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!

Fully agree - but round head rivets, either driven or pulled, are just plain ugly!

Carl

Form should follows function and the RV-15 function may require universal head rivets for long term durability. Bush/backcountry planes take a pounding...

That being said, the RV-15 gear being so innovative, may allow for flush rivets.
 
Last edited:
Form should follows function and the RV-15 function may require universal head rivets for long term durability. Bush/backcountry planes take a pounding...

That being said, the RV-15 gear being so innovative, may allow for flush rivets.

I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other? The an426 rivet doesn’t have the shear strength of the 470, but the interaction of the dimpled sheets help the joint gain strength to surpass the dome rivet joint, no?
 
Cockpit Width

I have watched the videos...which are many and read the articles which are many but haven't seen the cabin width??
Is it a secret?
Paul Dyes Kitplanes announcement talked about the CABIN and he compared it to the Tundra he built as being similar, etc....but no size.
I understand the FWF is the 390 off the RV14...so the cabin should be wider than my RV6....
I also know the doors are flat plexiglass now and may be modified with armrests etc.
Also understand the cockpit tapers behind the 2 front seats, etc.
But given all the above....does anybody know the width???
Are two big guys going to rub arms??
Thanks
 
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other? The an426 rivet doesn’t have the shear strength of the 470, but the interaction of the dimpled sheets help the joint gain strength to surpass the dome rivet joint, no?

I’m not sure why there would be any difference in the shear strength of the rivets themselves when comparing the same diameter AN426 to AN470 rivet. However you are correct that in some cases flush-riveted structures with nestled dimples can increase shear strength over a non-dimpled riveted structure.

Skylor
 
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other? The an426 rivet doesn’t have the shear strength of the 470, but the interaction of the dimpled sheets help the joint gain strength to surpass the dome rivet joint, no?

I won't argue that your wrong but I can say that it's been my observation that when a certified aircraft want to beef up a structure they get rid of the flush rivets and add universal head rivet..

For instance, the older Cessna 180s has flush head rivets around the firewall but when the factory added a float kit they doubled the number of rivets and went to universal heads.
 
I have watched the videos...which are many and read the articles which are many but haven't seen the cabin width??
Is it a secret?
Paul Dyes Kitplanes announcement talked about the CABIN and he compared it to the Tundra he built as being similar, etc....but no size.
I understand the FWF is the 390 off the RV14...so the cabin should be wider than my RV6....
I also know the doors are flat plexiglass now and may be modified with armrests etc.
Also understand the cockpit tapers behind the 2 front seats, etc.
But given all the above....does anybody know the width???
Are two big guys going to rub arms??
Thanks

I’d also like to know if two rearward-facing seats might fit. I’m sure it’s been discussed, but I’m only on page 28…

Steve
 
I’m not sure why there would be any difference in the shear strength of the rivets themselves when comparing the same diameter AN426 to AN470 rivet. However you are correct that in some cases flush-riveted structures with nestled dimples can increase shear strength over a non-dimpled riveted structure.

Skylor

I believe the difference is due to head tipping, not just the shear of the shank.
 
I won't argue that your wrong but I can say that it's been my observation that when a certified aircraft want to beef up a structure they get rid of the flush rivets and add universal head rivet..

For instance, the older Cessna 180s has flush head rivets around the firewall but when the factory added a float kit they doubled the number of rivets and went to universal heads.

Here’s an interesting article that someone actually did some pull testing.. https://glasair-owners.com/resources/strength-of-riveted-joints/
 
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other?

I’m not sure why there would be any difference in the shear strength of the rivets themselves when comparing the same diameter AN426 to AN470 rivet. However you are correct that in some cases flush-riveted structures with nestled dimples can increase shear strength over a non-dimpled riveted structure.

… it's been my observation that when a certified aircraft want to beef up a structure they get rid of the flush rivets and add universal head rivet..

Sorry, Michael, but Tom and Skylor are correct: The shear strength of the rivet itself is the same, but the dimple does some structural load transfer in addition to the rivet, making the dimpled joint stronger.

If the rivets are relatively weak (i.e. rivets and/or bent-sheet components made of metals not often used on airplanes), the flush rivets can be up to ~3x stronger than the protruding-head rivets, due to help from the dimples. I have seen it in the lab (but, again, this is just a quasi-academic extreme, not a difference you’d see in RV-type structure).

The reason that mods use protruding-head dimples is because the parts are easier to fabricate, and/or use material thicknesses that are right in the grey zone where they’re a little too thick to easily dimple but a little too thin to countersink without making a knife-edge. Or they’re on the inside of the airplane, where there is usually no need for flush rivets which take more work.

On the other hand, I have tested both the flush version and the protruding-head version of a particular manufacturer’s blind rivets (not gonna say which one) and the flush ones had similar strength but worse fatigue performance, which was surprising, but I double-checked repeatedly and the effect was real.

All I’m saying is: Sometimes rivet behavior is counter-intuitive. Intuition is good (as are the various factors in structural analysis books) but lab tests are better!
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Michael, but Tom and Skylor are correct: The shear strength of the rivet itself is the same, but the dimple does some structural load transfer in addition to the rivet, making the dimpled joint stronger.

If the rivets are relatively weak (i.e. rivets and/or bent-sheet components made of metals not often used on airplanes), the flush rivets can be up to ~3x stronger than the protruding-head rivets, due to help from the dimples. I have seen it in the lab (but, again, this is just a quasi-academic extreme, not a difference you’d see in RV-type structure).

The reason that mods use protruding-head dimples is because the parts are easier to fabricate, and/or use material thicknesses that are right in the grey zone where they’re a little too thick to easily dimple but a little too thin to countersink without making a knife-edge. Or they’re on the inside of the airplane, where there is usually no need for flush rivets which take more work.

On the other hand, I have tested both the flush version and the protruding-head version of a particular manufacturer’s blind rivets (not gonna say which one) and the flush ones had similar strength but worse fatigue performance, which was surprising, but I double-checked repeatedly and the effect was real.

All I’m saying is: Sometimes rivet behavior is counter-intuitive. Intuition is good (as are the various factors in structural analysis books) but lab tests are better!

Well I certainly defer to your expertise on all things engineered.

My observation on certified aircraft replacing flush rivets with universal head rivets when added strength was needed still stands.
I will take a stab at the reason and guess that the firewall rivets in my previous example were countersunk, thus not getting the benefit of the interlocking dimple. Ease of fabrication would not come into play for my example as they were already flush and the factory went to the trouble of reconfiguring the assembly line to stop countersinking and go with all universal head rivets.
 
Does that flap handle concern anyone else? That could get ugly in a crash. I love the placement for normal ops- just wouldn’t want it there in a crash situation.
Was thinking the same thing. Wonder if this was done for simplicity in just the prototype? Would feel more comfortable with a handle down on the floor for safety and visibility. Love those flaps!

Really excited about this airplane and looking forward to following its evolution over the next year.
 
Ease of fabrication would not come into play for my example as they were already flush and the factory went to the trouble of reconfiguring the assembly line to stop countersinking and go with all universal head rivets.

The non-reoccurring cost of changing the production process is cheap compared to the reoccurring cost of countersinking several sheets of aluminum on ever production aircraft.
The reason GA aircraft don’t countersink OML fasteners is reoccurring production cost, not strength.
 
Was thinking the same thing. Wonder if this was done for simplicity in just the prototype? Would feel more comfortable with a handle down on the floor for safety and visibility. Love those flaps!

Really excited about this airplane and looking forward to following its evolution over the next year.

The overhead flap handle is located closest to the flap mechanism, very similar to the high wing Piper, including the CarbonCub, and other SuperCub clones. The bottom mounted manual flap handle on the low wing Cherokee is also located closest to the flap mechanism which is at the bottom of the fuselage.

It would be relatively simple to retrofit an electric flap actuation by grafting the standard flap motor to the RV15 flap mechanism, to reduce the perceived danger of a manual flap. The big downside with the electric flap is the slow flap retraction, not good for STOL or very short field landing when you want to retract the flaps as soon as the airplane touches down. On the Piper, low or high wing, I like the fact I can manually slam the flap to retraction in an instant. This is not possible with an electric flap. Having flown with the manual flap, you always know the exact position of the flap because you manually put it there. On airplane with electric flap like the RV8, you have to wait a bit for the flap to travel its length, and you have to double check either by looking outside or looking at the EFIS that is equipped to display the flap angle.
 
