Comparison of the Vans RV-15 to the Sling High Wing that were both shown at EAA Airventure 2022 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. #ExperimentalAircraft #kitbuiltaircraft #vansaircraft #slingaircraft
Current orders on Sling High Wing include a Rotax 916 iS engine. Keep in mind Sling proved a TSi with the 915 iS at FL 300. This is pretty incredible for the price you pay… even after BA.
Good factual comparison of the two aircraft. Some folks are so fixated on backcountry planes, it seems they wanted a comparison solely from the backcountry point of view. There are lots of people who's mission is for a fast high wing, flying long legs from paved runways, thousands of feet over gravel bars and dirt strips. However, as some folks mentioned, the Sling High Wing cruise speed needs to be confirmed. The new Rotax 916 should help improve the takeoff run and climb, but not the cruise speed.
Thanks for watching and nice comments. We’ll see how the production High Wing planes turn out. It’s already been shown they’ve made changes to the center fuselage construction, possibly to lighten it up.
I think a better comparison is Vans RV-15 versus Rans S-21. The S-21 with 916iS looks like a better bet for virtually every purpose than Vans RV-15. Also, while it might be feasible to jam a small kid or two behind the front seats, none of these are really practical as a 4-seat airplane.
I honestly think the author doesn't know what back country is .. can you even put 31 " bush wheels on the sling ... plus slings wing is too small for 30 mph and vans flaps are dang near the size of the slings wing .... it has no rebound dampening on either mains or tail wheel ... the sling is not a back country plane .. they aren't in the same realm , It boggles me the author thought they both would make a good companion article
Hey there, Just wanted to know, who did you place your order for the sling hw and roughly how much are you paying for it, if you don’t mind me ask? It’s something I want to do but rv-10 still in my mind. Thanks and congratulations.!
I placed my deposit with The Airplane Factory / Sling North America in Torrance, CA. Because the wait is so long, they are only asking for $5,000 to hold your place in line.
One light-sport that deserves more attention is the Aero Trek A220. It’s a Czech-built clone of an Avid Flyer. (Basically a Kit Fox). Mine weighs 671# empty, 1235# gross. With the 100 HP 912ULS it gets off the ground and lands in about 300’ if I’m light and on-speed. Top speed is 124-125 MPH with wheel-pants in place (average N, S, E, W on GPS at 2,000-4,000 MSL-ish) burning about 6 GPH at 5,430 RPM. My 1993 Supercub with a 180HP O360 weighed 1220#. Top speed was. 105 MPH burning about 10 GPH of 100LL at 2,400 RPM. It took off and landed in 250-300’ when light. It had ASOS suspension and 26” tires, so it could land on rougher terrain than the A220. It can also descend more steeply haul more weight and bulk, but the A220 has laser-like control response like a Van’s RV making it way more fun to fly. The side-by-side seating is a plus if you like girls. Aerotrek support is amazing from Rob Rollison in Indiana. The best part is the planes are $115,000 brand new. Also available as the A240 nose-dragger. It took 9 months to get my 2021 model. Kitfox quoted a 4 year wait.
I’ll have to look that one up. I hadn’t heard Kitfox had such a long wait. Things got crazy during COVID and slowed all the companies down with supply chain issues and huge demand.
I think a more fair comparison would be between the Vans and a Murphy. And that would be a comparison that I'd love to see. Murphy has a solid reputation and a strong mature product. Vans has THE reputation (I'd argue the BEST reputation) but they're venturing into a different flight envelope with the 15 and that envelope is pretty well served by, not only Murphy but also the Glastar. A Vans, Murphy Glastar shoot out... now there's a video for ya!
If y’all really want to see an impressive backcountry wing look up the Zlin Norden with electric retractable slats, massive double slotted flaps, and carbon fiber drooped tips.
Zlin is probably the most impressive back country plane ever built ... However the Vans will blow it away on cargo capability and Im thinking a much higher cruise speed ... which is quite a big deal for many .. But I feel the Zlin may be king of the gravel bars and hill sides .. and the 915 doesn't care what altitude .. get high enough it will even beat the 390 in the vans
Yeah but the sling TSI can haul a thousand pounds with 10 hours of fuel on board and fly up to 26,000 ft at 160 knots true airspeed... Can't quite do that on one of those The sling high wing is just a sling TSI
Depends on if the Sling High Wing is an experimental or an LSA. Light Sport Aircraft have a lot more restrictions on them, starting with a speed cap of 120 mph. That sucks. At least an experimental you can fly to the speed it's capable of, and you can run them ILS.
