What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Newbie pilot looking to buy first plane - RV-3 vs Varieze

Brundlefly

I'm New Here
Hi,
I'm a low-time pilot, around 120 hours, looking to buy a plane in the $15k range. my mission goals are:

1st priority - stable safe handling - something that is safe for a lowbie.
Xcountry cruise efficiency
performance - cruise speed
comfortable - I'm 6'1 so don't want to be flying for hours cramped.
2-place not necessary. I would like to go on and get my commercial at some point but will probably need to fly my dual hours in instructors plane anyway, not likely to find an instructor who is willing to fly in a varieze or dragonfly.

There are a few planes that have come up for sale that are in my price range that I like.

RV-3
Varieze
Dragonfly

I'm leaning toward the Varieze, second choice is RV-3. The RV-3 is in the 10k price range, the varieze is 15k. I've noticed that RV-4's go for 40k, which seems like a big difference from the RV-3. Is there something about the RV-3 that makes it a lesser plane than the 4 besides the single seat part?

Given my goals what would be the recommendations for the best plane to buy?

Thanks.
 
Welcome to VAF!

Charles, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

I doubt you are going to find a well built and flying aircraft at the prices you mentioned---------or are you talking kit price??

You list NorCal as your location-------have you considered joining the Sac RVators?? http://sacrvators.com/
 
Last edited:
Welcome aboard!

"The RV-3 is in the 10k price range" is not true. Your info source is not accurate. The least expensive RV-3 I've seen is in the twenties. Most are thirties and up.

The RVs are the best overall value in aircraft I know of. However, I doubt you will find any in your price range. There are reasons for that. You get what you pay for generally!

Hope you find what you are looking for.
 
I will try to help. My experience is in being a large part of a crew that built a Long ez. While I am huge Rutan fan, there are some things you should think about. First, due to the glass layup way of building a veri or long, there is no real way to understand the quality of the buld. The outside glass might look great, but that does not insure the interior is built per plans. Rutan designs are sensitive to uv rays, I would not even look at one that was not white and had not been hangared it's whole life. You would be hard pressed to find a veri that was competed less than 30 years ago. There have been incidents in veri's involving the detioration of the method of attachment of the main wing spar to the center section spar. Veri's or long's are made for long flat pieces of asphalt. I loved building one, but I would not buy a long or veri that was not built by a guy with the last name other than Rutan or Melville.

I know nothing of an rv3, but any rv is more easily inspected to determine condition, and much easier to fix if you find a problem. I know there is at least one other person on here with Rutan experience, and maybe he will have an opinion, if 15 k is your budget, buy a tri pacer, and then build a long ez or an rv. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
-4's just cost more because they are more airplane. They will carry roughly twice as much, so they have to be big and heavy enough to do it. Some aero engineer once said that we buy planes by the pound. :) Something a bit harder to explain is that a -6 costs quite a bit more than a -4. That's probably just market forces.

The only question about the -3 would be whether it's had the wing upgraded; the original wing is basically a 'no acro' wing. Some say that the -3 is the best flying plane ever built (I fly a -4; it might be the 2nd best). Oh yeah, there is the matter of tailwheel experience. The tailwheel RV's are pretty tame as TW planes go, but you do need training and experience to fly any tailwheel a/c solo.

I looked at VE's when I first started flying. What stopped me was landing speed/surface capability and the inability to know how well they are constructed, if you don't do the work yourself or know the builder. With metal a/c, you can look inside & get a pretty good idea of whether the builder was competent. The VE will never be a grass field a/c due to long runway requirements, and the very light weight nose gear/very small tires just not working on grass. I wouldn't be able to base one where I live, or visit a lot of the strips I enjoy. (Velocities can handle some of the longer grass strips, but they're almost an order of magnitude more expensive.)

Dragonfly has the same inspection and runway issues as the VE. I actually owned one when I was a student, but never got to fly in it. It had the original canard-tip gear, and had had the canard broken twice before I bought it, and again by the guy test flying it for me after I reassembled it. When we looked into the crack in the canard, we could see where the previous owner had used 'Great Stuff' insulation foam (*not* the best choice for structural foam) to fill the crushed areas from the previous break. In addition, it likely has a converted VW engine. Not necessarily terrible, but much more finicky and sensitive than a lyc or continental.