The overhead flap handle is located closest to the flap mechanism, very similar to the high wing Piper, including the CarbonCub, and other SuperCub clones. The bottom mounted manual flap handle on the low wing Cherokee is also located closest to the flap mechanism which is at the bottom of the fuselage.

It would be relatively simple to retrofit an electric flap actuation by grafting the standard flap motor to the RV15 flap mechanism, to reduce the perceived danger of a manual flap. The big downside with the electric flap is the slow flap retraction, not good for STOL or very short field landing when you want to retract the flaps as soon as the airplane touches down. On the Piper, low or high wing, I like the fact I can manually slam the flap to retraction in an instant. This is not possible with an electric flap. Having flown with the manual flap, you always know the exact position of the flap because you manually put it there. On airplane with electric flap like the RV8, you have to wait a bit for the flap to travel its length, and you have to double check either by looking outside or looking at the EFIS that is equipped to display the flap angle.

I agree - I have sat in the airplane and operated the flap handle, and the overhead is simple to operate, simple to engineer, and you can get a lot of weight advantage when trying to extend those massive flaps. I’m really not worried about it being any worse in a crash than anything else in the cabin, and always fly with harnesses tight anyway. It’s so big that the front end is far enough forward that it can’t stab you.

I love the overhead handle in actual flight operations when I have flown Carbon Cubs and other brush planes - a very natural way to fly in my experince.

Paul
 
"I believe they saw 140 knots on the way out with no fairings at all"


I believe the above post was misstating the testing. While flying out to Osh they did some speed tests and feel confident that WITH the addition of fairing and aero cleanup 140 knots is achievable with 16" tires.

Also 12" tires is the smallest recommended tire. Not sure you are going to see a front county RV-15 with wheel pants.
 
My answers

maybe already stated, but I can't find it:

1. Is it aerobatic?

2. Where are the fuel tanks located?

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so here are my answers:

1. Only if you want the dead deer in your lap. (airfoil not intended for aerobatics)
2. fuel in wings on production version
 
maybe already stated, but I can't find it:

1. Is it aerobatic?

2. Where are the fuel tanks located?

Expected G range is stated in the video of the What’s new at Van’s presentation ([URL="https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1622972&postcount=5]at this post[/URL]) I don’t remember the exact numbers but they didn’t strike me as an Aerobatic range.

They will be in the wings but further development of the aileron controls will be carried out before they are finalised. (Again, explained in the video).
 
Last edited:
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.

+1 My wife is not able to get in/out of any existing RV. I am excited for the very reasons above. Being an RV it will be efficient, safe, fun to fly and have all the advantages of an "experimental". We could get places that now take 13-14 hrs of driving (+ an overnight stay) in ~3 hrs.
 
+1 My wife is not able to get in/out of any existing RV. I am excited for the very reasons above. Being an RV it will be efficient, safe, fun to fly and have all the advantages of an "experimental". We could get places that now take 13-14 hrs of driving (+ an overnight stay) in ~3 hrs.

I think it was on the front page that I saw a picture that said 'I know people my age that climb mountains and do zip lining. I feel good if I can just get one leg in my underware without falling over.'

Now, trying climbing into one of the low wing models.

I think even I can stumble in the RV15 door!

Bob
 
AGREED

+1 My wife is not able to get in/out of any existing RV. I am excited for the very reasons above. Being an RV it will be efficient, safe, fun to fly and have all the advantages of an "experimental". We could get places that now take 13-14 hrs of driving (+ an overnight stay) in ~3 hrs.

YES..I agree...and not loose alot of speed compared to my 9A..those are the Highest on my list..could care less about landing on a sandbar, or anything close..good way to tear up an airplane.
 
I get the sense that the tricycle gear model will actually be the quicker one since it’s not going to have shock absorbers for main gear and it wouldn’t shock me if it comes with wheel pants and maybe even less flap travel with smaller flap fairings.
 
I get the sense that the tricycle gear model will actually be the quicker one since it’s not going to have shock absorbers for main gear and it wouldn’t shock me if it comes with wheel pants and maybe even less flap travel with smaller flap fairings.

I assumed wheel pants would be a given for the trike. Vans must be aware many people simply want a high wing version of the existing low wing series, including the speed that comes along with the low wing. Many have no intention of landing on anything other than paved, long runways.
 
