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

[rgmwa]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 I'd have one (RV-15). 

High praise indeed, Nev. Looks like its just passed its most challenging flight acceptance test!  I'd have one too but doubt that I could afford it. 

[tillmanr]

There are dorsal (top) fins or ventral (lower) fins. What is the difference in the placement of these?

[Blueadventures]

45 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

There are dorsal (top) fins or ventral (lower) fins. What is the difference in the placement of these?

They often correct or improve the aerodynamics of the profile, easiest way to sort flight characteristics sort of redesign.  Looks like RV15 designed well and therefore not needed.

[rgmwa]

It will be interesting to see how well the RV-15 sells. It should do well, but either way it's a good indication that Vans are recovering from their Covid era problems and looking to the future. They make good aircraft and have a solid reputation, and it would be a sad day if they folded.

[T510]

I'm a big fan of the RV15 from what I have seen so far. 

 

I wouldn't order a kit until they are completely available though, would suck to have the wing kit and then have Vans fold

[facthunter]

There's detailing to finish it off. ( I hope) Any Dorsal fin is there to energise the fin and rudder. Whatever is there It will make it more effective. Below the horizontal stabiliser it's an anti spin feature. Continuation of the rudder makes it better. Many rudders are too shielded by the other tail feathers to recover well from a spin,(upright spin). Nev

[T510]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

There's detailing to finish it off. ( I hope) Any Dorsal fin is there to energise the fin and rudder. Whatever is there It will make it more effective. Below the horizontal stabiliser it's an anti spin feature. Continuation of the rudder makes it better. Many rudders are too shielded by the other tail feathers to recover well from a spin,(upright spin). Nev

It's been in development for over 3 years, according to Vans the design is finished, no further details to address

[facthunter]

Little fairings at the end of the  wing struts etc. The major part of my response above is a reply to Tillman. NOT relating to the RV 15 .  Nev

[skippydiesel]

I apologise if the following question has already been answered;

 

In a market place , already crowded with high wing aircraft, what unique selling point(s) does the RV15 (or the similar Sonex HW) have to attract buyers???😈

[facthunter]

IF it has to be explained to you, you probably would not Understand. I saw that on a T shirt and liked it. IS the Market place already crowded with Hi wings? NO. It's RV's first Home build and they are good a that.. Possibly/Likely you don't lean towards Hi wings in any case. I would prefer a Tandem seat arrangement, myself, but hiwings do cross winds better. (Allow more Bank angle). Easier to  get into  and load and are easily strut  braced. (light structurally wing strengthener.) High wing allows gravity Feed for the Fuel. This plane is all metal with windows in the  roof and looks to be capable of higher G loadings than Others Might have. Them's my thoughts. Nev

[RossK]

38 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I apologise if the following question has already been answered;

 

In a market place , already crowded with high wing aircraft, what unique selling point(s) does the RV15 (or the similar Sonex HW) have to attract buyers???😈

RV15 - Back country accessibility (STOL) with a higher cruise speed (140knts reportedly) than what's currently available.

Sonex HW - IDK 🤷‍♂️

[facthunter]

THAT speed would need a lot of Power, especially with BIGWHEELS.  You only need them when landing  on rocks or POSING. Nev

[skippydiesel]

39 minutes ago, RossK said:

RV15 - Back country accessibility (STOL) with a higher cruise speed (140knts reportedly) than what's currently available.

Sonex HW - IDK 🤷‍♂️

Okay -You want STOLish & speed, in a high wing - the purchase price of good preloved Cessna 180 starts at about $200K Au? 

 

Bound to be others

 

😈

 

 

[rgmwa]

And then there is the cost of maintaining an old Cessna 180. I'd rather spend more and have a new aircraft that I could both have fun building and then be able to maintain for relatively little cost. Not that that's going to happen, mind you. I think you be looking at $350-$400k AUD to build one at the current exchange rate, and that's before Trump's 50% tariffs on aluminium get passed on to the customer.

[RossK]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Okay -You want STOLish & speed, in a high wing - the purchase price of good preloved Cessna 180 starts at about $200K Au? 

 

Bound to be others

 

😈

 

 

That's the market they are going after - people who want a new 180, but can't buy them.

[facthunter]

A .C-180 WITHOUT A Kit fitted is NOT particularly STOLISH. A tri gear 182 would perform as Well.. Their good point is the FOWLER Flaps and wing washout. The RV-15 may be better stressed for aeros. I'd like "G: at +6   -4  and no washout. I'd like  a   TANDEM seat Version spin certified. Should also have Less drag that way and should not be a MAJOR  rejig either. Better Vision. More comfort.  Nev

[Blueadventures]

2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A .C-180 WITHOUT A Kit fitted is NOT particularly STOLISH. A tri gear 182 would perform as Well.. Their good point is the FOWLER Flaps and wing washout. The RV-15 may be better stressed for aeros. I'd like "G: at +6   -4  and no washout. I'd like  a   TANDEM seat Version spin certified. Should also have Less drag that way and should not be a MAJOR  rejig either. Better Vision. More comfort.  Nev

Biggest market is side by side, very social / comfortable to most and choice of passengers.

[facthunter]

I know What I like and I wouldn't be alone in that choice. Have U flown a Tandem seat? It's easy to have Plenty of width. Side by side is often cramped, and SIDE BY SIDE must be a Lot  Wider and More drag. Don't KNOCK it IF you haven't tried it they say. It would NOT be hard to" thin" the fuselage . Nev

[Blueadventures]

35 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I know What I like and I wouldn't be alone in that choice. Have U flown a Tandem seat? It's easy to have Plenty of width. Side by side is often cramped, and SIDE BY SIDE must be a Lot  Wider and More drag. Don't KNOCK it IF you haven't tried it they say. It would NOT be hard to" thin" the fuselage . Nev

Yes, both front and back seats of tandem.  I was not knocking your choice or stating mine just saying what I believe is hands down the most popular seating configuration for two seaters.

[rgmwa]

Vans started off with the RV-3 (single) and RV-4 (tandem) and later the RV-8 (tandem) but couldn't ignore the overwhelming demand for a side by side version, hence the very successful RV-6 and other models. It comes down to personal preference. I like the roominess of side by side seating even when flying solo.

[facthunter]

MOST of them are" squeezy" side by side There's a More LIMITED vision aspect also with side by side and more drag with the wider fuselage. Balance is easier with side by side, but you should still check it anyhow.  Nev