Auto fuel will be problematic with almost any fiberglass plane, unless you can be sure you're getting E-free gas. Ethanol attacks most of the epoxies that are commonly used to build the gas tanks, and the foam used in a lot of solid core wings. Most newer aluminum tanks will have sealant that is ethanol proof (might not apply to some built more than 10-15 year ago).

There are lots of instructors willing to fly in experimentals, but it depends on where you live and who you know, I suppose. A second seat might be more useful than you think.

If you can expand your price envelope just a bit and can handle taildraggers, you might want to look at Thorp T-18's and Bushby Mustang II's. They both can have handling qualities and speed capabilities that approach RV performance for significantly less money, but most are scratch-built so quality can be anything from better than RV to pretty bad. If you start looking at them, join their user groups & find a builder/flyer of the type that's willing to look at a potential purchase with you, and help you with asking the right questions.

FWIW,

Charlie
 
Thanks,

There is a RV-3 listing on Barnstormers right now for $9k (I probably should not tell you guys that, if it's a deal someone will snatch it out from under me) :) I have a call into the guy right now, the ad does not list much detail but it does list about 250 TTAF so it was at least flying. Maybe I'm being naive on the 15k for an rv-3 but in the past I have seen at least 2 that where flying and in that price range.

Thanks for all the detailed info. Yes, the build quality of the ez was a concern. I would prefer to build one myself if it did not take so much time. In addition to those planes I've been looking at the Sonerai. Even though it's a scratch built would the tube and rag construction be easier to verify the quality? Any input on the plane itself in terms of safety and performance?

I'll check out those other planes you guys mentioned.
Thanks.
 
There is a RV-3 listing on Barnstormers right now for $9k

Looks like it's a "3" meaning the old wing spar, without the mods that Vans calls for to bring it back to aerobatic status. This might not be a big deal if you don't plan to do any yanking/banking. Also, the engine is a lower powered one than what most install in their 3s, but maybe that's also not a big deal to you. Perhaps the seller has a well-built, well-maintained airframe, with a sparse panel, fixed pitch prop, header tank fuel, basic interior, etc. that just doesn't appeal to buyers.. Maybe.. But you might want to get an opinion from someone who knows what they're looking at before you buy. There are steals out there. The question is, "Who's getting robbed?"
 
Last edited:
if 15 k is your budget, buy a tri pacer, and then build a long ez or an rv. Good luck.

Based on my experience of having owned a number of different aircraft, certified and experimental, I have to agree. You have a decent chance of finding a safe and reliable certified aircraft for 15K. The Cessna 140 comes to mind, as does the 150. I think the odds are worse with experimental aircraft in this price range. The purchase and operation of any aircraft involves financial risk, but at the low end of the market, the financial risk is lower with a certified bird than with an experimental aircraft. IMHO :)
 
Last edited:
RV3

The RV3 is small inside, 24" wide. I'm 5' 10" and fit fine but I can not stretch out my legs all the way. Also going on long trips cross country you need to have your maps folded so that you don't have try to unpack and repack a map in flight, I did do this on my last flight to Colorado but I had to flip one of the maps which meant that it had to be completely unfolded and refolded. I had to hold the control stick between my knees and keep peeking outside to make sure I was not diving to the ground! Also the whole time I was refolding the map I could not see the dash... It was fun however, I enjoyed the struggle..
The RV3 is very maneuverable and fun to fly but learning to land can be quite the experience until you get the hang of it. All the aircraft I have flown prior to this had long wings 35' or so when I came in for my first landing with the RV3 I was shocked by how much form drag the short wings have at slow speeds and the steep angle of glide.
It does glide though, twice I had to glide back to the ground without engine power, "Experimental Engine". I worked the bugs out of my engine and have been boring holes in the sky, but I have to say a Lycoming engine would have been much better and easier to put in.
I have never flown the other aircraft you mentioned so I can not compare anything to it.
I'll have to agree with the others that I doubt you will find a RV3 for less than 20k.. I spent 35k just to get mine in the air and I don't have anything fancy in the dash, just steam gauges.
 