I assumed wheel pants would be a given for the trike. Vans must be aware many people simply want a high wing version of the existing low wing series, including the speed that comes along with the low wing. Many have no intention of landing on anything other than paved, long runways.

If the new RV15 only flies slightly faster than the existing Cessna, it begs a question into why you should build one, unless the Cessna is so expensive compare to a newly built RV15. Given the build configuration of the RV14, it is not an inexpensive build. But what you get in the RV14 is the performance premium. If the RV15 is built at the cost of the RV14 yet it performs at the C170 level, then the value calculation is tough to justify.
 
If the new RV15 only flies slightly faster than the existing Cessna, it begs a question into why you should build one, unless the Cessna is so expensive compare to a newly built RV15. Given the build configuration of the RV14, it is not an inexpensive build. But what you get in the RV14 is the performance premium. If the RV15 is built at the cost of the RV14 yet it performs at the C170 level, then the value calculation is tough to justify.

New Cessna 172 ~500K
Used 185. ~290K and 40+ yrs old
 
If the new RV15 only flies slightly faster than the existing Cessna, it begs a question into why you should build one, unless the Cessna is so expensive compare to a newly built RV15. Given the build configuration of the RV14, it is not an inexpensive build. But what you get in the RV14 is the performance premium. If the RV15 is built at the cost of the RV14 yet it performs at the C170 level, then the value calculation is tough to justify.

What do you get when you take the most successful kit aircraft designer and set out to improve on the most popular aircraft ever built?

You get the RV15. When Van's does do the nosewheel, it will have all the proper faring's and will perform (in every respect) better than ANY strut based Cessna ever built. And with the changes to Light sport, the RV15 IS THE AIRPLANE that will finally take the place of the RV6 as the most popular kit built aircraft in the world.
 
Just to pile on the "why RV15 versus Cessna" - "experimental."

Yes it makes no sense to compare cert with exp. I will never own a certified airplane. And there are a lot of pilots ,perhaps most, who would never build or own an experimental - many think they are “dangerous”. It is 2 different tribes.

Someone above speculated that the trike gear version won’t have the shock absorbing gear. I’m sure it will. It will still be intended for back country flying.
 
Yes it makes no sense to compare cert with exp. I will never own a certified airplane. And there are a lot of pilots ,perhaps most, who would never build or own an experimental - many think they are “dangerous”. It is 2 different tribes.

Someone above speculated that the trike gear version won’t have the shock absorbing gear. I’m sure it will. It will still be intended for back country flying.

It will just be fugly like the Carbon NXCub :D
 
Expected G range is stated in the video of the What’s new at Van’s presentation ([URL="https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1622972&postcount=5]at this post[/URL]) I don’t remember the exact numbers but they didn’t strike me as an Aerobatic range.

Is anyone aware of whether Van's is even interested in an aerobatic rating? Obviously there's a significant weight and engineering cost penalty, and it would an unusual mission for a backcountry aircraft, but being able to perform gentleman's aerobatics in this plane would meet the "total performance" goal in my mind and would set the RV-15 well apart from its competitors.

I'm not sure if there are others looking for that though - I'd have to make a tough decision between a non-aerobatic RV-15 and an RV-7 given the latter's ability to land in most of the spots I'd realistically be going in California/the US West.
 
love the stick...hate the stick!

Where's the 'suggestion box' now?
....I love the stick for flying, but think it's a huge detriment getting in and out!
I've seen another bird with a stick that came out from under the dash, with almost all the same movements that we all desire!
yes, a bit of gears and rods and cables to achieve this, but even my skinny legs get in the way of a hard aileron correction....
not to mention whacking my kneeboards, which have now grown to accommodate 43" flatscreen apple Airpads!
 
Yes it makes no sense to compare cert with exp. I will never own a certified airplane. And there are a lot of pilots ,perhaps most, who would never build or own an experimental - many think they are “dangerous”. It is 2 different tribes.

Someone above speculated that the trike gear version won’t have the shock absorbing gear. I’m sure it will. It will still be intended for back country flying.

