milt1492
Member
Like many of you, I am enamored with the idea of building an RV-3. I followed along closely with Paul & Louise as Tsam came to fruition, and was just as pumped as anyone else after reading the first flight reports and seeing Tsam emerge from from the paint shop.
Based solely on what I've read in the forums regarding the resurgence in popularity on the RV-3, I can't help but feel that a revisit to the classic design by Van's is in order. I'm also encouraged by the new RV-14. It shows that Van's is willing to acknowledge the market and change things up in order to remain viable and flexible in today's economic environment.
With that said, I think it's inevitable that the RV-3 as we know it is destined to become the proverbial -6 to the then new -7. It's true that building an RV-3 is not for the faint of heart, and just maybe it truly separates the builders from the assemblers. The -4 was essentially replaced by the -8. Why not do the same for the -3? Would it really be that difficult? Basically just shorten the -8 fuselage and call it a day is my idea.
Some of you out there may be saying, "That's a sacrilege! How dare you change (what is arguably) the purest RV of them all." I realize that change may be difficult for some, but these days the -3 is basically a 2nd aircraft for those who have built before. It WILL be the case for me as well. I'm currently saving for tools and the tail kit of a 'pay as you go ' -7. We all want a match hole -3, and I believe that it would sell even better if it were a little bigger.
Call it the RV-16, because I want DR's dream of a high wing bush plane from Van's to be realized, and to kind of tie it in with the -8. Let the flames begin
Based solely on what I've read in the forums regarding the resurgence in popularity on the RV-3, I can't help but feel that a revisit to the classic design by Van's is in order. I'm also encouraged by the new RV-14. It shows that Van's is willing to acknowledge the market and change things up in order to remain viable and flexible in today's economic environment.
With that said, I think it's inevitable that the RV-3 as we know it is destined to become the proverbial -6 to the then new -7. It's true that building an RV-3 is not for the faint of heart, and just maybe it truly separates the builders from the assemblers. The -4 was essentially replaced by the -8. Why not do the same for the -3? Would it really be that difficult? Basically just shorten the -8 fuselage and call it a day is my idea.
Some of you out there may be saying, "That's a sacrilege! How dare you change (what is arguably) the purest RV of them all." I realize that change may be difficult for some, but these days the -3 is basically a 2nd aircraft for those who have built before. It WILL be the case for me as well. I'm currently saving for tools and the tail kit of a 'pay as you go ' -7. We all want a match hole -3, and I believe that it would sell even better if it were a little bigger.
Call it the RV-16, because I want DR's dream of a high wing bush plane from Van's to be realized, and to kind of tie it in with the -8. Let the flames begin
Last edited: