Van's announces highwing RV-15

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Deuelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
368
Location
Marshall, MN
Did anyone talk to Van at Oshkosh and get an estimate of when the -15 might be available?


BJC

I was told 8-12 months for tail and possibly wing kit. Option of pulled or driven rivets. Getting over 140 knots in testing right now. 140 was there goal. It was also mentioned to me that the plane could be cleaned up quite a bit also. He couldn't tell me an exact number on stall, but said it was lower than expected. He mentioned they may shorten the flaps, wing cord a little bit.

Brandon
 

Flyfalcons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
49
Location
Bonney Lake, WA
From what I can find, the RV15 is a bigger airplane than a S21 and Rebel. Not magnitudes bigger, but bigger. The Rans and Murphy are head to head. The RV15 is aimed at the four seat Bearhawk and might have a foot or two on it wingspan, if the numbers I read are correct.

Speculation, it might end up with a 540 option. Even if not, someone in the wild will put one on it, so they will probably be ready. As conservative as Vans is, they will be selling a conservative gross. Other designers would call it a 2500 gross plane. Aftermarket will sell longer gear for people who really want to land short, er. Vans might offer a bigger one head to head with the 6 seat Bearhawk. The back seat area on this 15 seems narrow on purpose, like they don’t want people back there or maybe just one. They could build a fat version with lots of back seat hip room. I think Vans will see where they think the limits are before the first one is sold.
Seeing them both up close at Osh, the RV-15 is substantially larger than the S-21.
 

geraldmorrissey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
112
I like the welded steel tube fuselage of the Bearhawk. Gives me a warm feeling.
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,277
Location
USA.
What was that about fuel consumption? o_O
At time 4:09 you will see Dallas welding the engine mount up for the Turbine engine on the RV-7. Was done about 2 weeks before Oshkosh. They supplied the jig. Dallas and I have been homebuilding together for many years. No better welder, he's an artist in welding. Welding was done at Brian Alley's carbon fiber shop at airport 12V.
 
Last edited:

llemon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Messages
122
Based on the numbers he says, 12.7 gal @ 150hp, that works out to ~0.57 bsfc. That is quite a bit higher than the <0.42 bsfc most lyconentals can to when leaned out in cruise.

But if you can find Jet-A for less than 3/4ths the costs of LL then its about the same $ - ignoring the possibly expensive oil consumption of the engine.
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
291
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
Watch the video...consumption is comparable to an IC engine.

Watch the video and listen to what he says, not what you want to hear: "lofty goals we have not achieved yet"
And then all the classics come back which he tries to fly around by sales pitch: climb to FL 80, FL100 , throttle back etc etc.

But then: it is a engine for -maybe- the US... useless to the rest of the world.

Never seen in Europ a turbo-prop experimental as there is nor the space for it nor the IFR-qualified pilots to fly them and FL100 implies often icing (in 15 years of flying I spent maybe 10 hours at or above FL100).

The only turboprops found are in Piper Meridians, Silver Eagles Centurions and the even more expensive planes... mostly not flown by the owner but by paid pilots.

All luck to the maker but it seems a Tesla-story in more way than one: gonna save the world with an 100 kUS electric car on which tax rebates are in swing, the poor bugger without 100k to flash can walk or we'll tax them out of their diesel-petrol-cars...
 

jandetlefsen

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
154
But then: it is a engine for -maybe- the US... useless to the rest of the world.

JMB is currently developing a VL3 with TurboTech's small turboprop engine. The plane is flying already. JMB flies Turbine-powered VL3 - Australian Flying

TL Ultralight is working on a Stream with a TP-100 Turboprop. Not sure about the status but it's at least taxiing: Stream Turbo

Here is what Bristell does High-wing BRISTELL B8

Also there is a EU program to support development of such small scale turbo prop engines: CORDIS | European Commission

As you can see Europe is far ahead in the small scale Turboprop development, certainly a lot of people are seeing a market there.
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,658
Location
Memphis, TN
No, a turbine at the right price would be a world beater. Assuming it’s not dainty and can handle a range of fuels. You can land in a field almost anywhere and find diesel from a farmer and that engine won’t care. If it was designed right it won’t care if it was gasoline or canola oil. Price, price, price is the wrong answer. Need, need, need. Aviation isn’t our toys; aviation is a business, and that business would boom, if there was an airframe to take advantage of it. While we think we are a big deal, we really are picking up crumbs and making due from the commercial side. Some parts of the world are crummier than others.
 

57Marty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
69
Location
Central Coast of California
With the cost of a new Lycoming in the $30K range, a turbine will likely be so expensive how could the average home builder afford it? They video says they are hoping for $85K, they say it's competitive with piston engine costs. That's twice the price of a Lycoming engine. I don't see that as competitive. Time will tell.
Marty57
 
Last edited:
Top