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!

I think there are more options for the doors than just bubble perspex. I can see people making all kinds of cool alternatives... opening up instead of forward would be the first thing, or split with half up and half forward, or... the list is long.

There will also be a long list of other cool mods in short order, you can guarantee it. Floats, Cargo Pods, Seats, Cargo Doors, Votex Generators... and stuff we don't even know we want yet. There's just incredible potential for a classic airframe such as this where utility is recognised as being better than speed.

I like that gear leg action - great dampening. That's real cool.
 
It’s a stabilator, not a horizontal stab.

And on a related note, the Vans RV-15 stabilator is up out of the weeds in a taildragger three-point attitude, unlike the Rans S-21. Honestly the S-21 is a very fast capable aircraft but I have never been able to get over how low the horizontal is to the ground three point. So the RV-15 tail should handle off-airport operations better than the S-21.
 
I can’t tell from the video and pics - are those solid rivets or pop rivets on the wing and fuse? It also looks like a lot of ribs in the first few feet of the wing roots as well, right?
 
Coffee time paint idea doodle…looking forward to seeing what others do in the future…
 

Attachments

  • 9F339496-C4FB-4B57-9114-B2FF5540D1D5.jpeg
    9F339496-C4FB-4B57-9114-B2FF5540D1D5.jpeg
    124 KB · Views: 350
For Sale

The RV15 looks like it’s plenty big enough for “Big ol’ Fat Carol” and all her gear.

It’s everything I have been asking / wanting in a bush capable kit plane.
Looking forward to receiving the ,,,, RV15 Finish Kit. Reason being, at that time, I’ll be selling my Sky Wagon, ending my time owning a Certified Airplane.

Some prototypes never make it to production. This one will see many changes, and refinements. I am confident Vans will test it, and make this a winning offering for the builder flyer. I think Vans has a winner here.

My mission is Texas to Idaho for back country camping. In my Exp Super Cub
The trip is 15 hours… in the Sky Wagon it’s 11 hours.
Vans is about to hit a Grand Slam Home Run with this new kit!!!
Good going Vans!
 
Not like it's a big surprise, but did anyone notice the front prop governor? Most of us have been betting on a 390. I still am.

As before, I wish Monty was here to see this.
.
 

Attachments

  • ScreenHunter_1240 Jul. 12 06.32.jpg
    ScreenHunter_1240 Jul. 12 06.32.jpg
    16.8 KB · Views: 386
So...the basic engineering prototype is flying...what would be a reasonably-expected time frame before purchasers will start driving the first rivets?
 
The RV15 looks like it’s plenty big enough for “Big ol’ Fat Carol” and all her gear.

It’s everything I have been asking / wanting in a bush capable kit plane.
Looking forward to receiving the ,,,, RV15 Finish Kit. Reason being, at that time, I’ll be selling my Sky Wagon, ending my time owning a Certified Airplane.

Some prototypes never make it to production. This one will see many changes, and refinements. I am confident Vans will test it, and make this a winning offering for the builder flyer. I think Vans has a winner here.

My mission is Texas to Idaho for back country camping. In my Exp Super Cub
The trip is 15 hours… in the Sky Wagon it’s 11 hours.
Vans is about to hit a Grand Slam Home Run with this new kit!!!
Good going Vans!

I agree!

As a former Skywagon owner and Alaskan 135 pilot this new design looks like a great all-around bush/backcountry airplane. You don't have to land at 35kts to get into some pretty short strips...with my old '59 C-180 I'd get into 700' strips regularly.

Those flaps and gear look great for the mission.

My Skywagon sitting on an Alaska river strip which was 700' from cut bank to cut bank.... don't need no super slow plane to work it hard ;)
 

Attachments

  • short strip.jpg
    short strip.jpg
    66.9 KB · Views: 200
At 5’10”, he too has earned the right of passage forehead impression on those flap tracks. :eek:


It sure hurt less than the header I took on the TE of the C-180 though.

Thre you go, referring to yourself in the third person again... :D

I’m proof that 5 foot 9” still isn’t short enough to miss them but at least it hasn’t left permanent marks. Many years of working around only low wing airplanes makes for slow readjustment I guess.
 
I’m proof that 5 foot 9” still isn’t short enough to miss them but at least it hasn’t left permanent marks. Many years of working around only low wing airplanes makes for slow readjustment I guess.

So is it official now, the tundra tyres are not for prop clearance but to prevent getting excess hemoglobin primer on the flaps?
 
What Type Of Suspension System?

I wonder if the RV15 uses the standard airplane rubber pucks suspension like in the newer RV14 nose gear or will it use the Belleville disk spring?
 

Attachments

  • F276CC9E-46FB-4728-996E-88CD360E451E.jpeg
    F276CC9E-46FB-4728-996E-88CD360E451E.jpeg
    294.2 KB · Views: 290
Last edited:
Will the RV 15 be aerobatic....
With that rudder, I would expect it to be.

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.
 
I guess I just don't understand where most of you are coming from. I think the tyres in the original video are better than the balloons now installed. I don't really get wanting to land somewhere (in a $150,000 aircraft) where balloon tyres re required to avoid a wreck. I understand that all aircraft are compromises, but I would like to hear what the Van's team set as their design objectives. Then I can judge how close those objectives are to my potential mission. My regular passenger would like a better view of the countryside we fly over, I don't yet know if I am ready for the performance compromises that would entail. My current ride (RV-6) lands short enough for just about anywhere I want to go right now. This airplane seems pitched at the 'land on a sand bar' crowd which may be too much short field performance for me. Clearly Van's will build what will sell and perhaps my desires are too far from the median, may be I will have to compromise ... I was looking for a high wing RV-7 rather than a 2-place C180, I guess I am out of luck.
 
I guess I just don't understand where most of you are coming from. I think the tyres in the original video are better than the balloons now installed. I don't really get wanting to land somewhere (in a $150,000 aircraft) where balloon tyres re required to avoid a wreck. I understand that all aircraft are compromises, but I would like to hear what the Van's team set as their design objectives. Then I can judge how close those objectives are to my potential mission. My regular passenger would like a better view of the countryside we fly over, I don't yet know if I am ready for the performance compromises that would entail. My current ride (RV-6) lands short enough for just about anywhere I want to go right now. This airplane seems pitched at the 'land on a sand bar' crowd which may be too much short field performance for me. Clearly Van's will build what will sell and perhaps my desires are too far from the median, may be I will have to compromise ... I was looking for a high wing RV-7 rather than a 2-place C180, I guess I am out of luck.

If you're not familiar with bush/back country flying I can see how this design may not make sense. This design definitely is not aimed at the sand bar crowd but rather to the people who want to enjoy the multitude of strips with great camping and lodges they offer. The big tires do make it easier to roll over rocks but hey also provide less pounding to the airframe. A -6 may be able to land on some of the backcountry strip but it will eventually pay a price of smoking rivets and stressed gear mounts.

This design is not for everyone just as a -14 or -10 are not for everyone...just another great design from Vans.
 
Last edited:
I guess I just don't understand where most of you are coming from. I think the tyres in the original video are better than the balloons now installed. I don't really get wanting to land somewhere (in a $150,000 aircraft) where balloon tyres re required to avoid a wreck. I understand that all aircraft are compromises, but I would like to hear what the Van's team set as their design objectives. Then I can judge how close those objectives are to my potential mission. My regular passenger would like a better view of the countryside we fly over, I don't yet know if I am ready for the performance compromises that would entail. My current ride (RV-6) lands short enough for just about anywhere I want to go right now. This airplane seems pitched at the 'land on a sand bar' crowd which may be too much short field performance for me. Clearly Van's will build what will sell and perhaps my desires are too far from the median, may be I will have to compromise ... I was looking for a high wing RV-7 rather than a 2-place C180, I guess I am out of luck.

A high wing RV6/7? Just fly your 6 inverted... problem solved ;-)
 
I guess I just don't understand where most of you are coming from. I think the tyres in the original video are better than the balloons now installed. I don't really get wanting to land somewhere (in a $150,000 aircraft) where balloon tyres re required to avoid a wreck. I understand that all aircraft are compromises, but I would like to hear what the Van's team set as their design objectives....

I had Goodyear 26" tires on my Bearhawk 4 place. They were the perfect size for my flights to the mountains in western Colorado. I had a very nice camping spot on a 2000 ft-long grassy meadow up at 8,500 MSL. Those 26s made landing on an unimproved surface a non-event.

I sold the Bearhawk a couple years ago (regret it). I'm looking forward to building a -15 as soon as possible!
 
Hopefully Van's did very thorough fatigue analyses/assessments to avoid fatigue cracking issues, especially given the backcountry mission of the airplane. Important to avoid the fatigue cracking issues and numerous SB's some of the other models have suffered from.
 
Last edited:
Lots of comments about "great design" and "mission objectives" in this thread (and considering Vans past, well warranted). Are there any actual numbers yet?
 
Regarding fuselage construction….Are those standard universal head rivets a la Beaver or pulled blind rivets a la RV-12 or are my eyes deceiving me?
 
Hope

This is an engineering prototype. Hopefully it turns into flush so the dimples lock everything together. I would be upset if it becomes a pulled kit.

You only build it once, but maintain it for decades.
 
Toss us another bone...

How about (estimated) empty weight? HP range?

I expect it to be around 1100#. And HP, 180 to 220
 
Hopefully Van's did very thorough fatigue analyses/assessments to avoid fatigue cracking issues, especially given the backcountry mission of the airplane. Important to avoid the fatigue cracking issues and numerous SB's some of the other models have suffered from.

I'm very confident that Vans is "on it". I recommend watching the RV-14 drop test video on the Vans website. While not directly related to fatigue math, I think it shows how meticulous these guys are.
 
Last edited:
Maintainability Wish List

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.
 
Last edited:
Landing gear suspension

My .02
F1 racing type
1 or 2
Shock/ adjustable spring:rolleyes:

If I recall correctly, the Luscombe 8 series (two seats, 65-85 0r 100 HP) had a similar landing gear with only one shock. If one gear leg had more friction than the other, one leg could move more than the other on landing, lowering one wing and inciting the lift vector to pull the plane off the runway.

