Van's announces highwing RV-15

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,392
Location
Memphis, TN
If you need a Beaver, no hot rod 172 will do. It’s just a different class of airplane.

On the roll of GA pilots, most don’t want to get away from the 172/182. I have a friend and he and his family have had a Cirrus since 2003 and he still wishes he had the 182 back. There is something Can Do about a Cessna that 80% of the GA flying public can’t get away from. It might not be your airplane, but it is most people’s airplane of choice. If you’re a Lancair guy, your the pistachio cumquat ice cream guy, not the chocolate or vanilla one. A real chocolate/vanilla airplane would be huge for the non dreamer but still enthusiast.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,883
Location
Pocahontas MS
Biggest shortcoming (for me) of the metal Murphy-s (Murphies?), example from the Radical page:
Cruise @ 75% 112 knots / 130 mph @ 2,360 rpm
The Rans S21 has shown that you can both go slow and go fast. Don't know if the Murphy's airfoil is the issue, or just random draggy-ness, but they'd have to do something to get the big number bigger, to compete with the S21 (and likely, Van's offering).

But as a more 'traditional' performing bush plane, I never understood why they didn't sell better. Or maybe they did in Canada, where people actually use bush planes.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,547
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
SPACE THE FINAL FRONTIER !

As a 300 pound man I can tell you what’s missing from Vans line up .
"These are the voyages of the starship Chili-Fries, whose 5-Ton mission is to seek out new airport restaurants and new conversations... to boldly finish lunch no pilots could finish before...! All ahead GORP Factor 4!"
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,883
Location
Pocahontas MS
To give an idea of what *might* be possible, take a deep dive into the specs of the Murphy Radical, and Van's RV-14A (yes, A). Within a few pounds of the same useful load, same HP range, but even though the -14 says it stalls 55% faster than the Radical, the landing roll is significantly shorter, and it cruises 50-70 mph faster. Van doesn't spec a 50' obstacle distance, but the takeoff roll is spec'd at 375'. Murphy doesn't spec a prop for their numbers, so we don't know if it's fixed or C/S.

Now you obviously can't fit the volume in a -14 that will fit in a Radical, but it's still a pretty comfortable plane for 2 pretty big Bubbas (46" wide at the seat backs).

BTW, in an act of total heresy, one of the major Cub-Copy mfgrs is now making a trike version, and they claim that it lands shorter than the TG version. Van says the same thing about the -14/-14A.

Charlie
 

speedracer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
159
I thought you take off and land directly on the dry lake up there?!?

Should be pretty smooth most of the time, unless the off-road 4x4 riders put ruts in it after a rain.

Tiny little Lamb tires on a Long-EZ though... I can see that a golf ball sized hole would be a big deal.
At Burning Man there are two dedicated 5.000' runways, one for landing and one for taking off. You're not allowed to land anywhere else. 30 passenger jets out of Reno really tear them up. There's even a tower and you have to have a code to tell the tower for permission to land. Then..... you have to go through customs with lots of filled out paperwork and more money (besides the $450.00 dollar ticket.) You have to tape your plane up really well as the dust blows like crazy every afternoon. It's a 70,000 people party and in six days I saw at least 2,000 naked tits.
 

Attachments

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,626
Location
USA.
The big embarrassing secret in STOL flying is that the trike geared airplanes (172, 182) can and do reach a higher AoA on the ground than the taildraggers (170, 180). Simple geometry.
My work 1959 Cessna 172 was lighten up and flown in the Restricted Category would surprise you on what it would do. Even no paint except N numbers to save weight. Would average 800 fpm for the first 10,000'. Many,many hundreds of hrs at 12K.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
629
Location
Timaru, NZ
We have a '77 C-172N where I work. Nice light one, but not stripped down. With 2-up and moderate fuel, it will get up and go in impressively short distances when flown right, shorter than most 'bush planes' I see around. At that loading it will climb at over 1,000fpm at sea level on a cool day. Nothing unusual about it or the O-320 powerplant.
Our C-172 RG by comparison feels heavy and under-performing in comparison, despite the CSU (though it will cruise faster).
 

akwrencher

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
1,383
Location
Gustavus, AK
My boss has an old 182. Can't remember the year. Horton stol kit. Goes back and forth to Juneau almost every week. Has hauled many pounds. Basically, here at sea level and moderate temps, if it fits it Flys, even with all 4 seats full. Usually has 3hrs or more fuel on board too. Not the cheapest plane to own, but it is a real workhorse.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,274
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
The big embarrassing secret in STOL flying is that the trike geared airplanes (172, 182) can and do reach a higher AoA on the ground than the taildraggers (170, 180). Simple geometry.
I guess it’s no secret that I tend to be kind of contrary but it always seemed to me like they named the wrong group of planes tail dragger‘s.
After all I have seen tricycle gear planes drag their tail quite a few times.
On the other hand I’m not old enough to remember a time when conventional gear planes didn’t have a little wheel outback. No dragging there they roll nicely.
On the other hand I have seen them tip over forward , perhaps they should be called nose draggers?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,274
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
My boss has an old 182. Can't remember the year. Horton stol kit. Goes back and forth to Juneau almost every week. Has hauled many pounds. Basically, here at sea level and moderate temps, if it fits it Flys, even with all 4 seats full. Usually has 3hrs or more fuel on board too. Not the cheapest plane to own, but it is a real workhorse.
That’s the plane I described in post 176.
Except I’d like to see it even a little roomier.
There is definitely a reason it remains so popular.
There is hardly ever a mission described where a 182 isn’t recommended.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,274
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
The big embarrassing secret in STOL flying is that the trike geared airplanes (172, 182) can and do reach a higher AoA on the ground than the taildraggers (170, 180). Simple geometry.
Now the really big secret is that a low wing like the Piper Cherokee with Johnson bar flaps can leap outta the mud with the instant ground effect a yank on the bar creates in ground roll.
 
Top