What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's insight

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
The Van?s dinner at SnF was interesting, mostly because it gave us some insight into the company and their direction.

Here is what I picked up at the dinner and talking to him the next day in their tent.

- They have sold a bunch of RV-8?s (Sorry, I can?t remember the number)
- RV-7 kits sold ~ 3,000
- RV-9 kits sold ~ 1,500
- RV-10 kits sold ~ 500
- They also mentioned the number of -3 and -4 kits but I was mostly interested in the later models.

Van?s is very happy with the sales numbers and the quantity of -10 kits sold has surprised them.

RV-9 sales have been a bit of a disappointment to Van, if only because he appreciates low powered, efficient aircraft and doesn?t really understand the desire for more HP. I guess that is the engineer in him coming out.

When you look at those numbers and realize that the -7 is older than the -9 and the completion rate of 288 for the -7 is 10% and 206 for the -9 or 14%. What?s up with that? It is not like the -9 is any easier to build. Van?s did not elaborate on this. In fact, they didn?t even mention percentages. We were just talking about them on the ride home.

When asked if the -9 sales were a disappointment he said yes. When asked why people buy the -7 over the -9, he thought about it and replied that the -7 is just as easy to fly as the -9 and the owner can do acrobatics, if they wish.

I have paraphrased Van's replies, so please don?t use them as an exact quote.
 
Last edited:
When you look at those numbers and realize that the -7 is older than the -9 and the completion rate of 288 for the -7 is 1% and 206 for the -9 or 14%. What?s up with that? It is not like the -9 is any easier to build. Van?s did not elaborate on this. In fact, they didn?t even mention percentages. We were just talking about them on the ride home.
Click to expand...

Bill interesting post but I believe that the 9 was introduced first. Blue skies.
 
N941WR said:
When you look at those numbers and realize that the -7 is older than the -9
Click to expand...
Hmm... I tought that the -9 was out before -7. And as they first tried -7 with rudder or -6 and finally ended up using larger -9's rudder for it.

However, -7 seems to be selling pretty well and this economy-thinking doesn't seem to bother their builders.
 
also, you missed a number on the percentage of completions for the -7, it's closer to 10% (9.6% to be exact using the provided numbers). it's still lower than the -9 though. :)
 
Here is what I picked up at the dinner and talking to him the next day in their tent.

- They have sold a bunch of RV-8?s (Sorry, I can?t remember the number)
- RV-7 kits sold ~ 3,000
- RV-9 kits sold ~ 1,500
- RV-10 kits sold ~ 500
- They also mentioned the number of -3 and -4 kits but I was mostly interested in the later models.
Click to expand...


Uh......wasn't there an RV-6/6A at one time? Ya know, the model that has the highest number of kits sold??? :p

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

The success of Van's little foray into kit aircraft manfacturing is indeed remarkable...and unprecedented.

Sam Buchanan (RV-6 Classic, the one with the small tail, one of many thousands of RV-6/6A kits sold)
 
Pirkka said:
Hmm... I tought that the -9 was out before -7. And as they first tried -7 with rudder or -6 and finally ended up using larger -9's rudder for it.

However, -7 seems to be selling pretty well and this economy-thinking doesn't seem to bother their builders.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...
You are right, I'm mistaken. It is true, you can?t trust everything you read on the web. ;)

I remember finding it odd that the sequence was -8, -9, and then the -7.

I guess the -6 was still selling very well and Van was in no hurry to replace it.

Unfortunately I don't remember the number of -6 kits sold, I'm sure it was high, very high. I suspect the completion rate is much lower. I know there is at least one -6 kit that will never be completed because I sold mine to a guy who was going to put the tail parts on his -6 fuselage.

PS. I corrected the typo on the -7 percentage.
 
The 7 preceded the 9

At least by my memory, and the registration dates of the prototypes the RV-7 was first; RV-7 N137RV in 2001, RV-9 N179RV in 2002.

Again from my memory, the RV-7 started out with the RV-6 rudder, and there are some out there flying that way. There must be a nice history out there somewhere.

While I'm at it, Van's description of the RV-9/9A says: " The RV-9/9A is designed to be an easy-to-fly, economical, versatile sportplane.That?s not too surprising, since all previous Van?s airplanes, including the the RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, and RV-8 are versatile, economical sportplanes, too."
 
