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!

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.

Bearhawk has a 4 and 5 place with 180 and 185 levels of useful load *AND* a baggage door that you can pass a bike through. They carry 72 gallons of fuel too.
 
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.

I don't know much about airplane manufacturing, but I wonder about the value of publicly displaying an engineering prototype. It doesn't seem that the potential buyers would be able to glean much useful information about the airplane kit that they might want to buy when it's available in the months or years to come.
 
I don't know much about airplane manufacturing, but I wonder about the value of publicly displaying an engineering prototype. It doesn't seem that the potential buyers would be able to glean much useful information about the airplane kit that they might want to buy when it's available in the months or years to come.

Let’s see….there are now 26 pages on this thread alone - do you think folks are interested in seeing something - ANYTHING - related to the RV-15? If the airplane is there, I suspect the Van’s tent will be mobbed all week- and one or two of those folks might actually want to buy another model….. it’s called marketing! :)
 
I pity the grass around the RV-15.

It was a good grass....



Let’s see….there are now 26 pages on this thread alone - do you think folks are interested in seeing something - ANYTHING - related to the RV-15? If the airplane is there, I suspect the Van’s tent will be mobbed all week- and one or two of those folks might actually want to buy another model….. it’s called marketing! :)
 
Let’s see….there are now 26 pages on this thread alone - do you think folks are interested in seeing something - ANYTHING - related to the RV-15? If the airplane is there, I suspect the Van’s tent will be mobbed all week- and one or two of those folks might actually want to buy another model….. it’s called marketing! :)

I understand the marketing aspect and don't disagree at all. I think they should truck that plane out there...it will add to the hype, both there and here. I'll be interested to see the threads that are posted here about configuration assumptions made based on looking at the engineering prototype. I'll be even more interested to see how Greg Hughes answers the myriad questions he's going to get.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note about the C170 and C180... A few people have mentioned a very low stall speed for these planes. However, that's not real. The IAS is a lot lower than TAS at high angles of attack, and that's the cause. The people are probably reporting IAS and it's really bogus.

For example, my C180 stalls at 55 mph at gross weight and sea level. according to the owner's manual. The C170, being lighter, would stall around 51 mph or so.

Dave
 
Just a quick note about the C170 and C180... A few people have mentioned a very low stall speed for these planes. However, that's not real. The IAS is a lot lower than TAS at high angles of attack, and that's the cause. The people are probably reporting IAS and it's really bogus.

For example, my C180 stalls at 55 mph at gross weight and sea level. according to the owner's manual. The C170, being lighter, would stall around 51 mph or so.

Dave

What’s the numbers on a 180 with Wing X, Sportsman STOL kit and Robertson STOL kit on a Skywagon?
 
Bearhawk has a 4 and 5 place with 180 and 185 levels of useful load *AND* a baggage door that you can pass a bike through. They carry 72 gallons of fuel too.

True, but those are terrible kits to build; aside from major sub-assemblies, all is left to the builder, with near zero direction on finishing. I have yo admit though, what's there on the QB kits is pretty well done... but you're essentially scratch building the rest.
 
As of this morning...

As of this morning, she was still flight testing at Aurora - and heading west, not east. But boy does she climb!
 
What’s the numbers on a 180 with Wing X, Sportsman STOL kit and Robertson STOL kit on a Skywagon?

Not the 180, but for the 170B there's a Sportsman installer advertising improving from 58/121 mph landing/cruise to 43/130. I think that's with an upgrade to at least 180hp, since most of the forum posts I've seen roughly corroborate that. You can't get a WingX on a 170B in the US so I didn't look as much.

Personally, I'd be pretty happy with 43/130 in a "4 seater"/2+2 with 800-900 useful, ~3hr endurance (depending on the specimen), and the ability to land on grass strips (not rocky wastelands and sandbars). I could get that pre-built on TAP for ~$200-250k or spend minimum $60k on the plane and another $50-150k to upgrade the engine, wing, and avionics...or I could wait for Van's to do it better, cheaper, and get the opportunity to get my hands dirty and make it exactly what I want. Luckily, my wife also prefers the latter option :D
 
Nah

Well, having read all of the above, I think I will stick with my RV-6A project because:

1. The RV-6A goes faster than the RV-15
2. The RV-6A roll rate is quicker than the RV-15
3. It is not yet finished

:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Well, having read all of the above, I think I will stick with my RV-6A project because:

1. The RV-6A goes faster than the RV-15
2. The RV-6A roll rate is quicker than the RV-15
3. It is not yet finished

:D:D:D

Besides, you’re in Australia, which means that the wing on the RV-6 is already upside down relative to the factory…. :D
 
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.


Maybe a silly question, but what is stopping Vans from having a "close to, but non-flying" display model at Osh? Seems that would make more sense to me.
 
Not the 180, but for the 170B there's a Sportsman installer advertising improving from 58/121 mph landing/cruise to 43/130. I think that's with an upgrade to at least 180hp, since most of the forum posts I've seen roughly corroborate that. You can't get a WingX on a 170B in the US so I didn't look as much.

Personally, I'd be pretty happy with 43/130 in a "4 seater"/2+2 with 800-900 useful, ~3hr endurance (depending on the specimen), and the ability to land on grass strips (not rocky wastelands and sandbars). I could get that pre-built on TAP for ~$200-250k or spend minimum $60k on the plane and another $50-150k to upgrade the engine, wing, and avionics...or I could wait for Van's to do it better, cheaper, and get the opportunity to get my hands dirty and make it exactly what I want. Luckily, my wife also prefers the latter option :D

If your mission is "grass strips", why bother with anything slow? It's not needed. Get something that goes fast. The whole RV line 3-14 will land on a nice grass strip and you don't have to deal with the 130 cruise.
 
Bearhawk has a 4 and 5 place with 180 and 185 levels of useful load *AND* a baggage door that you can pass a bike through. They carry 72 gallons of fuel too.

Ya, but the 180/185 is a wildly nicer flying airplane. Faster to, all things equal.

And as mentioned above, nothing at all like a van's kit.
 
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

Massive market for C180's and 185's. I'd take a new RV(180clone) for 250k over a 1966 beat to **** real C180 for 200-250k on the used market. Pretty good market for modded 170b's as well.
If this can do everything a 170b with the stol kit and 180hp, then they'll have a really good airplane.
Hopefully we can get a 180 eventually.

https://bushliner.com/cyclone/

I haven’t heard much from these guys.. experimental 180/185

Ya, I wish they actually produced kits. I think there's less than 5 of those in existence.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. If the horizontal tail is indeed a stabilator, those don't typically hold up too well for acro.

I know the T-18 was. But that was the exception.

Too bad the F4, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 35, etc. won’t hold up too well for acro! :p
 
When I said "TYPICALLY" I meant the type of aircraft we build. Military fighters are far from this.
 
Last edited:
Massive market for C180's and 185's. I'd take a new RV(180clone) for 250k over a 1966 beat to **** real C180 for 200-250k on the used market.


Honest question (since I know nothing about that market or branch of GA)...

How much of that market is private owners (i.e. non commercial use)? I see $200k listed above for a 50 year old single-engine piston plane and figure there must be some sort of business case (tours, hunting trips, remote resupply, rental, etc). I can't imagine too many people looking to build a four-seater in that class purely for their own use, as it seems a somewhat tightly-bounded mission set.
 
If your mission is "grass strips", why bother with anything slow? It's not needed. Get something that goes fast. The whole RV line 3-14 will land on a nice grass strip and you don't have to deal with the 130 cruise.

This may sound strange, but my #1 interest here is ease of entry and exit, with #2 being seating comfort (legroom, headroom, width). I suspect I'm not alone in this group. We're all getting older, and for those of us who buy 2XL shirts and size 14 shoes, folding into little cockpits gets worse every year.
 
Honest question (since I know nothing about that market or branch of GA)...

How much of that market is private owners (i.e. non commercial use)? I see $200k listed above for a 50 year old single-engine piston plane and figure there must be some sort of business case (tours, hunting trips, remote resupply, rental, etc). I can't imagine too many people looking to build a four-seater in that class purely for their own use, as it seems a somewhat tightly-bounded mission set.

Unlike cars, airplanes are a commodity. The market may rise and fall a bit ( I think a dip in is the near future), but airplanes retain value. As an owner you are only the proprietor of the machine, it will be passed on to a new owner
 
How much of that market is private owners (i.e. non commercial use)? I see $200k listed above for a 50 year old single-engine piston plane and figure there must be some sort of business case (tours, hunting trips, remote resupply, rental, etc). I can't imagine too many people looking to build a four-seater in that class purely for their own use, as it seems a somewhat tightly-bounded mission set.
Take away the STOL/Bush capabilities and you're describing an RV-10, which could easily cost that to build these days. It's a lot of coin, but at least building it you get the option to pay it out as you go vs. all at once... But there are those who buy RV-10's outright once they're finished. Different people have different definitions of what they consider "affordable."
 
