High-wing RV-15: progress report from Van's

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Interesting .

 

Didnt know RV were going down this well warn track (C150 et al), very like Sonex.

 

Both are going for strut braced wings.

 

Sonex seem to be continuing down their very basic aircraft philosophy - at this stage no wing tanks (crazy)😈

 

 

Edited May 13 by skippydiesel

[facthunter]

Cessna's no strut wings haven't been that much of a great success.  A C-182 is a great plane.  I think you mean well WORN track..  Nev

[Underwood]

This has been in prototype for quite some time now which could be a good thing.

It looks the business and a modern all metal light Bush capable Taildragger is very much needed imo.

If I could afford one It would be right at the top of my list.

[rgmwa]

Good to see this project still progressing well after all the problems they've had, and that they're taking the time to do a thorough job on design and testing. Should be a very capable aircraft, but it won't be cheap.

[skippydiesel]

I wonder how long the market will support "bush" type aircraft. Many have come & gone and many still remain.

 

• What is the attraction?
• Why don't pilots go for aircraft with wider speed envelopes (more efficient X country)?

 

😈

Edited May 13 by skippydiesel

[rodgerc]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I wonder how long the market will support "bush" type aircraft. Many have come & gone and many still remain.

 

• What is the attraction?
• Why don't pilots go for aircraft with wider speed envelopes (more efficient X country)?

 

😈

In my case, it’s access to strips in interesting locations.
 

I associate socially with a bunch of Vans RV owners….3 x RV10, 1 each RV14a, RV8, RV9a and a RV12.

 

When the call went out recently for a jaunt to Orchid Beach on Fraser Island for lunch, only one thought the strip was acceptable….and he took his second aircraft, the red RANS S-21 in the background. 😊

Edited May 13 by rodgerc
Typo

[skippydiesel]

To each his own.

 

"Schmick"  looking planes - especially like the tail dragger

 

I point out that you can have a 27 knot stall (STAL) AND a 135 knot cruise, using a 100 hp Rotax 912,  that will take-off, on grass, in sub 100m and land in not much more.

 

In other words, there are aircraft that are what I would call , a good compromise not, as most people seem to think, one or the other.😈

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Nice, Also the Sonex high wing flew in June.

[red750]

This link has a number of interesting videos -

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=abc+iview&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgcIAxBFGMIDMgcIABBFGMIDMgcIARBFGMIDMgcIAhBFGMIDMgcIAxBFGMIDMgcIBBBFGMIDMgcIBRBFGMIDMgcIBhBFGMID0gEOMTA1MTQxMjI0M2owajSoAgewAgE&FORM=ANAB01&PC=ACTS

[onetrack]

It just looks like a Cessna clone! Surely Van's could've done more to differentiate their design?

[facthunter]

It's inevitably going to resemble one but there are differences. U/C may be damped Flaps are hinged and no doubt lots of other little differences in the construction.  Nev

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Nice, Also the Sonex high wing flew in June.

Yeah, I see they're presenting there too.  

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Sonex HW -

• No wing struts
• Likly smaller capacity engine range
• Retained less than desirable undercarriage design (round spring steel)
• Problematic fuelling point just in front of polycarbonate windscreen
• Typical Sonex rather nasty transition point just behind door
• Electric flaps & trim  - bit of a non KISS innovation  😈.

 

[facthunter]

Neither of them use a fin that energises the rudder. Tailwheelers need an effective rudder.  Nev

[meglin]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Sonex HW -

• No wing struts
• Likly smaller capacity engine range
• Retained less than desirable undercarriage design (round spring steel)
• Problematic fuelling point just in front of polycarbonate windscreen
• Typical Sonex rather nasty transition point just behind door
• Electric flaps & trim  - bit of a non KISS innovation  😈.

 

1) why do they need struts when the company has always made wings without struts?

2) it's great if a weaker engine is enough for the airplane,

3) a bar spring is not the most optimal, but probably the cheapest?

4) I guess they were looking for the most accessible and convenient place to refuel?

5) we say “cheap and surly” in such cases. It didn't work any other way with the short and wide fuselage.

6) I guess we couldn't resist. Hopefully a mechanical actuator will be possible as well.

[Blueadventures]

12 minutes ago, meglin said:

1) why do they need struts when the company has always made wings without struts?

2) it's great if a weaker engine is enough for the airplane,

3) a bar spring is not the most optimal, but probably the cheapest?

4) I guess they were looking for the most accessible and convenient place to refuel?

5) we say “cheap and surly” in such cases. It didn't work any other way with the short and wide fuselage.

6) I guess we couldn't resist. Hopefully a mechanical actuator will be possible as well.

Had a look in person at prototype at Oshkosh 2024, interesting framing to attach wing.  No doubt will work; however the other brands 15 has nicer style looks although is a heaver build.  There will be long waits for kits I'd expect.  I won't be needing / wanting one.

[Thruster88]

14 hours ago, facthunter said:

Neither of them use a fin that energises the rudder. Tailwheelers need an effective rudder.  Nev

Interesting, I now know the purpose of dorsal fins on aircraft. No Van's RV aircraft have dorsal fins, i guess they want to keep that dna in the family. 

 

[skippydiesel]

14 hours ago, meglin said:

1) why do they need struts when the company has always made wings without struts? I wasn't advocating for struts, just pointing out one of the obvious difference between RV & Sonex concept (I prefer the strutless look)

2) it's great if a weaker engine is enough for the airplane, As above - (I am a big fan of Rotax 9 engines)

3) a bar spring is not the most optimal, but probably the cheapest? As a Sonex owner, I know that this type of undercarriage has a lot of undesirable longitudinal movement - particularly evident on grass 

4) I guess they were looking for the most accessible and convenient place to refuel? Could be  BUT has two significant risks - Inadvertent fuel splashed on polycarbonate windscreen will almost certainly require a replacement screen AND re fuelong point over hot engine may result in   replacement aircraft & pilot.

5) we say “cheap and surly” in such cases. It didn't work any other way with the short and wide fuselage.?

6) I guess we couldn't resist. Hopefully a mechanical actuator will be possible as well. Many will like the electric trim & flap, many others (like me) think its a backward step in an aircraft of this class😈

 

[rodgerc]

11 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

3) a bar spring is not the most optimal, but probably the cheapest? As a Sonex owner, I know that this type of undercarriage has a lot of undesirable longitudinal movement - particularly evident on grass 

@skippydiesel have you considered adding the timber stiffeners that are used on many RV’s to reduce that movement? 

[skippydiesel]

12 hours ago, rodgerc said:

@skippydiesel have you considered adding the timber stiffeners that are used on many RV’s to reduce that movement? 

Yes I have. I may go down this track one day. I have tried to get experience feedback from Sonex owners - efficacy  questionable.😈

[facthunter]

A few reckon they wooden work. Nev