What's new
Van's Air Force

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

My dream RV-3...is not the RV-3

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:)
 
Last edited:
Foldable wings, 4 gallon an hour engine, 200+MPH.....

To be able to trailer it to the airport and save on hangar costs and get a lower fuel burn would be great!

I'm in! :D
 
Well, the RV-3 went away once, and then came back with a new "B" wing....but Van has said publicly several times that he just can't see a big enough market to warrant a redesign, and I think he's a pretty smart guy. The truth is that (as mentioned above), the RV-3 is a pretty good "second" (or third...) airplane, but it takes a very special (young and single?) person to be satisfied with it as their only craft.

If you have built an RV already, then building a -3 is well within your capabilities as the kit stands now - it really isn't that difficult, and if you don't like doing wings, buy them QB. The fuselage is several hundred hours of work to the canoe stage...and you'll put more than half the building time into systems and finishing anyway.

We seemed to generate a lot of enthusiasm for the RV-3, so I asked the Van's guys if that was reflected in sales last year. The response was that they thought they might have sold three tail kits....so lots of talk, little action on the part of buyers. Like I said - Van is pretty smart about his business.

I'd love to see everyone build one - they are just that great of an airplane - but if folks really want one, they are well within a repeat offender's skill set right now.
 
Hi Milton...

As Paul suggests, I also doubt Vans would spend much time about building a "new" RV-3. For the longest running model, it has 275 flying, against even 1347 for the (later) RV-4 - the latter I suspect "harder" to build (same techniques, more of it!).

To invest in the CAD / tooling etc. I suspect Vans needs to see a sales run of ~1000.

As Paul also says, please do not get hung up on the "pre-punched" etc. It just takes a bit longer, and a bit more care, than the pre-punched models.

Apart from the lack of popularity of the single seat, it also ends up pretty expensive - it is hardly cheaper than a bigger 2 seater to build.

Finally, the design is probably somewhat impractical in today's world. Without opening old debates, it is almost impossible to build an RV-3 to it's design weights - especially if you want modern instruments / engine/prop combination etc. Weight has even grown at Vans' end (B wings) - and so a more fundamental design overhaul is needed.

Just my 2cs worth ;)
 
I want one too but....

.... so I asked the Van's guys if that was reflected in sales last year. The response was that they thought they might have sold three tail kits.....

Right there is the answer.

Most people would have a ferrari is someone is giving them out. However most people could buy one if they set a fianncial plan early, kept to it and kept at it for 10 years.

But not many want one THAT badly.

Lots of people like the -3, virtually no one wants to build and own one and if you think I am wrong... then show me the money sweat heart....

Prove me wrong.
 
I can't imagine spending the time and money to build an RV-3 when the RV-4 would be the same procedure and you would end up with a "better" aircraft. Simply change it up to single seat and single controls, and register it as a single place.
 
It probable is safe to describe an RV-3B as "within the repeat offender's skill set". For a zero-builder, that translated to something close to a 5,000-6,000 hours of build to have an RV-3B.

I do see the RV-3B as a second plane.

Here's the rub ...

Many RV "buyers and flyers" now want to build. Since they already have the first plane, the RV-3B is an attractive second plane but an unacceptable first built.

It's why I will likely build, but not an RV.
 
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:)

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that Ken Krueger has this exact type of plane in mind, at the new company.....???
 
After flying an -8 for three years now, and with 99% of my flights solo, I find the idea of an RV-3 very appealing. If Van's made a match-hole -3 kit, I'd give serious consideration to building one in a few years.

With over 7,600 RVs flying out there, it dawned on me that there is an underserved segment of the RV community -- builders who want something smaller, lighter, more economical and single-seat as a retirement project.

I posed that to Ken Scott at Oshkosh and he replied, "Yeah, you and 12 of your friends." Apparently there isn't the market that I imagined for the tooling required to make the RV-3 kit comparable with the other RVs. :(
 
Let's not forget that DR is promoting the development of just such an airplane, and has found about 100 people seriously interested. Unfortunately, as he learned, the RV-3 isn't that airplane.

