A1Skinner wrote:

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.

I thought I said Skywagon. I can land my Cirrus SR22 at anything labeled as an airport.

Ross4289 wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

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.

I thought I said Skywagon. I can land my Cirrus SR22 at anything labeled as an airport.

You did, but GB specifically bolded the word airports, and you agreed with him, which to me doesn't include skywagons. I very much hope it is like a 170/180/185, in that it can land dang near anywhere and haul 4 people, but definitely not only backcountry "airports" as eluded to by GB in his post. Maybe I was misunderstanding his use of bolding a word, but I don't think so.

Scariest place I land my Skywagon is airports. It hates airports.

^^you and me both.

Might be flying the 185 to the Bahamas in 2 weeks (1,700nm each way) if the Cirrus sells by then. Will make it interesting for a 50 hr tailwheel guy

I hope that Vans overbuilds whatever they make. My perception (probably uninformed) is that the total performance is bought by leaving weight on the ground. That weight reduction comes in the form of delicate looking landing gear, thinner skins, smaller tires, and smaller planes in general. For their mission, these are outstanding choices. They result in speed, handling, and economy that is superb.

What I'm hoping they do is leave some 'total performance' on the ground, and add durability. Gear legs that are bigger than needed, with angles that don't collapse. (Take a look at the nose gear on an RV10 and imagine the torque on it). Skins, especially on the belly and tail, that are a gauge or two thicker than needed for strength. Build something that isn't a pretender, but could survive being regularly used off airport. My Cessna 205 feels like a tank compared to the RVs I've seen.

What I think they will do is build something that appeals to the masses and can land on decent backcountry airports with big tires for show. It will probably have the option to add a lot of power, but likely end up being a two place with bags or four with no bags airplane with more baggage area than usual, so the retiree builder can take his wife to Johnson Creek and Cavanaugh Bay. Not holding my breath much for big rocks and long props...

We, as a community may not agree however unfortunately "full on backcountry, long props & big rocks" is a niche market. We are the privateer's of this realm. We consume product but within the larger aviation community are small potatoes to a retailer like Van's.

Yup. I hope it is a super awesome bush basher that is also fast. Might be a 185 clone, but my guess is more towards a high wing RV-10 for going to Johnson Creek type places with loads of camping gear. More look bushy then bushplane. This is just a guess, and who knows maybe it will be a miniBeaver.

I really hope they are going for the Skywagon niche, but I really doubt it. I'd put money its going to start as a 2 place side by side aircraft, powered by 360 to a 390. It will be more robust then current RV's are. This company didn't start making the RV 10, Van was dragged kicking and screaming into the 4 place market. They are going to build a "backcountry capable" plane to the largest market sector to recoup cost, then expand from there. I wouldn't expect to see many parts from previous models as I'd bet they are going to be using a different wing profile entirely. They've already said its going to be all aluminum, tube and fabric isn't what they do. Total performance in this reguard should give up some top speed for the low speed handling. I'd be surprise to see anything too fancy, electric slats, fairy powder, and rainbow thrust isn't their style. Who knows though, I could be totally off base. If its an improved 170ish or 180-185, I'll be putting money down to build another RV. Loved building my RV and the technology has come along way since then. If it has pulled rivets all over it I'll be really disappointed.

A kit built 185? Good luck with that. Huge project, beyond the basic skill and equipment level, and what would the cost be, completed? $500 K plus, and maybe plus plus.

That doesn’t strike me as Van’s style, frankly. The RV - 10 is a four place, but still a relatively small plane.

Aviat considered building a 185 “type” plane at one point and scrapped it. Not sure why, but I suspect that would have been a really expensive plane.

It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with. But if past performance predicts future success, I’ll bet Van’s hits a home run.

MTV

mtv wrote:A kit built 185? Good luck with that. Huge project, beyond the basic skill and equipment level, and what would the cost be, completed? $500 K plus, and maybe plus plus.

That doesn’t strike me as Van’s style, frankly. The RV - 10 is a four place, but still a relatively small plane.

Aviat considered building a 185 “type” plane at one point and scrapped it. Not sure why, but I suspect that would have been a really expensive plane.

It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with. But if past performance predicts future success, I’ll bet Van’s hits a home run.

MTV

Agree on all fronts!

I bet it’ll be a Rans S-21 competitor. I’ve got nothing to base it on, but I’m guessing planes like the S-21 or Bearhawk Companion/Patrol are nibbling into their market share, and they’re going to produce a “gentleman’s backcountry plane” to stay competitive in the market.

Good for them. Probably won’t even use bicycle parts for the throttle cable.

CenterHillAg wrote:I bet it’ll be a Rans S-21 competitor. I’ve got nothing to base it on, but I’m guessing planes like the S-21 or Bearhawk Companion/Patrol are nibbling into their market share, and they’re going to produce a “gentleman’s backcountry plane” to stay competitive in the market.

I would bet a doughnut and cup of coffee it’s going to be closer to a Cessna 140 with a Lycoming IO-390 more then anything else.

corefile wrote:I would bet a doughnut and cup of coffee it’s going to be closer to a Cessna 140 with a Lycoming IO-390 more then anything else.

My thoughts as well. A Cessna 160 if you will but faster than a 170.

Strut braced or fully cantilevered?

A strutted wing I hope, cantilevered ones are a pain on floats

Flying Dave wrote:

corefile wrote:I would bet a doughnut and cup of coffee it’s going to be closer to a Cessna 140 with a Lycoming IO-390 more then anything else.

My thoughts as well. A Cessna 160 if you will but faster than a 170.

That’d get my interest

Mapleflt wrote: We... are small potatoes to a retailer like Van's.

That would explain why they haven't written me back.

[quote="CenterHillAg"]I bet it’ll be a Rans S-21 competitor. I’ve got nothing to base it on, but I’m guessing planes like the S-21 or Bearhawk Companion/Patrol are nibbling into their market share, and they’re going to produce a “gentleman’s backcountry plane” to stay competitive in the market.[/qu

I've been at the big Super Cub fly-in at Johnson Creek, and seen a gang of RV hoodlums' ( 3's and 4's I think) drop in as a flight. That particular group anyway, seem to really know their stuff, and the total distance used for landing was as much or less then some of the hotter landing SC's. I think they go out of their way to make as short and slow landings as possible, just to rub it in, that they can land short and then also haul ass. They are a bunch of troublemakers.