Based on my experience of having owned a number of different aircraft, certified and experimental, I have to agree. You have a decent chance of finding a safe and reliable certified aircraft for 15K. The Cessna 140 comes to mind, as does the 150. I think the odds are worse with experimental aircraft in this price range. The purchase and operation of any aircraft involves financial risk, but at the low end of the market, the financial risk is lower with a certified bird than with an experimental aircraft. IMHO :)

You can find a decent Grumman AA1-A or B in that range.
 
Having built 3 LongEZ's I'm pretty close to the Canard community, but haven't seen a $15K Varieze that I'd care to fly in.
 
Price

10-15k is a totally unrealistic expectation. You will be purchasing a piece of junk that will be a money pit.
An older factory aircraft is a much better choice for a low cost first airplane. If you want an airplane that will be relatively trouble free you need to spend at least 25K
If you buy a Cessna 140 or Luscombe for 15k you will very likely spend 10k or more on maintenance the first year.
 
EZ handling on landing...

My experience, echoed by another high time, multi-type pilot is that canards land differently from othe airplanes. Expect a learning curve. Don't make ANY assumptions about a homebuilt - quality, handling, safety, ventilation, etc. Check it out. And if you choose to join the homebuilt world, make sure that you understand lots about all aspects. And make sure your BS detector is on high sensitivity.

For example, I've bought four already flying homebuilts, two with very well hidden but serious structural problems...

Do you have a mentor? I had several and spent years observing before I bought my first.

Pay your dues, and good luck.

Ed
 
Don't make ANY assumptions about a homebuilt - quality, handling, safety, ventilation, etc.
Ed

Ed brings out a good point, that I would like to elaborate on.

Both the DragonFly, and the EZE series are pretty much all scratch built. There is a lot of areas where the builder can mess things up structurally.

The early RVs were kits, that were mostly preformed and you had to jig assemble them and drill all the rivet holes in the correct location, then rivet the final product. The later RVs are now prepunched and so the rivet holes are in the correct locations therefore they are very hard to get too far off from the structural aspect. Systems are another issue, but they are documented pretty well so the builder does have some guidance.

Just a little food for thought.
 
Last edited:
There are clubs where the members share one or more airplanes. Or perhaps a partnership would be appropriate.

One thing with bottom-dollar aircraft is that the maintenance will probably include some unanticipated costs.

Some ultralight aircraft are reasonably reliable and available for that much money. Low performance but lots of fun. Don't overlook the fun.

Good luck!

Dave
 
I was a partner for several years in a Bonanza. Shared ownership can be GREAT with the right co-owner. A good flying club can work as well. Having a single seater for your first plane will rule out a lot of the fun! I would say partner with someone or buy into an RV.
 
Lots of negative info here but it might save your life and also be true. Just so happeneds that I bought a Varieze a month after I got my private for 12,500 and put 100 hours on it, and sold it to buy a half share in an rv6a.

Are they hard to inspect? Yes. Do they have their drawbacks and issues ? Yes. Do you get what you pay for ? Sort of. I took mine apart and absorbed everything I could and got help along the way. If you get help from some really good people and buy something that is flying regularly with plenty of hours these are good signs. There were a lot of really cool things about the Varieze I'll never forget. Some scary things too.

It's not really a two seater. My home base had 9k runway which was nice. It cut the turbulence like butter because of the wing loading and sweep. Just be careful and get good help. Cheap planes are what they are but if you'll do the due diligence you can get it cheap and safe. Sorry I wasnt going to buy a 152. Good luck!
 
Thanks. I looked at a couple other rv3's online and they were around 30k so I guess I was confused about their price, not sure what that one on barnstormers is about, it could have been wrecked.

I have all my time in a 150 and piper cherokee, and they are great planes to learn in (which I still have much more to do) but they are pretty darn boring. I was hoping to get something a little bit more fun. Maybe I need to save up a bit more. An ultralight sounds interesting, but wonder if that allows me to build time and experience.

There are some homebuilts in my price range like the KR-2, Sonerai, Dragonfly, Varieze, but as has been advised getting a good one can be difficult, I understand.

