The most popular homebuilt or kit plane

[rwanttaja]

101 Breezys, not too bad a showing.

I notice that the returns for the RV models are almost exactly 75% of the number of flights reported by Vans. While your numbers obviously don't take in oversees aircraft, I don't see 25% of the total fleet being outside the US. To what do you attribute the difference?

Far be it from me to dispute numbers provided by a company's marketing department. :-)

(Calm down, RVers, it's a joke).

There are about 800 RVs in the Deregistered Aircraft List that would not be included my original tally. My list also doesn't include 293 RV-12s that are NOT registered as Experimental Amateur-Built (not all are LSAs). There are 160+ Harmon Rockets, and since they start out as Vans kit sales, does Van's count them?

Otherwise, the filters I use to detect the aircraft may not be catching all of the aircraft. My typical filters for RVs is:

Like "*RV-6*" Or Like "*RV 6*" Or Like "*RV6*" Or Like "*VANS 6*"

For the last one, see N65ED and N80972.

There are undoubtedly registrations I'm missing, but think these'll cover the most common variants. But if someone calls their RV-6 a "Jones Special" there's no way to tell what kind of plane it actually is.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I am surprised that none of the Wag-Aero Replicas showed up.

Haven't developed the filters, yet, to search for the Wag-Aero stuff. It's sometimes tough to find the airplanes, but it's harder, sometimes, to eliminate the planes that AREN'T the types you're looking for.

I ran a quickie search (Like "*Wag-*" Or Like "*Wagaero*") and found 76 airplanes. Don't think it's all of them, but it's tough to search for Wag-Aero airplanes because of the wide variations in names. Of those, there are at least five variations of the spelling/abbreviation of "Sportsman." Really makes it tough to extract all the airplanes, and without a reliable set of filters, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say how many are out there.

Besides, someone will probably come back and tell me I only listed 75% of them. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Point]

Far be it from me to dispute numbers provided by a company's marketing department. :-)

(Calm down, RVers, it's a joke).

The joke is on you Ron- Van's Aircraft does not have a marketing department. If they did, their numbers would be three times as high!

Thanks for all your work on this. Interesting stuff.

[rv8bldr]

101 Breezys, not too bad a showing.

I notice that the returns for the RV models are almost exactly 75% of the number of flights reported by Vans. While your numbers obviously don't take in oversees aircraft, I don't see 25% of the total fleet being outside the US. To what do you attribute the difference?

That might be true, Jeff, but there are an awful lot of them out here :-) Canada, the UK, Europe, South Africa, South America, and Australia all seem to have thriving RV communities (gangs...mafias?) On my small airfield alone (CYRP), there are at least nine.

[rwanttaja]

That might be true, Jeff, but there are an awful lot of them out here :-) Canada, the UK, Europe, South Africa, South America, and Australia all seem to have thriving RV communities (gangs...mafias?) On my small airfield alone (CYRP), there are at least nine.

Oddly enough, I happen to have a copy of the Canadian registry from 2009. There were 384 Van's aircraft registered there.

One more than there is in the whole state of Oregon, today... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[rv8bldr]

Oddly enough, I happen to have a copy of the Canadian registry from 2009. There were 384 Van's aircraft registered there.

One more than there is in the whole state of Oregon, today... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Interesting, Ron. I would have thought there would be more, given that the population of Canada is essentially 1/10th the size of the US population. I guess the 1:10 rule doesn't apply to RVs :-)

[rwanttaja]

Interesting, Ron. I would have thought there would be more, given that the population of Canada is essentially 1/10th the size of the US population. I guess the 1:10 rule doesn't apply to RVs :-)

I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

Remember, though, that all I had was a 2009 Canadian registry, and there are probably a lot more now. However, I would also think that Canada would have a greater need for utility-type aircraft, and thus the pure-sport types might be a little less prevalent. Probably a higher percentage of Murphy Rebels and Mooses up there.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hal Bryan]

I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

I get it, Ron! Though I have to confess that I got it because about 30 years ago I went to a concert and the opening act was a Canadian band called "54:40" and I looked it up then. In an encyclopedia.

[Floatsflyer]

I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

Ron Wanttaja

Just to be clear and so there is no confusion, Ron's humorous remark of "54-40 or fight" is NOT a Canadian reference. It is in fact attributed to Polk in his run for president and he used it as an electioneering slogan regarding the Oregon territory/Canada border dispute. He never delivered on it as his resolution of the dispute was unsuccessful. Hence the 49th parallel for the past 170 years.

And BTW, rv8bldr's use of the 1:10 rule is quite valid and in wide use in determining many things related to Canada/US activities.

[rwanttaja]

Just to be clear and so there is no confusion, Ron's humorous remark of "54-40 or fight" is NOT a Canadian reference.

A Canadian reference, yes, a Canadian insult, no. Nothing derogatory was meant.

As for Polk et all, I'm hoping the Canadians've forgiven us by now. Though they've got some nice statues referencing kicking our [biblical beasts of burden] about 200 years ago.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja