What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Introducing the RV-15!

To The Vans Team,

Congratulation on designing a great high wing concept airplane. I posted in VAF that the only plane I want to build after my RV8 is a high wing airplane that has the Vans pedigree and can fly about as fast as the RV7. People grow up flying the high wing Cessna and find if easy to get in and out but I thought the Cessna flies too slowly and this was one of the reason I build an experimental. Having the capability for landing on sandbars is great for some SuperCub clones but I, and probably many more, would be happy to land on rougher pavement runways without the fear of ripping out wheelpants, or damaging the airplane.

I also like seeing the world below from the plane so designing the full plexiglass doors was a great idea. It reminds me of driving my Jeep sans the doors. You get the entirely different experience. I hope the RV15 has the high XC speed that will get me to my destination fast, let me enjoy the view from above, and let me land at the remote air strips with less drama.
 
Last edited:
I’ll be the first one to say what we are all fearing - Greg, Scott, feel free to prove me wrong.

I do not believe this plane will be at Osh. The impromptu videos were released because they were caught at the airport in the plane. I do not think that the plane was meant to see the light of day yet. I think that there will certainly be refinements and changes to what we have seen before it is finalized.

All credit to vans, but privacy is gone now that everybody has a video camera in their pocket.

I wasn’t impressed with the aesthetics with the first video, but the big tires grew on me and I’m not as unimpressed with 60 seconds more video. I am ready and willing to be thoroughly impressed when they tell me it’s 2+2 and 210hp. Paint and fairings and I could be drooling too……..,,but I think that will be next year.

No paint on the test prototype. Other than some grey on the cowl etc for protection that is.

We'll make the call about whether it goes to OSH or not sometime in the next several days. If it's ready and we're ready, it'll go. If it's not, it won't. Most important is getting and doing it right.

And, we knew it was likely that some photos would leak. Not really avoidable anymore in this day and age, just the way it works. Dang kids and their fancy camera phones! :D We've been shooting video and photos while we've been testing, we're excited about the airplane. The "looks" will change some before the final design is done. The team's been working working working hard, and still is.
 
If Scrapy [sic]and Flight Chops made it last year, there’s no reason they can’t get this prototype to fly off the 40 and make OSH. They could throw some of their team on it and get fairings and even paint in if they wanted to..

The 40 hours is for Experimental, Amateur Built. There's an excellent chance that the RV-15 engineering test prototype is licensed as Experimental, R&D, subject to a different set of rules.

As for paint and fairings, why? The RV-15 has already generated overwhelming interest, and cosmetics at this point would only take time away from further development and delay getting the plane ready for kit production.
 
Patience

I followed the 12 forum from when the RV12 was first announced in 2006 as a project through to kit availability in 2008. I ordered on day one and was willing to accept early adopter challenges.

Interestingly, early feedback on the 12 and 15 included uncomplimentary remarks about appearance. The 12 turned out to be a great aeroplane for its designed user base. I’m sure the same will happen with the RV15.

I wouldn’t assume any kit availability for at least a year.
 
I can't quite tell...looks a bit like a stabilator vs. traditional horizontal stab. and elevator. Anyone else see that?

And Johnson Bar for Flaps on cabin ceiling?

excited!!!

Good observation. I can't quite tell either. I can't see a hinge line or a separate elevator. Notice the "slots" in the fuselage skin at the inboard end of the stabilizer in a couple of photos. There must be some pivoting there or clearance for possibly an adjustment of angle of incidence. But I'm kind of leaning toward a stabilator.
 
Struts make a wing very strong and very light. A passthrough spar would take up a lot of headspace and make removing the wings 10 times harder.

Van was able to make the landing gear all but disappear for speeds under 250 mph... maybe he will do the same for the struts.

I really don't expect the top speed to exceed 140kts. with a landing speed of no less than 38kts. I hope I am wrong on both ends.
I think you are very close - not a lot different than a Rans S-21 with a 180 Titan engine.
 
Average age

It would be interesting to have a poll on what the ages will be for RV-15 kit purchasers/builders. Also, have they previous experience with unimproved strips and owned an aircraft designed for this.

Cheers, Hans
 
For me, I'm only just curious about the high wing option for other reasons...very little to do with the "back country" angle.
I don't live in an area with huge amounts of public lands that would likely be open to playing around on so there's that. Otherwise I would love the ability for very low level stuff.... maybe a little camping or hiking...would be awesome.

As it is, and given where I am, I'm interested in the high wing and all it brings to the party.... doors, opening windows, easier entry, shade and a rain canopy, and overhead..... I'd put street tires on that sucker!
 
