Finally got sucked in to this discussion
So... if the RV-15 is a bush plane-ish critter, what might be expected, and what is to be learned from other kits on the market...
1. All-aluminum construction: Van's knows all about that, knows how to do gorgeous NC parts. Existing kits on the market are from Murphy Aircraft. Lots of capability in Murphys, but slow and pricey by RV standards;
2. Tailwheel / nosewheel / floats: the GlaStar planes were among the first where the gear was designed to be switched, and this could be done in a day. Nice planes, good handling, but way pricey and maybe 30 knots slower than a comparably powered RV. I looked at a damaged GlaStar some years ago as a possibly project, and a new wing kit alone was much more than an entire RV kit. The GlaStars also have folding wings which sound cool but may not really have that much utility in real life. I'd be very happy to have a Sportsman 2+2, and I'd probably live with the slower speeds, but my RVs are doing well by me, thank you!
3. Cub clone: there's a gazillion of these on the market, some of them pricey. Neat features to be seen include wider fuselages, being able to sleep in the plane, etc;
4. Other interesting planes: the Bearhawk is very capable and deserves a good following. The Vashon Ranger (LSA) has the interesting feature that if flown solo, it can be a (tricycle gear) bush plane that you can sleep in and carry a ton of camping gear and junk. I've flown several of the RANS aircraft, none recently, and was impressed with their handling characteristics, but in the wrong way. Like I said, none recently;
5. Anybody ever priced tundra tires? We're talking kilobucks. And if you're landing on pavement, tundra tires make taildragger handling harder. At Anchorage, they added a gravel runway for the tundra tire planes.
So where's the exploitable, marketable gap in the market? I think it's an all-metal, tandem seating, two seat Cub-ish semi-bush plane with tailwheel or nosewheel available, but probably not field convertible as easily as a GlaStar. Expect performance more or less comparable to existing planes, but maybe a little faster because an aluminum wing can hold its airfoil shape better than fabric covered (I think). Float attach, maybe.
I greatly prefer high wing airplanes for the shade, the view of the ground, and the generally better ride in turbulence. For me, 150 knots is the minimum speed desired for usable cross-country flying, but of the Cessna singles, only the 201s can achieve that. The RV-7/9 fuselages are at the bottom end of tolerable fuselage width. But that's just me, and I don't think there's a lot of market share there if you really need 150 knots because that dictates a bigger engine, etc. etc.
Ed