What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-3B now outselling RV-4

randylervold

randylervold

moderator
I heard an interesting bit of unconfirmed trivia through the grapevine... that RV-3B kits are now outselling RV-4 kits. With all the recent RV-3B starts I guess that is not surprising. RV-4s still sell though, remember that they are also the foundation of Harmon Rocket projects.

Can anyone from Van's confirm this data?
 
randylervold said:
I heard an interesting bit of unconfirmed trivia through the grapevine... that RV-3B kits are now outselling RV-4 kits. With all the recent RV-3B starts I guess that is not surprising. RV-4s still sell though, remember that they are also the foundation of Harmon Rocket projects.

Can anyone from Van's confirm this data?
Click to expand...
Can't say I'm surprised .... QB wing on the -3B must make a difference. Now if only the fuse were pre-punched or QB-able.....

TODR
 
What's realistic

the_other_dougreeves said:
Now if only the fuse were pre-punched or QB-able.....

TODR
Click to expand...
As Ken Scott wrote in the latest RVator, economics would never justify the expense of re-engineering the RV-3 from the ground up, which is what converting to prepunching would mean. Van's has made some small improvements in the kit however. They never say anything but they are now shipping the standard tailwheel spring and full swivel tailwheel as standard equipment for example. My kit, which shipped in '04, came with the old non-full-swivel style that I had to convert.

IMHO if Van's would spend a modest amount of time doing a handful of upgrades, other than prepunching, the kit could be improved significantly. Still, look at the price of the airframe, it's a tremendous value in this day and age, and I've documented most of the gotchas and upgrades you'd want to do anyway. Heck, if Van's was interested I'd volunteer to take my manual and plans down there and let them incorporate my notes into an updated rev of the builder's manual.
 
Last edited:
randylervold said:
Heck, if Van's was interested I'd volunteer to take my manual and plans down there and let them incorporate my notes into an updated rev of the builder's manual.
Click to expand...

Randy, please ask them. I think it would make a huge difference.

The article in the RVator was pretty clear that there isn't going to be much help on the RV-3 from them. I wish this had been more clear before I started my project. I admit I was a little gung ho and didn't realize I was getting in over my head.

I think the last paragraph of your article provides the best advice. The RV-3 is not for the first time builder.
 
Any idea how many units that might equate to? The article mentioned shipping less than a dozen each year. I wonder if they have been able to double that. Time to order before they jack to price up too much! :D

Picked a bad time to start a new gig.
 
randylervold said:
As Ken Scott wrote in the latest RVator economics would never justify the expense of re-engineering the RV-3 from the ground up, which is what converting to prepunching would mean.

hey i have a question. when you say they would have to re-engineer it from the ground up what does that entail. do they currently use their punch machine(i think that is what they cut with) to cut the parts or are they cut some other way. having worked in the custom sheet metal field (http://www.coppercraft.com/) for some years it would not seem like a big deal to me to add holes.
leon carpenter
ps gary if you are still on this list i have preview plans but have not started spending real money yet.
Click to expand...
 
leonc said:
hey i have a question. when you say they would have to re-engineer it from the ground up what does that entail. do they currently use their punch machine(i think that is what they cut with) to cut the parts or are they cut some other way. having worked in the custom sheet metal field (http://www.coppercraft.com/) for some years it would not seem like a big deal to me to add holes.
leon carpenter
Click to expand...

Punching holes in sheet stock is pretty simple. Getting the holes to precisely match up with prepunched holes in wing ribs, fuse bulkheads, etc, is another matter altogether. ;)
 
I think they would have to build the entire plane in solid works or something similar and then load that into the cnc machine. They should outsource the work to a few universities for senior engineering projects. Thats what several companies do at Penn State.
 
Need reality check

Somewhere in this thread the statement was made that the 3 is notfor first time builders.
Long story short -- I'm a 61 year old non pilot who has had a desire for years to remedy that status. I have been smitten by the looks and performance of the RV. Given my background, should I even be considering building? Maybe just buy? I understand all this is to be post licensing and probably time in a spam can.

What is your honest opinion?
 
The RV-3 is a cute little airplane

I'm may regret this but here goes - Even if I was a single pilot I would never build an RV-3. The demand for building is similar to any other RV (with much more detail work of course) and the end result is extremely limited in operational function. If I were so inclined I would build an RV-8 with tremendously more potential and utility without sacrificing the centerline pilot setting. If I wanted to go smaller I would go for an RV-4. Inspite of the hype I don't expect to see the older much more limited RV-3 ever even reach 1/4 the number of RV-4s or 1/2 of the even younger design RV-8s in the field. The current completion and flying numbers on the Van's website are:

RV-3 243
RV-4 1253
RV-8 766

Bob Axsom
 
Don't listen to all those that say the RV-3 is not for first time builders. In the days before pre-punched air-frames there were hundreds of RV's built by first time builders. Yes it is a little bit more work, actually a lot more work but you can still turn out a good product. Go for it and enjoy the process. Age has nothing to do with having fun building. If you don't complete it before you die you haven't lost anything anyway and had a lot of fun along the way. You might start a kit at any age and never complete it due to health related issues so don't let that hold you back.
 
You are probably right, Bob.

The deal for me is that I have never been part of the crowd and that is another major attraction for me to the RV-3. But I'm a nut and think a Pitts S-1 is the bees knees also, just too bloody cold in the winter and by no means a cross country machine, no matter how short the leg.

This settles it, the order goes in tomorrow! :)
 
Bob Axsom said:
I'm may regret this but here goes - Even if I was a single pilot I would never build an RV-3. The demand for building is similar to any other RV (with much more detail work of course) and the end result is extremely limited in operational function.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

Bob,

You'll have to help me on this one. Exactly what is the "operational function" to which you refer? Van has said that the -3 is without doubt the best flying RV he's ever designed. Seems to me that makes choosing it as a project a no-brainer. Unless you're willing to settle for second best.

Tony Spicer
 
I dont disagree......

Bob Axsom said:
I'm may regret this but here goes - Even if I was a single pilot I would never build an RV-3. The demand for building is similar to any other RV (with much more detail work of course) and the end result is extremely limited in operational function. If I were so inclined I would build an RV-8 with tremendously more potential and utility without sacrificing the centerline pilot setting. If I wanted to go smaller I would go for an RV-4. Inspite of the hype I don't expect to see the older much more limited RV-3 ever even reach 1/4 the number of RV-4s or 1/2 of the even younger design RV-8s in the field. The current completion and flying numbers on the Van's website are:

RV-3 243
RV-4 1253
RV-8 766

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

That's why I am buidling one!! Center line seating is not a big deal to me, it is all about pure, simple, fun, and performance. I would have never made this decision without following Randy's project, his enthusiasm, and seeing his airplane perform. I love my 6 and would never give it up, or trade it for an 8, or a 4, or a 3, as fine as those airplanes are. But now, I have to build a 3. I am a sick man. We may find there are more sicko's out there than we think! (no offense Randy, Tony, Doug, Peter, or any other fellow 3 folk.)
I think the Hype is good, a reminder of the what got this whole RV story going.
 
IT WILL FIT IN THE HANGAR TOO!

So you have replaced that 1100 hour 0320 with a new 0360. And then just this year you upgraded the panel and now have a box of good used gauges.........

So.... you have an extra 320 and gauges, all you need is an airframe. An RV3 with quick build wings will fit on your visa card!!!! Go dig out the tools and go have fun. But first read this........... http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=19692
 
As far as the single place issue, I had a four seat airplane four years and had pax in the back seat twice. I will admit to having pax in my two seaters about 20% of the time, the other 80 was solo. Built and flew an S1 Pitts in the '80's and flew it the most even when I had a Decathlon available every week end. As long as I don't accept a ride in a Rocket I think I will focus on an RV3.
 
As Opposed to Aerobatic Function

Tony Spicer said:
Bob,

You'll have to help me on this one. Exactly what is the "operational function" to which you refer? Van has said that the -3 is without doubt the best flying RV he's ever designed. Seems to me that makes choosing it as a project a no-brainer. Unless you're willing to settle for second best.

Tony Spicer
Click to expand...

The ability to haul significant baggage, the ability to carry another person are two operational functions that the RV-3 is not well suited for. Others are more more arguable so I will just let them lie. If you have the time and money to spend on local fun machine that you can never share with another and you believe that this feeling can be sustained for years to come, this may be the plane for you. I accessed this thread through the "Today's Posts" option and didn't notice it was in the model specific RV-3 section. Given that SIG environment I had no business making my observations.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
You still have a right....

Bob Axsom said:
The ability to haul significant baggage, the ability to carry another person are two operational functions that the RV-3 is not well suited for. Others are more more arguable so I will just let them lie. If you have the time and money to spend on local fun machine that you can never share with another and you believe that this feeling can be sustained for years to come, this may be the plane for you. I accessed this thread through the "Today's Posts" option and didn't notice it was in the model specific RV-3 section. Given that SIG environment I had no business making my observations.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

I think your comments where fine and since all groups read the forums all opinions should be welcome. An RV3 is not going to be an airplane for everyone, in fact, probably for a very few. What's a SIG?
 
The RV3 has it's own purpose and that would not be cross country flying. I think Van's would sell a ton of RV3's if they would prepunch the kit and bring the plans up to date. There is a market for this plane. :)
 
Cross Country

Darrell you are right, cross country is not it's purpose but it will work quite well. 30 gallons of fuel burning 8 gallons or less per hour will get you 600 miles on a tank easy. 50# baggage capacity, yes it a small area but workable. I will use it for cross country, but it may not be the best option for some. Last time I flew to OSH I filled the baggage compartment in my RV7 for a week of camping and the RV3 would not work as well for camping. But if you did't camp it would work fine.
 