That's the gist of it, even if I got one detail wrong. As for me, I'm one of the wimps looking for a tricycle gear and unlikely to ever get off pavement. 6.00x6 would probably be lots more than I'd ever need.
 
+1

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.

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.

I'll wholeheartedly second these recommendations!!!!
 
Why flat fuselage surfaces?

In this CAD/CAM age, I wonder why the tail cone sides and bottom are flat. Seems to me in my elegant armchair that if those surfaces were curved just that least little bit, there would be less tendency for oil canning and the plane might be quieter on the inside. Shouldn't be hard (for somebody who knows what they're doing) to do.

And in this age of cleco and go... and looking at how wing skins already do this... Why not?

Such a minor change to the fuselage shape should not compromise lessons learned from the engineering prototype.
 
I'll wholeheartedly second these recommendations!!!!

Totally on board with your comments. Regarding cowlings, I had 2 RVs renting hangar space from me and I was always helping them install their cowlings with the long piano wires. PITA on the tail dragger, nightmare on the nosewheel. Then a friend of mine showed me his 6 that used a bunch of sky bolt cam locks to attach the top cowling instead of the piano hinge. He removed the top cowling literally in 30 sec. My jaw dropped. It’s the only way to go if you want to do a thorough preflight. They are expensive, but it’s a no brainer and I’ve put them on my airplane.
 
Last edited:
In this CAD/CAM age, I wonder why the tail cone sides and bottom are flat. Seems to me in my elegant armchair that if those surfaces were curved just that least little bit, there would be less tendency for oil canning and the plane might be quieter on the inside. Shouldn't be hard (for somebody who knows what they're doing) to do.

And in this age of cleco and go... and looking at how wing skins already do this... Why not?

Such a minor change to the fuselage shape should not compromise lessons learned from the engineering prototype.

I don't mean to zero in on you only Ed, but you are a convenient example in the moment....

A huge # of the details that people have been posting so far, with a strong tone of confidence, are just flat out wrong.
They are just not seeing things correctly based on the what can be acquired from the small amount of video published so far.

Example - Flat sides on the tail cone. They aren't flat, but it is looking like they need just a bit more curvature.

This emphasizes the point and purpose of this engineering test aircraft.

It is virtually impossible to do a clean sheet new design and get everything perfect in the first build, but we do know a bit about designing airplanes and as part of that process, will be using this engineering tool to refine and make it the best that it can be.

As for all of the guessing and theorizing by you all, it has provided a lot of entertainment for us. Both in seeing how right some of the comments have been, and also how totally wrong many of them have been.

Be patient. 13 more days and you will be able to hear much more about a cool new airplane that we have had a blast building and test flying.

Hope to see you there.
 
With all the supply chain issues that everyone is having and with the current high demand for existing vans kits, I wonder how they will cope with a massive wave of rv15 kit orders? I hope someone asks this at the Osh forum.
 
--- snip ---

Be patient. 13 more days and you will be able to hear much more about a cool new airplane that we have had a blast building and test flying.

Hope to see you there.


This will be the last time I read this thread till after I hear more about this cool new airplane directly from the source.

Looking forward to seeing you and your team members again.
 
For this kind of airplane, perhaps there won't be an A version.

Dave

Except Greg said last Fall during an interview that it would initially come out as a taildragger but the tricycle A model would follow. Of course, that's subject to change as is any feature before they lock in the final design.
 
At least I’m good for something…. :)

The better news is that the factory reads all our posts, even at the risk of serious injury from laughing too hard.

Glad to see that you took that comment with the humor tone that was intended.

On a more serous note - we're blown away by the level of interest and are very exited to finally share it with everyone.
 
Last edited:
With all the supply chain issues that everyone is having and with the current high demand for existing vans kits, I wonder how they will cope with a massive wave of rv15 kit orders? I hope someone asks this at the Osh forum.

I’d imagine we will be a few years down the road before the kits are ready to be shipped and supply chain issues should be better across the board by then if not the current insane inflation will probably continue causing other problems.
 
I'm very confident that Vans is "on it". I recommend watching the RV-14 drop test video on the Vans website. While not directly related to fatigue math, I think it shows how meticulous these guys are.

Yes, I've seen the videos of the drop test and other things they've done. But the fatigue history of the other models is there in the form of numerous SB's on the subject.

Maybe someone from Van's can describe the extent of the fatigue analyses and assessments they've done.
 
Last edited:
Totally on board with your comments. Regarding cowlings, I had 2 RVs renting hangar space from me and I was always helping them install their cowlings with the long piano wires. PITA on the tail dragger, nightmare on the nosewheel. Then a friend of mine showed me his 6 that used a bunch of sky bolt cam locks to attach the top cowling instead of the piano hinge. He removed the top cowling literally in 30 sec. My jaw dropped. It’s the only way to go if you want to do a thorough preflight. They are expensive, but it’s a no brainer and I’ve put them on my airplane.

I have camlocs on my 10 but I envy the Bonanza and Bearhawk guys who don’t have to remove anything to access their engines for routine maintenance.
 
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.
 
If Scrapy 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..
 
Back
Top