Jump to content

Talk:Van's Aircraft RV-9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RV-9 derived from?

[edit]

Three different IP editors 85.211.222.173, 85.211.99.210 and 85.211.225.202 have changed this article to indicate that the RV-9 was derived from the RV-6 and not the RV-7. The closest they have come to citing a ref is the edit summary comment the final time saying : "The RV-9A was created by joining a new wing to the RV-6B fuselage" Source 1998 4th quarter". This summary note about "Source 1998 4th quarter" doesn't mean anything - is that a publication of some sort?

I have found two refs, both from the Vans' website that give somewhat inconsistent information on this subject. RV-9/9A says:


This seems to indicate that, since it uses the same fuselage as the RV-7, which is larger than the RV-6 fuselage, that it was derived from the RV-7. Another Van's page, Introduction - About RV Kitplanes says:


This ref says that the RV-9 is similar in size and weight to the RV-6 but doesn't give any information about the derivation of the design.

That same page indicates that the RV-9 was first flown in December 1997, while the RV-6 dates from "the early to mid 1980s". It says that the RV-7 was introduced in the "spring of 2001".

This is all odd. If the RV-9 uses the RV-7 fuselage then how was it flown four years earlier? If it is derived from the RV-6 fuselage with a new wing then why is it larger in fuselage width and height than the RV-6? It almost sounds like the RV-6 fuselage was enlarged for the RV-9 and then the same fuselage was used in the later RV-7 design, making the RV-7 a derivative of the RV-9 and not the other way around, but there is no info that I can find to back this up.

It is pretty obvious that all the RV series (except the RV-11 motorglider) are one common design, with evolutionary changes, from the original Stitts Playboy/RV-1 to the present RV-12. Perhaps it makes little sense to say that one was based on another, unless there is a citable ref that specifically states this.

In the meantime I have re-worked the intro paras to indicate the somewhat contradictory information that Van's provides and have cited both refs. Rather than any further edit warring on this, let's please discuss the refs here and see if we can come up with some text that makes sense given the sources that can be found and properly cited. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered now. Thanks for the explanation and the time you took to write it. My ref was truncated. It should have said "The RV-9A was created by joining a new wing to the RV-6B fuselage" Source 1998 4th quarter RV-Ator magazine, written by Dick VanGrunsven the designer. I'll see what I can find out about the fuselage changes. 9Driver (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have you on board. That would be helpful. As I outlined above the Van's website is pretty contradictory. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a good ref that explains the lineage of the RV-9 and its relationship to the one-off RV-6B. That article says"


Based on this it really looks like they constructed a virtually new prototype using parts from the wrecked one-off RV-6B prototype, which was already somewhat different from the RV-6A production model. Based on the Van's website info that indicates that the RV-9 has a wider and higher fuselage (must have been modified from the RV-9 prototype) I am not sure that, based on this story, one can really claim that the RV-9 was based on any one model from the RV line, but was more an evolution of many past designs. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

[edit]

If you fly an RV-9, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!

Code Result
|{{User:Ahunt/RV9}}
This user flies an RV-9.
Usage

-Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flight stats

[edit]

Where do the flight stats come from? I see in our info that the RV-9 has a max climb rate of 1,000 ft/min, but I know I have been in one at 2,500 ft/min, so I am wondering about the source for our current information. Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point - they are unreferenced. I will update the format and reference it to the compnay specs and performance figures. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]