Cost of ownership difference?

As someone who has both RV-3 and RV-8 empennages sitting in their garage I would be very interested in your thoughts on cost of ownership of an
RV-3B versus and RV-8.

If I go forward with the RV-3B, I plan on a QB wing, O-320 w/mags, FP prop. The RV-8 would be a slowbuild with O-360 w/mags, CP prop. The difference in airframe kit cost between an RV-3B with QB wing and an RV-8 slowbuild is almost a push.

Obviously propeller, governer, instrumentation, avionics, etc would be more significant for the RV-8 versus the RV-3B. Most of my flying would be local with an occasional X-country.

Having plans for both airplanes and having read this forum along with RV-3 Works, I do understand the difference between the RV-3 kit and the matched-hole kit of the RV-8. My question is not about the difference in build difficulty between the two kits.

I've noticed, through this forum , a trend of sorts of "repeat offenders" building an RV-3B as a follow-on airplane.

I'm especially interested in the thoughts from such builders on the cost of ownership between the two aircraft and the considerations that directed them towards the smaller, "less complicated" RV-3B the second (or third) time around.

Sorry for the long narrative. Your response is greatly appreciated.

Bob
Seattle, WA

Not something I pondered....

rbregs said:

As someone who has both RV-3 and RV-8 empennages sitting in their garage I would be very interested in your thoughts on cost of ownership of an
RV-3B versus and RV-8.

If I go forward with the RV-3B, I plan on a QB wing, O-320 w/mags, FP prop. The RV-8 would be a slowbuild with O-360 w/mags, CP prop. The difference in airframe kit cost between an RV-3B with QB wing and an RV-8 slowbuild is almost a push.

Obviously propeller, governer, instrumentation, avionics, etc would be more significant for the RV-8 versus the RV-3B. Most of my flying would be local with an occasional X-country.

Having plans for both airplanes and having read this forum along with RV-3 Works, I do understand the difference between the RV-3 kit and the matched-hole kit of the RV-8. My question is not about the difference in build difficulty between the two kits.

I've noticed, through this forum , a trend of sorts of "repeat offenders" building an RV-3B as a follow-on airplane.

I'm especially interested in the thoughts from such builders on the cost of ownership between the two aircraft and the considerations that directed them towards the smaller, "less complicated" RV-3B the second (or third) time around.

Sorry for the long narrative. Your response is greatly appreciated.

Bob
Seattle, WA

Click to expand...

Good question Bob. Randy would be the best person to answer as he has built and owned both. My choice to build a 3 was my love of building and interest in having a simpler machine than my 6, which has every bell and whistle. Those features however have very little ownership costs. I believe except for some fuel savings over time, the cost of ownership would be very similar I think. Fuel savings would be totally dependant on the mission, how many hours flown, etc... Randy has proven, with one person missions, there is not a more efficient RV out there. (Rocket guys might argue this)
I do expect the cost of my build to be slightly less. Resell value will be significantly less. Not a cost of ownership issue but something all 3 builders should keep in mind.

Hi Bob,

I took the liberty of moving this topic to it's own thread (I'm a moderator) so as to avoid "thread creep". Anyway, good question. In general I think the answer is yes, the cost of ownership of a three would be less than an eight, though only marginally so.

Airframe kit cost
As you correctly point out, going with the QB -3B wings and the regular -8 wings makes the airframe kits a wash. Even apples to apples the airframe kit is not the major cost component for the total project so the -3 would be marginally lower cost.

Total project cost
If you equip the planes similarly (engine/panel/etc.) then the total project costs will be similar. Equipped as you describe however the project cost should be considerably lower. Go with a fixed pitch prop, simple panel, no autopilot and you've just saved a bunch of money. Of course the three only needs upholstery for one seat, one harness etc. so there are some savings in areas like that. That said I really enjoy having all the features I built into mind and don't regret any of it.

Insurance
Likely a bit less but only because you will probably insure the hull for a lower value reflective of what you have into it. I'm not aware there would be much difference in liability premiums at although there should be... in the -3 it's impossible to kill a passenger and get sued.

Direct operating costs
Operated correctly the -3 is more fuel efficient. What's that save on an annual basis though? Not sure but maybe a few hundred bucks. Frankly the psychological savings is more satisfying than the outright dollar amount. In doing operating cost analysis of any private aircraft you'll quicklyk see that fuel is not the larger components. Hangar cost will likely be the same although you DO have the potential to share a hangar to a greater extent than with an -8 just due to the smaller size... it'll simply fit in spots the larger RVs won't.

