What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Vans RVs Comparison Table

Dan 57

Well Known Member
Caution
None of the figures contained in the following tables is to be used for performance calculations nor for flight planning!

Each flying RV is an individual, and as such has its own flight characteristics and performance numbers which can only be acquired thru individual flight testing.



Maybe it’s been done here before, but couldn’t find it… Maybe it’s totally useless, maybe not… Here goes…

It always surprised me that some essential data, such as typical useful load, is not to be found on Vans official site. Also interesting some never told facts such as the ever decreasing speed ration, look at the RV-3B figure and compare to other models...
All data presented here are as published on Vans official site about 2 weeks ago when I started playing with. Some of the figures are calculated by the spreadsheet, some are missing as not found on Vans site.

Reason for Editing:
Site provider migration + data update, see latest post in the thread, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Very useful, I've done similar things on a smaller scale.

Suggestion, would be great to see a metric performance section (km, m, and ft for height).
 
interesting!

Very cool, Dan. I didn't realize that the RV-8 was such a mule! I guess that front baggage compartment helps.
 
Payload VS Useful Load

Not intending to create controversy but: What is the definition of "Payload" VS "Useful Load" ?
 
thanks for the quick feedback guys, Payload has been renamed into a correct Useful Load ;)
 
mpg

Another interesting calc will be miles per gallon, I'm going to try that with the downloadable version. And if it correlates with the speed ratio. Van's were originally a bit unique with being able to achieve the 4:1 "total performance" speed ratio.
 
I thought I read here on the forum that the -7 and -8 wing were the same but it shows here the -8 is a foot shorter. :confused: Still looks like the best performing plane overall though :D
 
Last edited:
I thought I read here on the forum that the -7 and -8 wing were the same but it shows here the -8 is a foot shorter. :confused: Still looks like the best plane performing overall though :D

The difference in wingspan is due to the narrower fuselage of the -8.
 
The comparison I like to do, and don't see on your chart is to "normalize" the data, meaning for the -3, -4, -7, -8, and -9, list the numbers all with an (I)O-320 160 hp engine.

As I was looking at the Van's site last night, I noticed the -4's numbers were produced with a fixed pitch wood prop. Whereas the -7, -8, and -9's were all produced with Hartzell two bladed CS propellers. While this may not impact cruise speed and max speed, it will impact climb rate and takeoff distances.
 
I noticed you have 200 for the engine on the RV-7s. Is this more common than the 180 for the -7s? Just wondering, not trying to correct you or question your sheet, just wondering if there are more RV7s out there with a 200 hp than ones with 180. I have a -7 with a 180, and flew it for 5 years with a wood prop that gave me great cruise speed but not so great take off power. After replacing it with a C/S prop, I was delighted to get most of the HP on take off and felt like I was flying a different airplane (one way more Bad A__ :D ). Now I'm thinking to myself, "Self, you are missing out on 20 to 30 more horses" :rolleyes::D
 
Useful load vs Payload

In this context, gross weight minus empty weight is useful load -- payload is useful load minus fuel weight/extras.

Ron
 
I always thought the 9 was wider than the 6. Thanks for taking the time to post this. Very interesting.

David
 
Great work on the chart!
Interesting when illustrating features & performances of similar evolutionary models:
RV-4 --> RV-8 tandems
RV-6 --> RV-7 --> RV-14 SBS aerobatic
RV-9 <--> RV12 SBS non aerobatic (yes, their mission or evolution not the same but neat performance comparison)

Would be super neat if a similar chart could be produced to compare the top 5 Kit Brands out there in such detail.:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dan!

Great chart.

I have been building the 7 and looking at my friends 14 I have a little envy. on paper they are not that much different but in real like those few inches make all the difference.
 
welcome guys!

One thing I noticed that surprised me when creating this table, is how close the models -6/-7/-8/-9 are in regard to Useful Load (a rather important aspect of an aircraft's capability) respectively 685/686/680/693lbs using these standard Vans figures. That is pretty much of a tie...
 
Interesting that there is no baggage weight listed for the -10.

-Marc

This was changed a half dozen years ago, without explanation. IIRC the recommended baggage area weight went from 150 to 100 lbs.