Looks like I'll either have to find a partnership in an RV or wait a bit down the road when I can afford one.

Thanks again.
 
You can find a decent Grumman AA1-A or B in that range.

I was going to suggest this also. I have seen a few AA1,s for sale for the 15-17k range

I always liked the grum. My old CFI had one. Cheap to fly and relatively fast for what it is.

Just don't spin the AA1. Lots of documented incidents with the plane being unrecoverable. They fixed that with the later models, AA5, Traveler, Cheta and Tiger.

Goodluck in your search. Keep your eyes wide open, stay safe and try to have some fun along the way

:D
 
I wouldn't discount the Sonerai in your price range. I've owned one, built one.
Great flying airplanes, sporty, cheap on gas and just plain fun.

What the guys told you about knowing what you're getting into holds just as true with the Sonerai. There are bad ones, good ones and very good ones.

Remember that you're on a Vans forum...these guys are a bit biased, and rightly so! But they've given you good advice to apply to whatever you look at.
 
I would like to suggest to you to keep getting more information on all the Experimentals available for sale , join EAA , search out forums on the models that interest you most and do exactly what you did here , Ask Questions about them . Then when you go to buy , Hire someone who knows that particular aircraft to do a Good PreBuy inspection . It will save you money and problems in the end . Good Luck to you ! :)
 
Where are you located in northern CA? My RV-3 is based out of KCCR in concord CA if you want to take a look at it. For $15K your best bet would be a 1/3 - 1/4 share in something.
 
I wouldn't discount the Sonerai in your price range. I've owned one, built one.
Great flying airplanes, sporty, cheap on gas and just plain fun.

Yeah, I keep coming back to the Sonerai, it is hard to beat it for bang for the buck aspect. It seems kind of like a poor mans RV4. But is it a good plane for a low-time pilot in terms of safety? For that matter is the RV4 safe for a low-time pilot. I would really love to have the RV4, I'll have to either save up for that or look at a partnership.

Perhaps the way to go is by a Sonerai complete, and start building the RV4. I can kind of pay-as-you-go on the RV4.
 
Where are you located in northern CA? My RV-3 is based out of KCCR in concord CA if you want to take a look at it. For $15K your best bet would be a 1/3 - 1/4 share in something.
Hi, I'm north of you in Lakeport K1O2. Thanks for the offer, when I can get down that way maybe I can private message you to see if you will be around to show it.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Hi, I'm north of you in Lakeport K1O2.

We are flying to Willows for brunch tomorrow---arriving around 11---I can show you an RV 10.

I know you are not looking at a 10, but it may give you ideas as to how these things are put together.

Might get some other RVs to join the festivities even????
 
"Safe" airplane

There will be lots of discussion as to the relative significance of these elements, but here are some elements in homebuilt safety:
- go / nogo decision making, based upon absolutely all factors
- stick and rudder skills at the moment of flight. Lots go into this.
- handling qualities of this individual airplane
- airworthiness of the airframe, engine, fuel system, electricals, etc

You dont have FAR23 to protect you so you have to manage that extra risk - you and your support team. On a per flight hour basis, I figure homebuilts are six times as dangerous as spam cans. It can be worth it...

Ed
 
There will be lots of discussion as to the relative significance of these elements, but here are some elements in homebuilt safety:
- go / nogo decision making, based upon absolutely all factors
- stick and rudder skills at the moment of flight. Lots go into this.
- handling qualities of this individual airplane
- airworthiness of the airframe, engine, fuel system, electricals, etc

You dont have FAR23 to protect you so you have to manage that extra risk - you and your support team. On a per flight hour basis, I figure homebuilts are six times as dangerous as spam cans. It can be worth it...

Ed

six times as dangerous? I would be interested to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Did you base this off of some statistical data that you could provide us?
 
Stats

Ron Wanttaja has done the best statistical analysis there is on homebuilt safety. Note that I did not say good, for the quality of the raw data is poor. I don't recall how I came to my personal conclusions, but on an airplane-year basis, homebuilts are about 15% worse. Per flight hour, six times.

This is really no surprise - for all the money spent on certification etc, you'd expect a considerable improvement in safety, like, say, six times...
 
