Am I the only one who isn’t exactly blown away by this? It looks just like any other high winger out there today, and actually it’s kinda boring. I know Vans isn’t exactly known for making breathtakingly beautiful aircraft, but one could have hoped for at least SOMETHING that makes it stand out from a crowded field, like full cantilever wings for instance. Something, anything. Yawwwwwwn.
3 replies
Glad to see another good kit from Van.
While not innovative, it certainly is a nice addition to their product line.
Their reputation alone makes it desireable for those wanting to build something for unpaved adventuring.
No, You’re not the only one. As far as I know I share Yours thoughts,
Apparently after the ‘back country’ market, like Murphy was founded on.
An AOPA article says that Van’s philosophy is that they aim for complete performance, which I take to mean they do all things fine so nothing stands out.
An author in Kit Planes mag details the design, says it is sized between LSA and Murphy Moose, and has landing gear features for control on rough runways.
I recommend reading that article.
The RV Cult will purchase kits by the thousands, and thereby ensure that general aviation stays hopelessly mired in decrepit, old technology for another five decades.
The Cult is comprised by a great bunch of enthusiasts by the way, but the lack of meaningful advancement is depressing. The market is happy to sit safely in the middle of mediocre performance, safety and efficiency.
1 reply
Yep, and as a member of that cult I can’t wait for the RV-15 kit to come out. My Dad and I built an early RV-12 kit, I’ve owned an RV-4 and now own an RV-8. I have also owned a Sportsman, and I am really looking forward to the -15.
Hopelessly mired in decrepit, old technology…
I’d say hopelessly mired in success
And production of great and beautiful aircraft!!
Glad the RV-15 is a taildragger
Got a glimpse of it at Oshkosh
So many people were looking it over,
I was unable to get close
If only I was 40 years younger!
Guess I’ll have to stick with my C-170A
And still expecting a 1940s era aircraft engine….? Bor….ing…. A flex-fuel engine would make it more palatable… E-10 or kero …or dual fuel even…?
1 reply
For the same ruggedness, add 50# of structure. Then, for the same performance, add another 50# of engine. Then, for the same ruggedness, add another 25# of landing gear and structure, then, etc., etc., etc……
Van’s is renowned for optimization, most notably of the hershey-bar wing. That RV’s outnumbered all other aircraft combined at KOSH testifies to the success of this approach.
1 reply
And which of those engines could they have flown the RV-15 to AirVenture on this year?
Otis has it right. It’s worth noting that the Sling High Wing has a cantilever wing, which forced them to place the entire wing structure above the cabin to retain headroom.
As a BD-4 owner I heartily endorse high strutless wings.
Yes, light aircraft technology is decrepit. I ran across an article on the Messerschmitt 108. All metal, low wing, retractable, 4 seats, 240 HP. A 1934 airplane. I figured put an IO-540 and modern CS prop on it and you have a perfectly acceptable 2022 airplane. Such great progress in 88 years! (Actually found one for sale in New Zealand a couple of weeks later - with an IO-540 in it!).
Where’s my two seat Lancair 360 performance in cruise, VTOL? I think this is perfectable doable from mostly off the shelf parts.
Van’s is doing what they claim to do. They aren’t about making the best planes. They are about making the best kits. Their customer base was earned, and is now a big advantage;however, who has tried to outdo them and failed merely because of their market advantage? Seems to me that builder assist programs from other makers still don’t lead to enough finished planes to compete.
Another reason they can sell so many is that the certified aircraft makers are not moving the bar. There was a time the certified manufacturers were selling tens of thousands a year. Cessna has instead decided that it will continue to sell the same old planes. There’s your problem. When their competitors actually make better training aircraft, they still end up losing because the industry has made the 172 a standard and the government keeps letting them build the same ones without even having to put in modern safety upgrades. In fact, if they made the stall characteristics safer, the schools and airlines would likely complain!
At any rate, one reason kit planes sell so well is cost. Unfortunately, it’s often less about the journey than the cost. And why is the cost less in spite of economics telling us the specialized manufacturers should be more efficient and cheaper? Liability, the FAA, and of course labor taxes and mandates which it seems the home of the free is over run with.
Shoot I forgot the -8. And some others. Oh well you get the idea 
It’s a big yawn. It’s a bit of everything and a bit of nothing.
The Glasair Sportsman is a better plane with tail dragger, trike, ski, and float options. The 3rd door to either a +2 for passengers or large cargo bay is a great flexible idea. RV-15 is Meh…
The 108 is not too far off from a 200hp Arrow from a performance and useful load standpoint, though I bet the fuel burn is quite a bit higher and the ground handling a bit treacherous. That IO-540 cowling does somewhat spoil the look of the airplane, unfortunately.