This is from Paul Dye's "Early Access" look at the RV-15:

The trike is likely to use an RV-10/14-style nose gear and a more common aluminum leaf gear with a less complex fuselage structure; the thinking is that the trike is less likely to be taken far into the backcountry and therefore doesn’t need the weight or complexity.

https://www.kitplanes.com/vans-rv-15-on-top/
 
Where's the 'suggestion box' now?
....I love the stick for flying, but think it's a huge detriment getting in and out!
I've seen another bird with a stick that came out from under the dash, with almost all the same movements that we all desire!
yes, a bit of gears and rods and cables to achieve this, but even my skinny legs get in the way of a hard aileron correction....
not to mention whacking my kneeboards, which have now grown to accommodate 43" flatscreen apple Airpads!

I think Rian is working on shaping the stick so that you can get in and out with your legs going between the stick and the seat. When I have climbed in to the -15, we always pushed the seat back, climb in, then push it forward - the stick is not an issue.

Just FYI - the Sling HW stick is shaped in a big loop, so your legs go behind it when getting in - and you push the seat back for ingress and egress.
 
Is anyone aware of whether Van's is even interested in an aerobatic rating? Obviously there's a significant weight and engineering cost penalty, and it would an unusual mission for a backcountry aircraft, but being able to perform gentleman's aerobatics in this plane would meet the "total performance" goal in my mind and would set the RV-15 well apart from its competitors.


I owned a Cessna Aerobat and it was developed from the standard 150/152 design by increasing some structure gages, adding a C182 strut (cut down) and some pins to pull the door hinges. Total weight gain was 18 lbs, I believe.

I think a lot of back-country pilots would love an aerobatic airplane. And they'd also appreciate the extra sturdiness of a +6/-3 g airframe
 
Last edited:
I owned a Cessna Aerobat and it was developed from the standard 150/152 design by increasing some structure gages, adding a C182 strut (cut down) and some pins to pull the door hinges. Total weight gain was 18 lbs, I believe.

I think a lot of back-country pilots would love an aerobatic airplane. And they'd also appreciate the extra sturdiness of a +6/-3 g airframe

Thanks for the insight, that's not as bad as I expected. And totally agree about the sturdiness factor - I learned in a Super Decathlon and always appreciated knowing how much margin I had when things got a little rough.

Now if we could only get Van's to weigh in...Greg?? :)
 
Sheesh, I think I understand the total performance concept Vans is going for but dang.
Why not make the 15 aerobatic, float capable, air conditioned with foldable wings so you can drive it like a car too. Heated seats are a must regardless…….
Anyone road race their rock crawling Jeeps? How many people trailer their Jeeps to where the fun is?
The 15 is an off-road vehicle you can actually fly to your destination without trailering it.
 
Thanks for the insight, that's not as bad as I expected. And totally agree about the sturdiness factor - I learned in a Super Decathlon and always appreciated knowing how much margin I had when things got a little rough.

Now if we could only get Van's to weigh in...Greg?? :)

Utiliity category: +4.4, -2.2
 
Sheesh, I think I understand the total performance concept Vans is going for but dang.
Why not make the 15 aerobatic, float capable, air conditioned with foldable wings so you can drive it like a car too. Heated seats are a must regardless…….
Anyone road race their rock crawling Jeeps? How many people trailer their Jeeps to where the fun is?
The 15 is an off-road vehicle you can actually fly to your destination without trailering it.

Vtol while you’re at it.

Seriously people, every goodie you add costs something. Making it aerobatic at the cost of useful load for a back country utility airplane makes no sense.
 
It should be capable of spins and unusual attitude recovery practice for training purposes and fun.... I do expect the RV15A to become a trainer also.
 
Last edited:
Looks like

It should be capable of spins and unusual attitude recovery practice for training purposes and fun.... I do expect the RV15A to become a trainer also.

I think you are right. If it looks like a 172, people are gonna beat it up like a 172.
 
Aerobatics?

I am beginning to feel sorry for Van's engineering team.
As to aerobatics, or gentleman's aerobatics, I am sure it will do a spin and a roll without exceeding +4.4 g's and a few other light maneuvers including loops, wingovers etc. You can pretty much do that in any airplane as long as you are capable of performing such maneuvers without exceeding rated G's.
If you are hoping for Van's blessing on this, good luck.
It seems that we have reached the fringe of the wish list, how about a IO-540 up front?
It'll be a beast!
 
Back
Top