Van's announces highwing RV-15

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,596
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I'm far more of a 'salesman personality' than Van is, but I'll bet he has marketing and sales and advertising people like me tucked away in a drawer someplace.
For many years at Oshkosh, I visited with Van in the dormitory where he and his employees, and I, stayed. Just a quiet one-on-one for 30 or 45 minutes. I usually was asking about his motorglider project, the latest RV, some engineering detail, etc. In turn, he continually asked me what I liked about his designs and what I would like to see in future Vans designs. He always was doing market surveys.

Once he became an honorary EAA director, he started staying in the lodge. End of our quiet discussions.

BTW, he is a really nice guy.


BJC
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,439
Location
Memphis, TN
I say RV 10 or 14 wings mounted high. Probably same tail. Fuselage will not be as short as the low wings per wingspan. It will
Probably look like a clipped wing Cessna between a 150 and a 172 size.
 

Mad MAC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
784
Location
Hamilton New Zealand
Vans is know for good speed with nice handling, good cockpit vision. This gives a design trade off of strutted wing with good vision verse Cantilever wing with poor vision but light weight verse a cantilever wing with good vision but some weight gain. There probably is sufficient market inertia for Vans to go with a cantilevered wing and sell sufficient numbers to over turn the markets views of the penalty of cantilevered wings on bush planes (mostly when they burn everyone else off on the way home).

What a weight optimized centre section that allows good vision with a cantilever wing looks like will be interesting. Suspect it might involve a cnc mill and some billets of higher strength steel (well by GA standards any way)
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Yes, I do know how to do a search on the NTSB website. Start with just Idaho if you'd like. You can play dumb but the truth is there are many accidents and incidents occuring in the back country.
Lol it’s your brag I kinda think it’s your responsibility to back it up with numbers .
I’ve done the research and I know the answers and I would’ve chosen the word infinitesimal instead of plenty.
Of course you can argue 1 is plenty……..
 

Highplains

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
376
Location
Over the Rainbow in Kansas, USA
The Hollmann Stallion from 30+ years ago was based on the Lancair 4 wing with a very high wing loading. It’s stall speed was very high and it was designed for speed not lifting ability. About the only attribute it shared with a 180 was the high wing placement.

Back country infers landing on slightly prepared strips while carrying enough equipment to live in some degree of comfort for a weekend to a couple weeks. Something a small airplane just can’t accomplish. So this likely means a design with both power and wing area. A design with struts can be built lighter and should be safer should one end up resting on it’s back.

I don’t see tube and fabric structure or much fiberglass. Like the other RV designs which do gentleman’s acrobatics, this design is not likely to go for contest results in landing or takeoff distances. Some where between the 180 and a Bearhawk.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,439
Location
Memphis, TN
What will make it a winner as long as it’s not too ugly is the Vans thoroughness. No one makes a kit that is as well thought out. It’s almost guaranteed that you will finish it if you keep at it. What will also make it a winner is all the Cessna fliers who are scared of a low wing but want a Vans. If it looks right, they might sell 10,000 kits of it.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
The later Van's wings use a massive solid milled spar cap that IIRC was originally designed to put an end to the inflight breakups they had with pilots exceeding the (already generous) speed and G loads on the low-wing Walter Mitty models. So using this same type of (RV-8) spar on a high wing cantilever, and then benefiting from it being a "utility airplane" configuration (that does not appeal to the yo-yo's that broke the earlier Van's low-wings trying to play Top Gun), should yield a robust and usable airplane for the sport STOL/back country market. The dimensions of the spar will of course be tailored to the new airplane, but the use of Van's Aircraft's machining capability on this type of spar will allow a very sturdy wing to be built.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Essentially there are two types of back country performance.

