with the window open, smelling and seeing the world not far below... I can see doing that sort of thing for local flights where I'm just trying to get some time up, after work or whatever....not going anyplace in particular. (Like Doug's Cub story!)

 

[Blw2]

There’s probably a large percentage of folks who want a high wing and have no plans for backcountry use. Since Vans focus for the RV-15 is backcountry use, those folks are probably looking elsewhere (like the Sling H/W), unless they are ok with the compromises of the design.
...............

That's an excellent point. I've been mostly just focused on the bigger tries, but there's certainly other compromises too....
As others have pointed out
wing loading perhaps....although I wonder....with the mantra of "total performance" in mind, how much are they trying to minimize that compromise by milking the "STOL" capability out of flaps and other considerations.... so that the wing in cruise has a decent wing loading and speed performance, but then with barn doors out it's capable of slow.

So what compromises do ya'll see in the design (assuming built as we've seen so far) at this preliminary point, for someone interested in an improved grass strip as being the most likely backcountry operations, with a majority on pavement....?

I'll start
1) big tires = maybe not so great life on pavement (faster wear)
2) big tires =makes it taller on the ground (entry, refueling, hangar fit)
3) big tires = more expensive to replace
4) too much focus on STOL = cuts into cruise performance
5) potentially low wing loading = rougher ride (do we know anything about the wing loading number yet?)
6) ???

 

[Canadian_JOY]

I can see your point for sure. That said, I also think back on all the times I've said that my few hours trying to learn how to fly an old 7AC Champ was absolutely the most fun in all the flying I've done. I loved that it felt at home down lower than even a cessna 172 does...flying with the window open, smelling and seeing the world not far below... I can see doing that sort of thing for local flights where I'm just trying to get some time up, after work or whatever....not going anyplace in particular. (Like Doug's Cub story!)

In support of your perspective, while I have a perfectly serviceable Glasair Sportsman, I now also own a Luscombe 8E for that "down low, real slow, windows open, elbows out in the breeze" flying.

(Yeah, I'm just a little spoiled!)

 

[FlyNSoCal]

So what compromises do ya'll see in the design (assuming built as we've seen so far) at this preliminary point, for someone interested in an improved grass strip as being the most likely backcountry operations, with a majority on pavement....?

I'll start
1) big tires = maybe not so great life on pavement (faster wear)
2) big tires =makes it taller on the ground (entry, refueling, hangar fit)
3) big tires = more expensive to replace
4) too much focus on STOL = cuts into cruise performance
5) potentially low wing loading = rougher ride (do we know anything about the wing loading number yet?)
6) ???

Those might be the only compromises. For those who want a 4 seater, Vans' desire for only a 2 seater would certainly be a compromise. Their initial fixation on Lycoming-only pretty much limited the fuel choice to 100LL, but now they appear open to other options.

All in all, the RV-15 has a lot of good traits with limited compromises.

 

[1001001]

I like the idea of backcountry flying, but as the OP said, in the Eastern US, there really aren't many opportunities to use the capability. There just isn't the amount of wide-open space where you're allowed to land, like in the West. Heck, here in PA, even a float plane is almost useless, since the Commonwealth bans landing on any of its waters (Federal waters are fair game, though, there aren't many in PA that you'd want to land on).

If I built a high wing monoplane, it would be for sightseeing and camping at grass strips, and would need good cargo capacity and 4 seats.

For low and slow flying, I eventually see myself building some sort of Cub-alike, and/or an ultralight, and definitely learning how to do a backpack-style powered paraglider.

 

[plehrke]

I like the idea of backcountry flying. . . . . . . there really aren't many opportunities to use the capability [within reasonable flight from where i live]

If I built a high wing monoplane, it would be for sightseeing and camping at grass strips, and would need good cargo capacity and 4 seats.

That sort of sums it up for me here in the wide open country in the heartland of America. Since I am located in the very middle of the country, it is a bit of a flight to get to anything more interesting then more flat farm land so I would opt for more speed and less "tundra". Need soft, short field capability but really not the big tires.

 

[abuura]

I had a Rans S7 which I flew from Virginia to Utah in 2019. 100 mph, VFR, 3.5 days (versus IFR 1.25 days in my RV7). Most challenging strips were Starr Spring and Gold Creek where my 28” tires were helpful, but otherwise all other BC strips in UT and ID would have worked fine on 22” tires.
If I get a 15 it would be for its IFR capability and cruise speed. I’d go with 6 x 6.00 tubeless grooved and be able to enjoy all BC offerings, short of Mile High/Low Loon-level strips.

 

[Blw2]

I had a Rans S7 which I flew from Virginia to Utah in 2019. 100 mph, VFR, 3.5 days (versus IFR 1.25 days in my RV7). Most challenging strips were Starr Spring and Gold Creek where my 28” tires were helpful, but otherwise all other BC strips in UT and ID would have worked fine on 22” tires.
If I get a 15 it would be for its IFR capability and cruise speed. I’d go with 6 x 6.00 tubeless grooved and be able to enjoy all BC offerings, short of Mile High/Low Loon-level strips.

I wonder what unintended consequences there might be to the design, changing to tires that size..... reduced prop ground clearance comes to mind... so maybe smaller prop needed
affects performance
also affects W&B

 

[abuura]

First, no one knows what the stock tires and prop options will be on the 15 when the final design is released. Secondly, I’ve put 6 x 6s on my 7, and gone back to 5 inchers with no issues as cited. For the S7, it came with 6 x 6s and I installed 28 inchers, again without any issues. For reference, certificated taildraggers often vary tire sizes routinely.

 

[Roadjunkie1]

Low and slow with the door open...

My ‘usual’ local mental gyro recalibration flight is around the area low and slow looking at nature. During the cooler months around N.TX I fly the RV-6 almost exclusivly. During the hot months (it was 105* here yesterday) I fly a 77 yr old 65hp beat up Cub w/everything I can open opened.

Looking back, I had no idea I would be this interested in just lower altitude, lower speed ‘nature touring’. Just sort of happened. I love
The -15 will probably be my final airplane, and what a choice!
I’m looking forward to getting the first tail kit. Had to say it - a guy can dream <g>.

PS: Some recent pics from the 'Wannabe 15', which will be for sale when my -15 flies:

I have had my first airplane, my Cub, since 1972. I have had my second airplane, SuzieQ since 1992. I can't imagine giving either one of them up. I think you would regret selling your J-3 if you sold it. There is nothing like a Cub. And, like guitars, a person can't have too many airplanes, can they?

 

[Rallylancer122]

The vast majority of Super Cubs and 180's can be found bopping around at grass strips and $100 hamburger runs. The big tire STOL heroes are the exception, not the rule. You are not "wasting" the airplane if you don't land it on a 200' sandbar.

 

[Utah-Jay]

I was flying a Rans S-21 into a lot of Idaho BC strips, including Lower Loon, Marble, Bernard to name just a few and did so very comfortably on 8.50’s

Cabin Creek was a bit bumpy, but it was not an issue

 

[smokyray]

What you’re used to…

Interesting.
Growing up my Dad owned a straight tail 57’ C-182 (6.00:6 mains 500.5 Nose) he used to support his IA business primarily serving crop dusters. Dad would call me requesting a critical part or special tool brought to him which I gladly did, wherever he was at. That “wherever” usually was not an airport, grass strip or anything resembling a landing field suitable for a C182. However comma, after landing on numerous field “rut roads” driveways, dirt trails, alfalfa fields and in between large hay bales, it was simply what I was used to.

Years later while serving in the SDANG and building my Four I took my Taylorcraft extensively over MT and ID, into all of the aforementioned ID backcountry strips as well as Dewey Moore and two private strips all on 6.00x6 tires. The RV15 should exceed the 182 and Ts capabilities, tire size notwithstanding.

It’s all what you’re used to…
V/R
Smokey

 

[Canadian_JOY]

Interesting.
Growing up my Dad owned a straight tail 57’ C-182 (6.00:6 mains 500.5 Nose) he used to support his IA business primarily serving crop dusters. Dad would call me requesting a critical part or special tool brought to him which I gladly did, wherever he was at. That “wherever” usually was not an airport, grass strip or anything resembling a landing field suitable for a C182. However comma, after landing on numerous field “rut roads” driveways, dirt trails, alfalfa fields and in between large hay bales, it was simply what I was used to.

Years later while serving in the SDANG and building my Four I took my Taylorcraft extensively over MT and ID, into all of the aforementioned ID backcountry strips as well as Dewey Moore and two private strips all on 6.00x6 tires. The RV15 should exceed the 182 and Ts capabilities, tire size notwithstanding.

It’s all what you’re used to…
V/R
Smokey

Smokey - since you clearly have a ton of "been there, done that" experience, perhaps you would take a minute to provide a description of the performance differences you've noted as a function of increases in tire size?

As a guy who has a Luscombe 8C/E on 6.00's and a Glasair Sportsman on 6.00's I'm not sure I want to fly my airplanes into places where those tires won't go, but maybe I'm missing some performance enhancement that only slightly larger tires will bring? I'm very open to learning...

 

[smokyray]

Size matters…

Hey Mark,
Over the years I’ve been blessed to own sone cool airplanes and visit sone even cooler places in them, learning much in the process.
Flying off grid requires a different mindset for certain. Tire size for the terrain for me is based on surface conditions. When Byron Shinn contracted Good Year to design a GA tire in the 1930’s the 6.00-6 was a quantum leap forward especially when 80% of US runways were turf or dirt. I found this tire to be nearly perfect for any hard packed surface even small gravel with no issues.

Since RVs use 5” tires I found frequenting the ID backcountry in my RV4, the 3.80-150-5 a boon in capability comparatively. However comma, the softer the surface the more “surface area” your tires require. That’s why the AK pilots run their AK bushwheels with low psi to operate on sandbars, large rocks, snow and water assist landings.
My Maule M5 I had 7.00x6 mains which I found sufficient for every hard packed surface excluding soft sand, large gravel and mud. In AK I checked out an F16 friend in his Maule M4, his waterfront home on the Kenai with a large beach for a runway. Reading tides, sand consistency and other conditions helped me figure out a good psi for the M4’s 8.50-6 tires.

I think it’s safe to say the 6.00-6 is a great trade off between aerodynamic drag and utility, pick your landing spot carefully and I think you’ll be well served.

V/R
Smokey



Bill S. flies a nice UK RV14 with Sky Designs 6.00-6 wheels, tires and carbon pants for turf field operations.

 

[Pilot135pd]

If I built a high wing monoplane, it would be for sightseeing and camping at grass strips, and would need good cargo capacity and 4 seats.

You described exactly what I have. 1489 lbs useful load, 8.50 tires, stalls around 32mph and has 4 seats. Door open flying is like flying a helicopter !!

The first 3 pictures are of my plane and the last 2 are for you to see 4 BIG jumpers and also how simple door open flights are comfortable too. Same plane just the last one has the old radial engine with less horsepower than mine.