Frankly I don't think most of the repeat offenders who've started -3Bs lately are doing it because it's significantly cheaper. Rather the -3 represents a unique personal building/flying/ownership experience.

Hope some of this helps the decision, you're in an interesting situation sitting there with both kits. Please do keep us posted as to which way you go.

Thank You for Your Replies

Thank you for your replies. Obviously, I'm a bit of a conflicted person with both empennages in my garage. Originally, when I ordered the RV-3B empennage I also ordered the QB wing and fuse.

I had a great conversation with Mr. Richard Bentley at Arlington airport last fall along with the opportunity to see his RV-3B. He recommended the RV-8 over the RV-3B for a first time builder, as Randy and others have cautioned in this forum and or on their websites. Hence, I cancelled the wing and fuse and ordered the RV-8 empennage.

I work in the aerospace industry and have learned to choose "simple" over complex whenever possible. The RV-3B offers a simpler design in terms of part count, size (capacity), and systems (N233RL aside). This "simplicity" comes at a cost of a more difficult build due less finished components (e.g., control surface brackets) and the lack of "matched hole" technology.

I then contrast that with the RV-8 which has a higher part count, larger size, and more complex systems, while offering more complete components along with the inherent benefits of "matched hole" technology.

I can't afford to build both airplanes and so have been looking at the decision from many perspectives. In another life I must have been a dog who enjoyed chasing his tail.

Thank you, again, for your replies. I'll let you know when I make my decision.

Regards,

Bob

Well. If you only build one, build the 2 seater, no contest.

You're really not a builder if you can't build a 3 or 4. If you need a quick build then you are nothing more than an assembler.
tm

Unless you have a close friend or two that have 3s or 4s, it is easy to run out of things to do with a single seat airplane. I know one guy who built a very nice airplane thinking he was going to do a lot of flying with his buddy until his friend lost his medical. If you live in an area where there are a lot of RVs this may not be an issue. I had a Pitts S1 for a while. I think the word I heard whispered in my ear at night was "selfish". My better half (of 38 years) claims she would do no such thing. I must have been feeling guilty. Another issue is resale value. You are very likely to be able to get your money out of a basic RV8. Not likely with an RV3. Bottom line is, unless you have a passion for what you build, finishing this big a project is very difficult. So build what your heart tells you to.
Daryl

With airframe costs the same, and the 8 being easier with the match hole...why not build an 8 with the instruments/firewall forward you mentioned for the 3b? A basic, ultra light 8 with a 320 and FP and basic gauges is still one heck of a machine, easier to build, basicaly the same costs, probaly easier to sell later, and you always have the option to upgrade the pannel or prop or engine in the future if you want.

No such thing at too much HP

G-force said:

With airframe costs the same, and the 8 being easier with the match hole...why not build an 8 with the instruments/firewall forward you mentioned for the 3b? A basic, ultra light 8 with a 320 and FP and basic gauges is still one heck of a machine, easier to build, basicaly the same costs, probaly easier to sell later, and you always have the option to upgrade the pannel or prop or engine in the future if you want.

Click to expand...

JMHO, but building an 8 with 160HP is like showering with a raincoat on, or something like that It's just not natural.

I went through the same debate before I started the 3. My logic was the following. I was torn between the looks of the 3 and the functionality of the 8. The 3 can be built for a LITTLE less money but not much and the resale on the 3 is much worse. The 8 has 2 seats which is great, but who really wants to fly around in the back seat of a tandem plane. Its just not that much fun because you feel like your in an airliner. On the other hand the tandem seating is great for the pilot so the experience would be pretty similar to the 3. I could go on and on with the pros and cons. The tipping point for me was the looks and size of the 3. It just looks so cool and I could also fit the fuse in my living room. The build is tough, but if you can build RC planes you can build a 3. So in the end I picked the 3 despite the fact that it was not the logical choice. It will be a simple VFR aerobatic machine.... which will go great with my next plane, a cross country cruiser RV-7.

RV8iator said:

JMHO, but building an 8 with 160HP is like showering with a raincoat on, or something like that It's just not natural.

Click to expand...

I built an 8 with 160ish horsepower(9:1 pistons) and a C/S prop and at 55% power I'll stay in the air a lot longer than you. At todays fuel prices mine is just as much fun for less money and I still do 200 + IAS at 10 feet down the runway and smile the whole way