It would be interesting to have a poll on what the ages will be for RV-15 kit purchasers/builders. Also, have they previous experience with unimproved strips and owned an aircraft designed for this.

Cheers, Hans

Can't speak for anyone else, but for our family data point... Mid-40's, own a late 50's model C180 which is threatening to eat us alive maintenance and insurance-wise, built a -7 and love the speed and handling but hate how cramped it feels on long flights and how limited the baggage is. The best news we could get is to find out that the -15 performs even remotely like a 180 on backcountry strips, and builds and handles like an RV. So far from what little we can see, there is no disappointment here.
 
This is the first time I’m excited about a new airplane in a long long time. 4 seats is a must, but to my untrained eye, I think that is in the cards. 4+2 with a six cylinder option would be even better (for me).
 
I think the timing of the first kits will be excellent for our completion of our 10.

Anne has my order for the empennage ;)
 
It would be interesting to have a poll on what the ages will be for RV-15 kit purchasers/builders. Also, have they previous experience with unimproved strips and owned an aircraft designed for this.

Currently 33 and building an RV8. Along with my family and current building, I'll be tied up for at least 10 years. Not much interested in wheels, I'd love to have something on floats. The back country landing options in my neighborhood are beautiful lakes or thick pine forest, so wheels aren't much use to me away from airports. Never owned a floatplane, but did fly them professionally for a bit, ~250hrs in Cessna 180/185s on floats.
 
My teenagers and I will be building the -15. Hurry up Vans while they are still teenagers! :)
 
It would be interesting to have a poll on what the ages will be for RV-15 kit purchasers/builders. Also, have they previous experience with unimproved strips and owned an aircraft designed for this.

Cheers, Hans

I'll give you a data point. I'm in my mid 40's, lived in Alaska for 25 years, currently own a Cessna 170 that has been as far west as Platinum Alaska and as far east as OSH and has seen a multitude of 700 ft strips and one way no go arounds.

I probably won't build an RV-15 as I'm only a year out on a 4-place bearhawk/540, but I really like the idea of a Cessna 170 style RV.

As someone that's been around, here are some of my observations:

1. It needs a decent cargo door before production. The cessna is great, except everything needs to get fitted through the front door. The bearhawk/maule let me load full size mountain bikes into the airplane.

2. I don't care as much about speed. I can be in amazing back country in 3 hours. Getting an airplane that can do it in 2:15 doesn't matter nearly as much as STOL ability and cargo.

On the other end of the spectrum when I flew the 170 to osh I was talking to an RV pilot that was going on and on and on and on and on and on about how fast his airplane is. I just nodded. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I bought my wife, a cooler full of Bohdizafa, a small BBQ grill (that I didn't use in osh, but other campsites), camera gear, chairs, tent you can stand up in, inflatable mattress, ham radio gear, 2 weeks worth of clothes, etc....

3. Big tires are insurance and AOA. If you hit a huge gopher hole/rock/stump you will for sure fair better with the bushwheels. In a bearhawk you can either land faster, bang the tailwheel first, or run big draggy tires.

If this ends up being a 170 (which is a really a 2+2 airplane) that has a baggage door, that can do the same things but go 140kts, then it will be a winner. Those that expect even more probably don't understand the compromises that would be required.

schu
 
If this ends up being a 170 (which is a really a 2+2 airplane) that has a baggage door, that can do the same things but go 140kts, then it will be a winner.

Interesting that in all these discussions, nobody has brought up the GlaStar Sportsman 2+2. At first glance, it appears to meet Schu's list other than the baggage door isn't all that big, and that the kits are more expensive.

But you've got to know that the folks at Van's have done their homework, and will exploit lessons learned from the engineering prototype.
 
Interesting that in all these discussions, nobody has brought up the GlaStar Sportsman 2+2. At first glance, it appears to meet Schu's list other than the baggage door isn't all that big, and that the kits are more expensive.

But you've got to know that the folks at Van's have done their homework, and will exploit lessons learned from the engineering prototype.

Someone has, starting with post #124.
 
Looks amazing !

After putting my 9A away Thursday I sat in the grass for 30 minutes and watched the RV 15 do takeoff and landings at Mulino (4S9). They looked to be testing the ground handling the he did several touch and goes and stop and goes. The tail wheel was off in what appeared to be about 20 yards and he was airborne in another 50-60. Sitting next to the Van's 9A it appeared to be a little bigger. It looks like Van's has another winner !
 
Solid Rivets or Pulled Rivets, Flush or Proud on exterior, I can't see in video?

Wow, Rudi, a name from the past…

Got that right! Been wondering where he's been. Welcome back Rudi!

I heard that it’s glued together. Very aerodynamic, laminar flow. ��

For those that don't know Rudi, he made AMAZING video's of his RV7 building itself....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuQNhMiUefI


sorry for the thread drift...... but it's worth it!...:) Watch the video.

He, He, I am still around. Having built a couple of RV's I really liked how quickly the RV12 built with pulled Rivets. Still have my RV7 and RV10 and enjoying both, different missions. This RV15 is growing on me.

The reason I ask is that the RV15 Cockpit video show some pulled rivets on the black glare shield but solid rivets on the "A pillar". The exterior videos are not clear enough to see what rivets they used in the exterior skin, hence my question.
 
Last edited:
If this ends up being a 170 (which is a really a 2+2 airplane) that has a baggage door, that can do the same things but go 140kts, then it will be a winner. Those that expect even more probably don't understand the compromises that would be required.

schu

And I think that’s the right answer. It has to be different than the others somehow or what is the point. The hardest part of designing an airplane to sell is figuring out what the market will respond to. Pretty good stol and great cruise will differentiate it.

I also wondered about a baggage door. I suppose there is no need for one on a test aircraft - they want to get it in the air and learn from it asap. Or, perhaps they decided to trade that against weight and argue that the huge main doors, and they are huge, are just as good. Guess you will find out at Osh.
 
And I think that’s the right answer. It has to be different than the others somehow or what is the point. The hardest part of designing an airplane to sell is figuring out what the market will respond to. Pretty good stol and great cruise will differentiate it.

I also wondered about a baggage door. I suppose there is no need for one on a test aircraft - they want to get it in the air and learn from it asap. Or, perhaps they decided to trade that against weight and argue that the huge main doors, and they are huge, are just as good. Guess you will find out at Osh.

They could just paint it on there like the
Blueprint airplane I have seen. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Boomer
 
All I can say is that the thing will have some really huge wheel pants! I bet they will be a b'''''ch to get aligned properly!
 
Just a thought

All I can say is that the thing will have some really huge wheel pants! I bet they will be a b'''''ch to get aligned properly!

I have a feeling that those who are running wheel pants are probably not the same guys and gals who are running large tires. The guys who wear pants, probably all have smaller props too for more ground clearance. (pun intended)
 
Last edited:
There is really no point in Van's building a high wing go-fast airplane. This airplane necessarily will have to be MAINLY for other than paved surfaces. That doesn't mean it has to be a Carbon Cub replacement, but it needs to fit somewhere around where the Sportsman 2+2 does, or like a Super 170B or better. The need for 4 seatbelts is pretty paramount to this. Putting in all this work but making it 2 seats only will sell less airplanes because a huge portion of the customer base will choose the extra capability of a Carbon Cub or MOAC over that middle ground metal RV. It has to at least be a 2+2 config. Remember the Glastar started out with 2 seats and they didn't sell very many. IF they had started out as the 2+2, they probably would have been much more successful overall.
 
There is really no point in Van's building a high wing go-fast airplane. This airplane necessarily will have to be MAINLY for other than paved surfaces. That doesn't mean it has to be a Carbon Cub replacement, but it needs to fit somewhere around where the Sportsman 2+2 does, or like a Super 170B or better. The need for 4 seatbelts is pretty paramount to this. Putting in all this work but making it 2 seats only will sell less airplanes because a huge portion of the customer base will choose the extra capability of a Carbon Cub or MOAC over that middle ground metal RV. It has to at least be a 2+2 config. Remember the Glastar started out with 2 seats and they didn't sell very many. IF they had started out as the 2+2, they probably would have been much more successful overall.

That's because in real back country work, you have to carry round trip fuel and a bunch of gear. Usually 50lbs a person and a whole lot more if it's going to be used hunting.

There is a GIANT hole in the experimental market that nothing fills, which is what a Cessna 180 is capable of, which I'm sure could be improved upon.

The 2 seat and even the 2+2 infants market already has a lot of choices.
 
That's because in real back country work, you have to carry round trip fuel and a bunch of gear. Usually 50lbs a person and a whole lot more if it's going to be used hunting.

There is a GIANT hole in the experimental market that nothing fills, which is what a Cessna 180 is capable of, which I'm sure could be improved upon.

The 2 seat and even the 2+2 infants market already has a lot of choices.

https://bushliner.com/cyclone/

I haven’t heard much from these guys.. experimental 180/185
 
RV15 to Osh?

So will the RV 15 make it to Osh?

I guess if the 40 hours are not flown off, they could get a ferry permit.
But if maintanence is done at night, then daylight hours can be used to complete the test program. They might just make it.
 
