What's new
Van's Air Force

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

First-time builder dilemma: RV-3 or RV-8?

S

sdh

Member
Good morning from the Netherlands,

as a longer-time lurker and prospective first-time builder I would like to dip into the forum's expertise regarding the choice of aircraft to build; more specifically, I think I've narrowed it down to either an RV-3 or RV-8.

Mission requirements / wish list:
  • cross-country touring in central Europe;
  • flying solo (not a requirement as such, but it's already hard to find people to go sailing with, and might be even more difficult with flying);
  • VFR due to the legal situation prohibiting amateur-built AC flying IFR;
  • pilot (200lb) + baggage for a fortnight's trip (~30lb);
  • 3h+ flights possible between refueling would be nice;
  • crossing the Alps without being forced through the valleys, VFR out of sight of surface to fly over the weather;
  • sporty/performant aeroplane trumps creature comfort (I've had a motorcycle for six years as sole means of transportation and did not shy away driving 500 miles/day trips);
  • CS/VP prop (lightweight WW or MT);
  • aesthetics: prefer a tip-over canopy over a slider for better visibility, RV-8 would almost certainly include the showplanes fastback conversion.

From what I've gathered, the RV-3 with an (I)O-320 would tick a lot of boxes, is economical to run (everything fun seems more expensive in Europe ...), and has phenomenal performance. On the other hand, the RV-8 is heavier but has higher usable load, cockpit is a bit roomier, an (I)O-360 seems also not such a gas-guzzler, and the fastback conversion looks striking.

From a time-to-fly point of view, and as a first-time builder, I assume that a QB RV-8 would bring me potentially faster in the air than the RV-3 (would use the QB wings for the RV-3); due to my tinkering with my late-70's and late-90's cars, I would not see the mechanical work as such as a big problem, but I already learned from working on the cars that experience (or lack thereof) is a major issue not to be underestimated.

Big questions from my side at this stage:
  • Is an RV-3 (with QB wings) suitable for an (average) first-time builder?
  • Can I operate the RV-3 with the proposed pilot+baggage weight, fill up the tanks, and still operate within suitable CG/weight limits?
  • Would flying the RV-8 almost exclusively solo be an issue regarding a more forward CG?
  • If going for the RV-8, would making the back seat pan removable with the option of installing an auxiliary fuel tank be a daft idea?


Cheers,
Sebastian

P.S. No PPL yet; had two introductory lessons on a C172 and was not really excited with the plane ...
 
Since you are considering QB wings, I assume you want a plane that can be finished quickly and that would be the -8. A-3 is going to take much longer to build because you will be building almost from a box of materials, not a highly prefab kit like the -8. Both -3 and -8 would meet your requriments for a flying aircraft. A light -3 with 160hp is a rocket ship, nothing like the C172 you flew. Best thing would be to concentrate on getting your ticket including a tail wheel check out, some time in something quick and then decide what you want. Your wants may change after you have some time logged.
Bill
 
I agree, if you want to fly quickly, go with the -8. Solo acro in the -8 is done frequently, check out Team Aerodynamics.

As for extending the range, there are many options, including turning the entire leading edge into tanks. However, expect any modification to extend your build time.
 
WillyEyeBall said:
Looks like the RV-4 would be a better choice.
Bill:confused:
Click to expand...

Well, thought about the -4 as well, and following AX-O's fastback RV-4 thread made me initially think hard about the route. A disadvantage from a pure building point of view would be the lack of QB wings for the -4 kit, and I'm not that keen on the pilot's seating position with the face rather close to the canopy.

If we're already casting the net a bit wider, the -7 would also be very, very interesting since it ticks basically most of my boxes, would be possible to finish as a QB, and it seems now that the EU/EASA regulations may permit flying instructions in uncertified/permit to fly aircraft if certain conditions are met (tutee has to be owner, aircraft has to be on the books of the FTO, probably CAMO).

More options, more food for thought ...
 
Is you building the plane a requirement?

If not buying one flying or well built partially done kit may get you to the quickbuild or beyond portion at the same or less money.
 
Sebastian,

As your bio says, the cart is before the horse. You are dreaming and living in the future. It is not reality.

Perhaps focusing on today would be a better beginning.

Get serious about learning to fly, don't sweat the type of airplane, have at it to make sure "flying for real" as opposed to dreaming about it is your cup of tea. Chances are it is but investing in an RV before that comes to pass could screw it up.

What's the point of having an airplane you can't fly. A lot of money invested, no money for flight instruction, and the dreaming continues. That's where you are headed.
 
ty1295 said:
Is you building the plane a requirement?

If not buying one flying or well built partially done kit may get you to the quickbuild or beyond portion at the same or less money.
Click to expand...

I agree. Problem is that as far as I can see, the market for halfway finished kits or even a fully finished plane is a bit thin here in Europe (e.g. planecheck.com has two RV-3s, or a nice and interesting Swiss RV-4 straddling the border of my projected budget).
 
sdh said:
Good morning from the Netherlands,

as a longer-time lurker and prospective first-time builder I would like to dip into the forum's expertise regarding the choice of aircraft to build; more specifically, I think I've narrowed it down to either an RV-3 or RV-8.

Mission requirements / wish list:
  • cross-country touring in central Europe;
  • flying solo (not a requirement as such, but it's already hard to find people to go sailing with, and might be even more difficult with flying);
  • VFR due to the legal situation prohibiting amateur-built AC flying IFR;
  • pilot (200lb) + baggage for a fortnight's trip (~30lb);


    .
Click to expand...


  • Then you ask:

    "Can I operate the RV-3 with the proposed pilot+baggage weight, fill up the tanks, and still operate within suitable CG/weight limits?"

    The arithmetic fr that is fairly simple. Just go to the Van's site and get the data on the RV-3. Doing a little arithmetic might help you decide:

    You are 200 lbs, you say, and you want to carry 30lbs of baggage.

    According to the Van's web site, the gross weight of the -3 is 1100lbs.

    Empty weight with an electrical system is 750 lbs. That means your useful load is 350lbs.

    The RV-3 fuel capacity is 30 gallons of gas, and at 6 lbs a gallon is 180 lbs..... 350 - 180 = 170 lbs

    You are 200 lbs - that's 30 lbs over gross.

    Add another 30 lbs of baggage and you are 60 lbs over gross.

    If you are flying acro and have no baggage you are 30 lbs over gross but if you wear a chute (recommended) that's an additional 15 lbs over gross for a total of 45lbs over gross.

    You could fly acro with 22 gallons of gas instead of full tanks.

    Now you say you want to cross the alps. Will you need oxygen for that? if so that's more weight over gross.

    I briefly looked at the -3 when I started to decide what airplane to buy. It was attractive. But the weights just didn't work out for me.

    Same thing happened with an RV-4.

    So I ended up with an RV-8 and am very glad I did.
 
Sebastain-----I'm probably the least qualified of all the VAF members to answer your questions, but I think the RV8 checks off all of your boxes. Alot of guys fly their 8's solo, with the advantage of extra payload on the rear seat if necessary. I havent flown a 3, but have done some backset time in a 4 that was fabulous.
Paul and Louise fly their 3 cross county alot, and can give you realistic data, and well as their 8. I dont know of anyone else that owns BOTH planes, and can give you realtime data.
Economy 'might' be alittle better with a IO320 vs the IO360, but if you are fly cross country, I'd think the extra fuel capacity of the 8 would come into play. Again, Paul and Louise can help there.

Tom
 
Saville said:
I briefly looked at the -3 when I started to decide what airplane to buy. It was attractive. But the weights just didn't work out for me.

Same thing happened with an RV-4.

So I ended up with an RV-8 and am very glad I did.
Click to expand...

Yes, I looked in a similar way at the numbers. Also I think that 750lbs for an electric RV-3 seems optimistic; Randy Lervold's site mentions 820+lbs and increased MTOW to 1300lbs.

For the RV-4, the manufacturer's data would give me a conservative 500lbs of usable load which should enable full tanks, oxygen bottle for mountain flying, and trip baggage. But it's close to the limit as well.
 
David-aviator said:
Sebastian,

As your bio says, the cart is before the horse. You are dreaming and living in the future. It is not reality.

Perhaps focusing on today would be a better beginning.

Get serious about learning to fly, don't sweat the type of airplane, have at it to make sure "flying for real" as opposed to dreaming about it is your cup of tea. Chances are it is but investing in an RV before that comes to pass could screw it up.

What's the point of having an airplane you can't fly. A lot of money invested, no money for flight instruction, and the dreaming continues. That's where you are headed.
Click to expand...

David, thanks for the advice. I pondered these issues for some time now and from my point of view (but please interject if I'm just building castles in the sky) getting my PPL now would mean spending 10k without being able to make much use of it as the aeroclubs in my vicinity make it difficult to stay current and enjoy a bit of flying due to the rental conditions.

Starting the whole endeavour from the other end (building the plane first) would mean that with my budgeted amount as upfront cost, even adding the licence in a late stage of building would not add much more than 10%-15% of the plane budget. And if nothing goes terribly pear-shaped, I end up with a flying plane, my licence in hand, and no flying restrictions apart from the weather.
 
There is no doubt that both the -8 and the -3 are great airplanes, and I applaud you for thinking about diving in. But I did see you mention "budget" in one post.....which makes me think that the first thing you should do is to go and learn to fly, figure out how much you like it - and how much you spend doing that. And then when it comes to budgeting an RV, multiply the estimates by 1.5 just to give yourself some margin.

Yes, we have both airplanes, and they are both incredible machines. The -8 does everything well, and carries a lot a long way at good speed. It flies nice aerobatics - but once you have flown a -3, you realize that the -8 is just not as much fun.

