A wide open niche would be a 180/185 type plane. There are lots of 2 seater, light and slow planes out there. Experimentally there would only be the BearHawk 4 Place and Model 5 to compete with.

I wonder if they maybe bought the Tundra design? Or maybe designed something very similar? I agree that a 4 seat TW experimental would be an awesome seller. Might help bring the 180/185 prices back down to civilization as well.

Seems like there have been a lot of 4-place experimentals that couldn’t make it. The Tundra, Super Cyclone (185 clone), Murphy had one, Bushmaster/Producer, Christavia, Wag-Aero Sportsman 2+2, Glasair Sportsman, and a few I don’t recall at the moment. I don’t think there is a big market there so I don’t see Vans going that way. My guess is a 2-place side-by-side that will sell to their current clientele.

Utah-Jay wrote:A wide open niche would be a 180/185 type plane. There are lots of 2 seater, light and slow planes out there. Experimentally there would only be the BearHawk 4 Place and Model 5 to compete with.

I have explored developing an aircraft to fill that niche, and one of the big challenges is that the engines and props are a lot more expensive than four cylinder Lycoming setups. The kit will cost more. Fuel costs more. Insurance costs more. Avionics cost more, and so on... You end up pricing a kit plane out of the homebuilder's market. Most of those who can afford such an airplane are not typically tinkering in their garages through a five year build. Then you need to have it professionally built, which is great. There are a number of pro kit builders all over the place who do great work, but it ends up being an experimental that costs 600k-800k. That leads you to a very limited market.

Then you decide to certify the airplane for production. It will take at least five years and tens of millions of dollars and the airplane will probably end up costing the customer at least a million to get in to.

I concluded that, for success, such a kit must start with a base Lycoming four-cylinder model that can be completed on a Carbon Cub budget at the high end, but design it so that it can also accept a big bore six, and be eligible for an easy gross weight increase.

The 180 hp 170 is really a sweet spot that the big manufacturers missed during the G.A. boom times. There is the Glastar. They don't seem to be selling quite like iPhones though.

A homebuilt 170 is the sweet spot; some wing enhancements, leading edge slats, Robertson style STOL kit, WingX etc. There are numerous engine options that would work well with this airframe from traditional to experimental.

The best part; it could be a round tail, bring it on man let's gooooooooo

I too have been excited to see this ever since they announced the project. I’ll most likely be putting a deposit down immediately once they start taking them, depending on what it looks like of course.

To me one of the secrets to the success of Van’s designs is the “packaging” of the wing carrythru spar under the pilots seat, this is space that is otherwise wasted. When you take Van’s cantilevered wing and put it on top of the cabin you now have that carrythru spar trying to occupy the same space as the pilots’s head(s).

This makes me think(hope) that the airplane will be a side by side 2 place with the pilots well ahead of the spar. Otherwise they’ll have to go with a wing strut and lose some of that famous speed they’re known for.

Having been lucky enough to have time in both turbine beavers and otters I can say the visibility afforded by being ahead of the leading edge is really great. It would be great to avoid the “peering out of a pillbox” feeling some of the experimental high wings have.

Scolopax wrote:The 180 hp 170 is really a sweet spot that the big manufacturers missed during the G.A. boom times. There is the Glastar. They don't seem to be selling quite like iPhones though.

I doubt they are going backwards on the HP on their smaller engines - if they do a four cylinder it will be the same option as what they have already developed for the RV14 - either a 210HP Lycoming IO-390A or the 215HP IO-390-EXP119. They are not going to go to a lower HP
rated 4 cylinder engine.

But point taken - a 210 HP constant speed prop engine package in something like a 170 would be a hoot.

They've be well advised to make it a "round tail", membership has privileges.

corefile wrote:

Scolopax wrote:The 180 hp 170 is really a sweet spot that the big manufacturers missed during the G.A. boom times. There is the Glastar. They don't seem to be selling quite like iPhones though.

I doubt they are going backwards on the HP on their smaller engines - if they do a four cylinder it will be the same option as what they have already developed for the RV14 - either a 210HP Lycoming IO-390A or the 215HP IO-390-EXP119. They are not going to go to a lower HP
rated 4 cylinder engine.

But point taken - a 210 HP constant speed prop engine package in something like a 170 would be a hoot.

I really just meant the O-320/360/390 family of engines. FWF specification is largely up to the builder. There are legacy RV kitplanes sporting O-320s with low end metal or wooden fixed pitch props, up to high end builds that use the most pumped up Lycoming experimental 4-cylinder variant with high-zoot composite constant speed props. To capture the largest market share, designing around the highest variety of budgets is key to selling the most kits. The O-320/360/390 family is the best way to do that.

corefile wrote:

Scolopax wrote:

But point taken - a 210 HP constant speed prop engine package in something like a 170 would be a hoot.