That's because in real back country work, you have to carry round trip fuel and a bunch of gear. Usually 50lbs a person and a whole lot more if it's going to be used hunting.

There is a GIANT hole in the experimental market that nothing fills, which is what a Cessna 180 is capable of, which I'm sure could be improved upon.

The 2 seat and even the 2+2 infants market already has a lot of choices.

I agree, but I simply don’t think Van’s is stepping far enough outside its comfort zone to do what a lot of us really want. A 4 seat and bags 230-350hp tailwheel. I hope that maybe an evolution of the RV-15 would get there someday, but I don’t think this is what we have coming in the -15.
 
It’s a great starting point

A super 170B like plane will command a good share of the market. Having recently rebuilt a Skywagon, it will be interesting to see if the RV-15 will suit my needs, I speculate not. My hope is the RV-16 is that step……..But it’s all speculation at this point not having seen the 15 up close or have any specs on it. If it stalls in the 30’s, goes 170 plus and can carry 1000 lbs when outfitted, I could be building again sooner than I thought.
 
Stalling at 30 and going 170 would be amazing, but next to impossible. Stalling at 40 and going 150 would still be better than anything else out there.
 
I agree, but I simply don’t think Van’s is stepping far enough outside its comfort zone to do what a lot of us really want. A 4 seat and bags 230-350hp tailwheel. I hope that maybe an evolution of the RV-15 would get there someday, but I don’t think this is what we have coming in the -15.

I’m sure there are people who REALLY want that. But how many? How big of a market is there for a $250k+ airplane vs a 2 seater that performs well that you can get into the air for half that. It’s a big investment in development of the airplane and productionizing a kit. These are the internal debates that must have gone on at Vans. I’m sure there were as many different opinions there as we have here, except the stakes are way higher for them than for us keyboard warriors. It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall for those. Anyway all these questions will be answered in the next couple of yrs. It’s going to be fascinating to watch
 
I’m sure there are people who REALLY want that. But how many? How big of a market is there for a $250k+ airplane vs a 2 seater that performs well that you can get into the air for half that. It’s a big investment in development of the airplane and productionizing a kit. These are the internal debates that must have gone on at Vans. I’m sure there were as many different opinions there as we have here, except the stakes are way higher for them than for us keyboard warriors. It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall for those. Anyway all these questions will be answered in the next couple of yrs. It’s going to be fascinating to watch

Me for one. The Bearhawk 5 seems to be doing well so I’d say there is some type of market. Whether it’s large enough to sustain a 4-place 15 is open to debate. I’m not an engineer, but I’m wondering if they could design the 15 as an initial 2 or 2+2 but from the get go have it baked into the design to be able to easily stretch it into a legit 4-place if they feel the time and market is right?
 
Last edited:
I’m sure there are people who REALLY want that. But how many? How big of a market is there for a $250k+ airplane vs a 2 seater that performs well that you can get into the air for half that. It’s a big investment in development of the airplane and productionizing a kit.

The RV10 is definitely outside of my build budget and operating expense. There is a reason there are so many 2-seat experimentals built. When adding a 4-seat + high gross weight + adding a 540 size engine, this isn't cheap to build. It is tough justifying building a $250K class airplane. At this price point, it may be cheaper just buying a used 170 and adding the STOL leading edge.

If I build another airplane, it won't be a slow CarbonCub or other SuperCub clone. I want to travel XC efficiently like the traditional 2-seater RVs that Vans offers and I want to land in other backcountry airstrips and not worry about the durability of the RV8 landing gear.
 
Stalling at 30 and going 170 would be amazing, but next to impossible. Stalling at 40 and going 150 would still be better than anything else out there.

My Skywagon does that now, actually I can’t exactly pinpoint how slow it stalls, but my best guess is the high 30’s. The airspeed indicator is all but useless at that range. It’s 4 way box confirmed at 172 mph (SL) and I have a lot of airframe cleanup to do, hoping for 180 (and it’s not a super fast Skywagon)

To me the 15 looks like a smaller version of the Skywagon, so let’s extend the wings and put a 540 up front and see what it’ll do.
 
Me for one. The Bearhawk 5 seems to be doing well so I’d say there is some type of market. Whether it’s large enough to sustain a 4-place 15 is open to debate. I’m not an engineer, but I’m wondering if they could design the 15 as an initial 2 or 2+2 but from the get go have it baked into the design to be able to easily stretch it into a legit 4-place if they feel the time and market is right?

I don’t think so, not without severe compromises. A 4 place needs a big engine (usually 6 cyl) and a bunch more wing area. You have to start from scratch. Compare the specs of a 7 vs a 10. Bearhawk is a great airplane but is it built in RV numbers? I don’t know.
 
My Skywagon does that now, actually I can’t exactly pinpoint how slow it stalls, but my best guess is the high 30’s. The airspeed indicator is all but useless at that range. It’s 4 way box confirmed at 172 mph (SL) and I have a lot of airframe cleanup to do, hoping for 180 (and it’s not a super fast Skywagon)

To me the 15 looks like a smaller version of the Skywagon, so let’s extend the wings and put a 540 up front and see what it’ll do.

Ok high 30s is quite different than 30. At that speed range each mph of stall speed reduction is really hard to get. But having said that high 30s to 170 is damned impressive. I didn’t know it was that good.
 
The RV10 is definitely outside of my build budget and operating expense. There is a reason there are so many 2-seat experimentals built. When adding a 4-seat + high gross weight + adding a 540 size engine, this isn't cheap to build. It is tough justifying building a $250K class airplane. At this price point, it may be cheaper just buying a used 170 and adding the STOL leading edge.

Btw I priced some carbon cubs today for fun. When I regained consciousness…. One of them was $399k, slightly used. So considering carbon cubs and rv15s to be in the same market segment seems a bit iffy.
 
From top speed to stall, 4:1 is fantastic and rarely achieved. Van has accomplished that with the short wing RVs. I doubt that a "back country" style aircraft is going to do that.

For a stall speed of mid 30s, I would expect a top speed of less than 140.
 
From top speed to stall, 4:1 is fantastic and rarely achieved. Van has accomplished that with the short wing RVs. I doubt that a "back country" style aircraft is going to do that.

For a stall speed of mid 30s, I would expect a top speed of less than 140.

What is the market size of people that really need a stall speed in the 30's? Van's said it was going to be back country capable, not a STOL contest winner.

I'd love to see a 170 like plane with the 210 hp IO-390. It would be an excellent 2+2 plane with great climb performance. I wish I had 210 hp in my current 170 instead of the 145 I might be getting from my O-300. A number of people have been upgrading 170's to an 180 hp motor and they rave about them.
 
Ok high 30s is quite different than 30. At that speed range each mph of stall speed reduction is really hard to get. But having said that high 30s to 170 is damned impressive. I didn’t know it was that good.

It is for sure, my original post said “in the 30’s”. Anything with a 3 in the front, 0-9 in the back would be good, obviously the lower the better. Low 40’s would still be good. With only a 390 up front, it will be interesting to see the top speed. Honestly, the top speed doesn’t mean much to me. My plane might go that fast, which has its uses, but burning 18 GPH to do it isn’t for me. Burning 9 GPH and seeing 135 mph is where I’ll end up running most of the time. Having the ability to lift 1500 lbs off in a short order or when running light, down to 150’ takeoff roll put a lot of utility at one’s disposal. I’m hoping the 15 will prove to improve upon that benchmark.
 
So will the RV 15 make it to Osh?

I guess if the 40 hours are not flown off, they could get a ferry permit.
But if maintanence is done at night, then daylight hours can be used to complete the test program. They might just make it.

Seems like they'd be risking a lot in trying to fly their engineering prototype from Oregon to Wisconsin and back. That's gotta be a pretty stripped-down airplane and that trip entails a lot of potential terrain, and a lot of potential weather. Maybe they'll truck it, if it makes the trip at all.
 
Design Considerations

Seems like they'd be risking a lot in trying to fly their engineering prototype from Oregon to Wisconsin and back. That's gotta be a pretty stripped-down airplane and that trip entails a lot of potential terrain, and a lot of potential weather. Maybe they'll truck it, if it makes the trip at all.

One of the design considerations may be to have the wings relatively easy to remove. Just for those times someone lands and don't want to attempt a take off again....
 
With the temporary fuel tank inside the fuse, pulling the wings would be relatively simple if they were to truck it. I’m still betting it does not make it. I think that showing what they have now, while the design is still floating around somewhat, and lllloooonnnggg before kits could be ordered would be counterintuitive.
 
With the temporary fuel tank inside the fuse, pulling the wings would be relatively simple if they were to truck it. I’m still betting it does not make it. I think that showing what they have now, while the design is still floating around somewhat, and lllloooonnnggg before kits could be ordered would be counterintuitive.

As long as we are engaged in pure speculation here, I think it will be there.

Think of a couple things that would happen if they had the plane (or at the minimum a fuse mockup) there. 1. generate useful feedback on the design. 2 generate sales potential contacts.
 
Back
Top