Van's RV-15 high Wing

hindsight2020 said:
I think the BD-4C would fit my niche perfectly, assuming the claims of it being aerobatic are true. I just can't find one for sale, which is the typical issue with this hobby anymore. Keep building 'em boys, those of us in captive audience land need something to escape to when you're done with 'em.
Click to expand...

Many come up for sale. There is a Bede specific forum that you can join. Usually one or two a year get put up for sale in the classifieds... some flying, some kits.
 
More details are out. I think it will be a good airplane but am disappointed they seem to have skewed it more towards bush plane than your typical RV total performance. The Landing gear and TW are neat but imo add unnecessary weight, complexity, and cost. Hopeful the kit version will have fewer pulled rivets. I like the size range they targeted, bigger than the S21 but smaller than a Moose, or Bearhawk 5.

https://www.kitplanes.com/vans-rv-15-on-top/
 
Wednesday will see the OSH arrival of three Sling High Wings. Two conventional gear and one tail dragger. The 3 flew from Sling Aircraft in South Africa and are currently in the Bahamas, enroute to OSH. I see a bright future for both the HW Slings and the RV-15. Long overdue IMO. Getting older, as much as I used to despise high wings, they be looking good to me now. Climbing the wing is starting to get old fast.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
Getting older, as much as I used to despise high wings, they be looking good to me now. Climbing the wing is starting to get old fast.
Click to expand...

I like the low wings but considered a high wing for the reason you mentioned ... then I remembered that you have to climb up to fuel the high wing using the step stool you brought with you. Unless it was forgotten ... :)
 
Daleandee said:
I like the low wings but considered a high wing for the reason you mentioned ... then I remembered that you have to climb up to fuel the high wing using the step stool you brought with you. Unless it was forgotten ... :)
Click to expand...
That's what fuel trucks and rampies are for.
 
Daleandee said:
I like the low wings but considered a high wing for the reason you mentioned ... then I remembered that you have to climb up to fuel the high wing using the step stool you brought with you. Unless it was forgotten ... :)
Click to expand...

I agree, but most self serve fuel stations have ladders which aid in refueling. It’s getting in and out that’s becoming a PITA for me.
 
High wing tail draggers come with built-in fueling accommodations. The main gear tires. With the 35s on the Cub I added steps on the inboard axle housing to get up on the tires. The Cessna has a step and hand hold mounted on the cowl, too, but I have to get onto the tires to reach the step. First world problems.
 
Went to the RV-15 forum this morning and went to look over the actual plane at Van’s booth right after. I think they have a winner, and based on what they cryptically said at the presentation this might just be the beginning of a line of high-wing aircraft. Of course only time will tell.
 
tsts4 said:
Went to the RV-15 forum this morning and went to look over the actual plane at Van’s booth right after. I think they have a winner, and based on what they cryptically said at the presentation this might just be the beginning of a line of high-wing aircraft. Of course only time will tell.
Click to expand...
It would be awesome if they came out with basically an experimental Citabria/Decathlon type version.
 
I want it to be a spacious 4 seater with room for luggage - and a 540.
Click to expand...

I was hoping for electric retractable slats and double slotted flaps...
Click to expand...

...disappointed they seem to have skewed it more towards bush plane than your typical RV total performance.
Click to expand...

It would be awesome if they came out with basically an experimental Citabria/Decathlon type version.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that they had a pretty good idea of their target market, and given past performance I'll also bet that the production version hits that target pretty close to dead-center.

Nauga,
who wanted a pony
 
Grum.Man said:
More details are out. I think it will be a good airplane but am disappointed they seem to have skewed it more towards bush plane than your typical RV total performance.
Click to expand...
Don't think there's that much question of where THAT came from....

In 2019, 51 new Vans RV-7s were added to the registry...the highest of the Vans types. The same year, the same number of Carbon Cub 2000 series were added. If one combines the 2000 series with the largely similar 1865, more Carbon Cubs were built than year than any particular RV model.

Van's has no problem at all identifying their chief competitor, and designed an airplane to go head-to-head with it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Don't think there's that much question of where THAT came from....

In 2019, 51 new Vans RV-7s were added to the registry...the highest of the Vans types. The same year, the same number of Carbon Cub 2000 series were added. If one combines the 2000 series with the largely similar 1865, more Carbon Cubs were built than year than any particular RV model.

Van's has no problem at all identifying their chief competitor, and designed an airplane to go head-to-head with it.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
That's crazy, I had no idea Carbon Cub's outsold Vans. They are one trick wonders that cost a fortune.
 
I love reading critical wisecracks by guys who know very little of what they’re criticizing. Whether or not I want one (I don’t at this moment) it is undeniable that the Carbon Cub has changed the landscape of experimental aviation, of backcountry flying, and of the definition of Cubs themselves. Their innovations favor light weight and relatively high power. If there’s a weakness it’s in durability, and that’s true with most things that are designed to be light. No matter, they’re the real deal in high performance taildraggers. I don’t see any way the RV-15 comes close in performance and I think Van’s expects to steal some market share regardless. Many buyers don’t need or want CC performance and they’ll lean toward a metal plane. I expect to see failures and changes to the -15 suspension system and the stabilator IF anyone really tries working one on rough ground. And to that? I don’t think it’s designed for rough ground. It’ll be a strip to strip plane. I hope it’s successful.
 
Stewartb said:
I love reading critical wisecracks by guys who know very little of what they’re criticizing. Whether or not I want one (I don’t at this moment) it is undeniable that the Carbon Cub has changed the landscape of experimental aviation, of backcountry flying, and of the definition of Cubs themselves. Their innovations favor light weight and relatively high power. If there’s a weakness it’s in durability, and that’s true with most things that are designed to be light. No matter, they’re the real deal in high performance taildraggers. I don’t see any way the RV-15 comes close in performance and I think Van’s expects to steal some market share regardless. Many buyers don’t need or want CC performance and they’ll lean toward a metal plane. I expect to see failures and changes to the -15 suspension system and the stabilator IF anyone really tries working one on rough ground. And to that? I don’t think it’s designed for rough ground. It’ll be a strip to strip plane. I hope it’s successful.
Click to expand...

The stabilator design was chosen to maintain pitch authority throughout the landing phase without having to use power to compensate. The entire leading edge is attached with screws for easy removal for repair or replacement.

After seeing how the suspension works and its components I think it will be successful.

Say what you will but I think the model will be tremendously successful. Unfortunately it’s not the plane for me. Maybe the RV-16……
 
Stewartb said:
I love reading critical wisecracks by guys who know very little of what they’re criticizing. Whether or not I want one (I don’t at this moment) it is undeniable that the Carbon Cub has changed the landscape of experimental aviation, of backcountry flying, and of the definition of Cubs themselves. Their innovations favor light weight and relatively high power. If there’s a weakness it’s in durability, and that’s true with most things that are designed to be light. No matter, they’re the real deal in high performance taildraggers. I don’t see any way the RV-15 comes close in performance and I think Van’s expects to steal some market share regardless. Many buyers don’t need or want CC performance and they’ll lean toward a metal plane. I expect to see failures and changes to the -15 suspension system and the stabilator IF anyone really tries working one on rough ground. And to that? I don’t think it’s designed for rough ground. It’ll be a strip to strip plane. I hope it’s successful.
Click to expand...

The Carbon Cub isn't a bad airplane by any means, but it does have its own shortfalls, namely in size. It isn't very big, and hauling two medium to large size adults isn't something it was designed to do. I knew a guy who could be described as beefy, not fat, that bought a Carbon Cub thinking it would be perfect for his mission, just to sell it after putting about 10-20 hours on it because he could not comfortably fit in it. An RV-15 might be a better fit, while still providing enough performance for the average "backwoods" pilot.
 
For anyone whose flown a standard elevator plane on rough ground they know how hard the stick or yoke is to control when hitting bumps and ruts. A stabilator will magnify that and the subsequent beating the pivots will take will need to be watched. As for gear? Cessna gear failures twist out the gear boxes, which are incredibly strong. Add a bunch of moving parts right there? What could go wrong?

As an owner of a Cessna tail dragger and a Cub, I can testify that my Cub can take hits and twists I wouldn’t want my metal plane to take. Say what you want about old tube and fabric design, but there’s good reason why Cubs dominate for short and rough field utility. Like I said, I don’t see the RV going there. But hell, I may be wrong. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
Van's has no problem at all identifying their chief competitor, and designed an airplane to go head-to-head with it.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

My opinion is the -15 and the CC compete for dissimilar markets and Vans has identified a gap in the market they can exploit. Yes, there is a little overlap between the products, but the CC is for guys who want to go out and play Backcountry STOL and the RV is a C-1XX that could be outfitted for the backcountry, but is less of a single point design.

I don’t see Cubcrafters losing many sales to the -15.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
My opinion is the -15 and the CC compete for dissimilar markets and Vans has identified a gap in the market they can exploit. Yes, there is a little overlap between the Products, but the CC is for guys who want to go out and play Backcountry STOL and the RV is a C-1XX that could be outfitted for the backcountry, but is less of a single point design.

I don’t see Cubcrafters losing many sales to the -15.
Click to expand...
My thought has been that, if it can compete with an Archer for cruise speed, the RV-15 will perfectly bridge the gap for people who want to load up and cruise like an RV-14 but land like a Cub. For example, I want to visit a back country strip in Montana that is 400 miles away. I have a J-3 (6.2 hours plus fuel stops and a trip to the chiropractor) and an RV-14 (2.5 hours plus risking the engine mount failing due to rough ground). There will be better planes to go far (including several Van's kits) and better planes to land in the boonies (including the Super Cub knockoffs), but what planes will better do both?