Later RV-6s Had Large Rudder

Ken Knowles and I built RV-6A's. His was a later model and it had a larger Vertical Stab and rudder with the aerodynamic balance horn very different from mine.

Bob Axsom
 
Unfortunately I don't remember the number of -6 kits sold, I'm sure it was high, very high. I suspect the completion rate is much lower. I know there is at least one -6 kit that will never be completed because I sold mine to a guy who was going to put the tail parts on his -6 fuselage.
Click to expand...

Think I recall hearing in one of Van's S-N-F forums in a previous year that the number of RV-6/6A starts was ~5000. I need to go back and poke around in some old notes to see if that number can be verified.

Whatever the actual number, a ton of 'em have gone out Vans's door, and it looks like the newer models will eventually meet/exceed the -6 numbers.

I suspect the RV-12 will be a runaway success as well......no medical....auto gas......faster than a C172.......bring it on! :)

Sam Buchanan
 
keen9a said:
Again from my memory, the RV-7 started out with the RV-6 rudder, and there are some out there flying that way. There must be a nice history out there somewhere.
Click to expand...
You mean history of the rudder? Oh, yeah, it's out there. The service bulletin used to be on Van's site but I don't think it's there anymore. The kits were actually built and shipped before, I believe, the prototype had been fully tested. Many of the performance numbers were courtesy of the computer since the 7 was basically a 6 with some differences.

It turned out that when the 7 prototype WAS fully tested, Van's was not happy with the spin recovery time. We're talking, imho, miniscule differences here...somethign like recovering in 1 3/4 revolutions instead of 1 1/2. Again, if memory serves, and it frequently doesn't, it tested fine in the "normal category."

So subsequent shipments carried the "9" rudder instead and those who had already received their emp were given replacement rudders if they so choose. Many folks chose not to so choose.
 
The prototype RV-9 crashed in April 2000, killing Bill and Jeremy Benedict. I'm not sure when it first flew in RV-9 form, but I suspect it was a bit before OSH 99.

I had forgotten that the prototype RV-9 was actually modified from the RV-6T prototype. The RV-6T was a one-of used by Van to test out various mods.

Note: the prototype was a tricycle-geared aircraft, but it was called the RV-9. The RV-9A designation didn't come along until Van relented and also created a tail-dragger version.
 
I saw the RV-9A (RV-9 or RV-9A, it had tricycle gear) prototype at a Cessna 120-140 fly-in at Vernonia, Oregon in August 1995. Van flew it in to visit with the group. It also had the first EFIS I'd seen.

Bob Severns
 
keen9a said:
At least by my memory, and the registration dates of the prototypes the RV-7 was first; RV-7 N137RV in 2001, RV-9 N179RV in 2002.
Click to expand...
Actually, the prototype RV-9A was N96VA which first flew on 12/5/97. Unfortunately that plane is no longer around. It preceded the RV-7 by several years.

As for the rudder: for the last few years of -6 production, they shipped with the larger, counterbalanced rudder, which was the -8 tail. The -7 began life with this tail, and later went to the larger -9 tail. I know of at least one -6 which has been retrofitted with the -9 VS/rudder. Clear as mud?
 
Last edited:
One airplane missing from the list

keen9a said:
At least by my memory, and the registration dates of the prototypes the RV-7 was first; RV-7 N137RV in 2001, RV-9 N179RV in 2002.
keen9a said:
You are correct with the dates except you are missing one of the airplanes.

N129RV is the tricycle geared kit prototype which was completed and flown about a year before the RV-7 prototype. This is the airplane that was originally equiped with a three blade MT Prop.

N179RV is a conventional gear RV-9 that was built later in response to all of the requests received for a taildragger version. I think fewer than a dozen have been sold.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The airplane I saw at Vernonia that day had the constant chord horizontal tail, and longer wings than the RV-6 I was familiar with at the time. It also had the same vertical surfaces as the RV-6. Maybe it didn't have a name yet. I remember the date because I'd returned home from Europe two days before. The RV-9 was definately in development at that time.

Bob Severns
 
Really? Only about a dozen -9's sold?

Only about a dozen -9's in the pipeline? I would have thought more... I originally was going to go the "A" route when I got the -9 emp & wings, but have seriously been considering going straight -9 since the home strip is grass.
It's been 30 years since I've flown taildraggers (Champ - $8/hr wet!) and in addition to being fun (and damn slow) I think they improved my flying. So I'm not skeered of T/D's, but if N/D's are as sturdy for relatively decent grass strips, I'll probably go N/D. But T/D's look so much better!
Decisions, decisions... next year or the year after.
 
Bob, was the plane you saw all yellow? If so, it was most likely the RV-6T, which was used as a developement/ experiment platform. They played around with different wings and tails on this one, which eventually lead to the RV-9.
 
sprucemoose said:
Bob, was the plane you saw all yellow? If so, it was most likely the RV-6T, which was used as a developement/ experiment platform. They played around with different wings and tails on this one, which eventually lead to the RV-9.
Click to expand...


Wasn't that the Air Beetle prototype?
 
the 9 came before the seven, the 9A came after

:D The seven was not even announced when I my plane was given the serial number of 90008. It was a nosewheel plane and was called an RV-9! The "A" designation was added later to avoid confusion, also long before they decided to offer a taildragger.
 
How about the whole enchilada

Bob Collins said:
You mean history of the rudder?
Click to expand...
Actually I was thinking an entire history of the Van's aircraft development.

So now I'm curious. The RV-9(with a nosewheel) came out first, but my RV-9 kit has lots of parts numbered F-7xx. In fact the only F-9xx parts look like they are in the center section and a couple at the HS interface. Why is that? Bryan did your fuse have "7" parts even though the RV-7 hadn't been announced?
 
keen9a said:
Actually I was thinking an entire history of the Van's aircraft development.

So now I'm curious. The RV-9(with a nosewheel) came out first, but my RV-9 kit has lots of parts numbered F-7xx. In fact the only F-9xx parts look like they are in the center section and a couple at the HS interface. Why is that? Bryan did your fuse have "7" parts even though the RV-7 hadn't been announced?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the 7 and 9 have the same fuselage and same rudder.
 
N941WR said:
- RV-7 kits sold ~ 3,000
- RV-9 kits sold ~ 1,500
- RV-10 kits sold ~ 500
Click to expand...
Still like to get back to this. As said earlier, why not tell this info also on the web pages. Of course it can be considered as confidental -- however how many real competitors Van's has? It's not accident I choose RV instead of many similar planes, but no-one else I found couldn't offer anything like Van's as a company does.

But this list must refer to the empennages sold or builder numbers instead number of sold finishing kits where number would much less... It would be nice to see the difference of those constructing phases how they differ from the other (empennage, wings, fuselage, finishing kit).
 
John, I understand that the fuselage of the 7 and 9 are essentially the same, but if the 9 was first, it would make sense that all of the part numbers would be F-9xx on the 9 (except for the old 6 parts), but they are not.

Pirkka, I don't know why Van doesn't publish kit sales numbers, but if we could get builder numbers from a recent starter on each model we'd have the info. I believe we did this in the 9/9A section a while back because I remember being surprised how many had been sold since mine at 90900.
 
Last edited:
Those are serial numbers, not complete kit sales. Also, to be really precise, numbers were 2,666 for the -7 and just a little over 1,300 for the -9.
 
They probably designed the -7 and -9 concurently, but introduced the -9 earlier, waiting until they had cleared the majority of their -6 inventory to introduce the -7. Just my guess.

Besides, no offense to anyone building a -9, but I don't think many -7 builders want F-9XX parts in their RV-7, it might be considered a 'downgrade'.
 
osxuser said:
Besides, no offense to anyone building a -9, but I don't think many -7 builders want F-9XX parts in their RV-7, it might be considered a 'downgrade'.
Click to expand...
Funny, I think having 7xx & 6xx parts in my -9 is a 'downgrade'. ;)
 
Besides, no offense to anyone building a -9, but I don't think many -7 builders want F-9XX parts in their RV-7, it might be considered a 'downgrade'.
Click to expand...

In the process of inspecting an RV-10 emp, I was struck by how many 9XX parts were in the RV-10 tail kit. Instead of thinking of this as an up or down grade, I marveled at how Vans had figured out how to drastically reduce the total parts count in their fleet inventory.