Just a note that empty weights can vary considerably in actual finished airplanes.
 
note that empty weights can vary considerably in actual finished airplanes

True! But as far as I know Vans always built their prototypes light. I guess having the whole range built by the same people gives the numbers a certain commonality.
Same reasoning for the performance numbers. Vans was the, if not one of the first, manufacturer to publish honest numbers that were probably acquired using the same repeatable methods.

One variable has been the optimistic estimated building times for the older models... I remember the 800 hours given for the -4, later changed to 1500 hours ;)
 
MPG

For interest, here is a version of the table with a row included for MPG. The calculated value is Range sm divided by Fuel Capacity USG. It looks like the RV-12/iS is the winner for efficiency, followed by the RV-9 and then RV-3 and at the back of the pack is the RV-10... which can haul the most.

zLdENjBHQ9ZYLyqbQnKuWRw4MyfUJlda301SdkGO2Wi6g-vOaY2Ylo2zIX7oXLteMx5IPUzZDEkuRV4yjCBBV3rCy9WNNbw9aP5okgGltj0n--MT3XNlWE_F54aV2a5GFxtJETijSiLZW6lHLSMeYlK9k9Lv_bxBcA3RTM_Q_06DvQvudSFstqZbV1u4uLRuOnU_mZ9QCITs0WLYoOqthHq_rpFCrQP52Yo0wIn8xgfschyaS7Bx-DWAbUXkzL8mPaIWG1umAmu6sz76QpR1zBDKSvofDsZx0brjmgKVSy5hMkUjtMwwLOZA6PQqcE6a89B9TR_So-DJrapIHXqBBtBsgTxNJo2pAbJSemLNd8_4lZ8P2xZ2KOEM-cWiMM6OF0dPi0OkEn4xshfhdAab2C7fpUjHL7hKcBayyKr-SIWmTpbOJOKPZPglADgdq4LYNIc3Wx1sSTia1Je-RFu_Y1CSUtnDX0F_96b4nIAflmOfPB6of6Ghv9eyvSB0tJaHU-b5wukSo47q-2Cq0ewWYgSNb3Aq3TzjoswyG10zSfoNx2M8EXuJ_45vPoklwMYwl8Pb3pAt4q6l-n5JqZIOCJcD4K1moFmNvF-GJMZ9sbi48cKFiiWHqbnY-zrsX9oZZMb21wcBOSdwEdoZ7kP1KT7T4S4Ls40jZAHctAGq9zop2_kmXryWZHqV32Eih94SGZ5acg=w1680-h881-ft
 
hey good one Paul!
And interesting indeed. I guess the fuel efficiency of the -12 might be explained (sorry -12 fans :eek:) by the simple and old rule of drag being proportional to velocity squared... Flying slow with a frugal engine sure helps the MPG :)

Of note the difference in range between the -6 and -6A, no less than 70 miles :confused:
 
hey good one Paul!
And interesting indeed. I guess the fuel efficiency of the -12 might be explained (sorry -12 fans :eek:) by the simple and old rule of drag being proportional to velocity squared... Flying slow with a frugal engine sure helps the MPG :)

I guess this line of thinking should be expected since it is somewhat valid with the cars & trucks that we are all familiar with.

It is not (not universally anyway) valid with aircraft.

Like you have said, it is related to the laws of physics. It takes a specific amount of HP to pull (or push) a given flat plate area of drag aircraft through the air at a give speed.

Because for the most part, aircraft engines all have about the same level of efficiency in converting fuel into HP, physically similar aircraft typically have very similar fuel flows when flow at the same speed, regardless of engine size.

Example - Build two RV-7's that externally are identical in fit and finish, but one has a 150 HP O-320 and the other has a 200 HP IO-360. If flown side by side with the 200 HP airplane throttled back to match the speed of the 150 HP one, the fuel flows will be virtually identical.

The idea constantly perpetuated, that one should choose a smaller sized engine if their primary goal is operating cost / fuel economy is not valid thinking. A larger engine airplane can be just as fuel efficient as a smaller one, if the pilot will operate it that way.

There are other factors that make smaller engines good choices as well (lighter weight being one), so there is nothing wrong with choosing smaller, but better fuel economy should not be the reason.

I own an RV-6A with a 180 HP Lyc and fixed pitch prop.
I regularly cruise around at ~135 Kts at 6 GPH. Comparing this to the RV-12... in the same conditions, at 5.5 GPH it can do about 120 Kts. If I reduced power further to match the RV-12's 5 - 5.5 GPH, I would still be doing slightly better than 120 Kts.

I know that it is not an apples to apples comparison with the RV-12 having 5 ft more span (but lighter wing loading), but it still shows that the laws of physics are constant.

Bottom line is that the way an airplane is operated has a lot more to do with what it's MPG rating is, than what size engine it has.
 
Last edited:
thanks Scott, exactly what I meant and most of us already knew :)

Since being retired and enjoying flying as such, I usually cruise at low power settings, e.g. 19/2000. My -6 has a CSP, and 2000 provides an eerie quietness when reducing from take-off settings.
19/20 results in a TAS of around 130 at 4-6000ft, more at the higher Levels. Typical FF 21l/h = which is also 5.5usg.
 
Paul, how is the speed ratio calculated? Thanks

Speed ratio = Top Speed mph / Stall mph

The relatively high ratio for RVs (versus many other plane designs) is part of Vans "Total Performance" advantage which enables them to fly well both slow and fast.
 
hey good one Paul!
And interesting indeed. I guess the fuel efficiency of the -12 might be explained (sorry -12 fans :eek:) by the simple and old rule of drag being proportional to velocity squared... Flying slow with a frugal engine sure helps the MPG :)

Of note the difference in range between the -6 and -6A, no less than 70 miles :confused:

Agreed.

What would be cool to know but not available from Van's is the speed, FF, and range at 65% power for each model. I see those numbers published more for certified aircraft.
 
Great idea!

I was surprised that the RV-15 wasn't listed.

However, with the inter-dimensionality of the new updated 9. I can see where speeds exceeding light speed would be difficult to compare to the other models.

Bob
 
Of note the difference in range between the -6 and -6A, no less than 70 miles :confused:

Beauty of this chart it is comparing a very consistent build and flight test numbers. That said, there must have been some different flight test or math to have 70 miles difference between 6 and 6A in range. Only 10 mile difference between nose and tail wheel on the other models.
 
ok guys, the table has been updated. Vans aircraft filled some of the blanks I had, and I did some interpolation on some of the data.
Also added the MPG fields (thanks for the idea PaulvS), the different power versions of each model, and some.

Now you can brag about your ship being the quickest, most economical, etc... well, in theory that is :D

vans-rvs-comparison-table%20(1).jpg


and again, here a download of the file for anybody wanting to play around:
http://www.aerofun.ch/download/vans-rvs-comparison-table.xlsx
 
Last edited:
Did you validate all of these numbers? I think the speeds for the 14 and 14A are wrong.

You have (14, 14A 210 HP, 14A 215 HP)

Top speed 205 203 216
Cruise 75% 195 193 203
Cruise 55% 195 193 203

Van's shows

207 205 218
197 195 205
174 172 182
 
validate I did... not enough obviously :eek:
So, the -14 leisure speeds @ 55% now corrected, thanks RV7A Flyer
 
math

Did you validate all of these numbers? I think the speeds for the 14 and 14A are wrong.

You have (14, 14A 210 HP, 14A 215 HP)

Top speed 205 203 216
Cruise 75% 195 193 203
Cruise 55% 195 193 203

Van's shows

207 205 218
197 195 205
174 172 182

with a 2 mph difference in listed speed, if it is real, after one hour of flying, you will only be 2 miles apart. Just saying
 
with a 2 mph difference in listed speed, if it is real, after one hour of flying, you will only be 2 miles apart. Just saying

I think we all know that. My point was only that the data hadn't been properly validated before being published.
 
Put the first column on both ends and maybe in the middle so you don't have to scroll left to see what's in each column.

:D
 
and this is the beauty of this table: feel free to download the spreadsheet, then alter at will, swap columns or rows, delete whatever, use pink for all models, be my guest ;)
I'm no pro designer... just spent a few minutes entering some data as accurately as I could within the time frame I allocated myself for this. Now back to my cowl oil dipstick access door :D
 
Last edited:
Put the first column on both ends and maybe in the middle so you don't have to scroll left to see what's in each column.