Last edited:
Tony Partain said:
Darrell you are right, cross country is not it's purpose but it will work quite well. 30 gallons of fuel burning 8 gallons or less per hour will get you 600 miles on a tank easy. 50# baggage capacity, yes it a small area but workable. I will use it for cross country, but it may not be the best option for some. Last time I flew to OSH I filled the baggage compartment in my RV7 for a week of camping and the RV3 would not work as well for camping. But if you did't camp it would work fine.
Click to expand...

Hi Tony,

Good to hear from you, I hope all is well and Merry Christmas to you and yours!

If the plane was light enough:

From Van's...

Weights
Empty Weight without electric system 703 lbs
Empty Weight with electric system 750 lbs
Gross Weight 1100 lbs

It looks like 350# usable with an electric plane... I would think CC flying would dictate an electric system to be efficient.

The Baggage shows to be 30# on Van's site, that still workable I guess. At my 210# weight, it would be a little difficult. :eek:

Mine will be 4Play... :D
 
I don't know what everybody else travels with but I have done many cross countrys in a single place airplane with a smaller baggage space than an RV3(Pitts S1) I always had enough to get me by for three or four days easy. I have been to aerobatic contests 1200 mi. away, visit relatives(fish and relatives go bad in three days) and occassional fly in. New style sleeping bags and tents are much lighter than older designs. An RV 3 baggage bin is cavernous, just what are you guy's wanting to carry?
 
An under belly pod would not work. No matter what size of plane you have or how much baggage room available your wife will always be able to fill it and be upset she still had to leave something behind.
 
RV-3 for me!

My father and I built our -3 over 20 years ago, and it has been flying for 19. It took 2 1/2 years to build, taking our time. It is truly a pilot's airplane.:D I am currently building a -4, but that is for cross country trips with the wife. My -3 is my fun toy. :) I have flown a -6, and I feel that the -3 is far more responsive, but the -6 is also a bigger plane. Thats why Van designed so many different ones, because peoples tastes are different. You fly what you like.

Mike Bauer
RV-3 N87LB flying
RV-4 N742MC building
 
LifeofReiley said:
The RV3 has it's own purpose and that would not be cross country flying.
Click to expand...

I suspect there are two sides to that story. I'm really looking forward to flying cross-country in my -3. My last airplane was a Jab 3300 powered Sonex that would true out at 160-170 mph at altitude while burning about 5.5 gph. My record from Wilmington to Oshkosh, which is 955 sm, was under 7 hours elapsed time. And that was with three stops for fuel and hand flying it every minute. The -3 will hold every bit as much baggage as the Sonex, and I can already tell that it will be immensely easier to use a piddle pack. After a day in the Sonex, I could sit on a quarter and call heads or tails. My -3 has three inches of Temperfoam and one inch of regular foam in the seat bottom. And still has two inches of headroom. Your recliner should be so comfortable!

If the Sonex will do it, so will the -3!

Tony Spicer
 
Building

For the guy wondering if he should be at a older age. Most definitely! We had a friend by the name of Noel Finnacle who built a beautiful RV-4 at the ripe old age of 79. He flew it out of his grass strip of View, Wash. He had a Prize C-140A before that. If you want a RV-3 for your own little magic carpet ride, then build one. I've once said it's not a race to get one done, it's a journey!. It took me 6.5 yrs to build my first RV-6. Besides what else could be better in retirement than building airplanes? Now that I've sold my Rocket EVO and will be looking for a next RV, I might dive into the RV-3. Our family will have a Rocket, PA-20-180hp, and maybe a RV-3. What more do you need? Aden Rich.
 
Actually the 3 makes a pretty good vfr x-country airplane for the standard sized FAA adult. Ive been to 3 of the 4 corners in the US with mine, KOSH 5 times so far, all of this from the west coast. Range about equals my comfort level for sitting in an airplane so a stop every 3 hours or so is most welcome. I would definately recommend an autopilot. That and a good heater are the only things I miss in mine.
Tom
 
tin man said:
Actually the 3 makes a pretty good vfr x-country airplane for the standard sized FAA adult. Ive been to 3 of the 4 corners in the US with mine, KOSH 5 times so far, all of this from the west coast. Range about equals my comfort level for sitting in an airplane so a stop every 3 hours or so is most welcome. I would definately recommend an autopilot. That and a good heater are the only things I miss in mine.
Tom
Click to expand...

So you didn't put any cabin heat in your plane?
 
An RV-3 and a Mooney 201 would be the beginnings of a perfect partnership IMHO. For that matter an RV-3 and any other 4-seat plane would be the perfect starting point for a partnership. 2 people and 2 planes so you are never without a plane and most likely never have a fight over which one you get. Best of both worlds with a 4 seater for stuff and people and the -3 for fast fun and efficient when by yourself. I'd be game for sure if I could find the right partner.

I'd be very tempted to go without electric to keep it light and simple but love flying at night. 160 horse and a catto to offset the engine weight and then just wow!! Mini-Extra 300 for 1/10th the price.

Vroom vroom.

There's just something so elemental about the -3, no pretense, just pure fun.

It definitely speaks to me:D

I'd break out the checkbook today if it was prepunch and I was more sure I fit

I'd just have to have a second plane available for utility
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top