looking to build

[Almerick07]

Since as it turns out I have decided to leave aviation professionally Ive recently been toying with the idea of building something. I basically want to:

1. Go fast
2. Go upside down
3. Go into clouds
4. Take someone else
5. X-C capable

Kind of a tall order to fill but maybe there is some super homebuilt Im not aware of...
Hopefully financially permitting Id like to have 2, 1 for fun (acro/speed) and 1 for the family (4 place/fast/X-C..etc.)

Im new to the homebuilt world but I have decided this is something I defintely want to do...any suggestions, ideas or dream machine suggestions would be welcome. Im also open to other ideas besides homebuilts.

 

[USMCmech]

Check out the Vans RV-7 or (-8)

160-180 cruise

light acro

can be IFR

two seats

3 hours @ 180kts 2/3 the way across TX


Only draw back is that it only has two seats. They do make the RV-10 that holds four, but no acro.

 

[Almerick07]

yea ive been looking into the vans....whats everyones take on the 4? I know a guy who I respect pretty well for his intelligence and he chose a rv4 over all of them, we've also pulled over 6g's in it...i dont think that qualifies as light acro does it? Im beginning to think Ill build a vans and maybe just buy a bonanza or something similar to haul the family around in.

 

[brett]

long response from an RV fanatic

VANS hands down! In your original listing of what you want, you pretty much listed the exact design goals and capabilities of the RVs. The RV is truly the jack of all trades and doesn't sacrifice much in any specific category to attain its overall versatility. The handling is fantastic; direct link controls with no cables or pulleys to the elevator and ailerons, great short field performance, very good speed and economy, proven design; stable, supportive company.

I owned a 4 and flew one other. It's like wearing an airplane. Some of my friends that flew F-16s and flew in mine or other RVs loved them and remarked how similar it was to flying a fighter.

The taildraggers look great and are about the tamest conventional geared plane you can fly.

The 4 is a great plane. . . for the pilot. The "alleged" back seat is ok for very small people only. It's very critical on weight & balance. Easy to load aft and can be dangerous if you do so, especially doing aerobatics. The baggage area is behind the rear seat, very limited, and again, CG can be an issue. They're a lot cheaper than the newer models -- much fun for the money. Very few are IFR; panel space and weight limited. I think it's the best looking RV and most who have flown all seem to agree the 3 (single place) and 4 are the best of the best as far as handling. You can still build a 4, but very few kits are being sold now compared to the others. They are much harder to build and more labor intensive because they are not CNC match-hole construction like the newer kits, and even though the kit is a couple, three thousand cheaper, the resale value pales in comparison to a 7 or 8. You would work twice as hard and long to have an investment worth half the money.

If you buy a flying RV, make sure the service bulletins have been done (you can find them on the Vans website) and that the tanks don't have any #^#$ sloshing compound in them!

The 8 has much more room for the rear pax, larger baggage area in the back, (I think) a better CG range, and an additional baggage area up front to help balance the load. They have higher payload capability; many more are IFR and they cost almost twice as much as a 4.

The 6 was the first side-by side derived from the 4 and the 7 is the newer slightly improved version of the 6. The 7 has a bigger tail and slightly more room inside; it seems to be by far the most popular one now. I was planning on building an 8 but after checking my neighbor out in his newly built 7 I was "converted." I really prefer tandem seating, but side by side offers less CG issues and the wife much prefers it. Doing aerobatics sitting off centerline was not at all the issue I thought it would be; the 7 is even better on the ground handling; much more panel space for avionics; large baggage area, and match-hole construction (they just upgraded the -8 kits to match-hole also). The RV-7 also has great re-sale value, seemingly the highest of all the 2-seat RVs.