Safety

There is no accurate data regarding EAB accident rate that can be used to calculate EAB safety vs certificated aircraft.
One of the many problems is that until very recently ALL Experimental aircraft accidents were lumped together.
One glaring example of this, IIRC a 2011 fatal. Republic Seabee, originally powered by a Franklin engine. Aircraft was re engined with a Chevy derived V8 engine. Aircraft was illegally recertified as EAB. This accident was part of the years total EAB fatals that the NTSB had a hissy fit about.
As I have posted before, I split the 2011 EAB fatal accidents into two categories, high performance and low performance based on the approximate cruising speed of the first V tail Bonanza's. ALL high performance EAB accidents that year were loss of control. At least a couple of high performance fatals involved alcohol or drug use.
Lets take a couple of examples: a ratty old Piper Tri Pacer, built in the mid fifties. These airplanes frequently have SERIOUS rust problems in the welded steel structure. Compare this to a pristine RV--. Would any sane person suggest that the RV is not ten or more times safer than the Tri Pacer.
Now consider the low performance. There are relatively new design EAB aircraft that appear to have an abnormally high accident rate. There are the very old EAB aircraft such as the Baby Ace and Pietenpol. Many of these are fine safe aircraft. A few are unairworthy junk waiting for a time and place to kill someone. I believe that a significant number of these have not had a condition inspection for years.
So the bottom line is that NO ONE has a clue what the true EAB accident rate is compared to factory aircraft.
I have been flying EAB aircraft for over 50 years. I have had one fender bender due to a control system failure, but I have never hurt myself in an EAB aircraft.
 
I've been flying EAB for 34 years. I have many friends who also fly, most of them certified single engine. In the 40 years I've been flying I've lost 8 close personal friends in fatal EAB accidents; none in certified aircraft.

Certainly not statistically valid, but empirical observations frame my opinion that flying an EAB is more dangerous than flying a certified plane. This thread has drifted off topic, but my experience is the rougher & less expensive any given EAB in a specie the more likely it can & will bite.
 
Last edited:
We are flying to Willows for brunch tomorrow---arriving around 11---I can show you an RV 10.

I know you are not looking at a 10, but it may give you ideas as to how these things are put together.

Might get some other RVs to join the festivities even????
thanks for the offer, but I won't be able to make it to Willows tomorrow.
 
We are flying to Willows for brunch tomorrow---arriving around 11---I can show you an RV 10.

I know you are not looking at a 10, but it may give you ideas as to how these things are put together.

Might get some other RVs to join the festivities even????

It's on our calendar, unless the weather takes a weird turn.
 
I have to agree about finding a good deal on a Gruman AA1A. I had to sell my Cessna Cardinal when I put my wife through school, used the equity to buy the Gruman and had a blast flying it. I even flew it to Van's RV homecoming. I knew what I wanted and would have to wait. It is in a picture in the RVator... Funny thing is I also had a Lake Amphibian, flew it to Van's homecoming also, it is also in a picture in the RVator:)

I called my Gruman a "poor mans RV6". They handle similar to an RV, very easy to over control if you have been flying Cessna types. You have to be very careful with the AA1A on shorter strips, hot days, etc. They do not go uphill very well, but they can stall and spin pretty good!

Good luck in your search for a good deal, lots of good advice above that was learned from many years of experience that you do not yet have, read them again...
 
Accidents

I've been flying EAB for 34 years. I have many friends who also fly, most of them certified single engine. In the 40 years I've been flying I've lost 8 close personal friends in fatal EAB accidents; none in certified aircraft.

Certainly not statistically valid, but empirical observations frame my opinion that flying an EAB is more dangerous than flying a certified plane. This thread has drifted off topic, but my experience is the rougher & less expensive any given EAB in a specie the more likely it can & will bite.

Completely agree with "rougher and less expensive". I have lost way too many close friends and not so close friends in both EAB and certified. Many involved aerobatics and many of those involved lack of proper spin training.
A ten hour spin training course would probably eliminate at least half of the loss of control accidents.
The one accident scenario we will never see change is the one in a very high wing loading EAB, "alternative engine" engine failure at 100' on takeoff and the guy tried to turn back.
An A36 Bonanza is almost as bad in this scenario.
 
