Love hearing the engineering and testing going into this. Very impressive the pride taken to make sure it’s right and complete kits are available before they sell. Means A LOT!
Great interviewer and Rian and Axel are such wonderful ambassadors for their company. I know that Vans is having a hard time right now and I wish them luck in getting through to the other (good) other side as quickly as possible. They deserve every success.
Very nice interview. Rian and Axle always seem very happy to speak about the accomplishments of this project. You did a great job in just letting them speak without interrupting like so many do. So many interviewers won't shut their trap long enough to get any good info. Great job!
Developing new aircraft is always a journey with unforeseen things to be dealt with. I'm glad they're doing this right and putting together a quality design. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!
Nice interview and good info. I went by the Vans booth several times and they had guys out there at the RV15 turning away customers. They couldn't answer a single question or provide any info. I could have stayed home, saved thousands of dollars and just watched your RUclips.
Will it be aerobatic like the other RVs or can I at least do a Wing Over or negative push over? I don’t need a Decathlon but want to have the perfect blend of STOL and fun. Thanks.
It so nearly happened, it was behind me but I wasn't exactly where, nor if it was even in view given the buildings between our location and the runway. I think next time I'd take the gamble and turn.
The whole point of a great tailwheel aircraft is to be able to go backcountry. Tricycle gear do not have the ground clearance to handle rough field operations.
no struts? how do you push it in the muck or on floats. How do you reach the fuel caps ? Fortunately Vans listened to the input from experienced bush pilots on this design
You absolutely do not need 260hp to get 4 seats. Piper Cherokee Piper Warrior Cessna 182 BD-4c etc. Heck, even the R44 helicopter doesn't need nearly that much HP to carry 4 people.
None of those have the performance of an RV-10, or Cirrus or Bonanza etc. So putting words into Rian Johnson's mouth, I guess he was saying that to get four seats, useful payload and performance you need a bunch of hp?
@@FLYERTV I didn't put words into his mouth, he very clearly said a 4 seater needs 260hp. "None of those have the performance of an RV-10, or Cirrus or Bonanza etc." wow, I never knew more HP gave a plane more performance, I must have been born yesterday. That is NOT the point. Performance is subjective and dependent upon the mission. 900lb payload is not high performance. Th Kitfox can pretty much do that. 140kts is not high performance, the Bearhawk and others can do better than that. "I guess he was saying that to get four seats, useful payload and performance you need a bunch of hp?" nope, Bearhawk, Piper Cherokee, Piper Warrior, C182 and many more can do it. I've flown 4 people in a Warrior and 182 with payload to spare, and some of that was in teh Rocky mountains too. BD4c is faster than the RV10 and far cheaper, and is a true 4 seater. People are free to make their own choices and judgements. I design airplanes too, and claiming you need 260hp to have a "true 4 seater" is BS nonsense. 260HP 4 seater = "how expensive can I make the airplane?"
@@SoloRenegade Your reading comprehension must not be very good. FlyerTV was saying they were putting words in their mouth, not you. There are some great youtubers that can help you with your english deficiencies. Good luck!
4 full size adults and 100lbs luggage, yes you should have 6 cylinder. R44 has Lycoming IO‑540, six cylinder. Then six cylinder 4 person planes would be Beechcraft bonanza, cirrus SR22, Cessna 182, and so on. Just because a 4 cylinder piper Cherokee has 4 seats doesn't mean its a 4 adult person airplane.
@@Hugocraft the 1967 Cherokee 140 has a useful load of 949lb (70lb more than a C172S). I trained in pipers and thy truly are 4 seaters. I have plenty of time in a PA-28-161 for example, and at 160hp, outperformed cessna 172 (flew faster, climbed faster, burned less gas, greater useful load of 972lb, better IFR ship, easier to land, etc.). And I have taken up 4 adults in it no problem. The Cherokees/Warriors were 150-160HP 4cyl and had useful loads of 950-970lb depending upon exact model and year. yes, the Cessna 182, R44, and others have 6cyl engines, but only producing 205-230HP. Not 260+HP. And mind you helicopters are far less efficient than airplanes, yet a 205HP R44 can take 4 people (I've flown the R22, R44, and R66 as well in the Rocky Mountains). I consider they Cessna 172 a 3-place airplane (for adults), but I've taken up 4people many times with kids onboard including over the Grand Canyon and other parts of the Rocky Mountains. And we've flown with 3 adults many times at high DA airports (up to 9,300ft DA on takeoff), and it has 4cyl 160-180HP engines. Lets compare the Beechcraft Bonanza to the Cessna 182T. 182T - 167mph cruise, 1130lb load, 230HP (and I've gotten closer to 200mph cruise consistently out of 3x C182RGs I flew in the Rocky Mountains, making it superior to the Bonanza by matching performance on 70HP less). Bonanza - 203mph cruise, 1130lb load, 300HP 36mph faster, for 70more HP, no other improvement than speed. An SR22 gets 211mph, and 200lb extra load for another 10HP over the Bonanza. Meanwhile DarkAero is expecting to get 275mph cruise, 750lb load, for 200HP (6cyl). You know what else has 6cyl engine? A Sonex with a Jabiru. Also, a Pietenpol with a Corvair. A Zenith Ch750 with Jabiru or Corvair. A Wittman Tailwind or BD-4c runs everything from 4cyl to V8 engines. The SPAD XIII in WW1 had a 205HP V8 engine. Formula 1 had a 4cyl BMW engine putting out 1280HP. Cylinder counts mean literally nothing, as torque and RPM are factors as well. "Just because a 4 cylinder piper Cherokee has 4 seats doesn't mean its a 4 adult person airplane." Just because everyone is fat these days (2/3 of Americans are legally obese according to the CDC), does not mean the Cherokee, Warrior, 172, etc. can't carry 4 adults. Even a C172S can carry 4x 190lb adults and 20gal of fuel, giving up to 2hrs of flying by a competent pilot who knows how to lean properly, and it only has an 878lb load and 180HP. A Bearhawk 4 place does 180-260HP with 4-6cyl, at 140-150mph cruise (at only 62% power), doing 950-1350lb load. Making it superior to the RV-15.
The most expensive kit vans sells is the rv10, which you can complete with new parts for $150k. This plane will surely be less than a rv10 because it's a lot more simple. A quick Google search tells me that a 50 year old cessna is still in the high $200k range with steam gauges.
@@SoloRenegade The resources are out there, no need to be ignorant. There are 25 Cessna 185s for sale on trade-a-plane right now. Only one of them is less than 200k. If you want a nice one you're looking at mid 200s. The RV-15 will be much cheaper to build, which it should be, as it's not even really comparable.
@@3SM20Pilot Clearly you can't read. I'll make this super clear for anyone else reading this. Here is what I said, "200K for a 50yr old cessna? what are you smoking?" I can find TONS of Cessna 182s, Mooneys, and more, for less than $200k from the 1970s or earlier. I'm seeing tons of them for sale for $80k to $170k, on trade a plane, controller, barnstormers, and elsewhere. The guy in the hangar next to mine just bought a Mooney for $80k, and he even flew it to Oshkosh this year. Plenty of 4 seater options to be had for less than $200k. Try harder. My own plan currently is a 1960s Cessna and I paid even less than $80k for it. So, now it's your turn. Prove anything I said was factually incorrect...... Also, the Bearhawk (multiple models) will likely be cheaper, faster, and a greater payload than the RV-15, from the way it sounds.
A parachute will most likely be offered. A carry-through spar would limit the height of pilots that could be accommodated, or cause the pilot to be reclined which reduced visibility. A cantilever wing also adds significant weight.
Love hearing the engineering and testing going into this. Very impressive the pride taken to make sure it’s right and complete kits are available before they sell. Means A LOT!
Great interviewer and Rian and Axel are such wonderful ambassadors for their company. I know that Vans is having a hard time right now and I wish them luck in getting through to the other (good) other side as quickly as possible. They deserve every success.
Very nice interview. Rian and Axle always seem very happy to speak about the accomplishments of this project. You did a great job in just letting them speak without interrupting like so many do. So many interviewers won't shut their trap long enough to get any good info. Great job!
Thanks :)
Fantastic video. Thanks for letting him discuss the technical aspects while we wait for the kit to become available.
Great interview, Ed and Rian (as was your last one in 22). 🙂
There is nothing aeronautical that Vans cannot accomplish...! I would love a -15...! Cheers
Love the tech explanations involved. Thanks from NZ.
Great video to get caught up on RV-15 news! Thank you!
Good questions.
Great interview, Ed, as usual!
Great stuff, good interview
Outstanding!!
Developing new aircraft is always a journey with unforeseen things to be dealt with. I'm glad they're doing this right and putting together a quality design. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!