Smart.

Sam Buchanan
 
Now I am probaly wrong here, but I have read that the prototype RV-6 first flew on 26th April, 1977.

If so, that would make a an anniversary of sorts coming up. And next year, it would be the 20th Anniversary. That's pretty special in my book.

Cheers
Martin in Oz
RV-6
 
Harvey said:
Now I am probaly wrong here, but I have read that the prototype RV-6 first flew on 26th April, 1977.

If so, that would make a an anniversary of sorts coming up. And next year, it would be the 20th Anniversary. That's pretty special in my book.

Cheers
Martin in Oz
RV-6
Click to expand...
Sorry if your 1977 is correct that will make it the 30th Anniversary
 
Harvey said:
Now I am probaly wrong here, but I have read that the prototype RV-6 first flew on 26th April, 1977.

If so, that would make a an anniversary of sorts coming up. And next year, it would be the 20th Anniversary. That's pretty special in my book.

Cheers
Martin in Oz
RV-6
Click to expand...

Holy cow. I'm only one year older than the RV-6. Sorry to make you feel old, guys. ;)
 
I don't have the dates here in front of me, but you're probably thinking of the first side-by-side RV built by Art Chard. It was not officially a -6, but was a highly modified -4 with a Mustang II canopy. My -6 (1989) was #20560. There would have been more than 560 sold in the first 12 years. Alan Tolle built the first kit -6 I believe around 1986.
Mel...DAR
 
Anniversary

Harvey said:
Now I am probaly wrong here, but I have read that the prototype RV-6 first flew on 26th April, 1977.

If so, that would make a an anniversary of sorts coming up. And next year, it would be the 20th Anniversary. That's pretty special in my book.

Cheers
Martin in Oz
RV-6
Click to expand...
Actually it will be 30 years! I need to remember that, because I got married on April 30, 1977 ;)

Dennis Glaeser
7A Fuselage
 
osxuser said:
Besides, no offense to anyone building a -9, but I don't think many -7 builders want F-9XX parts in their RV-7, it might be considered a 'downgrade'.
Click to expand...

Have you ever flown a 9? Did you know at Va it takes less stick forces to load a 9 than it does an 8? (See CAFE report on the 9)

I think before you continue the 9 bashing you should consider:

The mission? The 9 designed to be more economical for local trips and occassional cross countries. Chances are this is what you're planning on doing in the 7 you're trying to build. This is the 9's stated mission.

The 7 is faster on the top end by a few knots and capable of loops and rolls, but pull the power (lose the power) and you're on the ground quick.

The landing speed difference translates into a significant margin of safety for the 9. 35% more kinetic energy exists in the same aircraft moving at 58 MPH vs 50MPH.

The 9 climbs better on lower power than the 7 and glides a long way. While not appropriate for aerobatics, its controls are light and fun and get heavier at cruise speeds. From personal experience, this makes it a better formation ship.

The 7 has its plusses and minuses - all planes do - it has a different mission. Many consider the 9 an upgrade including Van and his staff when they want to go places.


12s
 
-9 sales

mtodd615 said:
I just received my RV-9 Empennage 2 week ago, #1374.
Click to expand...

That's about 18 -9 kits a month from when I received mine, 90869, on December 15, 2003.

Roger Ping
RV-9 85 hrs
engine almost back together
 
First RV-6 in the mid 80's

Mel said:
I don't have the dates here in front of me, but you're probably thinking of the first side-by-side RV built by Art Chard. It was not officially a -6, but was a highly modified -4 with a Mustang II canopy. My -6 (1989) was #20560. There would have been more than 560 sold in the first 12 years. Alan Tolle built the first kit -6 I believe around 1986.
Mel...DAR
Click to expand...

I agree with Mel. I first started getting Sport Aviation in 86 or 87, and the brand new RV-6 was the big new thing then, along with the Glasairs and Lancair 235. Remember the Prescott Pusher? And of course Vari-ezes and Long-ezs were king of the hill. I should have started an RV then, when they were cheaper! Of couse, I was only 11...
 
