Advice on First Aircraft Purchase

So I'm about a year away from purchasing a flying aircraft. As such, I am trying to immerse myself in these boards so that I have as much knowledge, even if it's second hand, as possible. I was wondering what this board thought about a first aircraft for someone with a few hundred hours (including tail wheel, aerobatic, and multi time)?

I was originally considering a Pitts, but man those things hurt my back because the seats do not recline, and my stick and rudder skills are just not there yet for one. I'm sure I could learn with a good checkout, but I'm thinking something more comfortable might be better. Beyond that I was thinking an RV 3/4 or a cub. At some point down the road I'd like a rocket (or maybe a Model 12...then again who doesn't), but for now I want to look at aircraft that will allow me to build time and have some fun while I'm at it. Thanks everyone!

From the Pitts to a Cub is a pretty good difference. I think you'll need to decide your mission, as they say. Do you want to go fast, slow, do loops, bring a passenger, fly x-country, etc? The RV series is probably best if you want to do a little of all of those things. The Pitts would be your all-out aerobatic machine at the expense of cross-country practicality, and insurance might be higher too due to it's idiosyncracies. And of course the cub is your low and slow local sightseeing plane. I'll bet you could get a great deal on an RV 3 or 4 and have a whole lot of fun.

Chris

RV 3/4 or a cub? not sure you have defined your need at this point. once you do that take a year or more to find the plane of your dreams. it is out there.

Sorry I should have been more specific on the mission. Eventually I'd like an aircraft that could hold a passenger, but for the first aircraft I don't know that I need it. The reason is that it is a little bit cheaper to purchase and insure a single seat aircraft (type dependent...a single seat Pitts likely more than an RV 3). I'd love something that will do gentleman's aerobatics at minimum, but it is not necessary. Cross country would be nice, but again not necessary, especially if it is a single seat aircraft. I believe a little bit of both would be the ticket for a first airplane (RV 4), but again I wasn't sure if folks thought the 4 would be too much to handle. At this point I've flown citabria, decathlon, and Pitts S2A.

I mention the cub just because it is the bookend for the "easy" tail wheel airplanes. In other words, I wanted to give a range from hardest to handle to easiest to handle.

Maybe I'm just an oddball that enjoys all airplanes for what they offer? I cub is very different than a Pitts, but I'm certain I enjoy both style's of flying. And I have done both as my grandfather used to own a cub.

Don't forget the 6

Lots of them out there. They fill the x-country role well and are aerobatic.

Like someone else said, you really need to define your needs or preferences better. There is no airplane that's perfect for everything. Some airplanes are only good for one thing. The RV's are a very good compromise, doing several things well.

Once you define your mission, the right airplane will become obvious and you can focus on one or two models.

It is very budget and experience dependent; and likely you wont like the reality of the answer, so will do what your emotions tell you anyway. But for what it is worth: my guess from the limited information provided is that your best first airplane is a Piper Tomahawk. It will get you flying relatively cheep. Is reasonable to maintain, and will allow you to take a passenger. Mid-length cross-country's are doable. And, despite what anyone else (who has never flown one) will tell you, they are a fun plane. I had one for 10 years and after owning a RV for a few years went ahead and bought another one for my twins to fly. They are seniors at Virginia Tech and love it. It can get into relatively short grass runways, has lots of space, and gets them to most of their destinations. I will probably upgrade them to a RV6 in a couple of years, but for now it is perfect for them. I also think I am a much better pilot from having flown one for 10 years. I find that the performance of an RV covers up a lot of piloting deficiencies that the Tomahawk would not have allowed.

morganjohn24 said:

Sorry I should have been more specific on the mission. Eventually I'd like an aircraft that could hold a passenger, but for the first aircraft I don't know that I need it. The reason is that it is a little bit cheaper to purchase and insure a single seat aircraft (type dependent...a single seat Pitts likely more than an RV 3). I'd love something that will do gentleman's aerobatics at minimum, but it is not necessary. Cross country would be nice, but again not necessary, especially if it is a single seat aircraft. I believe a little bit of both would be the ticket for a first airplane (RV 4), but again I wasn't sure if folks thought the 4 would be too much to handle. At this point I've flown citabria, decathlon, and Pitts S2A.

Ok you list some things that are nice but not necessary. What *IS* neccesary?

I mention the cub just because it is the bookend for the "easy" tail wheel airplanes. In other words, I wanted to give a range from hardest to handle to easiest to handle.

Actually I found the cub slightly more difficult to land than an RV-8 given that you fly it from the back seat and cannot see forward. But it wasn't anything massive.

Maybe I'm just an oddball that enjoys all airplanes for what they offer? I cub is very different than a Pitts, but I'm certain I enjoy both style's of flying. And I have done both as my grandfather used to own a cub.

Click to expand...

I recommend you first pin down the "absolute must haves", if you can. Then you can start to worry about the trade-offs.

You need a 1980 Piper Archer II. Its a great all-around aircraft. And you're in luck I will have one to sell you as soon as my RV10 is complete

Pre-buy inspection.

