What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

Updated tail (mothership)

DeltaRomeo

DeltaRomeo

doug reeves: unfluencer
Staff member
(mothership)
“We’re hard at work refining the RV-15 prototype, and our latest update features a new revision to the tail. With favorable Oregon weather this week, we’re ready for more flight testing!
Some of the recent changes include:
•Flap handle moved from an overhead position
to a traditional floor mount
•Aerodynamic and control system changes to the aileron
•Evaluating a conventional Horizontal Stabilizer and Elevator
As we continue testing the RV-15, what aspects are you eager to learn more about?"
Screenshot 2024-09-30 at 4.06.46 PM.png
Screenshot 2024-09-30 at 4.06.07 PM.png
 
I am glad they are looking at the conventional tail instead of the Piper Cherokee anti-servo tail
 
"As we continue testing the RV-15, what aspects are you eager to learn more about?"

The premier of the order form...:sneaky:
 
Curious on more details of the tail change.
I am sure Vans spent a lot of thought on the original tail when they decided to use a full flying one with servo tab. What was not understood in the original decision that forced a change back to “conventional”?

I really wish it was up about a foot higher thou to avoid bushes.

Wait, is that the rv14 tail? Reusing existing parts?
 
Im curious what is the estimated weight of the completed Airframe ONLY, Firewall back?

This would help give an idea of what engine/Prop options are available to the experimental homebuilder.
 
interesting that some pretty major changes continue to be made when getting it into production would seem to be a high priority...
I have thoughts but won't speculate.
 
blaplante said:
interesting that some pretty major changes continue to be made when getting it into production would seem to be a high priority...
I have thoughts but won't speculate.
Click to expand...
From the Kitplanes writeup on this topic:
Recall that Van’s was adamant that the first article was not really a prototype in the normal sense—because we all think a prototype leads directly to a production version. Instead, the first RV-15 was considered an engineering mule by the design staff, with changes always expected.

Finally, it’s also worth remembering that the RV-15 you see here is still the first article. Van’s says it will still make significant changes to the fuselage in the next iteration—moving the wing and engine—that are not carried out here.
Click to expand...
 
I don't recall any major changes in the 7, 8, 9, 10, or 12 like changing the type of tail, moving the wing, etc. But those were low wing evolution planes, so some credit there. I'm fine with 'doing it right'. I'm more wondering how did it happen to be done wrong 2+ years ago? High wing planes aren't exactly some mission to mars cutting edge design challenge. Lest you misread me, I'm a huge supporter of Van's. Lots of things are done really well!
 
blaplante said:
High wing planes aren't exactly some mission to mars cutting edge design challenge.
Click to expand...
Well... don't forget that when Cessna designed their most recent single, the eventual production version had a different wing, different engine, and a bunch of other changes from the original proof of concept airframe!

IMG_4212.JPG
cessna-skycatcher-162_31932.gif
 
The other engineering deviation from the tried and true was the gear.
Curious if there are any plans to simplify the gear?
 
cvairwerks said:
Don't think anything was really wrong, but rather it didn't have the performance that they wanted.
Click to expand...
Agreed. "Wrong" in a proof-of-concept prototype is a word that probably doesn't exist. Hmmmmmmm.........how can we make this better? Maybe we could change........ See post #12. There are likely quite a few changes that are going to happen before THERE! is the word that will describes a good and, perhaps, permanent change.
 
PilotjohnS said:
The other engineering deviation from the tried and true was the gear.
Curious if there are any plans to simplify the gear?
Click to expand...
Everything I've heard about the gear is that the pilots love it. Absolutely love it. It may get tweaked but I'm certain the concept will remain.
 
blaplante said:
I don't recall any major changes in the 7, 8, 9, 10, or 12 like changing the type of tail, moving the wing, etc. But those were low wing evolution planes, so some credit there. I'm fine with 'doing it right'. I'm more wondering how did it happen to be done wrong 2+ years ago? High wing planes aren't exactly some mission to mars cutting edge design challenge. Lest you misread me, I'm a huge supporter of Van's. Lots of things are done really well!
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind, there is some chance that they will not like these modifications, and will go back to the original horizontal stabilizer. We just don’t know, but we do need to give them the space required to deliver the best possible product to us.
 
PilotjohnS said:
I really wish it was up about a foot higher thou to avoid bushes.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Rans S-21 taildragger. That's a real bush harvester and the horizontal stab position almost makes it a no-go for bush flying. I twitch every time I see one parked. So the Rans would probably be better as a trike (yuk). Same for the Glasair Sportsman (double yuk with the swept back vertical). They make the RV-15 tail look great for the bush. In fact the RV-15 tail is more like many of the other bush plane tails like Huskies and Super Cubs and it doesn't bother me in the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top