Depends on how much ?

Why? Please elaborate, no details here. Looks like a regular tail dragger.

exactly

Sooo... you know for a fact that it seats four?

@@EJWash57 I do not know how many seats it has-I am not associated with Van’s Aircraft. I could make a case for 2 or 4 seats. My gut says it’s going to be 2 seats with a huge baggage area.

@@EJWash57 Yeah... looks like a two plus one maybe or baggage.

If two seats hoping for a rear baggage door.

Like a Stinson?

Ahhh that’s right. Thank you!

like a F1 or Indy racecar?

@@josesbox9555 or a PA-12 or a Luscombe or a....

@@pi.actual Helio courier.

LOL

I'm expecting 100k flying if you think about it that is average price of lowest priced SLSA that isn't an ultralight type aircraft. I agree my wife never let me blow 100k on an airplane I'm stuck with ultralights building a Chinook 2 DR landing gear with a 2 stroke engine. Have about 32k invested when I'm done at least I will be in the air.

Compare to a new C172 that costs $500K, this is a bargain.

@@Mike-01234 I have '64 182 that I paid 56K for. $359 month. It's ugly (bad paint and interior) but its IFR, long rang tanks, one of the best light aircraft engines ever made with low time and great compressions and goes 150mph /130 kias.

Maybe because it's the middle of a work day?

The plane is so good beer is not needed

I think it’s a bit too much to say Vans specializes in aerobatic aircraft. They are great cross country machines that also happen to be able to loop and roll.

You probably missed out on the cross country machines such as the RV9 and the 4-seat RV10.

@@phatvu3811 Huh, maybe I’ll check those out. Thanks.

Wow what a comment !! Dick designed an built some aircraft that have one of the best envelopes in the business ( stall speed to top end ) they take off in 300' to 400 feet and cruise 200 mph. AND they're also built very strong and quick ( I like very strong ) so part of them are areobatic. Of little interest ??? In case of an engine out you can land in less than 500 feet. You can also cruise at around 200 mph in a very strong airplane. I think that's VERY interesting ?

@@danmcburney3247 They are excellent aircraft I am sure; it’s just that most of them are not something that appeals to me. I didn’t mean to insult them, insinuate that they were overly specialized, or suggest anything negative whatsoever. I have no doubt they are superb.

Yes eventually

If you want to see an impressive wing check out the Zlin Norden.

Noooo...keep your "VG'S" off of that clean wing! Do you know how hard it is to sweep ice and snow off of a wing that has those "fashion add-ons"?

@@garyfischer4357 Retractable slats will fix that issue.

@@andrewmorris3479 A proper airfoil is ALL that is needed...and lots of ponies up front. I am confident Vans have "the right stuff".

Help me to understand how a 100k+ airplane is going to be a replacement!

SO well said !! If it stops at 100. How many times has this been tried ? How many can they sell. Just what the public wants,a tailwheel trainer

@@pauleyplay why would anybody think this was only a 100Kt airplane? My Rans S 21 with a less powerful engine than what this will likely have is good for 130kts up high. Vans is not building this as a trainer they’re building it for all the flatland posers that want to go to Johnson Creek ID and replicate Trent Palmers Bush flying. It will sell like hotcakes.

@@Captndarty We shall see You have a good point

@@Captndarty I think he means $100k

Came here to find this comment. As a Murphy Rebel builder, the RV-15 is the end of Murphy Aircraft. There's no reason to buy a Murphy Rebel/Elite if Vans comes out with this. Murphy has been "gone" for awhile now, which is kind of a shame. The Murphy Rebel was a great plane supported by a iffy company.

Try landing a rocky field in a Cessna and you will understand why shocks are a wonderful addition to an off-airport aircraft.

I believe this shock absorbing gear will greatly reduce the (unwanted) bounce that typical flat solid gear delivers.

The Husky also has an internally dampened landing gear which is a big improvement over the pre 2012 Huskys. And essentially zero maintenance difference.

🤦🏻‍♂️

Great question… I’ve put a plane purchase on hold…waiting for the answer to that question…I was hoping an employee would blurt it out…. Vans… do a guy a solid and post if this is 2+2 capable…

The 15 will be a 2 seater. The future may be a 4 seater (RV 16)

a baby 180 would be a 170! :)

@@robjohnson8522 A '170' has a rounded tail. This has a squared-off tail, just like a '180'. Still, it's a re-birth of a great aircraft!

Just from the size of it (grown men standing under the wing without hunching) there's no way it's going to meet the current LSA max gross and have any sort of useful load

It will meet the current proposed MOSAIC standards…. Which are nearly approved in Brazil this month. Hopefully the FAA will adopt the same. 4 seats, 3000 lbs, 61 kts Vso

@@rianjohnson7484 are these the RV15 specs you’re listing or the current MOSAIC spec requirements? Many are wondering if it will be 2 seat or 4 seat!

Those specifications are for MOSAIC in Brazil. They also added Vh 185 kts. Just passed into law this morning. As for the 15 we will give more information at Oshkosh

@@rianjohnson7484 thanks for the update

That's what I'm wondering like to see inside there wonder about the weight obviously get better cruise without all that suspension below but a trade off is weight.

Wouldn't it basically be a 701 at that point? Vans are pretty good at making what they want to make.

It's an experimental. Experiment as much as you need to.

As a builder I want SIMPLICITY! I am not even crazy about the dampened gear legs as it adds unneeded complexity

@@simonhughes-king8493 Not even close, the 701 still uses a high lift airfoil. This way you could keep the more laminar flow airfoil and completely change the low end and safety margin that true retractable slats provide.

@@robjohnson8522 Check out the Zlin Norden, the slats only weigh 22 pounds and are interconnected using one servo motor. Motor fails and the both slats fail in their current position.

why wouldn't they be?

@@SoloRenegade if the wings were foldable or removable the tanks would likely not be in the wings (it’s rare see eg rv12)

@@thewaterengine SPA Panther? Kitfox? Zenith have removable wings. Cessna 150, 172, etc. have removable wings. Not rare at all. Just a matter of preference and execution.

Previous comments from Vans official KZfaq channel indicate there will be wing tanks

@@SoloRenegade C150 and 172 wings aren't easily removable. They have cables for ailerons & flaps, fuel lines, pitot line, stall horn, lighting cables, fuel sensor cables. It's a maintenance job to remove or install them. The removable people are talking about is easily removable, for hangaring and transport. Like those Europa kit planes, or HK36 Dimona. I've seen the HK36 being put together in under 10 minutes. And the Europas often live on a trailer, or a garage, only to be assembled on the airfield. That's quite convenient, IMO.

Hah. "Elmo" is awesome. He's a terrific employee!

They've already said that they'll have a tricycle version as well...

@@TalonID sweet, Vans giving aviation what it wants and can afford.

Keep in mind that you can't use an experimental aircraft for compensation or hire so this won't be used for training purposes. and isn't designed for that anyway.

@@RVationNation there is a flight school using RV12’s not far from me. Now I think you can only get a sport pilot there but maybe Vans should look at certification or get Aopa to push for it unless they are too far in bed with Cessna.

@@toddw6716 Van's makes an SLSA version of the -12, which is why the flight school is able to use them. You don't want a certified version, that costs big bucks! In reality, nothing is probably ever going to replace Cessna in the training market. I'd guess the -15 is built around the IO-390-EXP119, that's a big engine to try and teach students in.