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
The only viewpoint that matters would be that of Van's Aircraft.
Making a new-generation RV-3 with matched-hole construction is basically designing an all-new airplane, since someone's having to translate every part into a CAD program, drop rivets, tweak the bends, etc. To improve sales, the airframe itself will probably need an update (as Andy alluded to above) to accomodate the larger engines and systems people like to fit these days, and I'd expect updates in the cockpit area for some kind of rollover protection and maybe a different canopy. But a lot of your effort will still be expended even for a relatively straightforward conversion to matched-hole.
Let's WAG some numbers.
Ballpark 3 man-years of engineering at a burdened rate (covering overhead, benefits, etc. and not just wages) of $100k each. Then, another 2 man-years of fabrication and assembly at the same burden rate for the prototype, as well as $30k for engine, material, and instruments. Figure another $25k for new tooling. Finally, we have to conduct a flight-test program (say 2 man-years at burdened rate, 200 hours flying plus other consumables for another $10k), and 6 man-months to incorporate design changes and modifications.
That's 7.5 man-years ($750,000) plus $40,000 or more in materials, parts, and fuel, and $25,000 in tooling--$815,000 to develop a new airplane. And that's before the first kit is offered.
Now, let's make another WAG or two about cost and price. Let's assume that 70% of the cost of a kit is materials and the shop labor to fabricate the parts. Let us also assume a new matched-hole RV-3 kit will cost about $18,000 (a little less than an 8). Even if all of the remaining 30% ($5,400) is available to help cover the development cost, you're talking about having to sell 151 aircraft just to break even, and that's before we factor in inflation.
Realistically, I'd expect that Van's would want high confidence they could sell
at least 400 complete (start-to-finish) kits for a given design within a 6-8 year period before they'd go anywhere past the napkin-sketch stage on a new airplane. That 400 complete kits probably translates into something like 800-1000 tail kit purchases in three to four years. And for each one of
those, they'd probably need at least for or five people saying "yeah, I'm willing to sign right now".
Frankly, I don't think there's enough of a market. I doubt a new matched-hole RV-3 would see more than 300 completions over the next decade or two, especially at the prices such a kit (and final airplane) would command.
In short, from a financial perspective, a matched-hole RV-3 overhaul is a risky prospect with a low chance of ever earning a profit. Van's would be better off investing that money into another project with a higher likelihood of success and better returns.