:D

Click on cell C3, then "window", then "freeze panes". This fixes the headers for columns and rows so you scroll around and see what each cell relates to.
 
ok guys, the table has been updated. Vans aircraft filled some of the blanks I had, and I did some interpolation on some of the data.
Also added the MPG fields (thanks for the idea PaulvS), the different power versions of each model, and some.

Now you can brag about your ship being the quickest, most economical, etc... well, in theory that is :D

vans-rvs-comparison-table%20(1).jpg


and again, here a download of the file for anybody wanting to play around:
http://www.aerofun.ch/download/vans-rvs-comparison-table.xlsx


RV-9A ceiling listed as 18.5K. I've been to 21K fully loaded with Christmas gifts and it was going strong. I believe I could have easily made 25K.

Edit: the plane could have made it but not the pilot as he was getting sleepy.
 
Last edited:
The fuel flow numbers must be ROP. I do quite a bit better with my -8 than the table data when running LOP. 8 gph gives 195 mph = 24.3 mpg.
 
Attached a PDF of the latest version of the RVs Comparison Table.

Logically, not much has changed ;)
Most of the figures are "hard data" extracted from the Performance Details and Specifications, as published by Van's Aircraft.
Some of the "soft data" contained herein is now using interpolation, and/or simple calculation for fields such as Power Loading, etc.
All performance figures are taken as quoted, at the recommended Gross Weight (MTOM) for each model.
The RV-15, still being in the prototype stage, is not included.
Unchanged is the presentation of the table, Performance Details in the top block, Specifications in the middle block, and Metric Units in the bottom block.

Caution
None of the figures contained in the table is to be used for performance calculations nor for flight planning!

Each flying RV is an individual, and as such has it's own flight characteristics and performance numbers which can only be acquired thru individual flight testing.

Notes
A closer look at some of the figures will reveal non-empirical derived numbers. In an ideal case, data acquisition would be performed using professional test pilots and sophisticated data recording equipment. Post flight data analysis and comparative validation would then follow.
A prerequisite would also be the availability of similar airplanes, unless engine/prop swopping is performed... as an example, one would need no less than 3 RV-7, and another 3 RV-7A, each powered by either the 160-180-200 HP motor to conduct direct comparative testing... precise flight testing can be a complex and costly activity.
 

Attachments

  • RCT.pdf
    64.7 KB · Views: 142
Attached a PDF of the latest version of the RVs Comparison Table.

Logically, not much has changed ;)
Most of the figures are "hard data" extracted from the Performance Details and Specifications, as published by Van's Aircraft.
Some of the "soft data" contained herein is now using interpolation, and/or simple calculation for fields such as Power Loading, etc.
All performance figures are taken as quoted, at the recommended Gross Weight (MTOM) for each model.
The RV-15, still being in the prototype stage, is not included.
Unchanged is the presentation of the table, Performance Details in the top block, Specifications in the middle block, and Metric Units in the bottom block.

Caution
None of the figures contained in the table is to be used for performance calculations nor for flight planning!

Each flying RV is an individual, and as such has it's own flight characteristics and performance numbers which can only be acquired thru individual flight testing.

Notes
A closer look at some of the figures will reveal non-empirical derived numbers. In an ideal case, data acquisition would be performed using professional test pilots and sophisticated data recording equipment. Post flight data analysis and comparative validation would then follow.
A prerequisite would also be the availability of similar airplanes, unless engine/prop swopping is performed... as an example, one would need no less than 3 RV-7, and another 3 RV-7A, each powered by either the 160-180-200 HP motor to conduct direct comparative testing... precise flight testing can be a complex and costly activity.
Hi Dan,
Small correction of the table. The RV-10 has a max baggage of 150 lbs -> 68kg see https://vansairforce.net/threads/rv-10-baggage-area-weight.107302/
Cheers
Nacho Nacho
 
Thank you Michael, and you are correct.
But as stated above, all the "hard data" figures are off Van's webpage, and looking at the RV-10 model still lists 100lbs... it is not the only inconsistency in the data as acquired, and reflected in this table...
 
Back
Top