Price break Point

Take away the STOL/Bush capabilities and you're describing an RV-10, which could easily cost that to build these days. It's a lot of coin, but at least building it you get the option to pay it out as you go vs. all at once... But there are those who buy RV-10's outright once they're finished. Different people have different definitions of what they consider "affordable."

I think there is a price break point thou. I don't think many people will be taking a $1M Cirrius equivalent into the back country; just like you don't see many Mercedes G50 wagons off-roading. However, there are those who have worked their whole life to amass wealth, that would be comfortable taking a 200K airplane, that they only spent 150K building, into the back country.

I think anything that replaces the Cessna 170/180 or 172/182 in the experimental world would be a big hit. I even see this becoming a certified airplane in 10 years. I say this because in order to certify a new plane, one needs deep pockets; Vans could do this using sales of the kits as cash flow to fund certification.
 
I cant think of a supersonic fighter that did not have a stabilator.

Actually, that goes right back to the X-1 and other experiments in the late 1940s exploring transsonic flow and the "sound barrier". Going near and through Mach 1, the center of pressure moves aft on the wing, so the horizontal needs to push down harder to balance the airplane. Multiple pilots lost their lives diving WW2 fighters towards the speed of sound and then getting a nose-down tendency that the elevators were not powerful enough to overcome ("Mach tuck"). So the X-1 had a movable horizontal stabilizer.

But getting back on topic...

Massive market for C180's and 185's.
Honest question ... How much of that market is private owners ... ?

That's a really interesting question. I wonder what fraction of 180s and 185s out there are used for commercial purposes.
 
This may sound strange, but my #1 interest here is ease of entry and exit, with #2 being seating comfort (legroom, headroom, width). I suspect I'm not alone in this group. We're all getting older, and for those of us who buy 2XL shirts and size 14 shoes, folding into little cockpits gets worse every year.

Yes, this is a nice seating position. Kinda like sitting in a dining room chair.
RVseating.JPG
Look how nice it would be to work on the brakes.

BIG DRAWBACK..... fueling.

note......I would add a fold down arm rest on the side of the seat. Also, those seats would make great campsite seating.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a price break point thou. I don't think many people will be taking a $1M Cirrius equivalent into the back country; just like you don't see many Mercedes G50 wagons off-roading. However, there are those who have worked their whole life to amass wealth, that would be comfortable taking a 200K airplane, that they only spent 150K building, into the back country.

I think anything that replaces the Cessna 170/180 or 172/182 in the experimental world would be a big hit. I even see this becoming a certified airplane in 10 years. I say this because in order to certify a new plane, one needs deep pockets; Vans could do this using sales of the kits as cash flow to fund certification.

I don’t know about that there is 400k carbon cubs rolling around and getting flown into the back country
 
Honest question (since I know nothing about that market or branch of GA)...

How much of that market is private owners (i.e. non commercial use)? I see $200k listed above for a 50 year old single-engine piston plane and figure there must be some sort of business case (tours, hunting trips, remote resupply, rental, etc). I can't imagine too many people looking to build a four-seater in that class purely for their own use, as it seems a somewhat tightly-bounded mission set.

Aren't very many C180s in commercial use, just too small. Even the C185 is just too little of an airplane. By the time all the hunting gear, or exploration gear or whatever is packed into a C185, there's only room for one person. Not many go hunting, mining exploration or forest fire fighting solo. Usually in groups of 2 or 4+ and need a bigger plane. DeHavilland Beavers are the common "small" bush plane with Otters being quite common and Cessna Caravan on floats not uncommon either. Most commercial C185s I'm aware of are used for overflow when there's just too much stuff for the Otter, or running a camp check/resupply with some boat gas.
 
BIG DRAWBACK..... fueling.

Yes it will be less convenient, but everyone who learned to fly on a 150 or 172 has done it. So I wouldn’t say it’s a big drawback. Also you don’t need a fuel pump if you are not injected. Pros and cons.
 
Owned a C-150 and a PA-28 151..... the C-150 WAS a pita to fuel.

But I would do it with a smile if I had an RV15.
 
TOTALLY AGREE !!!

So before the RV-15 becomes a production airplane, here’s my list of maintenance annoyances on the RV-9A that I hope can be avoided on the RV-15… And I bought my RV-9A already flying, so that’s my excuse, lame as it is.

Some of these ideas are different from traditional RV ways of doing things, but then, so is the RV-15. And the inherent philosophies of the builder / maintainer’s time being free, and the philosophy of strict cost minimization is challenged as well, with a few minor costs incurred for maintainability, and maybe just a touch of added weight and drag – not much – here and there. After all, if you're out in the bush, that's when maintainability can be even more important.

Screws
* Reduce the number of kinds of screws! Get rid of #6 screws entirely, and make all the #8 screws of each type to be the same length.
* Make it easier to get into the tail cone for condition inspection. I’m no longer physically able to get back there and I’m running out of agile friends. Design it so that you don’t have to remove the whole bulkhead, especially those $^$^$% screws at the bottom.
* On the floorboards under the seats… make that a double layer, the bottom layer giving stiffness to the ribs but with enough big cutouts that you can access everything without removing it. On top, to cover the holes, a removable floorboard that only needs a few screws for location.

Wiring
* It’s really hard to run additional wires out through the wings or into the tail cone. That’s why I’m not updating to LEDs.
* Electrical connectors at the wing roots, in case the wings have to be removed, or for moving the plane to the airport first time.

Cowling
* Instead of the traditional RV cowl, go with something like a Cub or Bonanza cowl with swing up panels that give easy access to the engine for preflight and maintenance.
* Should not have to remove the cowling to check brake fluid or change the battery. Ideally, should be able to change the plugs without pulling the cowling.
* Should be easy to change the oil filter without making a mess – and that should be part of the FWF package.

Miscellaneous
* Have a windshield defroster, even if it’s just an avionics cooling fan
* Provision for camera mounts and possibly wiring. Lotsa folks doing that these days
* Backup power for the elevator trim. (Electric trim is part of the autopilot)
* Swing out motor mount?
* High flap extension speed for deceleration at busy airports
* Cowl *easily* removable by one person, and replaceable, too.
* Reduce hiding places for dropped items on the floor. As much as possible, make the floor completely flat and smooth so that it is easy to clean.

Ed, I echo your ideas in total agreement!!!!
 
Fueling isn't an issue, assuming it's available. The C180 had optional steps, one on the side above the tire in front of the strut and one on the strut. There was a handhold, too, I think (my C180 does not have these). They would make climbing up so refuel easy.

Dave
 
Fuel tank ribs and fueling.

On the RV-7A, the ribs make it so you have to fuel it slowly, and wait for the fuel and air to move from bay to bay.

Where I am, we can't self fuel from the truck, so I tell the fuelers the bays are small, and to go slow or they will get a shower. They immediately understand, and appreciate that.

On a high wing if it has the same design as the RV-7, it is going to be ugly.

Are the Cessna wing tanks one big open space without ribs?
I remember climbing the ladder and fueling full tilt, with no issues.

Hopefully the RV-15 design will avoid getting the nickname, "The RV-15 shower".
 
On the RV-7A, the ribs make it so you have to fuel it slowly, and wait for the fuel and air to move from bay to bay.

Where I am, we can't self fuel from the truck, so I tell the fuelers the bays are small, and to go slow or they will get a shower. They immediately understand, and appreciate that.

".

So I and others have enlarged the holes in the ribs during the tank build to solve this problem.
 
Quite a wish list?

Some of the solutions on your wish list are firmly in your hands!
Screws* Reduce the number of kinds of screws!
You can use all the same length of screws if you don't mind the extra weight.
No one keeps you from using #8s instead of #6s.

Wiring
* It’s really hard to run additional wires out through the wings or into the tail cone. That’s why I’m not updating to LEDs.
That is something a builder will have to decide, you want to run extra conduits for future upgrades, no one is keeping you from doing so.
My wing wiring can be completely disconnected at the wing root, Vans had nothing to do with that.
You can build a big acces door if you want to spend the time and money, most of us are pretty happy with the standard set up.
Can't think of an airplane that can leave the cowling on to pull the plugs???
Check the brake fluid...If your brakes don't leak, once a year would be enough to check fluid levels, two or three times perhaps when you change the oil.
Oil filter mess is something Mr Lycoming would have to address, me thinks, or simply adapt a good technique.