It'll be interesting to see how the Onex fares in the marketplace.

...We seemed to generate a lot of enthusiasm for the RV-3, so I asked the Van's guys if that was reflected in sales last year. The response was that they thought they might have sold three tail kits....so lots of talk, little action on the part of buyers. Like I said - Van is pretty smart about his business....

And at least two sets of kits (empennage, SB wing and fuselage kits) the first quarter of this year. One was mine.

Dave
 
Sonex has already sold more Onex QB kits this year than there are flying RV3's in total. Van's sold only three RV3B tail kits this year because they have not really updated the kit. Same old Standard VERY slow build-figure it out as you go, scratch your head and make it fit kit. If Van's does not want to listen to the builders begging for a complete PP RV3B kit and/or a complete QB RV3B kit then they might as well make the kit obsolete and be done with it. There has been a lot of talk from potential builders, but there has also been no action from Van's to make advancements in the RV3B kit to PP or QB full airframe kits. :)
 
If vans went to PP and QB on a RV3, you would be able to buy a kit for the same money as some flying RV3s. Doesn't make sense to me, or Vans.

Personally, I hope they don't waste any time on the 3. I would much rather see something new, like the high wing concept. I also like the 14, and its refinements. Keep moving forward, not backwards.
 
continued...

Is it true that Van's only sold 3 RV-3B tail kits last year? If so, doesn't that show the need to update the kit to matched hole technology? And just to be clear, I am talking about basically ending production of the RV-3 entirely, and making a new model based on a modified -8. Same wing, same empannage, shortened fuselage to accommodate only solo pilot operations, addition of the more robust -14 nosegear for those wheel in the front guys and gals.

On second thought, you do need room for an aux fuel tank for that around-the-world flight...
 
RV3 Defender

Considering all the comments above, why not be grateful Vans is still willing to supply 3's ? There are many testimonies that the 3 is the best flying civilian aircraft available. If you want compromise, build a 4. If you want easy, build a Onex. I am thinking about ordering a second set of 3 kits before they are not available ( think 1954 Corvette). Just my $.02.
 
Is it true that Van's only sold 3 RV-3B tail kits last year? If so, doesn't that show the need to update the kit to matched hole technology? And just to be clear, I am talking about basically ending production of the RV-3 entirely, and making a new model based on a modified -8. Same wing, same empannage, shortened fuselage to accommodate only solo pilot operations, addition of the more robust -14 nosegear for those wheel in the front guys and gals.

On second thought, you do need room for an aux fuel tank for that around-the-world flight...

A single seat RV-8 derivative would still handle "like a truck", and not like an RV-3.

Now, granted, I do like the way an RV-8 handles and I like the overall large size of it too, and I think the handling fits the size and weight of the -8 perfectly well but if I wanted a single seat toy to just go out and punch holes in the sky and flop around in, I'd much rather experience what everyone who flies an RV-3 claims about that plane. I have about 25 hours in an RV-4 and it's been over two years since I've been in one, but what I remember about its handling is quite nice. There's something that feels right about having the roll axis of the aircraft pass thru the middle of your torso versus having it pass under your butt as in the -8, that I can even feel in the RV-6 now (gotta figure out some way to rig up seat cushions so I can sit in the middle and use the right stick in my right hand and put one foot on each of the outboard rudder pedals LoL :D)

I do agree that the low sales numbers for the -3B has definitely got to be partially caused by not having a prepunched, more quickly built version available.
 
You can get an RV3 kit with Quick built wings for under $20,000. Be happy Van's offers the quick built wings.
 
Panther LSA?

The Panther LSA and OneX quick build-ish kits could be a bellweather for determining if there is a market for single seat airplanes in this economy.

Panther LSA has been designed around the Corvair alternative engine, to reduce cost of ownership, though an EA-B prototype is being built using an O-320.

The EA-B version should closely match the RV-3 performance and experience. Folding wings is a bonus for reducing or eliminating hangar expenses.

I spoke with a Kitfox IV builder, recently, who lived in a high hangar rent area.

He used the folding wing feature to tow his airplane to and from the airport - since 1995. We quickly calculated he had save $75,000 in hangar rent over the years. That's remarkable.
 
Last edited:
Vans does not have a place in the single seat market period. They got lazy and do not listen to their customers wants and needs. the RV3 parts do not fit, are make shift and Vans really does not care. Sad enough, say goodbye to the RV3. :mad:
 
Interesting

It would be interesting to get a guestimate from a few of you who are in the know - how many engineering hours would it take to engineer an 'improved' RV-3? Then multiply that by the average costs of one of Van's Engineers. Then divide that by the number of kits that Van's might sell. I'll bet that the costs of re-engineering and improving the 'new RV-3' would be prohibitively high. And I know that Van's can't afford to produce a kit that loses money.

Only the Shadow knows what the next RV will look like. My guess is that it will be Van's first 'high wing'. Seating up to six, floats and skis will be optional. Hope that it will be a financial winner!
 
Vans does not have a place in the single seat market period. They got lazy and do not listen to their customers wants and needs. the RV3 parts do not fit, are make shift and Vans really does not care. Sad enough, say goodbye to the RV3. :mad:

Regarding single seaters the manufacturers will have to think in new directions. The Panther and the Onex are two examples, but are they radical enough? That remains to be seen. As for myself I will get a SD-1 while I continue building my RV-4 (at tortoise speed :) The SD-1 certainly is radical and it has sold 30 something kits at various grades from scratch build to ready to fly - during the last couple of years - in France alone. Now they start selling other places. I will get the almost ready to fly version, and will be flying in the spring.

The problem with the -3 is the -4. They are too similar. The key is to make a single seater with features that is impossible to optain in a two seater - at the right price.
 
Is it true that Van's only sold 3 RV-3B tail kits last year? If so, doesn't that show the need to update the kit to matched hole technology? And just to be clear, I am talking about basically ending production of the RV-3 entirely, and making a new model based on a modified -8. Same wing, same empannage, shortened fuselage to accommodate only solo pilot operations, addition of the more robust -14 nosegear for those wheel in the front guys and gals.

On second thought, you do need room for an aux fuel tank for that around-the-world flight...


Shrinking a aircraft rarely if ever produces a good result. You almost always end up with a overweight aircraft relative to the actual capabilities of the aircraft. Its very hard to take weight that is not required out of the structure when shrinking a airframe. It is much easier to beef up a airframe as you stretch it or add gross weight. This is one reason why airliners almost always end up stretched and those versions always outsell shortened versions. In some cases the shortened version is never built or sells a handful of airframes only. I suspect if you simply built a 1 Seat RV8 you would lose the flight characteristics that make the RV3 what it is and it would be several hundred pounds heavier.

George
 
Near perfection!

Okay, the kit has some challenges. But, I'd build another one in a heartbeat if the situation presented itself and there was someone to help with the systems and engine part (the real challenges, in my mind).

No pre-punch is a barrier to building???? Surely not. Measuring and drilling is trivial and nearly mindless work. I can't imagine how the pre-punch could be a requisite to building. Even a "dirt person" (to use Sheldon's terminology) like me can conquer the airframe assembly. That ain't the hard part of the process. If you find it too difficult, do like Paul did and farm the work out to your spouse.....or 12 year old kid. It ain't rocket science.

Takes too long to build? I think our build was 15 months by two people who were working full-time (and traveling for work and pleasure a lot), and Paul put a huge amount of time into teaching me how to do things. It's a small plane. It doesn't take long (if you've built before).

Re-design it to be like an -8? Are you kidding me? Why take a near perfect, aerodynamic design and degrade it with the -8's heavier, bulkier style? Yuck!