My stepson is going an annual on a Cherokee 180 and found metal in the oil screen in the sump and metal in the filter...yep, engine removal and at least a cam and 2 lifters.

Best,

Well folks I'm getting some lessons in an S2C over the course of the next month to see if competition is what I'm really after. I decided experience is the only thing that could answer my question.

If anyone has an RV 4 that they would be willing to let me sit in to see how the fit is around central Virginia, I would greatly appreciate it!

John,

Your profile says TX; are you already in VA, or still in TX? If you're driving from TX to VA, I'm just north of Jackson MS.

It's hard to tell from your posts what/how much PIC time you have in the various a/c. If you have a decent amount of time (50+ hrs) in just about any taildragger, you should be able to transition to any of the RV's without any problems.

My progression was: C152> Luscombe 8A {PPL}> Thorp T-18> Swift160> 200hp>RV-4>BD-4> RV-4. I found the transition from Luscombe to T-18 (at ~90 hrs total time) to be relatively easy. The higher wing loading of the T-18 actually made takeoffs/landings easier for me than the Luscombe. Swift (c/s prop, retracts) to RV-4 was actually a bit trickier, due to having to re-learn how to slow down with the wood prop & slicker airframe of the RV.

If money is at all an issue, I couldn't imagine owning any certified a/c, unless I already had an IA ticket. The last annual on the Luscombe before I sold my share was over $2K on a $7.5K (at the time) a/c. And all it needed was the inspection and a couple of magnetos.

It's fun to fly Cub variations when my friends offer, but I can't imagine it being my only a/c. It basically does one thing, fairly (but not exceptionally) well. At least the Pitts does one thing exceptionally well.

Charlie

An rv is by far the easiest taildragger i have flown. Ive only flown a champ, cub, and citabria though. I only had 100 hrs tt and about 10 hours tailwheel time when i bought my rv4 and it was no problem.

rv7charlie said:

John,

Your profile says TX; are you already in VA, or still in TX? If you're driving from TX to VA, I'm just north of Jackson MS.

It's hard to tell from your posts what/how much PIC time you have in the various a/c. If you have a decent amount of time (50+ hrs) in just about any taildragger, you should be able to transition to any of the RV's without any problems.

My progression was: C152> Luscombe 8A {PPL}> Thorp T-18> Swift160> 200hp>RV-4>BD-4> RV-4. I found the transition from Luscombe to T-18 (at ~90 hrs total time) to be relatively easy. The higher wing loading of the T-18 actually made takeoffs/landings easier for me than the Luscombe. Swift (c/s prop, retracts) to RV-4 was actually a bit trickier, due to having to re-learn how to slow down with the wood prop & slicker airframe of the RV.

If money is at all an issue, I couldn't imagine owning any certified a/c, unless I already had an IA ticket. The last annual on the Luscombe before I sold my share was over $2K on a $7.5K (at the time) a/c. And all it needed was the inspection and a couple of magnetos.

It's fun to fly Cub variations when my friends offer, but I can't imagine it being my only a/c. It basically does one thing, fairly (but not exceptionally) well. At least the Pitts does one thing exceptionally well.

Charlie

Click to expand...

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for the response. This was helpful. I'm currently in Virginia, but I'll be full time in Texas and I'm originally from Texas. I'm here in Virginia for law school.

I've got about 150 hours total time plus a multi and (almost) IFR. I've done my tail wheel endorsement and have about 20 hours decathlon time (and citabria but they are so close to the same). I also have about an hour Pitts time and more tomorrow.

The real question for me is, do I want to compete or not. If I do an S1 is the answer I think. If not, the RV 4 is the ticket I think. I really was just concerned about the Pitts being easily over controlled on the runway, but with good training I'm thinking I'd be alright. Especially if I got had a Pitts with rod gear (I'd likely have to get the conversion done to get the rod gear though).

Anyway I've always loved the RV 4 and I know it will take me through competition, but if I my goal is competition I think a Pitts would perform better. Plus I could then get a side by side RV which may be better for cross country trips.

John

Aircraft purchase

John,

Get an RV-4. Acro, cross country, take a passenger- love mine & lots cheaper to operate than a Rocket and half the cost of an RV-8.

Oly

So I now have about 3 hours in a Pitts. Flew 2 hours yesterday in an S2C and did a bunch of landings. Things I've learned that I can now pin down:

1. Acro is a must; although advanced level competition acro is nice but not necessary.

If I get an S1, I will compete with it, but I probably will not compete that many times a year. Competition just gives me something to strive for and work for. If I never compete above sportsman that's quite alright. If I get the Pitts I may as well go for intermediate at minimum. (work my way up to it of course via good training and practice)

2. Multiple seats is not necessary...yet.

I know at some point down the line I will be in a position where a second seat is a must. For now, I'm not there. The fact is I want a fun acro capable plane to practice in and clear my mind. Once more $$$ becomes available I'll worry about more seats/IFR cross countries/Model 12 and Rocket type super high performance. I'm just not there yet.