As far as how the Van's RV series look, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but mostly this: Airplanes are meant to be flown, not stared at on the ground.
 
Like all the other Van's planes, it won't be the best at anything... but it'll be "good enough" at more things than any of the competition.
 
It looks super easy to build: lots of pulled rivets, lots of right angles, lots of room to work, and minimal fiberglass.

Once it’s marketed, these things will fly off the shelves. Mere weeks later, they’ll start flying out of the hangars.
 
Without knowing actual flight characteristics, I’d say it’s a home run. Looks like a stubby, slightly downsized 180. Oleo gear of sorts should make it an easier plane to land. Looks like a 2 seat plane to me with lots of cargo storage.
Actual stall speed and cruise speed will be interesting.
Most other backcountry kit planes are toys, this looks more like a real airplane.
 
NordicDave said:
Probably not long until kit planes are unaffordable for most pilots. Seems every year it's farther and farther out of reach for more people.

Isn't the average 2 seat Van's upward of $200K+ when built? Seems like 2x to 2.5x the kit price for a finished plane. I remember fawning over a factory new 2004 Cessna 182T for $220K.

Van's planes are pretty barebones and many with austere interiors, meaning many pilots have squeezed cost out to get down to 2x the kit price for finished planes.

(next 3 posts are examples of "I knew a guy" who built an RV-x for $120K)
Click to expand...

A fair amount of the higher cost comes from avionics. A lot of VFR only guys are putting in multiple-screen glass panels with 750s and three-axis autopilots and redundant electrical systems.

If I was building an RV, I’d be fine with no more instruments and gauges than a J-3 has.
 
I went and checked it out. When I get home I'll share some photos. I like it. It looks rugged and the baggage compartment it very large.
 
This design probably isn't for me (at least until I see more specs/details...I don't think it fits my mission). But I'm impressed with how quickly they started to design and then complete the prototype. Especially with a pandemic thrown right in the middle. Would have thought this started a couple years prior.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
It looks super easy to build: lots of pulled rivets, lots of right angles, lots of room to work, and minimal fiberglass.

Once it’s marketed, these things will fly off the shelves. Mere weeks later, they’ll start flying out of the hangars.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling the final kit will be more RV14 like than RV12 when it comes to rivets.
 
Racerx said:
I have a feeling the final kit will be more RV14 like than RV12 when it comes to rivets.
Click to expand...

I heard somewhere else that they went with pulled rivets to speed up the development. It's not set that they'll stick with them.

I did notice that they started with flush rivets on the cowl. When we were looking at it, I jokingly made a comment to my dad that it looked like they started with flush rivets and then said "We'll never get this thing done in time if we do it this way..." and switched to pulled rivets. May be fairly close to the truth after all. ha
 
CJones said:
I heard somewhere else that they went with pulled rivets to speed up the development. It's not set that they'll stick with them.

I did notice that they started with flush rivets on the cowl. When we were looking at it, I jokingly made a comment to my dad that it looked like they started with flush rivets and then said "We'll never get this thing done in time if we do it this way..." and switched to pulled rivets. May be fairly close to the truth after all. ha
Click to expand...

Actually what Rian Johnson, Van’s President and CTO, said at the RV-15 forum last Tuesday, was that the 15 was designed to use pulled rivets with the provision for builders to opt to dimple and use soft (ie bucked/squeezed) rivets. Of course, they also said the first kits wouldn’t be available for 12-18 months at the earliest as they have just started in depth testing of the prototype so a lot of things can change with the final kit design between now and then. In fact they got a waiver from the FAA and flew off just the minimum hours necessary just so they could unveil it at Osh.
 
ateamer said:
If I was building an RV, I’d be fine with no more instruments and gauges than a J-3 has.
Click to expand...
Unless you're a good scrounger and find good used instruments, it's practically the same cost to put in a basic Dynon or similar unit. And then you end up with some other useful (but not required) features.

About ten years ago I was doing some major panel revamping on my Fly Baby and almost replaced the gauges with a Dynon. But was concerned about readability in a sunlit open cockpit, and I didn't think I had enough depth available behind the panel.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Unless you're a good scrounger and find good used instruments, it's practically the same cost to put in a basic Dynon or similar unit. And then you end up with some other useful (but not required) features.

About ten years ago I was doing some major panel revamping on my Fly Baby and almost replaced the gauges with a Dynon. But was concerned about readability in a sunlit open cockpit, and I didn't think I had enough depth available behind the panel.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Good point, cost. At least with the legacy glass. Plus it could be a few pounds lighter.
 
ateamer said:
A fair amount of the higher cost comes from avionics. A lot of VFR only guys are putting in multiple-screen glass panels with 750s and three-axis autopilots and redundant electrical systems.

If I was building an RV, I’d be fine with no more instruments and gauges than a J-3 has.
Click to expand...
Your typical Dynon or Garmin VFR experimental setup is about 15-20k if you install it yourself ( which in this case obviously you will) - it start getting more expensive once you add certified IFR navigators and such …
 
Warmi said:
Your typical Dynon or Garmin VFR experimental setup is about 15-20k if you install it yourself ( which in this case obviously you will) - it start getting more expensive once you add certified IFR navigators and such …
Click to expand...
And if you DON'T go with all the fancy gee-gaws?

Dynon lists the Skyview SE (7" screen) at $1609 (but not currently available due to parts shortages). Airspeed, altitude, and heading provided, making the aircraft compatible with 91.205 as far as flight instruments (yes, need fuel gauge(s), tach, oil pressure, etc. to be fully compliant. Also turn-and-bank, slip/skid, rate of climb. Artificial horizon. G-Meter. Makes julienne fries.

WAY more capability than a VFR aircraft needs for, what... $2,500, by the time you're done?

Yes, *typical* installations might run $15-20K. But if you're just looking to equip a simple VFR aircraft, one can get by a lot cheaper.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
And if you DON'T go with all the fancy gee-gaws?

Dynon lists the Skyview SE (7" screen) at $1609 (but not currently available due to parts shortages). Airspeed, altitude, and heading provided, making the aircraft compatible with 91.205 as far as flight instruments (yes, need fuel gauge(s), tach, oil pressure, etc. to be fully compliant. Also turn-and-bank, slip/skid, rate of climb. Artificial horizon. G-Meter. Makes julienne fries.

WAY more capability than a VFR aircraft needs for, what... $2,500, by the time you're done?

Yes, *typical* installations might run $15-20K. But if you're just looking to equip a simple VFR aircraft, one can get by a lot cheaper.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I think you're gonna be awfully close to $10K if you include engine probes, radio, ADSB, and some sort of GPS (even a panel mounted handheld) for Nav. But I certainly agree with the sentiment that people could cut their expenses dramatically if they weren't trying to keep up with the Joneses.
 
No need for EGT and CHT (nice to have but by no means essential). VFR GPS can be on a phone or tablet. There are plenty of used comm radios out there. You could build a VFR panel for five grand or so by going with used non-Gucci boxes.
 
kyleb said:
I think you're gonna be awfully close to $10K if you include engine probes, radio, ADSB, and some sort of GPS (even a panel mounted handheld) for Nav. But I certainly agree with the sentiment that people could cut their expenses dramatically if they weren't trying to keep up with the Joneses.
Click to expand...
But what started this thread hijack was #ateamer saying, "If I was building an RV, I’d be fine with no more instruments and gauges than a J-3 has." J-3s don't generally have engine probes, transponders, ADS-B, etc, and the radios are often handhelds. Hay-el, my GPS is a Garmin hiking unit, cost $100. My in-dash radio is flush-mounted Icom.

Plenty of folks think they're going to be bare-bones economical, and end up blowing the budget on "just one more gadget." But I think if a builder has enough discipline to use the display *only* to provide the instruments their Operating Limitations require them to have, I think they'll come out closer to $2500.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
But what started this thread hijack was #ateamer saying, "If I was building an RV, I’d be fine with no more instruments and gauges than a J-3 has." J-3s don't generally have engine probes, transponders, ADS-B, etc, and the radios are often handhelds. Hay-el, my GPS is a Garmin hiking unit, cost $100. My in-dash radio is flush-mounted Icom.

Plenty of folks think they're going to be bare-bones economical, and end up blowing the budget on "just one more gadget." But I think if a builder has enough discipline to use the display *only* to provide the instruments their Operating Limitations require them to have, I think they'll come out closer to $2500.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

No doubt you can build a J3 panel for that. Heck, I have everything to do that sitting on a shelf somewhere. But if you must have ADSB, that takes you well past the $2500 bogey.
 
ateamer said:
No need for EGT and CHT (nice to have but by no means essential). VFR GPS can be on a phone or tablet. There are plenty of used comm radios out there. You could build a VFR panel for five grand or so by going with used non-Gucci boxes.
Click to expand...
"Non-Gucci" boxes. I *like* it.

Like I mentioned, about ten years ago I was contemplating installing a Dynon in my single-seat open-cockpit homebuilt, just for the laughs if nothing else. It was going to replace the airspeed, altimeter, compass, and voltmeter.

Stock Fly Baby panels have a removable section for the pitot/static instruments, and a fixed portion for the engine gauges. Here's a drawing I did showing how the Dynon would fit. The basic Dynon shape is just behind all the current gauges.
panel w dynon.JPG
It would have just *barely* fit...but would have caused the need to relocate the radio. No real panel space left, even on the other side.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top