What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-3 Daydream: Matched-Hole Kit

T

the_other_dougreeves

Well Known Member
While on my walk SUnday morning today, my mind wandered (it does that) until I arrived at the question: What would it take for Van's to make a matched-hole kit for the RV-3? I wouldn't think hat matched-hole wing kits aren't important since a QB wing is available.

Is it an issue of money? Resources? Is it just a matter of X number of people committing to pay some extra $$ for a matched-hole kit?

Anyone talked to Van's about this?

Back to daydreaming,
TODR
 
I imagine all the CNC programming and debugging (building test articles) is a pretty expensive task. If they build the QB wings w/o matched hole, wow, that's got to be a headache.

I was wondering whether the new IO-233 would fit on a RV-3 engine mount. Might impact RV-12 sales if it got too easy.
 
A long time ago, some time between the Paleolithic era and the introduction of the RV-7, the same thing was asked about doing a matched hole RV-6. The -8 and -9 had come out with matched hole construction and us 6 guys were jealous. The answer we were told at the time was that it was just too much work to start with an existing design and work backwards to make it matched hole. Of course, they secretly had the RV-7 in development, so that answer could have been true or it could have been smoke screen.

In reality, I think the number of -3 kits being sold, even with the recent interest, would not justify the investment. However, for those wishing for a matched hole 3, keep in mind that it is possible to build non-matched-hole RVs. Takes a bit more work, but the evidence suggests that it can be done.
 
Dear Daydreamer,

As Jeff Point pointed out, even with the resurgence in RV-3 kit starts in recent years it just wouldn't be cost effective to design it all over again in CAD, which is what would be required. BTW, the wing skeletons already exist in CAD files, that was part of the B wing redesign.

Here's the important point for anyone contemplating building an RV-3 (even if they are just daydreaming): I really don't think having a matched hole kit would speed construction time all that much. Some to be sure, but as with all RVs the finish kit stuff is where most of the time and hassle is. The RV-3 airframe has a noticeably lower parts count and is physically much smaller than the other models meaning that there's just less stuff to assemble and fewer rivets.

If Van's were to modernize/improve the kit the things they could do that would be meaningful to builders would IMHO be...
  1. Update the plans and documentation so as to eliminate the errors and provide more complete information (I've offered all my notes and corrections to Van's, not interested)
  2. Incorporate many of the updates and mods I came up with for my plane and already documented on my web site including:
  • Redesign interior storage so as to reflect modern equipement and pilot needs including a center console
  • Include a proper throttle quadrant
  • Electric flaps
  • Electric elevator trim (the cable is to big and heavy for a plane this small)
  • Provide a proper roll bar (so that the builder doesn't have to weld one up from scratch)
  • Copy my canopy open/close strut rather than using the "string" called out in the plans
  • A bunch of other small stuff that I can't remember right now
I've already incorporated all of these things, but I had to do it the hard way. I'm sure Van's could engineer better solutions and them make them part of the kit. I've documented all this fairly well at www.rv3works.com.

All that said, I absolutely LOVE my RV-3. It has been flying for about 14 months now and just passed 160 hours. It runs beautifully, is incredibly efficient, and flies exactly how you imagine it would (I could write pages about that).

One builder's opinion,
 
Last edited:
The RV3 is a cool plane! Van's needs to look at this. A $500.00 purchase deposit for pre-punched RV3 tail and fuse is in order. It would take a good CAD engineer a month or two max to set up. This would not be hard to put together at all! Van's would be surprised at how many would sell. The old school layout is not in my world anymore. I will be the 1st $500.00 deposit.

Who's next? Come on... let's get the list going!
 
yup

I'm in. After a thorough memorizing of Randy Lervold's website, I've decided the -3 is for me. I'd buy a pre-punched kit. As it stands I'm trying to purchase an RV-3 as we speak. The only obstacle is my Yankee. I must either trade or sell this young lady to move up to the -3. I may keep her and simply build a -3 but this 10.5 hr each way drive per week is really taking it's toll on me. If I were Vans, I'd take another look at the -3. I'd add one of Dayton Murdock's throttle quadrants, do all the items Mr Lervold suggested, use a one piece tailwheel link instead of chains, and of course pre-punch the kit. I know it's not much to build a jig, however having the piece of mind that she will be built straight is a comfort. I'm reading through the preview plans as we speak... and if someone wants to make me an offer on my -7A tail kit, I'll be quite happy to take their money and send it directly to Vans for a -3 tail kit. The efficiency of the -3 is astounding. I already took the 3-D construction view of the -3 and blew it up to a 72 inch poster to hang in the room. I LOVE that drawing. When I build mine, I'll have a Gtx-327 xpdr, Garmin SL-30 Nav-Com, Dynon D-180 and a 496 with the autopilot, backup artificial horizon, backup altimeter and DG with battery backups for certain items. A custom roll bar will also be included. Come on folks! Join the darkside!!! (and get a free cookie) Lets get together and let Van's know what we want.
Best
Brian Wallis
 
Last edited:
I would be very interested in a simple and light 1 seater after finishing the 9A. I keep toying with the idea, but the thought of building all of the jigs turns me off a lot.

A matched-hole kit would be a no-brainer, and I'd definitely go for it.
 
I'm in for a pre-punch kit! I can attest to the -3 being a great little plane. Of all the planes I've flown the -3 is by far the best, most funnest, humbling, challenging, yet easy to fly (I hope that makes sense) as I have ever been in. Transition training is for whimps! :eek:


Randy Lervold has worked very hard to ensure the legacy of the little RV that started it all is documented and preserved for generations of RV aviators to come.
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/History/history.htm

Thanks Randy!
 
Last edited:
Cool we have a good start... and If Van's would ADVERTISE a pre-punched
RV3 kit they would sell the heck out of them. OSH would be a no brainer for sure.

-d-
 
srv said:
...I was wondering whether the new IO-233 would fit on a RV-3 engine mount. Might impact RV-12 sales if it got too easy.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, the IO-233 has the standard conical mount. Same size as the O-290 and O-320 mount, so that will be a no brainer.

It will not impact the RV-12 sales at all as it is way too fast to fit into the LSA category, even with this smaller engine.

Still, a light RV-3 would be a blast!
 
not gonna happen

The RV-3 kit is what it is. Rather than wish for it to be something it will never be, just be glad it's still on the market. If you want one bad enough, you'll build it. Persevere. Eat the elephant one bite at a time. If those of us that aren't rocket scientists can do it, so can you.

Tony

http://picasaweb.google.com/tonyboytoo
 
Tony Spicer said:
The RV-3 kit is what it is. Rather than wish for it to be something it will never be, just be glad it's still on the market. If you want one bad enough, you'll build it. Persevere. Eat the elephant one bite at a time. If those of us that aren't rocket scientists can do it, so can you.

Tony

http://picasaweb.google.com/tonyboytoo
Click to expand...

Actually... there is some consideration moving forward on this topic. Demand may produce a supply... :D
 
brianw said:
C'mon...don't leave us hanging...is Van really considering this type of kit???

Do tell,

Brian
Click to expand...

Brian,

Let's just say the idea is floating around Vans, and also... Vans is not the only company that can pre-punch an RV3 kit. That's all for now... :eek:
 
how about the RV-13?

Why go back and redo the -3. How about an all new single seat sport plane? Sort of like the -8 is to the -4. Perhaps size it up a little. Add a tad more shoulder room. Just a thought.
 
I suppose part of my thinking in making this post is what kind of motivation would be necessary to produce the kit? How much would Van's charge and what's the break even point for them? 100 kits at a premium of $500 each, which is $50,000? Is that enough?

On the builder side, what premium would you pay for a matched-hole kit? $500? It seems to eliminate a whole lot of work, no jigs, fewer mistakes, etc. As a first-time builder, matched-hole seems a lot more attractive, and I'd sure pay $500 for it.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I suppose part of my thinking in making this post is what kind of motivation would be necessary to produce the kit? How much would Van's charge and what's the break even point for them? 100 kits at a premium of $500 each, which is $50,000? Is that enough?

On the builder side, what premium would you pay for a matched-hole kit? $500? It seems to eliminate a whole lot of work, no jigs, fewer mistakes, etc. As a first-time builder, matched-hole seems a lot more attractive, and I'd sure pay $500 for it.

TODR
Click to expand...


TODR,

Ahh yes... you're on the right track... and THERE is profit in these kits for sure. :D
 
DeltaTango said:
Why go back and redo the -3. How about an all new single seat sport plane? Sort of like the -8 is to the -4. Perhaps size it up a little. Add a tad more shoulder room. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Another GREAT idea for Van's to consider... Van's are you out there...? :)
 
DeltaTango said:
Why go back and redo the -3. How about an all new single seat sport plane? Sort of like the -8 is to the -4. Perhaps size it up a little. Add a tad more shoulder room. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I guess you could "super size" the -3. No need to change the wings, is there? Just some changes to the fuse?

TODR
 
FWIW, tail kits for the -3 are $910 and the pre-punched -7/-9 are $1500. RV-3 fuse kit is $2750 and -7/9 is $5500.

The -7/-9 certainly have more metal and more parts.

TODR
 
INSTEAD OF A MATCHED HOLE KIT.

HOW ABOUT A pre punched kit that woukd have only one of the TWO parts laid out and punched. Van's could do this for a lot less expense, and it would save us a lot of layout time..........
 
There is prior history ------

Any of you guys remember why/how Vans got into the prepunched business in the first place???

Anybody remember the BAC wing kit for the 6???

This is something that a well equipped machine shop could produce pretty easily.

Buy the kit from Vans, have it drop shipped to the machine shop, punched parts are then sent to you.

If someone started doing this, Vans would surly take notice.
 
Their design folks should be just about done with the bits of the RV-12. Who knows... maybe they'll move on to this ;)
 
Mike S said:
Any of you guys remember why/how Vans got into the prepunched business in the first place???

Anybody remember the BAC wing kit for the 6???

This is something that a well equipped machine shop could produce pretty easily.

Buy the kit from Vans, have it drop shipped to the machine shop, punched parts are then sent to you.

If someone started doing this, Vans would surly take notice.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes... The Steve Barnard Days. I believe Rosie has a set of BAC wings. If my memory serves me correctly, they had RV3 QB parts...???? :eek:

From Rosie: YUP, excellent memory and I'm SO HAPPY I went the way of BAC!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LifeofReiley said:
Ahh yes... The Steve Barnard Days. I believe Rosie has a set of BAC wings. If my memory serves me correctly, they had RV3 QB parts...???? :eek:
Click to expand...

I dont know about 3 stuff, his main product was the 6. He also did stuff for Harmon, as I recall.
 
LifeofReiley said:
The RV3 is a cool plane! Van's needs to look at this. A $500.00 purchase deposit for pre-punched RV3 tail and fuse is in order. It would take a good CAD engineer a month or two max to set up. This would not be hard to put together at all!
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Think I read in an RVator a while back that it took three people a year of full time work to match hole the RV-8 fuselage. The lofting for the -3 bulkheads was done in the pre-cad days, and the fit suffers. New bulkheads mean new male dies for the hydroform press. Those don't come cheap. The prepunched (not matched hole) kits that I'm familiar with first cut the skin to final size, then punch/laser the holes, then form to shape. Since not one skin on the -3 is cut to final size, prepunching would be difficult. And punching after forming near impossible.

Tony
 
Tony Spicer said:
Not exactly. Think I read in an RVator a while back that it took three people a year of full time work to match hole the RV-8 fuselage.
Click to expand...
Ouch. That's about $250k in labor alone (have to figure in indirect costs, such as employer's FICA, health care, etc). No way Van's can recover that on the -3 unless we build another 250 -3s anytime soon (Mother Ship reports 257 completions to date) ... :(

TODR
 
Last edited:
HOTCAKES!

Sorry but I have to offer my 2 cents
I travel the states to 150 different airports twice a year for work and if I had a dollar every time I heard..IF VANS WOULD MATCH HOLE THE KIT I WOULD BUY ONE IN A HEART BEAT OR ME, MY BUDDY, MY BUDDY'S BUDDY AND HIS BUDDY WILL BUY ONE IF VANS MATCH DRILLED THE KIT!
I could sell the 3 kit like hotcakes?VAN?
 
leesafur said:
Sorry but I have to offer my 2 cents
I travel the states to 150 different airports twice a year for work and if I had a dollar every time I heard..IF VANS WOULD MATCH HOLE THE KIT I WOULD BUY ONE IN A HEART BEAT OR ME, MY BUDDY, MY BUDDY'S BUDDY AND HIS BUDDY WILL BUY ONE IF VANS MATCH DRILLED THE KIT!
I could sell the 3 kit like hotcakes?VAN?
Click to expand...