The Sling High Wing is definitely Experimental Amateur Built due to the engine size, speed and constant speed prop. The Sling 2 uses the Rotax 912 and fixed prop and is Light Sport Capable at the max gross of 1320. You can build a Sling 2 to Experimental Category and carry more weight and upgrade engine and prop to get more performance.
The Sling seems better compared to GlassStar/Sportsman with similar # ... I think the RV-15 is better compared to Bearhawk Companion/Patrol, RANS S-21 or maybe the Carbon Cub FX3 for numbers ... the always popular Kitfox or Highlander don't have a top end to be a fair comparison, IMHO. I did like that Vans is pushing limits ... they have a flap that goes to 50 deg. ... when I asked why ... they said ..."we expect to go to 40 deg ... but if we didn't try for more we wouldn't know" which is the purpose of a prototype after all, in my opinion.
The Sling has a couple of things going for it. I, however, dislike the raked back vertical fin and the ugly vent entries in the cowling. They could do much better design-wise.
The biggest difference between the rv15 and all of its competitors is that Vans is taking the time to develop and refine the aircraft to get it right. It will be strong, rugged and most importantly it will have excellent flying qualities. So many of its competitors fall very short in this last category. Their designers just don’t have the resources to spend a year or 2 flying, testing, adjusting, modifying and tweaking, maybe going through 2 or even 3 prototypes. Changing control surface gearing, surface size and control system gearing to get control forces and harmony just right, moving the wing or lengthening nose or tail to get weight and balance right- the chances of nailing those things on the first try is zero. Most kitplanes have a single prototype and you get what you get. Put some fancy paint in it, make a nice brochure and arrive at oshkosh with your gang of salesman in matching embroidered polo shirts. Fortunately Vans has the money to do it right. That’s why this airplane should be different (I hope)
I think the Rans S-21 is closer to the RV-15 as it is also a STOL design aircraft. I think it has specs showing low 300 foot takeoff depending on which engine you use. It’s a 2 seater I think as well but I don’t think it has a provision to be a 2+2 like the RV-15 might be in the future. There is a RU-vid channel called DadandChad or ChadandDad (I’m not sure which it is)who are building one and you can get some more information from them.
@@aviationkitbuilder False ..the outbound suffers from much of what the sling suffers from and requires a complete landing gear and wing change to make it back country ... Its stall is 10mph higher than a super cub ... Rans did not employ any of the latest back country requirements in the outbound ..Its basically a grass or dirt airport plane but not a dry riverbed plane .. The wing is too small just like the sling .. Im amazed how many people just dont understand what makes super cubs super is the light wing loading and the landing gear in the modernized versions ... If you dont get stall speed into the 30's and dampened shocks your not running with the back country crowd ... Wing area per lb rules along with huge flaps .. I dont need to see the plane just the weight and the wing area and will tell you in 2 minutes if it is back country capable .... The Vans is back country , the sling and outbound are not nor will they be without larger wings oe slat installation and complete landing gear redesign
@@markdoan1472 I see your posts are getting a little ignored with this crowd... makes me sad, since you are 100% spot-on with what you say. Wing area, drag and a shock absorbing gear are huge considerations for a back country airplane... especially if one wants to fly heavy (with a passenger, camping gear, and return trip fuel). LSA sized airplanes just can't do this very effectively; the only one that comes close, and is said to fly like a Cub... is the Rans S20! Because it has more wing area!
@@serg2963 The author and 90% of people on here dont understand back country or what makes a modern back country plane ... They dont get why the landing gear needs to be rebound dampened so the plane can slam into the ground and stay put .. and they never seem to mentions wing area / lbs per sq ft which is absolute key .. nor do they get the flaps on the vans are monsters and why that is ... They seem to think all high wing tail draggers are back country but they have no clue what vans actually did here that makes it light years better than the rans or sling for riverbed and mountainside hopping ... Im just astonished they are actually pilots and are that uninformed ... clueless of what back country requires ..