The -3 probably provides the best all-around experince I have had in an airplane, and that is after 40+ years of flying in a huge variety of planes. It's my favorite, by far. I can hop in here in Nevada, fly three legs for a total of about 1500 miles, and be in Oshkosh in time for happy hour. Then I can fly aerobatics for as long as I want when I get there (well, before happy hour activities, of course....). But....we do pack carefully, and light. After years of experience, I can throw everything I need for a five day business trip in my backpack - and buy anything extra I need when I get there. 750 lbs is pretty optimistic for a traveling -3, especially if you need O2.

Finally, remember that the -3 is a single seat airplane. You will have to be confident enough in yor flying abilities that you have no qualms or questions about getting in it solo for your very first flight in the machine. That is a daunting prospect for many. So I circle back to "go learn to fly, then choose an RV" - you'll learn a lot about airplanes - and yourself - in the process.
 
Ironflight said:
The -3 probably provides the best all-around experince I have had in an airplane, and that is after 40+ years of flying in a huge variety of planes. It's my favorite, by far.
Click to expand...

This is PRECISELY why I covet the RV-3B so much, and why I plan to finish mine after the family truckster (RV-10) is completed. I have not only heard this sentiment from Paul Dye before, but also everyone else I have met who has ever flown the 3. I have some stick time in an RV-10, RV-7A and an RV-4. So far, the 4 is the most fun yet, and I've been told repeatedly that the 3 is even better than that! Vans himself told me it's the best of the bunch for pure flying enjoyment.

I agree with others that say, fly first and make sure you love it. However, once you've gotten beyond that, build or buy the plane YOU want. It might even be a certified bird, once you start vetting which plane meets your mission, although there certainly is a lot to like about experimentals. For me, the build has been part of the journey, and I don't regret it (most days). ;)
 
sdh said:
For the RV-4, the manufacturer's data would give me a conservative 500lbs of usable load which should enable full tanks, oxygen bottle for mountain flying, and trip baggage. But it's close to the limit as well.
Click to expand...

If you start with a 1000 empty weight airplane full tanks and a 200 lb pilot you get 108 lbs left over. 30 lbs baggage and that's 78.

If you go CS prop it'll be a little less than 78.

And all your XC will have to be solo unless you bring a very small person with you.

1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully.

Plus the build time for an RV-4 vs an RV-8 QB may be longer.
 
Last edited:
Lots of very good advice so far.

My own experience is indeed, that it's relatively easier to get people to go out for a day on the sailboat rather than my airplane, but on the other hand it's lots easier to get people to go on a trip in the plane. Also that the right number of seats to have in your only airplane is at least one more than the number of people in your immediate family. Two more is even better.

Many years ago I attempted to build an airplane while learning to fly. It was a great learning experience and the main thing I learned was - don't do that again. First learn to fly. Buy something available that you can afford and get a few years with it, and I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Then if you want a project, sure, go ahead and build a plane.

I'm building a slow-build RV-3B and have to say that it's time-consuming. You can read about it in my blog in the "Your RV Build" section. I do have a remarkably good multi-seat airplane which I can fly now and which I've used to take people on long trips. There's no way I'd be building a singe-seat plane if I didn't have that capability.

Dave
RV-3B, wings under construction
Cessna 180, flying


2zybj4j.jpg



2gxr2ic.jpg
 
For a first-time builder and first-time pilot, an 8 is a better choice. It's very difficult to build a bad RV7/8/9. It's remarkably easy to build a bad 3/4/6 if you don't have a fair amount of experience building airplanes.

Buying a 3 or a 4 isn't a terrible option if you can find one. In the US at least, they're relatively affordable. By all accounts the 3 is the better airplane for pure unadulterated aviation joy, but then you won't be able to do any transition training in your own airplane.
 
Ironflight said:
There is no doubt that both the -8 and the -3 are great airplanes, and I applaud you for thinking about diving in. But I did see you mention "budget" in one post.....which makes me think that the first thing you should do is to go and learn to fly, figure out how much you like it - and how much you spend doing that. And then when it comes to budgeting an RV, multiply the estimates by 1.5 just to give yourself some margin.
Click to expand...

Paul, many thanks for providing your input! Regarding budget I might have been misunderstood; I did not mean it in the sense that I have to see what I might make available each month/year for flying, I meant that I have an amount planned which could be used upfront.

Planning a safety margin for expenses is similar to boating, I assume. The first time I fixed some minor issues on a boat I was flabbergasted about the perceived "marine markup". Similar specialty markets.

Ironflight said:
Yes, we have both airplanes, and they are both incredible machines. The -8 does everything well, and carries a lot a long way at good speed. It flies nice aerobatics - but once you have flown a -3, you realize that the -8 is just not as much fun.

