What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-3 Pre Punched Kit

David-aviator

Well Known Member
I've sent a message to Vans to consider a market survey to see if the investment in tooling to offer a pre punched kit would make sense.

If you are interested, do not hesitate to let them know.

I am presently a little bored, if there were such a kit I would go for it.
 
This has been hashed out before, and I think the number of -3 kits sold per year can be counted on two hands. So, no, Van's is not interested.
I think your answer is spelled "Panther".
 
Last edited:
This is message sent to Vans

Greetings,

I am David Domeier, long time supported of your aircraft. I've built and flown the RV-7A and RV-8.

I really like the RV-3. But at my age 77 do not have the time or inclination to scratch build it.

Have you considered or have you done a market survey to see if the investment in tooling for a pre punched RV-3 kit makes economic sense?

If not, would you consider doing it?

I am active on the VAF forum, and would stir things up on this matter. There are over 12,000 readers there. This place could be a valid sounding board on the subject.

Obviously the overwhelming market share has to go to at least 2 seats, but there are a significant number of pilots who fly solo 98% of the time. A personal "single seat fighter" might have sufficient appeal to warrant developing a pre pre punched kit.

Thank you.

David Domeier
Chesterfield MO

(flying RV-8 weekly, solo, and enjoying it)


I will check out the Panther, but lets see what the response from Vans is. Maybe they are presently out of ideas and on al new model. A lot would depend on a marketing strategy.

Most anything will sell with good marketing, look at the stupid Apple watch...people are actually buying the most useless thing every invented. :)
 
Pre punch RV3

Once you actually see Panther kit, you will forget you ever saw a -3 kit. I am in final stages (taxi testing) of RV 4, and have had privilege of helping on a panther kit, and it totally blew my mind compared to what I went thru on -4.In this day and age I cant picture anyone doing NON pre punched kit ,unless you just want work to keep you occupied...or are type that would scratch build for challenge...Tom
 
....In this day and age I cant picture anyone doing NON pre punched kit ,unless you just want work to keep you occupied...or are type that would scratch build for challenge...Tom

Gotta agree. I'm building my -3B for exactly that challenge.

However, this isn't exactly scratch-building. The parts are pre-formed and many of them mostly fit. There are plans and other builders have done it. It only feels like scratch-building, especially compared to a pre-punched QB kit.

Dave
RV-3B, now on the fuselage
 
For me, it's partially about brand loyalty and performance. I'm very interested in the RV-3B. If it was offered in a pre-punched version or a quick-build option with the fuselage included I would be a buyer.

As an alternative, I have read everything I can find on the SPA Panther (Kit Planes....). The Panther looks good and is seemingly easy to build, but does it perform as good or better than the RV-3B?

The RV-3B comes with VAF for only $25.00 per year. Hard to beat that!
 
Van's probably has the same problem with designing a Pre-Punched RV-3 as the auto companies do with designing large and small pickup trucks. The development costs are the same for both but the margins are much better on the larger pickup. That's why none of them build "small" trucks any more.

I would have to believe the effort to develop, build, and test a pre-punched RV-3 would be the same as what Van's went through with the RV-14. IIRC, the RV-14 took years from the time it was announced (and they had one prototype flying when they made the announcement) until the last kit was offered for sale.

The market for a single place plane, even a pre-punched RV-3, is probably about 50 tail kits a year, and that is being very generous! Van's being in business to make money would probably put that effort towards something that would sell 100+ tail kits a year.

Not to mention the cost of a pre-punched RV-3 kit would be close to that of the RV-14 so they can recoup their engineering and development costs. In the end, it just doesn't seem like the ROI would be there on the -3.
 
Much as I would like a pre-punched 3B kit...

...I don't see anything wrong with the current Vans model. 1) Less RV-3Bs built means that they are more coveted and hold a higher value, long term and 2) the Panther delivers a few benefits (quicker, easier build), but doesn't deliver on performance or cost, compared to the RV-3B. I think the way it is currently is perfect. Those who really desire a 3 (and who doesn't) are willing to work a little harder to get it, either building one or buying one. Vans is doing us all a great service by still offering the 3 and the 4 as options, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
David,

Most likely I'll be the only one you'll hear from that's built both an RV-3B and a Panther. With an O-320 in the Panther there won't be a nickel's worth of performance difference between the two airplanes. Because the Panther uses piano hinges for the ailerons, you might notice slightly higher stick forces when rolling at higher speeds. Cockpit is every bit as large as the RV-8. Seat and rudder pedal locations are adjusted during the build.