All high wings can adapt a BRS quite easily ... albeit you have to design it yourself or copy a design that is popular ... Its not a difficult task and it will quickly show up on the vans .....some low wing vans planes have them but its far more difficult to execute
WHAT is there to compare? They are each high-wing, and that’s where the similarities end. As if the entire premise wasn’t bad enough, the “…you can hear that the RV-15 has a pretty beefy engine” comment was so….pointless.
Thanks for the video. I had seen pictures of the Sling at OSH, but didn't know much about it. Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on an RV-15. I've owned and RV-12 so I've done the Rotax thing. It is a good engine and very reliable plus fuel efficient, it just isn't my cup of tea. I prefer a traditional aircraft engine (lycosaurus). I have also owned a Sportsman, which is probably a closer competitor to the -15, but since I know nothing about them, I am afraid of plastic (fiberglass) airplanes. Metal I understand. I wish both companies well, but I am really jones'n for the RV-15. I think it will blend nicely with my RV-8. Two different airplanes for two different missions. It is also a plus that I live only about a 4 hour drive form the Van's factory.
The RV15 is a true back country plane with a much bigger wing area than the sling ... It has rebound dampened suspension front and back and a full flying stab .. It has monster flaps ... Do you understand they are not the same plane .. the sling needs 200 more sq ft of wing area and actual suspension to be bush ... Its not bush at all ...I dont understand why people dont see these are not the same planes ... not remotely ... 2 completely different categories
I don’t buy the performance of the Sling highwing. I have an airplane with the exact same Rotax and propeller combination so I know the power settings and all the pictures I’ve seen of them crossing the Atlantic the airplane was underwhelming and significantly slower than slings posted cruise speed at gross weight. Albeit there were likely at gross maybe even over gross with the ferry tanks but the speeds are not as posted and not as impressive given the panel photos at very high power settings
They were definitely loaded down with fuel, especially for the two thousand mile leg across the Atlantic. Time will tell with normal flying now that they have a few flying in the US now.
@@aviationkitbuilder Their specs are definitely off. Every image shows them at 80% power or more which I can tell you is not 7.5 GPH which is what they’re advertising. at 6500 feet they were getting 122 tas at 80% power @ 8gph.
@@Captndarty bro there are so many videos from youtube aviation creators flying the tsi and the HW now that actually show better stats than what sling claim on the website. So perhaps you might want to do a little better research before you start making claims from your point of knowing JuSt ThE MoToR. What is your rotax strapped to? a Bus?
@@pred7949 you’re clueless. First off there’s not a lot of footage of the high wings panel showing numbers out there. The little there is shows piss poor performance. I have struts and 26” tires and the slings performance is faster but not remarkably.
This is a friendly overview of two great new planes with slightly different missions. I look forward to seeing the RV-15 getting to market, as Vans has designed some fantastic aircraft.
I know. No final speed, take off & landing distance, climb rate, useful load, no nothing. Not even the size of the fuel tanks. Pretty tough to compare something when you don't know anything but a few generalizations about it.
Before I pay a quarter million dollars for a "kit" homebuilt airplane I will buy a good used Wichita special! These kit builts are financially getting way out of hand for the typical family man/lady ace.
I think the Sling and newer Vans aircraft models are probably towards the top of the price range for experimental aircraft kits, but you can build a nice one for less than $200K (depending on options and avionics choices). The over the top paint jobs, quick build kits, top shelf avionics, and a build assist center can easily push these models beyond $300k . If you want a four seat aircraft, there just aren’t as many choices in the experimental world. Comparing these aircraft prices to a new Cessna, Beechcraft, Cirrus etc makes them seem a bit more reasonable, but they are huge investments.
Not really similar at all .. The sling is completely not a back country plane ..the vans completely is . The very fact the vans has shock dampened suspension , a much larger and lighter wing loading , huge flaps that drop 50degrees , and a full flying stab , puts it in the gravel bar , mountainside bashing category with stall speeds most certainly in the 30's A sling simply cant go where back country planes go .. It is not remotely a back country plane with zero design elements pointing that way ... I think most in the aviation industry dont really understand what makes a back country airplane ... To make a sling back country it needs 200 more sq ft of wing area , huge flaps , completely different landing gear front and back with shock dampening on rebound ... In other words a completely different airplane
I discuss that a couple of times in this video. Unfortunately, the world will have to wait another year or more before building one of this great aircraft.
I think the RV is overpowered. How many people really need that capability at that cost. Four place Slings beats it hands down for most people. I would like to know the build cost to your door. Looks, is Sling big time. Two airplanes for two different kinds of flying.
Thanks for watching. I think it will be a while before Vans gets pricing done on the RV-15 and I don’t think Sling is publishing pricing on the High Wing yet.
Keep in mind that the sling TSI almost performs The same. Above 8,000 ft the sling outperforms in speed and climb rate compared to the RV 10 and it can reach all the way to 28,000 ft while climbing 500 ft a minute, while the RV 10 will struggle to get above 20,000 at all. Up there You can travel 150ktas while burning 6 gallons per hour. Not to mention that despite the RV having much more horsepower, It carries only 50 lb more weight because the sling has a 50 lb parachute in it
Comparing an aircraft with a Lycoming O-390 and another one with Rotax? meeeeee. not really a comparison.... and besides my personal experience since Rotax even had a "four stroke" engine is awful. So many problems with the Rotax 532 then the 582... . No thank you. Too much money for a toy engine with all the wrong engineering concepts designed in it. Rotax for me? NEVER! I will stick with Lycoming that has been developing and perfecting their engines for at least 6 decades! YES! That counts and that is what makes it RELIABLE. As far as the toys, I leave it for the "new generation" to learn their lessons.
Statistically the rotax engines are more reliable, they use modern technology. Plus you get the triple redundant alternators which is nice. They do compare because of the altitude advantage. The sling TSI can get all the way to 30,000 ft and still climb 400 ft per minute, and can burn 4 gallons per hour in a hold and 7 gallons per hour at 160 knots tas. It does this because of an efficient airframe. Not to mention the engines are immune to thermal shock and icing, You can run them all day long and then pull the power during a decent and it won't affect them. Especially with the turbocharger, as you climb out, they compare pretty well. Constant speed prop is a nice advantage as well
@@pilotavery Oh yes, there are all sorts of "theoretical explanations" why this engine is better then the other. However, what most people don't realize is real world dueling. When rubber meets the road thigs look so different. LOL, Oh look my CHT is going bunkers (water cooled)... Oh look my reduction gear box went bad and broke... so on and so forth. I would like to see where did you get the statistics where rotaxes are more reliable than Lycomings. there's nothing out there proving that. Numbers and data show the other way around. Hard to know precisely because many Lycoming engine owners do not report the cause of their engine incident. However. I wouldn't even be hard to understand that because Lycomings came to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before rotax. So, it's a number's game and engineering dueling. Of course in a culture that blames the "old" and glorify the "new" rotax is the winner. Unfortunately, the market shows the contrary. I am not going to change this culture. But, I will when time is possible speak out and see if anything I say makes any dent on the status quo. Other than that. Let's go fly and have fun : )
@@ele4853 If you're comparing the decades old hundred horsepower or less rotax engines, Then maybe not. The tolerances are better on the 915, catastrophic failures are reduced because it is immune to thermal shock, Even little things like engine mismanagement failures, due to improper mixture, cylinder had temperatures, etc, eliminated, etc. Not to mention the operational cost is significantly lower. The main reason why these old Continental engines haven't been updated and decades is because of cost.
@@ele4853 cylinder head temperatures remain completely constant on road tax engines. They don't change by more than 4° even if you're going from 90° full throttle in a climb to 20° pitch down near VNE with engine at idle. Cylinder had temperatures don't change at all on rotax, So they are immune to thermal shock which will wear out a traditional 1960s engine
@@ele4853 Then again, 97% of continental engines make it to TBO, while 99% of rotax engines make it to TVO, and unfortunately I couldn't find information on the Lycoming engines...
Based on the numbers from Sling it does 145knots with better than a thousand pound useful load. It’s 46” wide and a 182 is 44”. I was in a 182 partnership for years so I know that platform pretty well. I think the 182 is roomier in other dimensions that make it feel bigger than the Sling I didn’t get a chance to climb in the backseat of the Sling HW but they are discussing moving the rear seat forward because it’s got too much leg room.
I'm actually surprised that the sling TSI is able to hold four people and 75 gallons of fuel, that little airplane Can fly 10 hours cross country at 7.5 gallons an hour, or 4.5 gallons per hour in a hold. You can climb 1,000 ft a minute at max gross and can climb 1,000 feet a minute all the way up to 18,000 ft. Not to mention you can climb all the way up to 30,000 ft while holding 1,000 lb