The -3 probably provides the best all-around experince I have had in an airplane, and that is after 40+ years of flying in a huge variety of planes. It's my favorite, by far. I can hop in here in Nevada, fly three legs for a total of about 1500 miles, and be in Oshkosh in time for happy hour. Then I can fly aerobatics for as long as I want when I get there (well, before happy hour activities, of course....). But....we do pack carefully, and light. After years of experience, I can throw everything I need for a five day business trip in my backpack - and buy anything extra I need when I get there. 750 lbs is pretty optimistic for a traveling -3, especially if you need O2.
Click to expand...

I take it that - leaving the issue of jumping into the building process as such without some flying time under my belt aside for this discussion item - the -8 would give me everything from my list, but will be topped handling-wise by the -3. But, the -8 leaves a more generous margin for packing sins, and if ordered as QB might be a bit less daunting as first-time undertaking.


Ironflight said:
Finally, remember that the -3 is a single seat airplane. You will have to be confident enough in yor flying abilities that you have no qualms or questions about getting in it solo for your very first flight in the machine. That is a daunting prospect for many. So I circle back to "go learn to fly, then choose an RV" - you'll learn a lot about airplanes - and yourself - in the process.
Click to expand...

I might have a thick skull, nonetheless the admonitions to get practice before diving in do get through!
 
I would go with an -8 for a first project if I could afford one, because it will be much easier to build, and more versatile with the back seat.

I am a first-time builder rebuilding an RV-3B, but I learned the basics of riveting and metalwork while working on pre-punched kits belonging to friends. (RV-10, RV-8, RV-12) The pre-punched kits go together much, much faster. Building a -3 is a good idea only if you really LOVE the process of crafting an airplane and are not that desperate to FLY soon. If you go with an -8, it's a two-place so you can learn to fly in it. (If your laws allow over there) There are several builders here on VAF who don't have a license yet but are building their own airplane with the intent of getting their license in it. Maybe they will chime in here.
 
My -4 was built by a guy who didn't have a pilot's license (had previously built/restored several cars). His instructor put him in the back seat, and when he could land the plane from the back seat with only rudder pedals (no brakes), they swapped places for the rest of his training.

Don't know if that will work (legally) in Europe. But training in your own plane will be a lot less expensive than renting, if you intend to own a plane after you get your license. If you decide you don't like flying after all, you will have had the building experience and you should be able to at least recover your investment in parts.

None of the above would be possible in a -3. And I'll bet that at least *some* of the time, you do have people willing to go sailing (flying) with you, right? Again, not possible in a -3. Given how expensive flying/gas is in Europe, it's hard to imagine being unable to find a willing passenger fairly often.

I would absolutely love to own a -3, but I can't justify such an expense as a 2nd airplane in my one-pilot family. :)

Charlie
 
You guys are looking at this all wrong. If you build a 2 seater then what leverage will you have to build a single seater down the road? If you build a single seater then your partner will almost force you to consider a two (or 4)seater later in life....at least that's been my experience. Start with a single seater then when finished admit your mistake and build/buy a 2 seater. :D
 
I was in your shoes few months ago. I could not decide on the plane I want to build and had zero experience flying. My plane choice was between RV 3B or RV12. Anyway, I am working on my license now and building is on hold. I decided that I have to find out if I really love flying so much that I am ready to spend 60-80K$ on building. So far I feel like I will enjoy RV3B more and I don't have enough flying experience to risk taking other people to fly with me. I can always rent plane when I have friends flying with me. I see myself flying 90 percent of time solo.
 
I'm building a -3B but I've never flown one. For that matter, I haven't even seen one. But I've flown an RV-12 and it was one of the sweetest-flying airplanes I've flown, and I've flown over 100 different kinds, including two other RVs.

The RV-12 was exceptional.

Too bad it's not a taildragger.

Dave
 
rph142 said:
If you build a single seater then your partner will almost force you to consider a two (or 4)seater later in life....at least that's been my experience. Start with a single seater then when finished admit your mistake and build/buy a 2 seater. :D
Click to expand...

Or she could want her own... :eek: :cool:
 
rph142 said:
You guys are looking at this all wrong. If you build a 2 seater then what leverage will you have to build a single seater down the road? If you build a single seater then your partner will almost force you to consider a two (or 4)seater later in life....at least that's been my experience. Start with a single seater then when finished admit your mistake and build/buy a 2 seater. :D
Click to expand...

So....what 2 seater are you working on Rob?! :D
 
2hours?

Sebastian,

Really,,,,, you have had two rides in a C172? Get 200 hours in a 172. then think about what your mission is. You might want something besides a RV.
 
Saville said:
If you start with a 1000 empty weight airplane full tanks and a 200 lb pilot you get 108 lbs left over. 30 lbs baggage and that's 78.

If you go CS prop it'll be a little less than 78.

And all your XC will have to be solo unless you bring a very small person with you.

1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully.

Plus the build time for an RV-4 vs an RV-8 QB may be longer.
Click to expand...