If you're so sure that you know more about RV-3 sales than Van's does, pay the $250k in engineering costs for the kit production, in return for a percentage of the MUCH higher kit price. You'll be our (poor) hero :D

Rusty
 
I like the 3 too. . .

I would like to build a -3 too. . . similar to the reasons Doug does. I like the -6 when I am traveling. It is a great all around airplane and when the wife or one of the kids goes, I'd rather have them "up front". So, having a single seater around too. . . fills that tandem desire, and it would be a kick for morning outings for breakfast or lunch. Economical too. I like to fly by myself sometimes, you don't have to make excuses in the -3

I sort of like the idea of a new and improved single seater. I have been looking at the -3 ever since LOE. My biggest problem. . . 210 lbs. I figure with a -320, modest avionics, me and a few overnight necessities. . . I'm out of the top of the loading graph, by as much as 50 to 100lbs.

Hmmm. . . now I am thinking. . . 4 emp, wings, with a new fuse that is wider, a bit taller, and fastback. . . I think I know what I want for Christmas.

Think. . . http://www.polenspecial.com/polen_special.htm but with fixed gear. . .
 
Last edited:
FLYPTV said:
I would like to build a -3 too. . .
<snip>
I sort of like the idea of a new and improved single seater. I have been looking at the -3 ever since LOE. My biggest problem. . . 210 lbs. I figure with a -320, modest avionics, me and a few overnight necessities. . . I'm out of the top of the loading graph, by as much as 50 to 100lbs.

Hmmm. . . now I am thinking. . . 4 emp, wings, with a new fuse that is wider, a bit taller, and fastback. . . I think I know what I want for Christmas.
Click to expand...
The debate of -3 vs -4 goes on in my head every so often. The -4 offers additional flexibility to haul stuff for a XC or a small to medium-sized pax. Visibility and economy are both very good, although both are better in the -3. Haven't flown a -3, so I can't comment on the difference in flying qualities, but I suspect they are similar.

I wind up thinking that the -4 is a more practical airplane, more produced models, more support. But there's something about the -3 that forces one into the mode of "simple is better" and "less is more" that is attractive.

TODR
 
My 2 cents...Having just finished about 90% of my RV-3B airframe, I can say a matched hole kit would be nice, but isnt really necessary. The RV-3 has much much fewer parts than all the other designs and can be purchased with a quickbuild wing. I have been working on mine for about 2 years and could easily be done in another 8-10 months....if I could magically find $30k for an engine, avionics, and paint. It really isn?t as hard to build as most people say. All the documentation online these days should really clear up the Vans gotchas that are scattered throughout plans. On the other hand, a match hole 3 could probably be finished in less than a year because there are so few parts.
 
FLYPTV said:
I have been looking at the -3 ever since LOE. My biggest problem. . . 210 lbs. I figure with a -320, modest avionics, me and a few overnight necessities. . . I'm out of the top of the loading graph, by as much as 50 to 100lbs.
Click to expand...

Only 210 lbs? You're a lightweight! Some of us spill more food than Lervold eats. Go here and scroll to the RV-3B's at the bottom:

http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Registry/registry.html

Gross weights range from 1100 to 1300 lbs.

Tony
 
rph142 said:
On the other hand, a match hole 3 could probably be finished in less than a year because there are so few parts.
Click to expand...
Exactly my reason for wanting a matched hole kit! Figuring out how to fabricate each little part, exactly how to allign this and that before match drilling and riveting ... as an engineer, I can appreciate the detail that goes into that. However, also as an engineer, I can see that we don't need to reinvent the wheel every time.

I guess a comparison is the difference between learning and grades. You can learn a ton in a class and get a poor grade; likewise, you can get a great grade and learn nothing. The trick is getting the balance right.

I could fabricate the whole airplane from nothing, alloy and roll my own aluminum, invent new tools, etc. I would learn a ton! However, I would suspect that it would take me a decade or probably more before I had something that looked like and airplane. The engineer in me might be happy, but the pilot would really be bummed out.

