What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Realistic Build Time/Cost

jssaylor2007

Active Member
So I am probably a good 6 months or so out from ordering the first part of any RV kit, and am trying to compare and contrast the different flavors of RV. I am leaning more towards the 10 or 14, but am genuinely curious about all the others. Is there any reason to build a 12 if you intend to use it as a regular airplane? Is it any cheaper to build than say a 14 or a 9? Thanks for your answers!
 
Yes, the 12 will be a lot less expensive. Almost half the 14. The 14 is about 25% less than most 10's I've seen.

The 12 is a great light vfr traveler and fuel saver, easier and less time to build, etc.

The 14 can be a full IFR capable aircraft that hauls 120lbs of your life 175kts 5 hours in any direction and is aerobatic.

The 10 is a comparable 4 seater, probably faster, and "they" say whatever you can fit inside it will haul around for you. It can fit 4 adults comfortably.

I don't know much about the 9 other than it seems like a 7 with its wing design take from the 10 just scaled down a bit.

What's your mission?
 
Last edited:
RV-12 build time, about 800 to 2000 hours, depending on your skill, knowledge and experience.

Current price tags with the kids building them is about $80 to 85K, depends on motor, the Rotax 912 ULS with carbs, or 912 IS with fuel injection, and one Dynon HDX. With no finish or paint on it, maybe not even wheel pants, or other options.
 
One major difference of a 12 than any other RV model is that the 12 is a light sport, which means one only need a sport license to fly it. RV 12 also has a removable wings for hauling or storage or any other reason. Wings can easily be removed and installed.
RV 3 is a single seat
RV4, 6(A), 7(A), 8(A) and 14(A) are acrobatic
RV4 and 8 are tandem, all others are side by side
RV10 is the only RV model that is a 4 person
RV9 looks very similar to 6, 7 but it is not acrobatic but has a great fuel economy.

All of the models listed above are RV so the are great flying machines.

Hope this helps.
 
I agree

I agree with cost more & longer to build than u think or plan. BUT OH WHAT AN AIRPLANE!!!
 
I have learned very quickly that if dropping a thousand here and a thousand there on a fairly regular basis is not something you can do then your build will take you SUBSTANTIALLY longer. If you are only going to work weekends it will take you SUBSTANTIALLY longer. If you can't say no to your significant other when it comes time to go to some random persons birthday party that you don't even know it is going to take you SUBSTANTIALLY longer. :D

Just as a data point I'm getting to the light at the end of the tunnel and I already have 1800hrs into my -7A build. I'm betting I come in at 2200-2400 before completion.
 
Mission is primarily to just own and build a flying machine of some sort. I do have a wife and two young kids, and wanting a people hauler is not out of the question. I am a first time builder, and also could see the 12 being more of a gateway project into bigger things (-10.) I mainly like the idea of the 12 for like a more tame and more money friendly to fly flavor of an RV.
 
More than one -14 builder I spoken with have dropped north of $150K on their builds and got to the point where they had wished they were building a -10.

The -10 flies like a heavy RV but still much more direct and balanced than say a Bonanza.

The -7 and -9 share basically the same fuselage, vertical, and rudder. The wings and HS are different. The -9 has a 28' wing span vs. 25 for the -7. The -9 has a unique airfoil that no other RV uses, not even the -10. The -9 also has slotted flaps that help lower the stall speed over the -7 by almost 10 knots. The -9 is much better balanced on the controls than the short wing RV's.

The -12 is a delight to fly. If your mission is to fly an hour a day, every day, and take an occasional long trip at speeds slightly faster than a Skyhawk, this is your plane. It has better visibility than the others and more shoulder room than the -9.
 
More than one -14 builder I spoken with have dropped north of $150K on their builds and got to the point where they had wished they were building a -10.

The -10 flies like a heavy RV but still much more direct and balanced than say a Bonanza.

The -7 and -9 share basically the same fuselage, vertical, and rudder. The wings and HS are different. The -9 has a 28' wing span vs. 25 for the -7. The -9 has a unique airfoil that no other RV uses, not even the -10. The -9 also has slotted flaps that help lower the stall speed over the -7 by almost 10 knots. The -9 is much better balanced on the controls than the short wing RV's.

The -12 is a delight to fly. If your mission is to fly an hour a day, every day, and take an occasional long trip at speeds slightly faster than a Skyhawk, this is your plane. It has better visibility than the others and more shoulder room than the -9.

Thanks for this! Sounds kind of like the 10 is a great all around very versatile bird. The 12 sounds like the nice little daily flier, and the 9 sounds like a great 2 people XC machine.
 
Thanks for this! Sounds kind of like the 10 is a great all around very versatile bird. The 12 sounds like the nice little daily flier, and the 9 sounds like a great 2 people XC machine.

One other thing, the one downside to all the RV's, except the -10 is that you are sitting in a bucket and older passengers may not be able to get out of them easily. (Or you, as you age.)

If you ever think you want to do acro, then the -14 is a large cross country two seater.

It really comes down to what you want to do. I find I fly my -9 like a fast Super Cub but would really like a four seater, not the -10 because I would be uncomfortable taking that to the same places take my taildragger -9. I really want a fast 2+2 Cessna 170 built from a Van's kit. Oh, and to keep costs in line, it should be powered by any four cylinder engine from an 150 hp O-320 to a 210 hp IO-400. Sorry, just me dreaming again.
 
Last edited:
If you wanna play Air Force/Navy fighter pilot, AND your wife doesn't much care about flying, get an 8 or a 4. (Tandem seats) If, on the other hand, she is going to fly a lot with you, get a side by side, which is all the others (other than an 8 or a 4) Oh,and I almost forgot, the 3 is a single seater.

(As you can see, I like playing fighter pilot, AND my wife hates airplanes)
 
Last edited:
If you wanna play Air Force/Navy fighter pilot, AND your wife doesn't much care about flying, get an 8 or a 4. (Tandem seats) If, on the other hand, she is going to fly a lot with you, get a side by side, which is all the others (other than an 8 or a 4) Oh,and I almost forgot, the 3 is a single seater.

(As you can see, I like playing fighter pilot, AND my wife hates airplanes)

Luckily my wife loves to fly. She survived a hot & bumpy 4 hour XC in a pokey 172 a few years back, and didn't even complain once. The acro doesn't appeal to me too much, but honestly I only have a smidge of experience with it.
 
One other thing, the one downside to all the RV's, except the -10 is that you are sitting in a bucket and older passengers may not be able to get out of them easily. (Or you, as you age.)

If you ever think you want to do acro, then the -14 is a large cross country two seater.

It really comes down to what you want to do. I find I fly my -9 like a fast Super Cub but would really like a four seater, not the -10 because I would be uncomfortable taking that to the same places take my taildragger -9. I really want a fast 2+2 Cessna 170 built from a Van's kit. Oh, and to keep costs in line, it should be powered by any four cylinder engine from an 150 hp O-320 to a 210 hp IO-400. Sorry, just me dreaming again.

If Vans decided to do some sort of high-wing, off-field, 4 place type of airframe, I wouldn't even be having to try and decide on what to build.
 
To the OP, please remember that different people building the various different models will all have different experiences. A kit like a -12 will need less unexpected things than the others, just as a -10 will involve perhaps more fiberglass than the others. Each has its own characteristics.

For example, mine is a -3B, and that means more fabrication than some of the others; my own experience reflects that.

Dave
 
2 years and $88,000 (unpainted)

I was going to build a 14 but was concerned that it would be too hard as a first airplane build, so I went with a 12iS. I'm glad I did because it was a lot harder than I thought. Of that two years, about 6 months was waiting on kits from Vans. I recommend ordering the next kit or two as early as you can afford it. You could do it for less by going with the ULS engine (-$5000), single display (-$4000), skip the autopilot, knob and button modules, ADSB out, and wheelpants but I don't regret buying any of those.

I enjoyed the building and think about doing another one, maybe a 10 but I worry about cost and time to build.

Also, the 12 is fun and easy to fly and very economical. I never worry about the cost of fuel with this airplane. Now, filling 5 gallon gas cans with clear premium and driving them to the airport is a bit of a hassle, but it's better for the Rotax so I do it whenever I can.
 
Another consideration is engine longevity. The RV-12 Rotax has a proven track record for dependability and low maintenance cost. Liquid cooling prevents thermal shock and overheating. I attended Rotax?s maintenance seminar at KOSH this year. The instructor stated that 2000TT engines show very little wear and are often reassembled with parts measuring within wear limits. Oil change interval can be 100 hours when operating with mogas and oil usage is virtually nil. And even the carbureted 912 operates single-lever just like a FADEC.
 
If Vans decided to do some sort of high-wing, off-field, 4 place type of airframe, I wouldn't even be having to try and decide on what to build.

Might be heresy here, but if that is your mission seriously consider a Bearhawk Bravo. That's my latest build and it is one awesome aeroplane.

I personally wouldn't build a -12. It is probably the "least good" aircraft VANS has designed. Maybe the 12i is better ...... On the other hand, it is probably the simplest to put together if this is your first build.
 
If building isn't your goal (flying is) and assuming it meets your mission, the -12's have the advantage of being readily available as new or nearly-new airplanes at kit cost or less depending on build quality, age, and equipment. There are high school programs around the country that build them with the intention to sell when completed, and the work (from what I've seen) is usually good. There are also new and (occasionally) used SLSA's (factory built RV-12s) around which cost more than the others but are very well built for reasonable prices (at least compared to certified or other SLSA airplanes).

Flying and building RV's can be addictive. I started flying again after a 20-year layoff in 2015 with an RV-12 SLSA. I moved from there to a Bonanza and then built an RV-14A which I'm flying now. A buddy (who owns a Bonanza and is now in week of 5 of his annual from ****) and I are seriously considering building an RV-10 together.
 
I personally wouldn't build a -12. It is probably the "least good" aircraft VANS has designed.

Wow, that's quite a statement there. I think Van himself has a preference for the 12. I read where he flew a 12 to commute to work each day.
 
Might be heresy here, but if that is your mission seriously consider a Bearhawk Bravo. That's my latest build and it is one awesome aeroplane.

...

Caution, thread drift.

The Bearhawk Bravo is a 2+0 aircraft and doesn't meet the requirement of seating three or four people. Plus, it will be slow, I don't need to land in 200 feet. RV-9 landing and takeoff distances with at least 150 mph cruise would be great.

One more thing, the Bearhawk kits tend to be over priced, when compared to the RV kits.
 
Last edited:
Caution, thread drift.

The Bearhawk Bravo is a 2+0 aircraft and doesn't meet the requirement of seating three or four people. Plus, it will be slow, I don't need to land in 200 feet. RV-9 landing and takeoff distances with at least 150 mph cruise would be great.

One more thing, the Bearhawk kits tend to be over priced, when compared to the RV kits.

Methinks you need to do a bit more research into what the Bearhawk can do. It is a true 4-seater with at least the same payload as a -10. Granted, it's slower - maybe 120-130 kts cruise

As for the price, you have to compare to the quickbuild RV kits ..... I think my build cost is going to come in somewhere around a RV14 - certainly well less than my -10

As always, each to their own. If VANS offered something similar, I would probably have gone with that. But they don't ......
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's quite a statement there. I think Van himself has a preference for the 12. I read where he flew a 12 to commute to work each day.

There have been some serious SBs issued for the -12. My AP friend who works on all the RV types says he really doesn't like working on the -12. I'm not saying it's a bad aeroplane but it wouldn't be my choice. All the other types come from the same, proven design school. The -12 was different and I don't think it worked out so well. 12i is maybe what it should have been to start with.

Just my opinion. Don't want to start a war :D
 
Well, if you want wallet-friendly, don't build one at all. Buy a flying one instead. None of the RV's i've seen lately, with the exception of some real award-winners, are selling for more than the cost to build. Many are significantly cheaper than the cost to build a new RV.
 
If we're talking factory bought kits (not 2nd hand) and all factory new equipment and panel, I don't think you'll be able to finish any Vans kit cheaper than a 12. The 12 will be among the cheapest to fly and own.

In addition, the 12 is probably the quickest and easiest to build of all the Vans kits. As far as seating position, My wife and I with our particular aging backs and knees found the 12 easier to get in and out of than the 9 or the 14 that we sat in. Once inside it was more comfortable than any 172 I've ever flown or 182 for that matter.
 
....I personally wouldn't build a -12. It is probably the "least good" aircraft VANS has designed. Maybe the 12i is better ......

Different folks have different goals, don't we now?

I'm building a -3B slowbuild, fly a C180, and would like to have a -12Is. For that matter, I'd enjoy building one. My only gripe with it is that someone forgot which end of the plane the third wheel goes.

Dave
 
Research and Sourcing

You may know this already, but when people talk about "build times" they are referring to times actually spent in the shop working on the plane.

I would suggest that the research and parts sourcing will double the build time.

If it's a 2000 hour build, you will spend another 2000 on learning, ordering parts, re-ordering, returning parts, buying the same parts again, watching how-to videos, surfing forums and creating spreadsheets and budgets.

All this non-shop time was not something I was personally prepared for.
 
Get in each one

Back to the OP. I highly, HIGHLY recommend both sitting in and flying the models you are interested in. Visit the mothership or have someone take you up in theirs.

Many thanks to this forum and members that have passed the torch and helped others in the process.
 
There have been some serious SBs issued for the -12. My AP friend who works on all the RV types says he really doesn't like working on the -12. I'm not saying it's a bad aeroplane but it wouldn't be my choice. All the other types come from the same, proven design school. The -12 was different and I don't think it worked out so well. 12i is maybe what it should have been to start with.

Just my opinion. Don't want to start a war :D

The idea, here in the USA, of building a RV-12 E-LSA to Van's specifications, is that you DO the inspections and work yourself, and you don't HAVE to hire an AP, like your friend, to do the work. That, in itself, if you've taken the 16 hour course, is what makes the RV-12 so user friendly and reasonably priced to maintain and fly.

All depends on your mission, Van's has sold an awful lot of RV-12 kits, as well as RV-9's, for the amount of time on the market.

Then there is also the advantage to the pilot here in the USA, nor having to pass a medical exam, a drivers license is sufficient to fly a LSA here in the USA.

The pilot workload on a RV-12 is also much less. All in all, it's simplified flying, on a reasonable budget, if that meets your mission.
 
One big factor that no one has mentioned is the rivets. The Rv-12 uses pull rivets while all the other RVs use solid rivets. So the Rv-12 is easily built by one person while the other Rvs frequently need a bucking buddy for riveting.
 
One big factor that no one has mentioned is the rivets. The Rv-12 uses pull rivets while all the other RVs use solid rivets. So the Rv-12 is easily built by one person while the other Rvs frequently need a bucking buddy for riveting.

Honestly, the time when you need a helper to rivet is pretty limited. I?d guess 20 hours or so on each of my projects.
 
If this is your first build and you want to fly build the 12 and you will not be disappointed. Goes together fast and is well supported and very well documented. You can be flying in a year or two as compared to 3-10 years for most other RVs. Basic unpainted for as little as $70k to fully optioned out and painted for $90k or so. I built a 9A and then went to the 12 for LSA and now to a 7A. The 12 handles and performs very similar to a lighter and lower powered 9. Visibility, access, fuel economy and passenger comfort to the 12, speed, payload and climb performance to the Lycoming powered RVs but at greater fuel usage, time to build and build cost. Flew a 12 X-country to everywhere I took the 9 . Wish Vans would marry the 12 and 9 for the 12 experience with a 180 hp and a CS prop with appropriate performance.
 
I spent 80K total on my RV-12. It took 1year and 9 months working about 4 hours a day. You?ll not find another kit better documented and better supported on the market whichever RV model you choose.
 
Back
Top