It can be done, mine came in at 995 no paint, O-360 and hartzell constant speed.

Bob burns
Rv-4 n82rb
 
rph142 said:
You guys are looking at this all wrong. If you build a 2 seater then what leverage will you have to build a single seater down the road? If you build a single seater then your partner will almost force you to consider a two (or 4)seater later in life....at least that's been my experience. Start with a single seater then when finished admit your mistake and build/buy a 2 seater. :D
Click to expand...

Good advice! That's exactly my plan too. :p

sdh said:
Big questions from my side at this stage:
  • Is an RV-3 (with QB wings) suitable for an (average) first-time builder?
Click to expand...

I can answer this question: In my experience, Absolutely.

I agree with others here, I'm also a first time builder currently building a -3B (with slow build wings) which I started 2 years ago when I was 20 and I've found it to be fairly straight forward... with a lot of time spent thinking ahead and making sure things are correct. The plans aren't perfect and sometimes you need to do something a little different to make it work but if you break it down into a sequence of smaller 'projects', it's very manageable.

The -8 appears to be an easier/faster kit if you plan to build, although I can't imagine the -3 being necessarily much more difficult than the -8. I haven't built anything else so I have nothing to compare it to.

My main issue has just been time, or lack of time to build due to my job. If you have the time to build either, you'll likely be happy with either choice. But make sure you do in fact have the time to build often. If it were possible, that would be the only thing I would change about mine. Unfortunately I still need to work. :eek:

In saying all that, my next build will probably be something similar to the RV-12, just so I can see what I've been missing out on with the ultra-fast assembly kits. They look like a world of difference to the older kits.
 
The 8 is a wonderful machine. I've put my wife in the back, 10 days worth of clothes for us both and all of my skydiving gear in it....and flew a 5000nm trip around the east coast and back to Denver. No issues, LOVE that plane.

But. I have this bus driver who posted above me that lets me fly both of his 3's and that rv3 is a ton of fun. If I ever ball up or sell my -8.....I'm building an RV3. 99% of the time I'm solo anyway....why burn the fuel, carry the weight and slow down my roll rate for a seat that is always empty? The -3 flies like a dream. Sit in all of them, fly in the ones you can get a ride in and build the one you dream about.
 
I guess I had two above average builders and pilots. One fellow built his RV4 in just over one year and within two months of that received his PPl while celebrating his 65th birthday. In the next ten years or so he completed -4s, HR?s and even a couple of sixes while enjoying his personnel -4. Of course I should mention he was a participant of the Greatest Generation.

Then another fellow built a -4 and I set him up with an instructor teaching in a Citabria. Shortly after completing his PPL and finishing his project he went into the test phase and after his first flight in the -4 he claimed it felt as though he?d flown it all his life, this from an aviator with just over 80 hours.

Different strokes for different folks and if you?re a sailor and bike rider you should have most of the physical and mental skills to be an excellent pilot. Find a tail dragger and instructor, C172?s will diminish that burning desire for three dimensional performance. Then work on both projects zeroed in like a laser.

?Failure is not an option?

Cheers, Hans
 
n82rb said:
It can be done, mine came in at 995 no paint, O-360 and hartzell constant speed.

Bob burns
Rv-4 n82rb
Click to expand...

Yes that's why I was very careful to specifically and clearly write:

"1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully."
 
I built a -4, and it took a looong time. I made my choice when only 3 models existed..-3,4,6 where it, and I got a ride in a -4. I was hooked. There wasn't yet an decent internet, forums or anything to helo, just VANS periodic flyer. At the time, almost all my flying was solo, but I wanted a second seat and loved the cowl cheek look of the -4. By the time I completed the plane (15 yrs.), I had meet a wonderful lady who took her first ride in my 46 Taylorcraft, and she was hooked. At 40.01 hrs on the Hobbs, and into phase 2 , the -4 had a passenger, and I seldom fly solo anymore..in fact that wonderful lady and I got married in the plane at 5280 feet over our airport last spring. 2 seats are must, although I would love to have a -3 someday just because I want one!
 
rv7charlie said:
My -4 was built by a guy who didn't have a pilot's license (had previously built/restored several cars). His instructor put him in the back seat, and when he could land the plane from the back seat with only rudder pedals (no brakes), they swapped places for the rest of his training.

Don't know if that will work (legally) in Europe. But training in your own plane will be a lot less expensive than renting, if you intend to own a plane after you get your license. If you decide you don't like flying after all, you will have had the building experience and you should be able to at least recover your investment in parts.

None of the above would be possible in a -3. And I'll bet that at least *some* of the time, you do have people willing to go sailing (flying) with you, right? Again, not possible in a -3. Given how expensive flying/gas is in Europe, it's hard to imagine being unable to find a willing passenger fairly often.

I would absolutely love to own a -3, but I can't justify such an expense as a 2nd airplane in my one-pilot family. :)

Charlie
Click to expand...