I don't want something that takes two weeks to build (as I joked on another thread, "Instant RV-8! Just add proseal and avgas!"), nor something that will take me past retirement age. Rather, I want to build enough to understand how it's designed, put together and works. How the systems are plumbed / wired and function. How to maintain the airplane and repair damage. You get the idea (hopefully).

TODR
 
fl-mike said:
I'd rather build a matched-hole 3 than a 12. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
I agree, for more reasons than one. If you want a LSA, you can buy one. You can't really buy anything like the RV-3. I guess you could get an Extra 300, but that's very different in terms of cost, capability and operating costs.

TODR
 
rv3 predtilled kit

I'm simple minded and posted.similar under video for a friend" let's get young people flying". Anyone want to donate a perfectly good rv3 air frame that is well constructed we'll send it to a trusted 3 enthusiast deconstruct it send to more enthusiaste everyone do sections and achieve what is spoken of
 
bisquit said:
I'm simple minded and posted.similar under video for a friend" let's get young people flying". Anyone want to donate a perfectly good rv3 air frame that is well constructed we'll send it to a trusted 3 enthusiast deconstruct it send to more enthusiaste everyone do sections and achieve what is spoken of
Click to expand...

Say What? :confused:
 
He is suggesting that someone with a well built example of a -3 let it be carefully deconstructed so that all of the drilled and cut pieces could be duplicated at some point either by hand or computer... I think....
 
Yes somepeople not one if we want it work as a group to achieve it. Send it to trusted people make sure their on same page. Make pragramming to work with same software.
 
The RV3 is a good honest project for anyone that has built an RV...... A better instruction manual and maybe some formed metal trued up by the factory and a construction video would place this airplane in the hands of many first time builders that would be very proud when their project is finished.

Please don't pre-punch the three................
 
gasman said:
The RV3 is a good honest project for anyone that has built an RV...... A better instruction manual and maybe some formed metal trued up by the factory and a construction video would place this airplane in the hands of many first time builders that would be very proud when their project is finished.

Please don't pre-punch the three................
Click to expand...

Heck, it's perfectly adequate as-is for a first-time builder. It's just going to take a little bit longer than a different kit might.

If you're interested in the RV-3B kit, don't fear it. It's fine. And it's a very enjoyable kit to build, too.

Dave
RV-3B, now on wings
 
It can't be that hard to build one. You might have to invest in a long metal ruler for laying out the rivet spacing - one that you drill holes in the usual spacings found on the plans so you save some time. Wait - that's how I built my RV-4 back before VAN's could afford a CNC punch press....
 
Interesting to see how this thread has been resurrected and taken on a new life. I am surprised to see the anxiety over / animosity towards a punched-hole RV-3 kit. I'm certainly a traditionalist in some ways but I don't try and deny technological progress. For example, I choose to fly behind steam gauges, but I don't advocate against glass panels. I also shift my car for myself (never owned an automatic), but I have to admit the new dual-clutch gearboxes are pretty cool, and my next car might have one, not because I've gotten lazy, but because it might actually be better at shifting quicker than me yet still letting me decide when to shift.

One of my thoughts has always been that a matched-hole kit would produce a better flying, longer lifespan airplane in less time. Some experienced builders have supported this idea, some have suggested otherwise for the -3.

But in the end, what's wrong with a matched-hole kit? Does it invalidate the work you did on your airplane? Should everyone have to build it the same way? I totally get that if you have to fab parts, drill every hole, drive and buck every rivet, you learn more about the airplane, but the same could be said if you designed the wing or smelted and alloyed the aluminum yourself (its really not that hard once you know how, I've seen Russians without high school educations do it - smelt and alloy aluminum, not design wings). If you get the satisfaction from doing all of the fab work yourself, then do it. I appreciate it in RVs and hot rods, the execution of the details, but that's not my idiom - I want a well-built airplane that I understand and is good enough, and I won't feel like I'm missing out if I don't jig the wing myself. (Our Rods aren't showcars - they're meant to be driven. Daily.)

Isn't there room for more than one viewpoint? Aren't things allowed to evolve? That's what I see the matched hole -3 as, an evolution of a kit from Van's. I also see the -12 and -14s more integrated production "system" as an evolution as well. Can the -3 evolve, or is it doomed to stand still and potentially perish?

TODR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top