Oh honey I’ve gained weight and I am up to 80 pounds soaking wet but I still manage to land in 3 1/2 inches
Or
The fat man’s of America moose hunting convention Will be held on a mountaintop in western Alaska 600 miles from fuel, be sure to bring supplies for a week and due to parking limitations four per plane are required .
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
From Dog’s post in another thread


Jun 7, 2021
I once did a comparison of a whole bunch of
aircraft,'regular" planes and oddball specialty
and cargo planes of roughly similar weights anf
power,and at from that came to the conclusion
that there was not any great penalty in performance for a much larger airframe,enough obviously to impact comercial
pointy pencil calculation.
So exra wide cantilevered high wing supper roomy,day triper camper plane with an LS motor,big fold up doors so two people can
rumage for there stuff at the same time,
cup holders,mirror in the glove box.”
 
Last edited:

pic1083

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
13
Location
Thermopolis, Wy
Lol it’s your brag I kinda think it’s your responsibility to back it up with numbers .
I’ve done the research and I know the answers and I would’ve chosen the word infinitesimal instead of plenty.
Of course you can argue 1 is plenty……..
I'd say one is two to many
 

bazzasbede4c

New Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
3
I am a bede 4c builder who has been trying to build an RV 8 style wing onto the body of of my aircraft.. it works with adjusted control sizes. Allows tanked wings over wet wings and has dihedral over a flat wing. I Asked Van's the question of a high wing aircraft over 20 years ago and even sent them some drawings which I had completed. Both formats I covered were nose gear as in RvA and tail dragger as in Rv. To complete the set up the wings are set at +3 degrees. This is in no way to detract from the vision the people at Van's have but these are experimental aircraft and I love experimenting . Keep on building keep on designing keep on bashing wivets. Kind regards Barry
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Essentially there are two types of back country performance.

Oh honey I’ve gained weight and I am up to 80 pounds soaking wet but I still manage to land in 3 1/2 inches
Or
The fat man’s of America moose hunting convention Will be held on a mountaintop in western Alaska 600 miles from fuel, be sure to bring supplies for a week and due to parking limitations four per plane are required .

OR... there's the really tall, wide part of the bell curve between those extremes. I believe that's the part of the bell curve Van is aiming for.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,751
Location
Orange County, California
Yeah, you're probably right. Cantilever won't hold up to back country use :)
Didn't say it wouldn't or couldn't. Look back. I never said that at all.

What I said is that pilots are notoriously conservative about airplanes and, if it's to be used for the back-country, it needs to look like a "backcountry airplane" in their mind. And that means every other "backcountry airplane" they've seen, and 90%+ of those have struts. Do one without struts, and watch the storm of conversation on the internet ensue. Doesn't matter that there have been "strutless" STOL airplanes before. Heck, there were huge controversies when "innovations" like flaps, canopies, and IFR instrumentation were introduced, with huge sections of the pilot community dead-set against those "new-fangled gadgets."

We've all been here on HBA and other pilot forums long enough to know this. I'm not taking a shot at anyone. It's just how pilots are.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,104
Location
Canada
If we focus on the low-and-slow corner of the envelope ....Which is better?

A: Cub wing much modified with slats, slots, flaps, drooped ailerons, drooped leading edges, vortex generators, spoilers, dive brakes, spoilers, vortex generators, etc.

B: A wing optimized for low-and-slow with a thick airfoil, large leading edge radius, significant camber, etc.

Hint: both airplanes start with massive wings which significantly lower wing-loading.
 
Last edited:

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Shweaty Texas
If we focus on the low-and-slow corner of the envelope ....Which is better?

A: Cub wing much modified with slats, slots, flaps, drooped ailerons, drooped leading edges, vortex generators, spoilers, dive brakes, spoilers, vortex generators, etc.

B: A wing optimized for low-and-slow with a thick airfoil, large leading edge radius, significant camber, etc.

Hint: both airplanes start with massive wings which significantly blower wing-loading.
Bingo. Lots of screwing around and complexity to do what a simple fat(ish) wing does and for what? A little extra speed? A clean low drag design and a simple wing wins in my book.
 
Top