Someone before mentioned the Mustang II, which happens to be what I'm building because it fits my mission profile (folding wings, 200mph ship outta the box, aerobatic, lots of room for tweaking performance ala Kent Paser), but I'd not recommend that you buy any homebuilt really.

Look at what you're trying to do: 120hr pilot looking to do commercial. Most of your hours for commercial are just burning 100LL racking up time to make the 200 (or 250) hrs learning to fly in the system. You can do those hours in any aircraft - BUT the test, that has to be taken in a complex highperf plane ie an Arrow 200hp (of which you only need about 10 hrs training - the commercial maneuvers).

So IMHO, you want a plane you can get into for cheap and GET OUT OF for the same you paid more or less when you are done. To me that means the planes you are currently flying that are boring - 172 or Cherokees. Pay the extra pennies (ie take a loan) and get one that's IFR certed and get your IFR ticket in it, rack your commercial hours at the same time and then sell the plane, maybe a year from now.

And the real killer - insurance for the homebuilt you want with your low hours is gonna eat your lunch. Insurance for boring planes? Boring prices. Need a hangar for a boring plane? Nah, tie down on the cheap - like its been all its life. User your boring plane as a stepping stone to your next plane.

Just my .02
 
120 hrs which I assume is total time not PIC in my mind means you have very little practical flying experience and sorry to pig pile but that relates to not having the experience to handle a fast meneurvable plane, especially an EAB, if your previous experience was in 105kt spam cans. Join a flying club, a partnership in something you can build some practical experience with, and/or CAP. When you get another hundred PIC hours your mission will certainly change and you will have encountered a lot more situations that will build your skill set. Overconfidence of skills in a pilot usually ends in death. If a commercial is your goal then you'll want a side-by-side and get your instrument rating first. Nothing wrong with learning acro and getting spin training early on and they are a good thing to do but do it with an instructor in their plane. It's safer and less expensive.
 
Another vote for AA1

I think an AA-1 would fit your mission profile very well. The AA-1 is a pretty sporty airplane that I enjoyed much more than the C and P products i flew before buying it. It is easy to over control it, but it's not so difficult that a low time pilot couldn't handle it given sufficient training. I taught my wife to fly ours (that was good marriage therapy) and they were used as trainers at flight schools back in the day.

047950.jpg


A word of caution: I'm not sure you'd be happy with a $15k version of an AA-1 (or any airplane, frankly) for all the reasons mentioned above. To be honest, if you're squeezing your budget that hard to buy an airplane you probably can't afford one. If you don't have the ability to cover an unforeseen repair bill in the thousands, you should just rent. Renting is generally cheaper than owning, and your costs are completely predictable. If you haven't read Airplane Ownership by Ron Wanttaja, you should go get it.

http://www.amazon.com/Airplane-Ownership-Ron-Wanttaja/dp/007145974X
 
Good advice from all,

I guess I'll slow down a bit, build at least another 100 hours, actually I'll get my commercial first, then look at buying something with a bit more performance.

Thanks.
 
120 hrs which I assume is total time not PIC in my mind means you have very little practical flying experience and sorry to pig pile but that relates to not having the experience to handle a fast meneurvable plane, especially an EAB, if your previous experience was in 105kt spam cans. Join a flying club, a partnership in something you can build some practical experience with, and/or CAP. When you get another hundred PIC hours your mission will certainly change and you will have encountered a lot more situations that will build your skill set. Overconfidence of skills in a pilot usually ends in death. If a commercial is your goal then you'll want a side-by-side and get your instrument rating first. Nothing wrong with learning acro and getting spin training early on and they are a good thing to do but do it with an instructor in their plane. It's safer and less expensive.

Although i do agree with lots of this especially the flying club part and spin training, IMHO to say that 120 hour pilot does not have the skills required to fly a 3,4,6,7 or whatever is based on inadequate information and thus void.

We do not know enough about the OP,s training to say that.
Flying a 172 for 120 hours does not relate very will to flying a 3 I agree. you must take into account that in todays training environment many many people are not learning to fly in 150,152,172 anymore. They are learning in High performance airplanes like cirrus and others. Perhaps the OP has 120 hours in a pitts because one was available to him and he learned to fly in it. Would you then say that pilot does not have the skills to fly a 3?

