What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Van's Aircraft Taxonomy

DrDrift

Member
I've been looking for a guide on visually and functionally distinguishing the different Van's aircraft models, but all I found was the "Which RV is Right for Me?" page. In the absence of a guide, I copied the 3-view diagrams from the Van's site and made a simple set of "Airfield Identification Guides for Van's Aircraft"

The first guide is the "Van's Diagram" (sorry), which shows the distribution of aircraft based on aerobatic capability, seating arrangement, and number of seats.

oFf8V0D.png


Aerobatic only: RV-3
Side-by-side only: RV-10 (I suppose tandem too...)
Aerobatic and two-seat: RV-4/8
Two-seat and side-by-side: RV-9/12
Aerobatic, two-seat, and side-by-side: RV-6/7/14


I revised the "Which RV is Right for Me" question sequence into a decision flow diagram.

IVlKRla.png


Want 1 or 4 seats, RV-3 and -10 are the only options, respectively.

For two-seat aircraft, the aircraft choice depends on aerobatic capability, seating arrangement, size of interior, and LSA compatibility. I'm sure it's obvious to people who are already familiar with the different configurations, but I was trying to make a diagram that easily distinguishes the main features of the aircraft. Of note, I left off the /A nosewheel options which are subsets for certain aircraft.

Here's a top-view comparison of the 9 RV aircraft with approximately-correct relative size scaling.

khuZbQq.png



Front-view comparison of RV models:

GGBpyxl.png



Side-view comparison:

3nhJABk.png
 
Last edited:
What makes you think a -7 isn't roomy inside? Have you ever flown one?

Fair point! I wasn't trying to slight the spaciousness of the -7, just trying to find a distinguishing characteristic(s) between it and the -14. To answer your questions, I haven't flown the -7 or any other RV, and I'm basing the diagrams off information on the Van's site, namely this paragraph:

From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv14.htm
Probably the first thing you’ll notice is that the RV-14 sits tall. The upright seating position and large bubble canopy provide superb visibility in all directions. The large cabin (as wide as many four-seat airplanes) is truly roomy. Lots of headroom, lots leg room, lots of room between the seats. Big people will like this airplane!

I'll be glad to change the "Roomy Interior?" block if you have have a better way to describe how to decide between the two available two-seat, side-by-side, aerobatic RVs.
 
Conventional gear vs Tricycle gear is an important differentiator for most, as is slider vs tip-up canopy. It might make for an interestingly complicated decision chart! :eek:

I agree about the gear and the canopy, but you could argue that two decisions are only important *after* you have chosen the airframe. In this case, the diagram would be extended a bit to include the options, but only for some airplanes. The RV-3 would only include the taildragger option, the RV-10 would only include the tricycle, while others would include both.

Part of the problem with the diagram is that it assumes that the "number of seats" is the first decision in the process. While this is probably true in many (most?) cases, it's possible to choose an aircraft starting with the main requirement being a tip-up canopy.

Another way to make an excessively-complicated decision chart is to have multiple starting points. Start with "Ok, so you want a tip-up canopy!", then start filtering based on secondary characteristics. There would be bunches of intersections with other paths through the chart that start from other questions. All the paths would eventually lead to one of the RVs. If it gets complicated enough, it would be a good introduction to aircraft electrical wiring diagrams.
 
Last edited:
Nice job! I'm building an RV and never fully realized all the differences between their models. Since I wanted 4 seats, my choice was simple. For others trying to decide, this is an easy way to see some of the differences quickly.
 
I'll be glad to change the "Roomy Interior?" block if you have have a better way to describe how to decide between the two available two-seat, side-by-side, aerobatic RVs.

Maybe say "larger interior"?

I like what you did?very clever!
 
Any of them can be flown non-aerobatically, and the RV-3 is not roomy.

I chose an RV other than the sweet-flying RV-12 because the -12 wasn't a taildragger.

The -12 has exceptional visibility, another distinguishing feature.

Dave
 
I enjoyed reviewing your work. What you did is pretty neat. I'd choose to build my RV-7 all over again, especially if you somehow worked building cost into your matrix.
 