3. Budget. Unfortunately many pilots are not limited by skills as much as by budget (although some are quite the opposite).

My budget will increase as time goes on so the longer I wait, the more I feel comfortable spending. For now, my thought process is that I am not looking to make money purchasing a plane (let's face it, that almost never happens). But I would like to sell it for somewhere in the ballpark of where I bought it i.e. not be out a bunch of money if possible.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I really appreciate it. Keep it coming!

For a number of years I had a Steen Skybolt that I purchased built and flying. It only a compass in it for navigation. I added a handheld GPS and had a fun open cockpit plane that I traveled many miles in. I fixed the front seat with a wide cushion so I could strech out with my feet on the front seat and I could be really comfortable on long trips.
This was a 1973 model with a 200 Lycoming in it.

olyolson said:

John,

Get an RV-4. Acro, cross country, take a passenger- love mine & lots cheaper to operate than a Rocket and half the cost of an RV-8.

Oly

Click to expand...

Oly,

I really love the RV 4. I've got a buddy that owns one and it really is the best of all worlds. Right now I think I'd like a -3 as well. Any idea what a light, simple -3 or -4 would go for today? Mid time lyc 320. Just trying to wrap my head around the market.

John

Aerobatic experience, tailwheel experience, and a few hundred hours on the clock. That's when I bought my RV-6. If you have tailwheel experience, the checkout in an RV will just be learning to calibrate your feet and hands to a different control response than you've been used to, and learning the performance envelope and procedure for an RV.

"Multiple seats not necessary... yet" - Get a two-seater now. It'll just cost you more later when you sell your single seater to buy a two-seater later. You already know you will need the extra seat later.

I'll add one more to the list that thinks RV's are about the easiest TD airplanes to land. I fly a 1940 Taylorcraft along with the Rocket and RV -8 and despite the 35 IAS stall speed the T-craft is without a doubt more work to get on the ground and safely stopped. I've found the same to be true of the Citabria, Cessna 170, L-3, and other "easy" TD airplanes. Don't let the RV ground handling worry you at all.

I echo other's advice to define your mission the best you can, and add that it will almost certainly change as you start flying. I wanted an inexpensive "all rounder" airplane as my first too... I went with the Hiperbipe and did not regret it. As the "acro bug" slowly faded in comparison the X-country speed, the RV series emerged as the better choice. So in my case: Goodbye Hiperbipe, hello Rocket.

You have some time, so fly as much as you can and see what bubbles to the top for requirements. You might find yourself 180 out in a few months. Let it happen.

Snowflake said:

"Multiple seats not necessary... yet" - Get a two-seater now. It'll just cost you more later when you sell your single seater to buy a two-seater later. You already know you will need the extra seat later.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Agreed. The only problem with this is that I'll very likely be able to afford more later. If I can find a multi-place ship that fits the bill I'd be all in. Also, single place will be easier to insure for a low time pilot I believe.

Toobuilder said:

You have some time, so fly as much as you can and see what bubbles to the top for requirements. You might find yourself 180 out in a few months. Let it happen.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply as well. The problem is I'd rather save my money to purchase something. I have money saved for that purpose, I just haven't brought myself to spend it quite yet. If I could find a nice, light, simple -3 or an S1C in good shape I think I'd be in business. Like I said before, there's a good chance that money will be less of an issue the more time goes on, so I will hopefully be able to change as my tastes do...for now I have the acro bug!

morganjohn24 said:

Thanks for the reply. Agreed. The only problem with this is that I'll very likely be able to afford more later. If I can find a multi-place ship that fits the bill I'd be all in. Also, single place will be easier to insure for a low time pilot I believe.

Click to expand...

RV-3's aren't that common on the market, so good ones (good condition, with upgrades or original builds to make them equivalent to the -3B which is aerobatic) do command high prices. A good RV-4 or -6 wouldn't be much more, and would last you a lot longer.

Insurance companies don't want to see claims either way, whether it's just you and the plane, or if it's you and a passenger and the plane. So either way you'll likely pay a "first airplane owned" premium because you have zero history with anyone anywhere, and they'll probably want to see a checkout on type. The tailwheel experience will help either way. But it won't be any easier or harder to insure due to the extra seat. The only real difference will be the liability coverage for the passenger.

Snowflake said:

RV-3's aren't that common on the market, so good ones (good condition, with upgrades or original builds to make them equivalent to the -3B which is aerobatic) do command high prices. A good RV-4 or -6 wouldn't be much more, and would last you a lot longer.

Insurance companies don't want to see claims either way, whether it's just you and the plane, or if it's you and a passenger and the plane. So either way you'll likely pay a "first airplane owned" premium because you have zero history with anyone anywhere, and they'll probably want to see a checkout on type. The tailwheel experience will help either way. But it won't be any easier or harder to insure due to the extra seat. The only real difference will be the liability coverage for the passenger.

Click to expand...

This is very helpful. Thank you. It's the irony of experience...we will penalize you for lack of experience, but it's expensive to get experience! That's alright, there are very few better ways to spend excess money (if that even exists).