Nice interview and good info. I went by the Vans booth several times and they had guys out there at the RV15 turning away customers. They couldn't answer a single question or provide any info. I could have stayed home, saved thousands of dollars and just watched your RUclips.
Will it be aerobatic like the other RVs or can I at least do a Wing Over or negative push over? I don’t need a Decathlon but want to have the perfect blend of STOL and fun. Thanks.
There is a video somewhere of the RV-15 landing on the width of the piano keys at an airport. Anyone know where to find it?
An F-22 does a full AB takeoff and the cameraman doesn't automatically swing to film it? What the hell is wrong with him?
It so nearly happened, it was behind me but I wasn't exactly where, nor if it was even in view given the buildings between our location and the runway. I think next time I'd take the gamble and turn.
@@FLYERTV 👌👍
Thanks for the laugh!
Anyone know if they will do a tricycle gear version?
The whole point of a great tailwheel aircraft is to be able to go backcountry. Tricycle gear do not have the ground clearance to handle rough field operations.
Even when this was being taped Vans would have known they were in trouble!
There reputation depends on it. The first few flying will go for big bucks. No doubt
maybe, just maybe, on day, I can replace my 182 with an RV-16 :)
182 is a solid 4 seat airplane and reasonably fast. 182RG is even faster (but gear is unreliable).
Murphy Yukon or a Moose
Would love to see the struts disappear. Sling doesn't use them on their high wing.
no struts? how do you push it in the muck or on floats. How do you reach the fuel caps ? Fortunately Vans listened to the input from experienced bush pilots on this design
I wonder if it's heavier to have a massive main spar than it is to have struts.
No struts makes the airplane heavier. This thing is already going to struggle to compete with a Cessna 182
Would make it a great alternative to C182s for parachuting ops
@@SeaJayAerator well, you do have a point there. I am not a bush pilot so didn't consider that. You changed my mind.
6:17 I wish you let him answer.
The description on how to correct a bad landing is actually what you do on any taildragger
You absolutely do not need 260hp to get 4 seats.
Piper Cherokee
Piper Warrior
Cessna 182
BD-4c
etc.
Heck, even the R44 helicopter doesn't need nearly that much HP to carry 4 people.
None of those have the performance of an RV-10, or Cirrus or Bonanza etc. So putting words into Rian Johnson's mouth, I guess he was saying that to get four seats, useful payload and performance you need a bunch of hp?
@@FLYERTV I didn't put words into his mouth, he very clearly said a 4 seater needs 260hp.
"None of those have the performance of an RV-10, or Cirrus or Bonanza etc."
wow, I never knew more HP gave a plane more performance, I must have been born yesterday.
That is NOT the point. Performance is subjective and dependent upon the mission. 900lb payload is not high performance. Th Kitfox can pretty much do that. 140kts is not high performance, the Bearhawk and others can do better than that.
"I guess he was saying that to get four seats, useful payload and performance you need a bunch of hp?"
nope, Bearhawk, Piper Cherokee, Piper Warrior, C182 and many more can do it. I've flown 4 people in a Warrior and 182 with payload to spare, and some of that was in teh Rocky mountains too.
BD4c is faster than the RV10 and far cheaper, and is a true 4 seater.
People are free to make their own choices and judgements. I design airplanes too, and claiming you need 260hp to have a "true 4 seater" is BS nonsense.
260HP 4 seater = "how expensive can I make the airplane?"
@@SoloRenegade Your reading comprehension must not be very good. FlyerTV was saying they were putting words in their mouth, not you. There are some great youtubers that can help you with your english deficiencies. Good luck!
4 full size adults and 100lbs luggage, yes you should have 6 cylinder. R44 has Lycoming IO‑540, six cylinder. Then six cylinder 4 person planes would be Beechcraft bonanza, cirrus SR22, Cessna 182, and so on. Just because a 4 cylinder piper Cherokee has 4 seats doesn't mean its a 4 adult person airplane.
@@Hugocraft the 1967 Cherokee 140 has a useful load of 949lb (70lb more than a C172S). I trained in pipers and thy truly are 4 seaters. I have plenty of time in a PA-28-161 for example, and at 160hp, outperformed cessna 172 (flew faster, climbed faster, burned less gas, greater useful load of 972lb, better IFR ship, easier to land, etc.). And I have taken up 4 adults in it no problem. The Cherokees/Warriors were 150-160HP 4cyl and had useful loads of 950-970lb depending upon exact model and year.
yes, the Cessna 182, R44, and others have 6cyl engines, but only producing 205-230HP. Not 260+HP. And mind you helicopters are far less efficient than airplanes, yet a 205HP R44 can take 4 people (I've flown the R22, R44, and R66 as well in the Rocky Mountains).