Also here is another thing to think about. Part 141 training although an entirely different debate is becoming ever more popular. In the 141 environment there are plenty of people getting there ticket with exactly 35 hours. 85 hours of PIC although is absolutely not much, that may represent an entire year or even two of peoples lives. Mabye the 120 hour guy with 85 hours of PIC times flys once a month because he can't afford much more but that once a month is a 3 hour cross country. A 3 hour cross country once a month offers a pretty big learning environment. Potentially flying into IMC, weather, airspace, traffic, flight planning, fuel burn, engine management etc etc etc lots of learning opportunities in a 3 hour CC

The point of this drawn out post :D is simply that i do not think categorizing a pilots skills strictly on some arbitrary number of time in a log book is a good evaluation of skill. Which is why i don't care for the insurance companies because thats all they care about. The 100 hour guy has a rate of X and the 200 hour guy has a rate of .25 * X

The 3 being a one seater is going to offer unique challenges because it is obviously impossible to get dual in one. I agree that it is probably not a good idea and the best option is a flying club which can be great fun. Im a member to one myself, or a partnership. I do believe that any pilot can fly any airplane given he has the proper amount of dual training in that make and model with a quality instructor. Notice i said quality not just certified. There seems to be a difference in todays flight training in those two words.

I just simply wanted to point out a few potential scenarios and IMHO we should not say a person does not have enough experience for a specific type just because of a total time number in his log book. Sorry for the rant.
Fly safe!
 
Last edited:
I know this has all been said:
1. What is the mission? Building time, fast transport, short field?
2. Be realistic about your skills and where you are going.
3. Do you want to play with your aircraft, turn wrenches, scratch head and redesign thing?
4. Think in light of above do you want a certificated aircraft.
5. Many instructors will not instruct for higher ratings in an experimental.

For me, a medium time pilot, I enjoy working on my aircraft almost as much as flying. I own a Longeze, have SEL, MEl, glider, instrument and commercial ratings. Can I get behind my aircraft, you bet! Do I enjoy it.. Yes! Just remember flying is easy but very intolerant of mistakes.
 
I would think the biggest limitation is the budget. I purchased my 6A with 136 hours of total flight time in a C182. After 5 hours of transition training my wife and I flew it back from Portland to Florida. Felt totally comfortable and loved the responsive controls and economy of the 6a. The insurance was comparable to the insurance on the 182 but after accumulating another 100 hours this year it has dropped significantly. We love the 6A but do recognize that it is an A model not a tail dragger. So it was a much easier transition for me
 
AA-1 vs AA-1A

The AA-1 had a different wing from later models and was considered hotter handling. IIRC, there was a wing leading edge cuff starting with the AA-1A, and subsequent models had larger tails. All had smallish O-235 engines and were low altitude, and very low density altitude, long runway airplanes.

Lots of pilots PIOed them on landing but that was poor technique not airplane IMHO.

Get lots of info from the type club and find a good instructor. I'd enjoy having one in Savannah but would not even consider it for the high desert out west.

Ed

15 hours total in AA-1/A/B/C a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
 
low time pilot, RV3

I had 90hrs total when I first flew my -3, most of that in 172 and 152's. However, I also had 15hrs in a 7AC Champ, and four hours in RV4's (thanks to my RV4 pals in Arlington WA :). The -3 is much easier to fly than the Champ, I never had trouble with either (the Champ heel brakes are annoying). The tailwheel springs MUST be rigged correctly on a -3 to get the docile ground handling - I use hw store extension springs that are slightly loose when just sitting there, tight when airborne.

- Steven
850 RV3 hours
(another one last weekend!)
 
The tailwheel springs MUST be rigged correctly on a -3 to get the docile ground handling - I use hw store extension springs that are slightly loose when just sitting there, tight when airborne.

Steven,

Can you explain a little more about this (or maybe post a pic)? I'm having a hard time understanding how the springs could be loose-ish on the ground, but tight in the air..
 
Back
Top