Alex said:
I should have started an RV then, when they were cheaper! Of couse, I was only 11...
Alex Roup
RV-7A tipup (still dreaming)
Northern VA
Click to expand...
Alex,

Time to order and stop dreaming! Come on in, the water is warm!
 
Van's website

According to Van's website:

The RV-9A, a side-by-side tricycle-gear design, was first flown in December 1997.

In the spring of 2001 the 2-seat side by side RV-7/7A was introduced.

On Monday March 4, 2002 at about 16:30 Pacific Time Dick VanGrunsven flew the RV-9. We now have both an RV-9 and RV-9A designation. Until March 4, 2002 there was only a tricycle gear version, and it was correctly called the RV-9A. Dick VanGrunsven took the RV-9A (N129RV) serial #2 up for her first flight on Thursday, June 15, 2000.
 
Just made a quick visit to Van's web site. RV-6 first flew in 1985. I can tell you that the first deliveries of -6A was 1990, because I had ordered my fuselage kit expecting to wait for 6 months. It arrived almost immediately because so many people switched to the "A" that there was an abundance of TW fuselage kits avialable.
Mel...DAR
 
Rv9

Did someone say RV9(A) formation team? Count me in.......well when my -9 is completed in a month or two that is.

Bruce
N659DB
wire the panel, mount the prop, finished.
 
6, 7, 9 formation flying

bsacks05 said:
Did someone say RV9(A) formation team? Count me in.......
Click to expand...
I can hardly tell the difference between a 6, a 7, and a 9 on the ground, up close and personal. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between any of the models in a formation flight.
 
rv8ch said:
I can hardly tell the difference between a 6, a 7, and a 9 on the ground, up close and personal. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between any of the models in a formation flight.
Click to expand...


Mickey, you missed the point. I was thinking along the lines of a comaraderie thing for owners of the often maligned RV9. Besides, the big ole horizontal stab on the -9 is a dead giveaway close up or far away......as in a formation.

B
 
RV9 formation

bsacks05 said:
Mickey, you missed the point. I was thinking along the lines of a comaraderie thing for owners of the often maligned RV9. Besides, the big ole horizontal stab on the -9 is a dead giveaway close up or far away......as in a formation.
Click to expand...
You're right - I did miss the point. I didn't realize RV9s were being maligned - there aren't any flying here in Switzerland yet, we only have a few RV4s, and a few RV6s. There are a lot of RV7s in the oven, three RV8s (that I know of) and an RV10.

Next time I'm at a fly-in I'll keep an eye out for the larger HS. It's embarrassing when someone asks you, "what kind of RV is that?" and I have to answer "That's a side-by-side RV!" I guess that's a better answer than "a red one!" :)
 
Wealth Constant and Disposable Income

N941WR said:
Alex,
Time to order and stop dreaming! Come on in, the water is warm!
Click to expand...

I have a theory that time, money, space, and stuff are all related as follows:

time + money + space + stuff = WC

Where WC is some relatively fixed number (wealth constant). You can trade off any of the things on the left side for each other. At this point in my life, I have the space required to build an RV (house in the suburbs w/ 2 car garage) but I don't have any time or money, and I don't have any stuff to give up (i.e., no boats or motorcycles to get rid of, no expensive cars, etc.).

A while back we had a thread called "RV Demographics" where we all fessed up about how much we earn. I think a more relevant number would be disposable income. Here's how I would calculate it:

Take home pay
+Bonuses
+Tax Refund
-Housing (rent or mortgage)
-Utilities
-Insurance
-Car payments

= Disposable income

For me that number comes out to about $28K per year. I figure that building and flying an RV would cost about $10K per year. I just can't make that expense work right now.
 
Last edited:
RV costs

Alex said:
I figure that building and flying an RV would cost about $10K per year. I just can't make that expense work right now.
Click to expand...
Start small. Tools and tail kit are about 3k. Another option is to find a partner - cuts the cost and time to build in half. Besides, you just started working - I'm sure there will be raises coming soon. Good luck!
 
bsacks05 said:
Did someone say RV9(A) formation team? Count me in.......well when my -9 is completed in a month or two that is.

Bruce
N659DB
wire the panel, mount the prop, finished.
Click to expand...


An RV9(A) demonstration team. I'm in too. So when is Falcon's next formation clinic?

dratherbeflyingn9612s3xf.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top