The EU regulations are changing (in a hopefully good way) at the moment, and at least the info I got for the UK is that as long as certain conditions are met, initial training in an uncertified/amateur-built airplane is/will be possible. If this will be possible in practice might be the question as it would mean for the flying school that they miss out on rental fees for their planes (which I assume makes up a substantial bit of their income).

But to be honest, I personally would not feel comfortable with tandem-seat instructions from the beginning as that would preclude visibility as back-seater and would also not enable me to see what my instructor does (with the -7, that would be a completely different story).

Regarding the possibility to take someone up with me: Perhaps it's a personal thing but I enjoyed most of my motorcycling *because* it was a solitary activity (and taking a girlfriend with me was never for day-trip, just for a hop down to the lake, or such). Flying a single-seater would - taking the useful load issue out of discussion - not limit my future flying in a substantial way, and for taking up someone, I can still rent something larger from the aeroclub.
 
Saville said:
If you start with a 1000 empty weight airplane full tanks and a 200 lb pilot you get 108 lbs left over. 30 lbs baggage and that's 78.

If you go CS prop it'll be a little less than 78.

And all your XC will have to be solo unless you bring a very small person with you.

1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully.

Plus the build time for an RV-4 vs an RV-8 QB may be longer.
Click to expand...

I thought MTOW for the -4 was specified at 1500lbs? So with my 200lbs + 32gal fully fueled (short of 200lbs if I'm not wrong) would give me about 100lbs of usable load if built at 1000lbs empty (which seems actually more the lower achievable limit). Building to 1100lbs empty weight would mean slightly overloaded conditions, but if it's OK to up MTOW for a -3 from 1100 to 1300 for non-acro purposes, going from 1500 to let's say 1550 would be relatively minor increase for the -4.
 
Jaypratt said:
Sebastian,

Really,,,,, you have had two rides in a C172? Get 200 hours in a 172. then think about what your mission is. You might want something besides a RV.
Click to expand...

Getting more flying hours before deciding has been at least one good result of my asking here for advice. The time in the C172 was as potential student, I've had additionally the chance to go a few times as rear-seat passenger with two colleagues who own a share in a Cirrus SR22.

It's a very, very limited hands-on experience, I concede, but I cannot really see myself going for a family-compatible four-seater since there's no use for that for me.

Six years ago I became 'more reasonable', ditched the motorcycle as commuter vehicle - and bought an older Lotus Elise which I since then ran as my daily driver, first in the Bavarian South/Munich, later after my relocation to the Netherlands up here in the windy, rainy low countries. It's a two-seater with very limited creature comfort, leaks when it rains - but with only 750kg curb weight it's very nicely powered by a 120hp engine and goes like nothing else if you have the road available.

So since flying a small GA plane in Europe makes utility-wise no sense, it's for me a toy to enjoy and tinker with - and for that, I aim more towards something light and nimble than useful and heavier, which sparked the initial interest in the -3.
 
sdh said:
I thought MTOW for the -4 was specified at 1500lbs?

It is


So with my 200lbs + 32gal fully fueled (short of 200lbs if I'm not wrong) would give me about 100lbs of usable load


It does. 108 is the number I came up with (32 gallons * 6 lbs/gallon)



if built at 1000lbs empty (which seems actually more the lower achievable limit).

Especially if you want a CS prop. That 1000 is more easily achieved with a wooden fixed pitch prop.

You also postulated 30lbs of baggage for XC trips. That leaves you with a 78 pound margin.

Unless of course you figure on taking the full 50lbs that Van's says you can put in the baggage compartment. Then the margin is 58lbs.....................



Building to 1100lbs empty weight would mean slightly overloaded conditions,



But now you want to add the same load to an 1100lb airplane???

And don't forget, that's all fine on a sea level standard day. High altitude airport and/or hot day? Now what?

This is another reason you might consider suspending your choice of airplane until you've taken the training and gotten a license. Then you'll have a better idea of how things work and what to consider.



but if it's OK to up MTOW for a -3 from 1100 to 1300 for non-acro purposes, going from 1500 to let's say 1550 would be relatively minor increase for the -4.

Your airplane; your life. You get to make the decisions. But for me, if Van tells me the limit is 1500 then I stick with 1500. I don't fly over published gross unless it's an extreme emergency. And I've never had that happen. But that's just me. I don't even allow myself to get close to gross in the Summer.

So here you are - a guy with no flight training already trying to figure out ways to bust the published gross weight limit of an airplane.

Click to expand...


I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, but at this point if someone asked me for advice, I'd say it's time to stop and take a deep breath.....and consider that you may not know what you don't know.
 
Last edited:
Saville said:
I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, but at this point if someone asked me for advice, I'd say it's time to stop and take a deep breath.....and consider that you may not know what you don't know.
Click to expand...