Miscellaneous
* Have a windshield defroster, even if it’s just an avionics cooling fan
* Provision for camera mounts and possibly wiring. Lotsa folks doing that these days
* Backup power for the elevator trim. (Electric trim is part of the autopilot)
* Swing out motor mount?
* High flap extension speed for deceleration at busy airports
* Cowl *easily* removable by one person, and replaceable, too.
* Reduce hiding places for dropped items on the floor. As much as possible, make the floor completely flat and smooth so that it is easy to clean.

* I have 2 windshield defrosters in my 10, feel free to install one or two.
* Swing out motor mount?? plus quick disconnects on all your throttle mixture and governor cables as well as all your electrical and other connections???
* Plan ahead to slow down or build speed brakes, I have seen them on an RV.
* Who knows, maybe the floor is actually flat on the RV 15, we haven't seen it yet.
I agree that easier access to maintain may be more important on the RV-15 but most of what I see on the wish list is up to the builder.
I am very curious what this new RV-15 can do and I am sure we'll hear about it once it has arrived in OSH
 
Commercial Backcountry Planes

C-206's are the workhorse for commercial backcountry flying from what I've seen, 180's and 185's are mostly used by individuals.
 
Can't think of an airplane that can leave the cowling on to pull the plugs???

Check the brake fluid...If your brakes don't leak, once a year would be enough to check fluid levels, two or three times perhaps when you change the oil.

Oil filter mess is something Mr Lycoming would have to address, me thinks, or simply adapt a good technique.

Just a couple of thoughts here...
1) Many aircraft can be worked on by opening the cowl rather than removing it. Off the top of my head I would suggest all of the Grumman AA5 series as "more modern" aircraft and many, many of the aircraft built in the immediate post-war era. A nose bowl connects to the firewall via an upper and lower strap of aluminum. The upper strap often uses piano hinge as attachments for hinged side cowls while the lower strap often houses lever-style or quick release fasteners. Unfastening the side cowl allows it to be hinged upward, often exposing the entire side of the engine including upper and lower spark plugs. This cowl design makes maintenance a breeze.

2) Oil change mess... Some aircraft have the engine sitting so close to the firewall that a short oil filter is the only type which can be used - a longer filter would hit the firewall, preventing it from unscrewing from the filter base. If space is tight on the RV15 using the biggest stock engine choice it would be wise of Vans to include in the FWF kit a remote-mounted oil filter to alleviate this obstacle to routine maintenance.

3) Brake fluid... A clear reservoir located on the cockpit side of the firewall makes visual fluid level verification a part of every pre-flight inspection on our Sportsman. This would be an excellent idea on the RV15 since, with feet planted on the hangar floor, the pilot could simply look under the instrument panel to verify fluid level. This change in visual perspective is an important consideration as the design paradigm shifts from low wing to high wing.
 
Last edited:
Just a couple of thoughts here...
3) Brake fluid... A clear reservoir located on the cockpit side of the firewall makes visual fluid level verification a part of every pre-flight inspection on our Sportsman. This would be an excellent idea on the RV15 since, with feet planted on the hangar floor, the pilot could simply look under the instrument panel to verify fluid level. This change in visual perspective is an important consideration as the design paradigm shifts from low wing to high wing.

+1 for the clear brake reservoir on the cabin side, loved it on the Sportsman.

Since manhandling via stabilator is probably not a good idea, a lift handle in the tail like 180s have would be a good addition for ground handling. We had one in our Sportsman also.

Handle-L.jpg


IMG_0741.new-L.jpg
 
Looking at photos, it looks like the -15 prototype may have a pull-out ground handling-handle.
 
Looking at photos, it looks like the -15 prototype may have a pull-out ground handling-handle.

That is what I think as well.

Not looking for magical numbers in my case. Just a nice all rounder out of the RV stable. This seems to be it :)
 
Quote:
“Can't think of an airplane that can leave the cowling on to pull the plugs???”

The Husky is a great example, along with the Super Cub of course, of a cowling that doesn’t have to be removed in order to pull plugs.

The Husky also has great grab handles on the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer for pulling it out of the hangar. I wish the Super Cub had these as well. I had the pop out pull handles on my 195 and although they work fine, I prefer the Husky handles. I don’t have to bend over as far and the angle is better for my back!
 
Oh come on guys!

WELL..........

Its been sitting there at the tent for two hours now, and not a single post or picture? You'all must be so enthralled with it that no one has a moment to post about it!

Come on guys!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top