With a constant speed prop you will get full, or nearly full, power at takeoff and early in the first segment of climb. With a fixed pitch prop, you most likely won?t - unless you have a fixed climb prop, which will negatively affect cruise speed. A fixed pitch prop is like driving your car with only one gear. Most of us chose a cruise type pitch if using a fixed pitch prop for speed reasons, at the expense of takeoff/climb performance. That isn?t as great of a penalty in an RV as it is with some airplanes, because RV?s still have excellent takeoff performance with fixed pitch props - just not as good as their constant speed brothers. My fixed pitch RV4 still gets airborne in well under 1000? and by the time I?m at the end of the runway on climb out, I?m out climbing my constant speed buddies. I?ve owned 5 RV?s. The 3 I built had constant speed props. The 2 I?ve bought, including my current RV4 have fixed props. Which is better? The constant speed is better for performance reasons. My fixed pitch RV4?s are/were better in terms of cost, weight, and simplicity. If you are routinely flying out of hot/high, or short airports, the constant speed RV will be significantly better. I?m a flat lander using mostly long (3000?+) runways, and my fixed pitch prop is not that much of a detriment, but it is a detriment. Formation takes a little more ?finesse? than my constant speed RV?s, but that is easily learned. All things being equal in your search (build quality, cosmetics, condition, instrument equipment) the constant speed RV?s are more valuable than their fixed pitch clone, both in terms of your overall performance, and in resale value. To me, build quality and condition trumps the constant speed/fixed pitch question, but that?s my opinion based on the type flying I do. Your requirements are probably different.