No worries, I'll gladly learn. But there's then still the discrepancy of the manufacturer's published numbers and what I read people end up with. For the RV-3 I've quickly found on http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Flying/flying.html an empty weight of 878 resp. 889 lbs, and his POH states an utility category MTOW of 1300 lbs (1050 lbs plus fuel for aerobatics); http://www.myrv3.com/Home.html states 845 lbs empty, 1250 lbs gross; and a French -3 states in the registration papers (http://monrv-3.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/CNRAex.pdf) utility max gross weight of 567 kg = 1250 lbs. So at least from these three fast lookups, it seems that 10% added MTOW from factory spec seems empirically acceptable for non-acrobatic purposes.

Applying that analogously to the RV-4 with its published MTOW of 1500 lbs, my initially argued increased MTOW of 1550 lbs with light luggage (using the specified full baggage capability would of course mean reduced fuel load) would have a much lesser impact relative to the original specified numbers than the above-mentioned figures for the -3.

I don't dispute that the factory numbers are there for a reason, and that deviation should be justified, but assuming that the -3 and -4 are designed for aerobatics using allowable load factors compliant with FAR 23.337 (+6g/-3g), and that a reasonable FAR 23.303-compliant safety factor of 1.5 has been used, and that a non-aerobatic utility-catefory use for cross-country-loaded flights is envisaged, an increase in *utility* MTOW for the -4 of less than 10% of specified *aerobatic* MTOW would not prima facie constitute a cavalier attitude towards risk.
 
sdh said:
No worries, I'll gladly learn. But there's then still the discrepancy of the manufacturer's published numbers and what I read people end up with. For the RV-3 I've quickly found on http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Flying/flying.html an empty weight of 878 resp. 889 lbs, and his POH states an utility category MTOW of 1300 lbs (1050 lbs plus fuel for aerobatics); http://www.myrv3.com/Home.html states 845 lbs empty, 1250 lbs gross; and a French -3 states in the registration papers (http://monrv-3.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/CNRAex.pdf) utility max gross weight of 567 kg = 1250 lbs. So at least from these three fast lookups, it seems that 10% added MTOW from factory spec seems empirically acceptable for non-acrobatic purposes.

Applying that analogously to the RV-4 with its published MTOW of 1500 lbs, my initially argued increased MTOW of 1550 lbs with light luggage (using the specified full baggage capability would of course mean reduced fuel load) would have a much lesser impact relative to the original specified numbers than the above-mentioned figures for the -3.

I don't dispute that the factory numbers are there for a reason, and that deviation should be justified, but assuming that the -3 and -4 are designed for aerobatics using allowable load factors compliant with FAR 23.337 (+6g/-3g), and that a reasonable FAR 23.303-compliant safety factor of 1.5 has been used, and that a non-aerobatic utility-catefory use for cross-country-loaded flights is envisaged, an increase in *utility* MTOW for the -4 of less than 10% of specified *aerobatic* MTOW would not prima facie constitute a cavalier attitude towards risk.
Click to expand...


Man has to do what he thinks is best.

I repeat:

"So here you are - a guy with no flight training already trying to figure out ways to bust the published gross weight limit of an airplane. "
 
Last edited:
Saville said:
Man has to do what he thinks is best.

I repeat:

"So here you are - a guy with no flight training already trying to figure out ways to bust the published gross weight limit of an airplane. "
Click to expand...

Well, while I surely did my best to paint myself during this thread into the 'newbie with no idea'-corner, this thread has now considerably drifted from the originally posed questions. While my ideas what to actually get and fly will be better put off after having gained flying experience, can we for the sake of the discussion as such concentrate on the issues that do not pertain to my lack of flying experience?

To recap, the comparison/choice would be between a -3B with QB wings, a -4, or a QB -8. In absolute terms the handling could be ranked -3, -4, then -8, with the -8 still much nicer than the planes I will experience during my PPL practical part.

  • The -3B at estimated empty/aerobatic zero fuel (see http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595) weights of 850/1050 lbs would leave me no usable load for baggage,
  • the -4 with estimated empty/gross weights of 1100/1500 lbs would also operate near published gross with full fuel and no baggage, which leaves from that perspective
  • the -8 with a gross of 1800 lbs. I'm guessing that an -8 with 1300 lbs empty should be possible, so that at least means full fuel, pilot, and substantial baggage is inside the published figures.

With the originally posted wish list/requirements in mind that would only leave the -8 on the table. On the other hand, it's actually a very good incentive to get rid of some flubber acquired over the last years and return to my weight from a few years ago (165 lbs), since that would make all three options viable with light baggage.

Cheers,
Sebastian
 
At least one RV-3B has been built with an empty weight below 750 pounds, complete with an IO-320 and an electrical system. I think there might have been one below 700 pounds, too.

Note that if you're going up for acro you might not need any baggage, and on a longer trip you won't necessarily be doing acro, and can live with a higher gross weight. According the RV-3 Registry, there are plenty of RV-3s flying with higher gross weights.

