It’s on. 2 kits out the door.

A buddy of mine is headed down to OR in the next week or two to pick his up.
He told me that the wing kits are all that are available so far.
Any ideas on when the rest of the kits will be available?

There’s a estimate timeline for the sub kits, seems like I remember seeing fall of 2027 for the finishing kit (last piece of the puzzle) could be wrong about that.

If what I’m being told is true, builders are definitely going to be waiting between subkits due to the speed of assembly. What once took Vans builders months will now be weeks. The level of engineering blows my mind.

At one time in Canada a 51% requirement that must be completed by the builder, is that still a thing ? I don't keep up on the regulations so they could have changed as well.

Are the advances in engineering and fabrication pushing the envelop on this requirement ?

If building simply becomes a assembly project does that fit with the rules as they are now ?

Mapleflt wrote:At one time in Canada a 51% requirement that must be completed by the builder, is that still a thing ? I don't keep up on the regulations so they could have changed as well.

Are the advances in engineering and fabrication pushing the envelop on this requirement ?

If building simply becomes a assembly project does that fit with the rules as they are now ?

You bring up a point that is sure to raise the hackles of some "kit builders" (assemblers). I have advocated for years the difference between building and assembling. Building involves engineering skills and the ability to calculate. Assembling is taking pre-engineered pieces (someone else did all the required math and science) and putting those pieces together with pre-engineered fasteners to make a structure. It is not my intent to disparage the assembly process of these "kits"; however, I do think it important to know the difference between the two processes as well as the level of knowledge and skillsets required to build versus assemble.

TR

No ill intended, I'm not looking to raise anyone's hackles.

The passion clearly evident in the homebuilt airplanes of today has created some incredible works of art to be admired. Equally some of the engineering that's being incorporated in the home builds of this era is amazing; leading edge devices, multi-segmented fowler flaps to name a couple. Having the engineering minds at a place like Van's is invaluable for the growth and development within this sector of "grass roots" aviation. Having strong engineering support enhances safety, removes some of the intimidation factor and may entice more would be participants to give it a go.

If a builder can put their "skills & abilities" into the assembly without needing a degree in university calculus that might actually be a good thing.

Its a kit. No engineering required, probably not even much skill or craftsmanship. I am sure some will turn out better than others.

Looks like a cool thing to me, but by the time its done you'd have more into it than a decent 180 at current market prices.

I really like the RV-15, but long ago I realized that I could buy a used plane for less than I could build a plane and I'd save myself years of working in a garage or hangar while I was at it. I did check out the two newest high wing taildraggers at AirVenture 2025, and they are VERY different birds. The RV-15 looks like something you could load all your gear in and go camping in some far away places. The Sonex High Wing looks diminutive next to the RV-15. It looks like something you could have a lot of fun in locally, but didn't appear to be capable of traveling with a load of camping gear, or capable of handling anything but the smoothest of grass runways. The fact that they are both high wing aircraft is the only thing they have in common. Very different planes for very different missions. Both missions are fun, but they are different.

The RV-15 is big enough that most of the milling crowd could stand under the wings without hitting their heads.


The Sonex High Wing is a tiny little bird and the top of its wing is lower than shoulder height of the guy standing behind it. You can actually see the RV-15 in the background.

Quote "Its a kit. No engineering required, probably not even much skill or craftsmanship."

That's kind of the question, is "no engineering required, probably not even much skill or craftsmanship" a good or bad direction to be going in for the greater good ?

Depends on one's definition of "greater good". An analogy is assembling a pre-engineered log cabin (kit) versus designing and engineering (building) your own. In the former, all engineering is accomplished for you, in the latter, you are responsible for its structural integrity. As long as both meet/exceed the required strength to handle the required load, how one arrives at the finished product is a matter of chosen routing. I deem the "greater good" as safety vice process.

TR

TR wrote:Depends on one's definition of "greater good". An analogy is assembling a pre-engineered log cabin (kit) versus designing and engineering (building) your own. In the former, all engineering is accomplished for you, in the latter, you are responsible for its structural integrity. As long as both meet/exceed the required strength to handle the required load, how one arrives at the finished product is a matter of chosen routing. I deem the "greater good" as safety vice process.

TR

I agree, if the process elevates safety to a higher and broader level the greater good will have been well served.

Craftsmanship, shmashmanship. If you can turn a box full of parts and hardware into an airplane, you’ll know a lot more about airplanes than you did before. And that’s the purpose of the E-AB category: “education or recreation.”

As for the RV-15, the wing kit costs more than the RV-10 wing kit. I wonder what the completed costs will wind up being. Buying everything new, you’d be lucky to get one done for less than $250k, I’ll bet. Probably better budget 300. That’s about $100k more than a RANS S-21 (the only direct competition) and $100k less than a Carbon Cub.

StillLearning wrote:Its a kit. No engineering required, probably not even much skill or craftsmanship. I am sure some will turn out better than others. Looks like a cool thing to me, but by the time its done you'd have more into it than a decent 180 at current market prices.

I agree about having less money into a 180,
and IMHO you'd have more airplane.
But then again I'm a big 180 fan.

But I disagree about not much skill or craftsmanship being required.
I eyeballed an RV4 that was for sale at my airport not long ago,
"not much skill or craftsmanship" was put into it.....and it really showed.
I've seen other kit-built experimentals that were much the same,
but I've also seen some that exhibited plenty of building skills.

A well engineered kit might help to mitigate poor "skills & abilities" but in the end poor craftsmanship will be evident to anyone with a discerning eye.

StuBob wrote:Craftsmanship, shmashmanship. If you can turn a box full of parts and hardware into an airplane, you’ll know a lot more about airplanes than you did before. And that’s the purpose of the E-AB category: “education or recreation.”

As for the RV-15, the wing kit costs more than the RV-10 wing kit. I wonder what the completed costs will wind up being. Buying everything new, you’d be lucky to get one done for less than $250k, I’ll bet. Probably better budget 300. That’s about $100k more than a RANS S-21 (the only direct competition) and $100k less than a Carbon Cub.

An S-21 isn't even close to the same ball park as the RV 15, and you might want to check pricing on a Carbon Cub.....that may bring tears to your eyes.

And, if you want to consider whether E/AB should be a "skill building" exercise, consider that you can purchase a Carbon Cub kit, go to the factory, perform a few "skills" during the assembly, and the factory then completes the plane, and it qualifies under E/AB, at least in the US. It's called "builder assist".

THAT, I question, but nobody asked me.