What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-15?

airguy

Unrepentant fanboy
Sponsor
Saw this today on Avweb - Diamond twin with turbodiesels, new selling price is $1.25 MILLION freaking dollars, cruise speed of 201 knots.

The twin-engine market is definitely there, the strong desire for dual engines among a certain segment of the marketplace is undeniable. I just can't believe it really takes anything close to this price point to make it happen. Replace the turbodiesels with IO360's for the same horsepower and it should be in the $200k-$250k range. Even with the stupid selling price of the current turbodiesels to give long range at high altitude and it should stay under $350k.

Surely someday Vans will work on a twin?

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Certifies-Diamond-DA62-Twin-225736-1.html
 
Last edited:
Saw this today on Avweb - Diamond twin with turbodiesels, new selling price is $1.25 MILLION freaking dollars, cruise speed of 201 knots.

There never has been any strong point in chasing the bottom of the market :D
We poffers fly rockets and RV 10's. It is always humbling to be reminded where we fit in in the financial aviation food chain.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt there would be enough people truly willing and ready to put real money on the table for such an airplane to make it worth doing (that is, profitable to Van's). And anyone with that kind of money could go buy a used certified twin (if htey really wanted a twin) and fly/maintain it for a while with the money it would cost just to build a homebuilt twin. Or they could buy/build a -10 and another airplane or two to go with it.

Plus, now you bring up issues of pilot proficiency, insurance, maintenance costs, etc. and that further depresses the potential market.

There's a reason there are so few homebuilt twins on the market, and so few new certified ones being sold (IIRC the majority of those are sold to businesses and flight schools). Most individuals have discovered it's just not worth it.

This does bring to mind a discussion I had with an FAA guy in the "small aircraft" certification branch, who didn't quite get the idea that his turbocharged Baron was well out of reach of even the dreams of most private airplane pilots... I believe my exact words were "[the Baron] might as well be a 757 or F-22 as far as I'm concerned, as I'm just as likely to own and fly one of those".
 
I suppose the comments about the dollar values and the homebuilt market are accurate. I would not build a twin personally, but it's mainly about the efficiency aspect for me - I don't want to double my fuel burn and maintenance for a marginal increase in speed and carrying capacity. The folks with enough money to do so don't care about efficiency.
 
There have been 3,000 to 4,000 Variezes and LongEZ's built, but only about a dozen twin engine Defiants.
 
I love the idea of a Defiant.. I'm just scared of working with fiberglass. =p

I personally would like to see the RV-11 sailplane before I'd like to see the twin. I agree that the market would be small, but not impossibly so.

I just wonder if it would be worth their effort.. I don't think so.
 
Two engines

A lot of builders have heartburn when It comes to buying one engine. Lycoming may like the deal but not sure how many builders would op for a twin.
 
Last edited:
You can buy a decent Cessna 310, and maybe even a 401 for the price of a typical used RV6 right now :eek:
 
Arguably the most popular home built twin is the Aircam, but it is very expensive and for a much different mission an any of the RV's.

I'd like to see them put a 540 on the -14 and make it a 200+ knot cruiser, or stretch the -10 and make it a 6-seater.
 
Arguably the most popular home built twin is the Aircam, but it is very expensive and for a much different mission an any of the RV's.

I'd like to see them put a 540 on the -14 and make it a 200+ knot cruiser, or stretch the -10 and make it a 6-seater.

+1 for the stretched -10.
 
RV Twin

Maybe not an RV twin but perhaps someone should talk to these guys in the UK about developing a kit for the US market?? Flying video on the website

http://www.speedtwin.co.uk

2h3obd2.jpg

2w705ds.jpg

35n60ow.jpg
 
Video post

How about another video post (YouTube, Vimeo...) for those of us not on Facebook?
 
Something with twin VW or Corvair engines would be perfect. Low cost, low fuel burn, and redundancy in case one calls it quits.
 
I love the idea of a Defiant.. I'm just scared of working with fiberglass. =p

I personally would like to see the RV-11 sailplane before I'd like to see the twin. I agree that the market would be small, but not impossibly so.

I just wonder if it would be worth their effort.. I don't think so.

You can build an HP-24!! now available with an electric sustainer motor.
 
I still think the next RV should be a high-wing go-everywhere bushplane-like kind of thing ... a sportsman 2+2 competitor maybe ... it's a sizable market that Van's could probably break into with some success ...
 
RV-Schwalbe

seeing the RV-8 twin, I keep thinking a couple of small turbines under the wing and you'd have a not so poor man's ME-262!
 
I still think a longer wing kit for the RV-12 so it can be used as a motor glider. Have both sets of wings, and have one machine for 2 missions.
 
Twin

I wished you guys would talk about something other than a twin. I had just talked myself into going with a RV-10 to replace my trusty Maule and now those sweet Twin Comanche's is sounding tempting. Also about half the initial cost of a -10. Long term cost would make a grown man cry but hey, you only live and fly once....
 
A more capable, and affordable, aerobatic plane?

With the heritage of aerobatics (gentleman) in the RV's, how would a more capable aerobatic plane fit in the RV line? Something based on the 8 with more Vne speed, G loading, and lower weight. Maybe with the AEIO-360 (or a likeness)


How many of the RV philosophy buttons could that meet without getting rejected?
 
With the heritage of aerobatics (gentleman) in the RV's, how would a more capable aerobatic plane fit in the RV line? Something based on the 8 with more Vne speed, G loading, and lower weight. Maybe with the AEIO-360 (or a likeness)


How many of the RV philosophy buttons could that meet without getting rejected?

How much more competitive do you want to get? An RV is already good through Sportsman; going Unlimited will likely result in something that doesn't look like an RV at all (look at current Unlimited designs, for example).
 
So I really like the Derringer.. I like the idea, I like the look.

BUT!

I think I'm spoiled by the RV-10 plans.

I have to hand it to Van's. They make making an airplane TRIVIAL! I have often compared them to Ikea. If you can put tab-A in slot-B over and over, you can build anything!

Combine that with the fact that everything is pre-drilled and shaped.. wow.. I mean.. wow.. seriously..

Any other plane project would likely seem like 10x the work.


(Thank you Van's!)

Now.. Please make a twin so I can buy it =)
 
Eat Icon's Lunch

Resurrecting this thread with an idea I posted elsewhere. Yes, it's RV-related.

I propose that the next RV kit should move into the market space being developed by the Icon A5 amphibian guys. Vans business model has always been to either offer something for which there is no equivalent production aircraft (most RVs) or for which a kitplane can undercut production aircraft by ~50% (RV-10). I think that an A5 competitor would fit perfectly with this model.

My proposal is that they start with the basic RV-12 design and go from there. Ditch the fuselage and replace it with a combination of aluminum panels and carbon fiber hull moldings that looks enough unlike the A5 to get them around the bizarre patent laws that protect boat hulls. Plug the RV-12 wings into the top, hang the RV-12 motor onto the back, plop the RV-12 stabilator onto the carbon fiber fin, add retractable gear and there you are. The big plastic parts and the retractable gear have bumped the price by about 35%, and it is not going to have that lovely supercar interior, but you've achieved 90% of the A5's performance and functionality for less than 50% the price.

Flame suit on!

Thanks, Bob K.
 
No flame suit needed

It's already been done. It's called a SeaRey. I owned for three years the first one ever built. It started life at 700 pounds and flew behind a 65 hp rotax 2 stroke. Now it flys with the 914, certified lsa and barely can fly two people with full fuel legally. Still performs much better than the icon. If in doubt, take a demo ride at sun n fun or Oshkosh in the SeaRey and then the icon.

Maybe I need the flame suit now😀 BTW, If someone would produce and sell Virtual flame suits on this site they could retire!
 
It's already been done. It's called a SeaRey...

Yup, the SeaRey comes pretty close to what I have in mind. I just think that there is some wiggle room to come a bit closer yet without breaking the bank, and that the RV-12 is a good platform to start from.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
SeaRey/Rv-15

The SeaRey kit and rv12 are roughly the same price already. You start adding water hull/sponsons and a retract gear system to an rv12 platform and the cost will be getting up there with the icon. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see vans venture into that market but I really doubt you'd get anywhere close to that 50% less than icon price. Both the SeaRey and Icon qualify for light sport but they sure are struggling weight wise to get there.
 
Fat boy RV-8...ala RV-14

How about a heavy duty, fat boy tandem that could comfortably fit two 6'3" 250lb guys with an IO-390 using -14 wings and tail?
 
Van's produced F-4

Let me say up front that I am no Aeronautical Engineer and probably don't understand what may be a fatal flaw in my idea....But, here I go anyway :D


The FREDRICK/VANS F-4 LITE

or The VANS/FREDRICK F-4 LITE


*Most already know about this concept, but in case you don't, it's a Fredrick F1 Rocket with a 4 cylinder motor, different motor mount and cowl, but essentially looks just like an F1. It would be RV climb and performance level, not 3500' and minute like the F-1. I talked with Mark about the idea years ago but the focus then was on big HP and speed. The idea seems to be catching on now.

I personally think Mark Fredrick has made a (slightly) better mousetrap using Vans design ideas. Plus, almost all of us who like Van's tail-dragger tandems love the F1 look and carrying capacity. Seems a no brainer to me. I recently suggested this to Mark but he said he didn't think Van was interested, possibly due to liability concerns.

I don't know Van personally, so I haven't picked up the phone to chat him up about my idea. But, it seems right in line with Van's Aircraft's philosophy of simple, beautiful airplanes, moderately powered and efficient. It would be less than an F1, more than an RV-8 and a very desirable big brother to the RV-4 (which is very hard to build compared to the rest of the lineup). It is already a production version, just that Mark can't seem to get the kits made at a reasonable price. Van can certainly do the CNC production and make the kits, maybe offer up to a 200HP Lycoming as max recommended power. I think it would replace the RV-8 as a larger tandem with sex appeal and the same performance ability as the -8. They could collaborate on the concept and, together, give their customers a new, easily marketable beauty for us to build.

*A tapered wing F-4 is not even a consideration due to weight, power requirements and CG issues (per Mark)

Ok...flame away :)

Ron
RV-4 (and an F-4 is the only airplane I would be willing to trade it for)
 
Last edited:
Close but....

Yup, the SeaRey comes pretty close to what I have in mind. I just think that there is some wiggle room to come a bit closer yet without breaking the bank, and that the RV-12 is a good platform to start from.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob, I admire your candor sir!
However comma, living in the Orlando area (amphib heaven) for 15 years and knowing many Amphibian owners, even Searey had a tough time selling enough airplanes to keep the doors open. Avid sold 1 Catalina for every 230 Flyers. The list of failed Experimental Amphibian companies is long and distinguished. The market is limited IMHO compared to more conventional aircraft. Not to say that should ever be a reason not to design and build something. A float compatible RV that is lower cost might fit both requirements and attract "lower budget" builders.

That said, I believe Van missed the boat (so to speak:)) on designing a lower cost "Glastar Competitor" that could be trailered home or powered by alternative powerplants or float equipped. The RV12 was headed in the right direction but more expensive and too LSA/ELSA formulated.
I believe the next RV should be an LSA compliant lower cost all-metal high folding-wing, STOL sport aerobatic capable sportplane with alternative powerplant options priced accordingly.

Similar type aircraft that exists already?
Yep, the Groppo Trail...


I give you the RV16...

V/R
Smokey

PS: I would be hard pressed to design a better overall sport aircraft than the RV4. The Panther however, is growling...:)
 
Last edited:
Just put an RV 10 on a pair of Aerocett floats. And forget the seats in the back.

Flying anything on water with amphibious capability is not cheap. And it takes lots of surplus horse power. Most of the really good getaways are high altitude mountain lakes.

A Lake Buc can be had for less money than a Sea Ray. Lake Central Air in Muskoka / Gravenhurst Ontario holds an STC to install a new IO 390.

Even the Sea Rays soon needed a turbo rotax and all you have room for is a shaving kit and CC.

Even with all of that, flying off water is the most enjoyable and refreshing flying I have ever done. You almost always have to plan a new runway every flight as the wind and waves and floating trees dictate.

Straight floats on a 9 or 7 would lower the cost of admission and increase payload. But you need water at both ends of the flight.
 
Back
Top