Tony
 
3B Pirep

Tony's observations are obviously credible since he has owned both planes. I was seriously considering a Panther for my next project because of the more enjoyable build conveniences AND you can fold the wings and take it home to work on it.
I have not found the 3B to be the fabled Ultimate Flying Machine as oft suggested. My friends -4 is much lighter in stick for rolls. This may be the -8 aileron bellcrank or my thin trailing edge ailerons. I am currently fabbing new ailerons.
Per Dan W, Panther Designer, the piano hinge ailerons will not be upgraded to Friese style for "RV type performance" due to some engineering limitations. That said, per Tony's input, the panther is probably a delightful ship. Also, Dan has commented that Lyc 0320 Panthers end up about 825 to 850lb with some W&B to be managed. My 3B with 0320 is 762lb. I conclude the Panther is heavier as result of the design build conveniences like folding wings, 4130 tube fuse frame etc. I concluded a 100Hp Panther at low 700lb was the sweetest config.
All that said, I just bought -4 so my input is sincerely unbiased!!!
 
Tony's observations are obviously credible since he has owned both planes. I was seriously considering a Panther for my next project because of the more enjoyable build conveniences AND you can fold the wings and take it home to work on it.
I have not found the 3B to be the fabled Ultimate Flying Machine as oft suggested. My friends -4 is much lighter in stick for rolls. This may be the -8 aileron bellcrank or my thin trailing edge ailerons. I am currently fabbing new ailerons.
Per Dan W, Panther Designer, the piano hinge ailerons will not be upgraded to Friese style for "RV type performance" due to some engineering limitations. That said, per Tony's input, the panther is probably a delightful ship. Also, Dan has commented that Lyc 0320 Panthers end up about 825 to 850lb with some W&B to be managed. My 3B with 0320 is 762lb. I conclude the Panther is heavier as result of the design build conveniences like folding wings, 4130 tube fuse frame etc. I concluded a 100Hp Panther at low 700lb was the sweetest config.
All that said, I just bought -4 so my input is sincerely unbiased!!!

It will be interesting to see what your new ailerons do Larry. I have flown most of the single seaters on today's market, and nothing is as light as our RV-3 in roll. Aileron trailing edges make a huge difference - I have flown one -8 that was so light in roll it was almost effortless - and that's a much heavier aircraft. It just had nicely formed ailerons.
 
I have flown one -8 that was so light in roll it was almost effortless - and that's a much heavier aircraft. It just had nicely formed ailerons.

In reality Paul, it probably had mis-formed trailing edges on the ailerons which can make the control forces lighter (and lower in effectiveness vs amount of displacement) than desired.
 
In reality Paul, it probably had mis-formed trailing edges on the ailerons which can make the control forces lighter (and lower in effectiveness vs amount of displacement) than desired.

You're right Scott - that's what I meant to imply, but I got distracted in the post.
 
Response from Gus at Vans on new RV-3 question

David,
Think of a 1960s Mini (the car, not the skirt, you old dog). Now look at the current “Mini” for the 21st century. Or the VW Beetle. Only the name remains.

The issue is not tooling, it’s thousands of hours redesigning/redrawing all the parts, and writing the assembly manual. 4-5 engineers/drafters/proto builders for who knows how long to make it to the standard of the RV-12/14 kits and plans. Plus, of course, a complete makeover to raise the gross weight to fit corn syrup fed pilots who want to install all the latest Autopilots, ADS-B, IFR devices, backup alternators, IO-390, CS props etc. Suddenly, you’re looking at a whole new airplane. For that development expense, it has to be a 2 seater to access a larger market, or any reasonable ROI would not be there. Now we’re cannibalizing the RV-8 sales…and unless you’ve got a neck like an owl the RV-8 is a single seat fighter once you’re strapped in.

The next RV has to be an amphibious, aerobatic, roadable, VTOL jet to errrr… shift the paradigm, revolutionize GA, “democratize personal flight” and provide employment opportunities for disruptive MBA buzzwords. And just as soon as we can find a sucker accredited investor to loan us a few million, we’ll get right to work on it.
Happy New Year! Enjoy your RV-8.

Gus Funnell
Van's Aircraft, Inc.
14401 Keil Rd NE
Aurora, Oregon 97002
503.678.6545


I shall continue to enjoy flying the RV-8 and stop RV-3 dreaming. As Gus says, once you strap on the 8 it is easy to imagine being in a single seat fighter.

My 8 is light on the ailerons, two finger operation. Is that undesirable? How does one measure "effectiveness" of an aileron? The rate of roll is very rapid.
 
Last edited:
My 8 is light on the ailerons, two finger operation. Is that undesirable? How does one measure "effectiveness" of an aileron? The rate of roll is very rapid.

My comment was based on Paul's comment of sounding like the particular 8 he was speaking of had ailerons even lighter than his RV-3 (though I may have misinterpreted that).
Two finger flight in an 8 is not necessarily undesirable, unless you are talking about two fingers to full stick deflection, that probably is.
It is very difficult to speak in specifics, without speaking in specifics (actual pounds of force, etc.). Just like your description of the rate of roll being very rapid. Most pilots with only Cessna/Piper experience at first introduction think that the RV-10 has a rapid roll rate. It does, compared to what they are used to flying, but it is not nearly as rapid as an RV-3. There in is the problem with text descriptions.........
 
I've sent a message to Vans to consider a market survey to see if the investment in tooling to offer a pre punched kit would make sense.