I consider they Cessna 172 a 3-place airplane (for adults), but I've taken up 4people many times with kids onboard including over the Grand Canyon and other parts of the Rocky Mountains. And we've flown with 3 adults many times at high DA airports (up to 9,300ft DA on takeoff), and it has 4cyl 160-180HP engines.
Lets compare the Beechcraft Bonanza to the Cessna 182T.
182T - 167mph cruise, 1130lb load, 230HP (and I've gotten closer to 200mph cruise consistently out of 3x C182RGs I flew in the Rocky Mountains, making it superior to the Bonanza by matching performance on 70HP less).
Bonanza - 203mph cruise, 1130lb load, 300HP
36mph faster, for 70more HP, no other improvement than speed. An SR22 gets 211mph, and 200lb extra load for another 10HP over the Bonanza.
Meanwhile DarkAero is expecting to get 275mph cruise, 750lb load, for 200HP (6cyl).
You know what else has 6cyl engine? A Sonex with a Jabiru. Also, a Pietenpol with a Corvair. A Zenith Ch750 with Jabiru or Corvair. A Wittman Tailwind or BD-4c runs everything from 4cyl to V8 engines. The SPAD XIII in WW1 had a 205HP V8 engine. Formula 1 had a 4cyl BMW engine putting out 1280HP. Cylinder counts mean literally nothing, as torque and RPM are factors as well.
"Just because a 4 cylinder piper Cherokee has 4 seats doesn't mean its a 4 adult person airplane."
Just because everyone is fat these days (2/3 of Americans are legally obese according to the CDC), does not mean the Cherokee, Warrior, 172, etc. can't carry 4 adults. Even a C172S can carry 4x 190lb adults and 20gal of fuel, giving up to 2hrs of flying by a competent pilot who knows how to lean properly, and it only has an 878lb load and 180HP.
A Bearhawk 4 place does 180-260HP with 4-6cyl, at 140-150mph cruise (at only 62% power), doing 950-1350lb load. Making it superior to the RV-15.
how many years to attach an engine to a bunch of metal plus a copycat of a 170
How does this save money over a Cessna 185 again, which has a 1400lb useful load?
The most expensive kit vans sells is the rv10, which you can complete with new parts for $150k. This plane will surely be less than a rv10 because it's a lot more simple. A quick Google search tells me that a 50 year old cessna is still in the high $200k range with steam gauges.
@@wwjohnnymaydo 200K for a 50yr old cessna? what are you smoking?
it doesn't.
@@SoloRenegade The resources are out there, no need to be ignorant. There are 25 Cessna 185s for sale on trade-a-plane right now. Only one of them is less than 200k. If you want a nice one you're looking at mid 200s. The RV-15 will be much cheaper to build, which it should be, as it's not even really comparable.
@@3SM20Pilot Clearly you can't read.
I'll make this super clear for anyone else reading this. Here is what I said, "200K for a 50yr old cessna? what are you smoking?"
I can find TONS of Cessna 182s, Mooneys, and more, for less than $200k from the 1970s or earlier. I'm seeing tons of them for sale for $80k to $170k, on trade a plane, controller, barnstormers, and elsewhere.
The guy in the hangar next to mine just bought a Mooney for $80k, and he even flew it to Oshkosh this year.
Plenty of 4 seater options to be had for less than $200k. Try harder. My own plan currently is a 1960s Cessna and I paid even less than $80k for it.
So, now it's your turn. Prove anything I said was factually incorrect......
Also, the Bearhawk (multiple models) will likely be cheaper, faster, and a greater payload than the RV-15, from the way it sounds.
Maybe start with an overview of what this aircraft is. Started talking about control surfaces. Idk what’s going on. Bailed at 4 min.
"Van's RV-15, latest updates"
lol 😂 poor little Karen
AMATEUR!, you présent à plane or à human’’’rubbish
If they remove the struts and add a BRS, it would be a great XC plane. Maybe -16 will have that.
removing the struts adds weight.
A parachute will most likely be offered. A carry-through spar would limit the height of pilots that could be accommodated, or cause the pilot to be reclined which reduced visibility. A cantilever wing also adds significant weight.