I've flown an RV-4 that had an empty weight below 1,000 pounds. I think it was around 960 or something like that, and the owner apologized for its high weight. It flew quite well and I enjoyed that flight. It has an O-320 and a fixed-pitch prop, and even though we fly from a field with an elevation of 5,050 feet, it did fine.

Dave
 
Gross wt. for the RV3B

I did spins at 1250 pounds gross wt. Then I did 3.9 G dives and pull-ups at the same 1250 pounds. That 1250 pounds included 25 pounds of rocks strapped into the baggage compartment. I did have a parachute on but not needed.
The old aerobatic gross weight was when the fuel tank was inside the fuselage and not in the wings...

sdh said:
Well, while I surely did my best to paint myself during this thread into the 'newbie with no idea'-corner, this thread has now considerably drifted from the originally posed questions. While my ideas what to actually get and fly will be better put off after having gained flying experience, can we for the sake of the discussion as such concentrate on the issues that do not pertain to my lack of flying experience?

To recap, the comparison/choice would be between a -3B with QB wings, a -4, or a QB -8. In absolute terms the handling could be ranked -3, -4, then -8, with the -8 still much nicer than the planes I will experience during my PPL practical part.

  • The -3B at estimated empty/aerobatic zero fuel (see http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595) weights of 850/1050 lbs would leave me no usable load for baggage,
  • the -4 with estimated empty/gross weights of 1100/1500 lbs would also operate near published gross with full fuel and no baggage, which leaves from that perspective
  • the -8 with a gross of 1800 lbs. I'm guessing that an -8 with 1300 lbs empty should be possible, so that at least means full fuel, pilot, and substantial baggage is inside the published figures.

With the originally posted wish list/requirements in mind that would only leave the -8 on the table. On the other hand, it's actually a very good incentive to get rid of some flubber acquired over the last years and return to my weight from a few years ago (165 lbs), since that would make all three options viable with light baggage.

Cheers,
Sebastian
Click to expand...
 
Ironflight said:
...but once you have flown a -3, you realize that the -8 is just not as much fun.
The -3 probably provides the best all-around experince I have had in an airplane...
Click to expand...
As one who has built and flown both I would echo Paul's comments exactly. I don't have nearly the flight experience he does, probably only flown a couple dozen aircraft types, but the -3B is in a class all by itself. Until you've spent some time in one, and I don't mean a quick hop but rather some time to get to know it, then I don't know how anyone can understand it.
 
randylervold said:
As one who has built and flown both I would echo Paul's comments exactly. I don't have nearly the flight experience he does, probably only flown a couple dozen aircraft types, but the -3B is in a class all by itself. Until you've spent some time in one, and I don't mean a quick hop but rather some time to get to know it, then I don't know how anyone can understand it.
Click to expand...

If only it did not take so long to build one....I'd do it. :)
 
I have experience in a fairly small number of RVs but have found that for handling delight, weight is everything. My metal fixed pitch prop RV-6 (1056 empty weight) handles very nicely but not nearly like a lighter wood prop RV-6A that I have flown. That was the best. Smokey talks about a wood prop RV-4 and I believe him that that would be sweet.

I think the current trend to heavy engines, props, interiors and such are missing out on a lot of the RV joy.
 
FYI, my -4 was painted, had a 160 hp IO320, Hartzell CS prop, lights, and a steam gauge panel. Weighed 1,034 lbs. Under 1,000 lbs would be very doable with an EFIS, lighter prop (either composite CS or FP), and polished (no paint) aluminum.
 
Final Note to Sebastian...

...do not be disheartened. There are lots of opinions from lots of guys and gals on this forum and all are well intentioned.

The bottom line of the discussion is this, if you build an RV (any RV) and learn to fly it you will love it.

It really doesn't matter - build first learn fly, learn to fly build later. These airplanes have similar flying characteristics and are a delight in the air.

At this point you are over thinking everything. That's ok. Most of us did it to one extreme or another. Just remember, the final product, whatever you choose will please you in the air.

Press on young man, life is lot shorter than you think. Do not let building or learning to fly slip by at this time, do it!!
 
SMO said:
FYI, my -4 was painted, had a 160 hp IO320, Hartzell CS prop, lights, and a steam gauge panel. Weighed 1,034 lbs. Under 1,000 lbs would be very doable with an EFIS, lighter prop (either composite CS or FP), and polished (no paint) aluminum.
Click to expand...

My -4 has paint, O-320, wood prop with 4" extension, vfr steam gauge panel, & had a big wet cell battery when weighed for initial A/W cert. Weighed 910 lbs.

Charlie
 
-3

Having had a -3 and then a -6, the -3 is hands down the best flying bird you will ever fly. You become an extension of the plane and together you become one. Well, maybe not one, but you get the picture. However, since there are no dual -3, training yourself to fly the thing is an experience, especially if you are the type to rely heavily on dual instruction. Thank goodness it flys so well.
Cj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top