If you are interested, do not hesitate to let them know.

I am presently a little bored, if there were such a kit I would go for it.

What if they made a single seater that was a little bigger like... the size of an extra 300. Something that felt more "aircraft" and less "flying beer can"
 
Last edited:
My comment was based on Paul's comment of sounding like the particular 8 he was speaking of had ailerons even lighter than his RV-3 (though I may have misinterpreted that).
Two finger flight in an 8 is not necessarily undesirable, unless you are talking about two fingers to full stick deflection, that probably is.
It is very difficult to speak in specifics, without speaking in specifics (actual pounds of force, etc.). Just like your description of the rate of roll being very rapid. Most pilots with only Cessna/Piper experience at first introduction think that the RV-10 has a rapid roll rate. It does, compared to what they are used to flying, but it is not nearly as rapid as an RV-3. There in is the problem with text descriptions.........

Thanks.
I've had a ride in Bill Peyton's 10, it has good control response but not as quick as the 8.
No surprise, it is a larger airplane. The 3 and 4 are quicker than the 8, I am told.
In any event, I am very satisfied flying the RV-8.

And I have something to do in the near future, a friend needs help installing a 0540 in his emerging Moose, I can lend a hand. That will be interesting.

By end of January I will be walking the beach at Sanibel. :)
 
Why we build 3B's

From talking to most 3 builders and searching my own thoughts I am convinced that we take on the challenge of building a 3B because we love to build. I have enjoyed all of it. It is not the correct kit for a novice builder. I have restored cars, boats, airplanes and more. The 3 is diffiicult at best. Getting close



Bob Grigsby
J3-65 flying
2016 dues plus
 
My first RV build was an RV-3A started in 1987 and flew in 1992. The A designation, for those who don?t know, was to distinguish it from the original RV-3 which had a different rear spar attach design, not a nose wheel. I have often said that the kits back then were glorified materials packages. So much had to be fabricated from the raw stock included in the kit. All assemblies were jigged for alignment. Every dang hole had to be laid out. Every skin trimmed to size. The builder had to do allot. But it was the state of the art in homebuilt kits at the time and I was glad to have anything prefabbed at all. The instructions and plans, by today?s standards, were basic, but they were obviously sufficient to get the job done. You wanted to build an RV-3? This is what you had to go through. And I did it happily for 1,600 glorious man hours to get the best flying airplane I had/have ever flown. Yes, I said it. I have flown all of the RV models except the -4 as PIC and the 3 is still my favorite.
Last year I finished an RV-14A from a standard kit. Another 1,600 glorious man hours. Easier build. Better fit and finish. Took the same amount of time. There are fewer folks who want the challenge of building a 3 or 4 and it is a challenge. But the reward is there. Paul and Louise? What say you?
 
Mitchell, Van had the staff build an RV3 several years ago. It had no charging system, but did have an electric start only.....

What has happened to this RV3?
 
I have been pretty close to what has been going on at Van's Aircraft for about 20 years now. I don't recall the staff building an RV-3 ever. I could be wrong I suppose but I don't know why that would have been done. Couldn't be used as a demo aircraft so not sure what the point would be. I'll check when I get back in Monday and get back.
 
A thread resurrrection!

When we were building our -3, it was amusing to chat with the Van’s Tecj support folks. Ken Scott was always brutally honest....”No one here has ever built one, except Van, and that’s was so long ago, he doesn’t rememebr any of the details! So no - I can;t answer your question....”

Like Mitch, I think I’d have heard if the factory guys built one in the past decade, and nope - nothing.

Nice to know I still have Mitch beat by least one model number. Oh, and that reminds me that I need to check with Rian and see how the -5 restoration is coming.....
 
A thread resurrection on this topic, cool!

I'll weigh in here on building a -3B with a perspective that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you've built an RV before, as the original poster has based on his sig, then the lack of prepunching on the -3B isn't a big thing, especially if you do the QB wings. Here's why: the plane is so small that without the wings to do the remaining fuselage and empennage parts the builder needs to do are really a piece of cake if you know what you're doing. I actually found it enjoyable.

As Gus has so eloquently written above, and now with some experience in aircraft development (CubCrafters), developing a prepunch version of the -3 would never make any economic sense at all.
 
Last edited:
Economic Sense

Why does everything need to make sense. If I did only what made economic sense I would have been a plumber and certainly not had the experiences in my life that I did.

My -3 is a blast to fly. Every pilot should have one in their lifetime.
 
Why does everything need to make sense. If I did only what made economic sense I would have been a plumber and certainly not had the experiences in my life that I did.

My -3 is a blast to fly. Every pilot should have one in their lifetime.

I agree it doesn?t have to make sense for the consumer - but it sure does for the business! :rolleyes:
 
I asked Van if Van's Aircraft has ever built an RV-3. Apparently there was one back in the early 90's. It was never used for any purpose outside of the factory. It had a very short useful life and was disassembled never to fly again. So much for urban legends.
 
Back
Top