An actual Cessna 170B with 210HP IS a hoot.
Vans would do well with something like that.

But it will never look as good as a 170.

c170pete wrote:

corefile wrote:

Scolopax wrote:

But point taken - a 210 HP constant speed prop engine package in something like a 170 would be a hoot.

An actual Cessna 170B with 210HP IS a hoot.
Vans would do well with something like that.

But it will never look as good as a 170.

Agreed but a valiant effort non the less

whee wrote: Seems like there have been a lot of 4-place experimentals that couldn’t make it. The Tundra, Super Cyclone (185 clone), Murphy had one, Bushmaster/Producer, Christavia, Wag-Aero Sportsman 2+2, Glasair Sportsman.......

I dunno if I'd lump the GlasStar Sportsman in with those others.
The Bearhawk is probably one of the most popular 4 place homebuilts,
but I think I've only seen a couple of those in real life--
whereas I see a pretty fair number of GS Sportsmans (sportsmen?) around.
Of course GlasStar is based right here in the Puget Sound area,
that might account for some of it's local popularity.

I am also excited to see what they come up with but in order for it to push the operating envelope forward I believe it has to feature electric retractable slats. That could be very interesting to see on a 4 seat high wing with laminar flow for the top end.

The suspense is killing me!

Thought I'd jump in with my thoughts as someone who is doing 500+ hours dual each year with a tailwheel and Idaho backcountry emphasis. My flying is done with clients in many different types of "backcountry" capable aircraft. The input I get from these clients leads me to believe there's a big hole out there that the RV-15 could do much to fill.

Something along the lines of an improved Rans S-21. Its steel cage surrounding the cockpit provides a secure feeling, if not real additional protection in a crash. An attempt to make that aircraft LSA optional may have led to some of it's compromises. For example, the aluminum skins may be a little lighter in damage prone areas than what is desirable for significant "backcountry" use. The tailwheel attachment could be more robust. The S-21's horizontal stabilizer is quite low and can sustain considerable damage over time. I could see a similar airplane beefed up a bit and with engine options ranging from a Rotax 915 to an IO-390. Target <1200 lbs empty and a gross around 2000 lbs. Slightly more wingspan, 35-40 gallons fuel and a bit bigger baggage area with easy access. Cruise at 125 knots, Vso at 37 knots - (similar to the S-21). Plexiglass and 4 point harnesses. No Lexan or 3 point harnesses!. Offer it in a tundra trike version. A quick build option is preferable and pull rivets are just fine.

All the above seems to be within the Vans wheelhouse. The truth is that Rans a pretty nice job with the S-21 from a gentleman's backcountry perspective. I don't think the world is in dire need of another Carbon Cub, Norden, SuperSTOL or Kitfox. They all do very well for those with more off-airport aspirations. I'm more in the camp of those looking for a bit wider mission profile. An improved, two-place C170 replacement.

FWIW

Very very unlikely that Vans is going to come out with something that has a tube cage or putts along at 125 kts. They are not going to stray to far from their strength and have said publicly the RV15 design will still be inline with the company ideology of “Total Performance” - I just don’t see a 125kts plane making the cut at Vans.

I'm fairly certain it will have 4 seats, a big motor, go pretty fast, haul a lot and have a lot of space inside, and be perfectly adequate for landing at backcountry airports.

GB wrote:I'm fairly certain it will have 4 seats, a big motor, go pretty fast, haul a lot and have a lot of space inside, and be perfectly adequate for landing at backcountry airports.

I hope so! Modern Skywagon!

Ross4289 wrote:

GB wrote:I'm fairly certain it will have 4 seats, a big motor, go pretty fast, haul a lot and have a lot of space inside, and be perfectly adequate for landing at backcountry airports.

I hope so! Modern Skywagon!

But we want it toebe able to land off airport. Not just at grass strips backcountry airports.

corefile wrote:Very very unlikely that Vans is going to come out with something that has a tube cage or putts along at 125 kts. They are not going to stray to far from their strength and have said publicly the RV15 design will still be inline with the company ideology of “Total Performance” - I just don’t see a 125kts plane making the cut at Vans.

I think you're right - hard to see them doing a cage combo. But in my mind offering less than 800 lbs useful with a Vso much above 40 knots would be a miss. Engine/prop choices could certainly push cruise speeds higher than 125 - maybe as much as 140 knots. But heck, if "total performance" simply equals high cruise, why not just fly in with an RV-7 or Harmon Rocket. I see them at JC, Big Creek and Smiley often. My hope is that "Total Performance" is viewed more broadly with this airplane.