The -3 is dead? Good joke, Darrell. The -3 is the finest of a very fine line of aircraft and let us hope that Van's never abandons the kit. The comparison to a Ferrarri might be appropriate. Not many will actually have what it takes to own one, but don't we all enjoy knowing that they are out there, available, and maybe someday...? If you want the very best of "total performance," you want to own and fly an RV-3!
 
I suspect if you simply built a 1 Seat RV8 you would lose the flight characteristics that make the RV3 what it is and it would be several hundred pounds heavier.

It would completely lose the "pilot's airplane feel" that's so desireable in the -3 and -4.

In the -3 and -4 you sit low in the cockpit... the roll axis (from spinner to tailcone) passes ride thru the middle of your stomach and you also sit so close to the center of gravity that the airplane feels like an extension of your body. I've never flown a -3 yet, but have sit in one and will likely get to fly it one of these days, and do have about 25 hours in the front seat of a -4 so I've got some understanding about this "feel".

In the RV-8, you sit up higher.... nearly above the roll axis, which feels like it goes thru about where your butt sits in the front seat. I love flying the RV-8, in fact it's still my favorite because it's roomy and comfortable and feels powerful and substantial..., but it does feel more like riding on the saddle of a winged horse instead of sitting down deep inside the machine of the -3/-4 ... "wearing the plane like a glove" feeling.

(in my -6 I feel like a little kid driving a 2-seat sports car that I can't hardly see over the dashboard :p )
 
Last edited:
Vans does not have a place in the single seat market period. They got lazy and do not listen to their customers wants and needs
Agree with the 1st, disagree with the 2nd.

I reckon Vans do listen to their customers real requirements i.e. what will sell at a good profit. So they've built a heavy overpowered cruiser with a large comfortable cockpit, and by all accounts they are selling these like hotcakes.

If there really was market for an RV-3, it would be filled - if only by someone buying RV-3 kits from Vans and doing whatever was required to make all these mysterious buyers front up with the $$$. The second hand prices for RV-3s tell the story - great fun aircraft they might be, but when people need to commit the $$$ and time to build a single seater, it just does not stack up. IMHO ;)
 
Amen!

If you want the very best of "total performance," you want to own and fly an RV-3!

Amen!!, I agree with Louise.

I think that the 4 was a compromise from the 3, when ever you change the weight and balance to compensate for the passenger it will change the way the airplane fly?
 
Last edited:
Crowdfunding a new RV-3 kit at Vans

While on a factory tour I asked if Vans intended to build a high wing bush plane, their answer seems applicable to redesigning and offering a new RV-3 kit.

They said they needed to see a market potential of at least 100 kit sales per year in order to justify introducing a new design at Vans.

Identify 100 RVers who will commit to placing $22k in escrow, for a new pre-punch RV-3 kit, to demonstrate to Vans there is a market.

Money talks.

Or maybe Crowdfunding could pay for the development costs of a new pre-punch RV-3 kit.
 
Last edited:
One of the major reasons why I chose an RV-3B kit is that it WASN'T pre-punched. I wanted the fun of actually building an airplane.

Now that I'm well into the kit, I've got to admit that a few more pre-punched pieces wouldn't hurt anything. But it's fun. I'd hate for this opportunity to go away.

Dave
 
One of the major reasons why I chose an RV-3B kit is that it WASN'T pre-punched. I wanted the fun of actually building an airplane.

Now that I'm well into the kit, I've got to admit that a few more pre-punched pieces wouldn't hurt anything. But it's fun. I'd hate for this opportunity to go away.

Dave

You aren't the only one that feels that way. Glad you spoke out.

Andrew.
 
You aren't the only one that feels that way. Glad you spoke out.

Andrew.

I think most of us feel that way. The problem is that it takes time and life usually comes in the way. So it becomes a second plane unless you have much more spare time than average.
 
Back
Top