Minor point ...

You may consider adding BUY of BUILD since you can't buy a 6 kit anymore.

"... you can't buy a 6 [new] kit anymore." [there are still many built or that could use a refresh.]

You might find the work of Edward Tufte very interesting in his development of graphically representing data.

I like the representation of major decisions and design differences. Of course, you've already shown the most important, "Is it a Vans RV?" -- after that the other choices are easier to detail. After completing an RV-6A QB kit my criteria would be largely influenced by "pre-punched vs not" (with the division occurring at the RV-7 forward.)

My 2nd preference might be the overall advancements in kit design and ease of assemble, where I'd give the RV-14 high marks. But price of kit/engine and long-term operational costs would favor the RV-9.
 
IVlKRla.png


You missed the one and only decision point question?

Which one do you want?

In the end you need to be happy with it.
 
You missed the one and only decision point question?

Which one do you want?

In the end you need to be happy with it.

I don't understand. Is "all of them" not a valid answer?

These graphics are really not intended to help me (or anyone) choose which RV to buy. Think of it more like a field guide to identification. For those mentioning cost, I have a few other plots that show cost of acquisition vs cruise speed vs fuel efficiency for a variety of GA aircraft.

I started a previous thread about commuting with an RV, and that generated great feedback and some of the trade-offs associated with the model choice. In my case, I have a strong preference for tailwheel, but I don't think I care (yet?) about tip vs slide canopy. I'm somewhat-desperately searching for a used RV-3 to buy, but that's largely because of my requirements to quickly move one person between two cities for a reasonable price.

For those pointing out that the -6 is no longer sold as a kit, I intended the chart to include "all available RV models", including the used market. I used the 6/7 designation since the 7 replaces the 6 and are not differentiated with the coarse decision points I have listed.
 
Last edited:
In case we haven't already exhausted this topic...

Per RV8JD's suggestion, here's the Van's diagram showing the landing gear and canopy options for each of the RV aircraft:

7IxeZ30.png



The RV-6, RV-7, and RV-9 are the only three available with a choice in canopy and landing gear.

Both the RV-3 and RV-4 accommodate both canopy types, but are taildragger only.

The RV-8 is a slider-only, but can be built with both gear types.

The RV-14 is tip-up-only and can be built with both gear types.

The RV-12 is only available with tip-up and tricycle.

The RV-10 is tricycle only, and has doors, so technically has neither a tip-up nor a slider.

The option availability is based on what I found on the Van's site and excludes custom modifications.

------
Edit: Thanks PilotjohnS, I re-read the description and found this: "The robust fuselage and cabin are identical to the RV-7/7A and there are the same sliding/tip-up canopy and trigear/tailwheel landing gear options.". I changed the diagram to reflect your edit.
 
Last edited:
Of course the RV-8 can have a tip-up canopy as well... I think it's been done on some with fastbacks?

And -3, -4, and -8 can have fastback conversions... Yet more loops for the Vans diagram? :)
 
Which ones have the best turn rate and radius? And which ones can generate the best specific energy in the shortest period of time? What about spanwise loading, or more to the point, energy retention under increased load factors?

Asking for a friend...
 
Which ones have the best turn rate and radius? And which ones can generate the best specific energy in the shortest period of time? What about spanwise loading, or more to the point, energy retention under increased load factors?

Asking for a friend...

But can it do a 4g negative pushover unlike our MiG friends?

top-gun-1.jpg
 
Which ones have the best turn rate and radius? And which ones can generate the best specific energy in the shortest period of time? What about spanwise loading, or more to the point, energy retention under increased load factors?

Asking for a friend...

Depends mostly on the engine and prop installed, and VGs can help, too. Your friend should know that homebuilts have tremendous variability among individual airplanes, and that his detailed questions are... questionable.
 
Depends mostly on the engine and prop installed, and VGs can help, too. Your friend should know that homebuilts have tremendous variability among individual airplanes, and that his detailed questions are... questionable.

Such performance characteristics are a speciality interest, to be sure.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top