I started my empennage about two months ago and have it about 2/3 completed. Fuse and Wings coming via ABF freight Friday! I was very hesitant about taking the plunge to build an airplane. I knew I could do it but was worried I would get burned out or wouldn't enjoy the work. I've found that I enjoy the building process much more than I thought I would. I can see how people get addicted to this and end up building/restoring multiple planes.

yea ive been looking into the vans....whats everyones take on the 4? I know a guy who I respect pretty well for his intelligence and he chose a rv4 over all of them, we've also pulled over 6g's in it...i dont think that qualifies as light acro does it? Im beginning to think Ill build a vans and maybe just buy a bonanza or something similar to haul the family around in.

 

[Almerick07]

thanks brett, awesome and informative post. I am leaning towards the 8 but you bring up some really good points i havnt even thought about with the 7. I would really like to get into some advanced aerobatics, can the 7 or 8 handle as much as the 4? Ive decided I pretty much want to build a hotrod, go fast and go upside down regularly. Eventually ill get something else to haul the future kiddos around in. But I still want to have a decent x-c platform, also is about 75-80k reasonable for an IFR 200hp 7 or 8?

 

[brett]

Anything 4 on up is very capable for aerobatics with the caveat of watching out for too much speed build-up on the downline. The RV 4 I bought -- 80% of the time on it had been spent pulling Gs, about 350 hours. The early 3s had some issues and they came out with two spar mods, but it turned out the ones that broke either had improper construction and/or were yanked well past 9 Gs on sharp pull-ups after high-speed passes. The current spars are pre-fab, anodized aluminum and have a proven reputation.

Another + for the side by side on the CG issue is not only being able to more easily load within limits, but flying the "same" plane all the time. You get used to flying a lightweight tandem airplane, doing most of your flying solo and then put someone in the back, or vice-versa and all of a sudden it feels like a completely different airplane. You get used to making greaser landings by yourself, and then when you take someone up you end up making not nearly as pretty landings, etc.

If you haven't already, make sure you check out www.vansairforce.net a fantastic resource for building/flying RVs.

You should easily be able to finish a great 7 or 8 in that price-range. There are very good experimental glass EFIS (AHARS) units available now that are low cost, light weight and don't suffer from acro like the old spinning gyros do. The 7 I've flown has Dynon and I love it.

- Brett

thanks brett, awesome and informative post. I am leaning towards the 8 but you bring up some really good points i havnt even thought about with the 7. I would really like to get into some advanced aerobatics, can the 7 or 8 handle as much as the 4? Ive decided I pretty much want to build a hotrod, go fast and go upside down regularly. Eventually ill get something else to haul the future kiddos around in. But I still want to have a decent x-c platform, also is about 75-80k reasonable for an IFR 200hp 7 or 8?

 

[Huggyu2]

Avoid the RV-3's. Too many wing failures in its past.

 

[Almerick07]

i think ive decided on either the 7 or 8....the 7 is showing more appeal but the 8 looks soooo sexy with a tinted canopy and low tail...anywho thanks for the input everyone. is 200hp what everyone would go with in the 7 or 8 and how much could i pick up a used one for on average? Im defintely gonna go with some sort of electronic efis display, can any of those get certified IFR?

 

[MAJIC9]

I went with 180hp.... didn't think that such a small increase in performance warranted 2x sticker price.. but you gotta choose what you like best..

 

[Berkut]

the 8 looks soooo sexy with a tinted canopy and low tail...

Check out one with the fastback conversion. It's a very good looking airplane.

is 200hp what everyone would go with in the 7 or 8

There's a 40 pound weight penalty with the 200 horse angle-valve engine. That gets to be a problem in the -8, not so much in the -7. You need to decide if that extra 20 HP is worth the extra $10k (new) and 40 lbs. on the nose.

Im defintely gonna go with some sort of electronic efis display, can any of those get certified IFR?

You don't have to get it certified for IFR, other than the normal Pitot/Static checks and so on. Just make sure your DAR knows you intend to fly it IFR so he won't exclude it in your operating limitations. Plenty of people fly IFR with the experimental-only EFIS setups. I would recommend backup instrumentation, of course.