First-time builder dilemma: RV-3 or RV-8?

[sdh]

Good morning from the Netherlands,

as a longer-time lurker and prospective first-time builder I would like to dip into the forum's expertise regarding the choice of aircraft to build; more specifically, I think I've narrowed it down to either an RV-3 or RV-8.

Mission requirements / wish list:

• cross-country touring in central Europe;
• flying solo (not a requirement as such, but it's already hard to find people to go sailing with, and might be even more difficult with flying);
• VFR due to the legal situation prohibiting amateur-built AC flying IFR;
• pilot (200lb) + baggage for a fortnight's trip (~30lb);
• 3h+ flights possible between refueling would be nice;
• crossing the Alps without being forced through the valleys, VFR out of sight of surface to fly over the weather;
• sporty/performant aeroplane trumps creature comfort (I've had a motorcycle for six years as sole means of transportation and did not shy away driving 500 miles/day trips);
• CS/VP prop (lightweight WW or MT);
• aesthetics: prefer a tip-over canopy over a slider for better visibility, RV-8 would almost certainly include the showplanes fastback conversion.

From what I've gathered, the RV-3 with an (I)O-320 would tick a lot of boxes, is economical to run (everything fun seems more expensive in Europe ...), and has phenomenal performance. On the other hand, the RV-8 is heavier but has higher usable load, cockpit is a bit roomier, an (I)O-360 seems also not such a gas-guzzler, and the fastback conversion looks striking.

From a time-to-fly point of view, and as a first-time builder, I assume that a QB RV-8 would bring me potentially faster in the air than the RV-3 (would use the QB wings for the RV-3); due to my tinkering with my late-70's and late-90's cars, I would not see the mechanical work as such as a big problem, but I already learned from working on the cars that experience (or lack thereof) is a major issue not to be underestimated.

Big questions from my side at this stage:

• Is an RV-3 (with QB wings) suitable for an (average) first-time builder?
• Can I operate the RV-3 with the proposed pilot+baggage weight, fill up the tanks, and still operate within suitable CG/weight limits?
• Would flying the RV-8 almost exclusively solo be an issue regarding a more forward CG?
• If going for the RV-8, would making the back seat pan removable with the option of installing an auxiliary fuel tank be a daft idea?

Cheers,
Sebastian

P.S. No PPL yet; had two introductory lessons on a C172 and was not really excited with the plane ...

[wilddog]

Since you are considering QB wings, I assume you want a plane that can be finished quickly and that would be the -8. A-3 is going to take much longer to build because you will be building almost from a box of materials, not a highly prefab kit like the -8. Both -3 and -8 would meet your requriments for a flying aircraft. A light -3 with 160hp is a rocket ship, nothing like the C172 you flew. Best thing would be to concentrate on getting your ticket including a tail wheel check out, some time in something quick and then decide what you want. Your wants may change after you have some time logged.
Bill

[N941WR]

I agree, if you want to fly quickly, go with the -8. Solo acro in the -8 is done frequently, check out Team Aerodynamics.

As for extending the range, there are many options, including turning the entire leading edge into tanks. However, expect any modification to extend your build time.

[WillyEyeBall]

Looks like the RV-4 would be a better choice.
Bill

[sdh]

Originally Posted by WillyEyeBall

Looks like the RV-4 would be a better choice.
Bill

Well, thought about the -4 as well, and following AX-O's fastback RV-4 thread made me initially think hard about the route. A disadvantage from a pure building point of view would be the lack of QB wings for the -4 kit, and I'm not that keen on the pilot's seating position with the face rather close to the canopy.

If we're already casting the net a bit wider, the -7 would also be very, very interesting since it ticks basically most of my boxes, would be possible to finish as a QB, and it seems now that the EU/EASA regulations may permit flying instructions in uncertified/permit to fly aircraft if certain conditions are met (tutee has to be owner, aircraft has to be on the books of the FTO, probably CAMO).

More options, more food for thought ...

[ty1295]

Is you building the plane a requirement?

If not buying one flying or well built partially done kit may get you to the quickbuild or beyond portion at the same or less money.

[Mike S]

Sebastian, welcome aboard the good ship VAF

[David-aviator]

Sebastian,

As your bio says, the cart is before the horse. You are dreaming and living in the future. It is not reality.

Perhaps focusing on today would be a better beginning.

Get serious about learning to fly, don't sweat the type of airplane, have at it to make sure "flying for real" as opposed to dreaming about it is your cup of tea. Chances are it is but investing in an RV before that comes to pass could screw it up.

What's the point of having an airplane you can't fly. A lot of money invested, no money for flight instruction, and the dreaming continues. That's where you are headed.

[sdh]

Originally Posted by ty1295

Is you building the plane a requirement?

If not buying one flying or well built partially done kit may get you to the quickbuild or beyond portion at the same or less money.

I agree. Problem is that as far as I can see, the market for halfway finished kits or even a fully finished plane is a bit thin here in Europe (e.g. planecheck.com has two RV-3s, or a nice and interesting Swiss RV-4 straddling the border of my projected budget).

[Saville]

Originally Posted by sdh

Good morning from the Netherlands,

as a longer-time lurker and prospective first-time builder I would like to dip into the forum's expertise regarding the choice of aircraft to build; more specifically, I think I've narrowed it down to either an RV-3 or RV-8.

Mission requirements / wish list:[list][*]cross-country touring in central Europe;[*]flying solo (not a requirement as such, but it's already hard to find people to go sailing with, and might be even more difficult with flying);[*]VFR due to the legal situation prohibiting amateur-built AC flying IFR;[*]pilot (200lb) + baggage for a fortnight's trip (~30lb);


.

Then you ask:

"Can I operate the RV-3 with the proposed pilot+baggage weight, fill up the tanks, and still operate within suitable CG/weight limits?"

The arithmetic fr that is fairly simple. Just go to the Van's site and get the data on the RV-3. Doing a little arithmetic might help you decide:

You are 200 lbs, you say, and you want to carry 30lbs of baggage.

According to the Van's web site, the gross weight of the -3 is 1100lbs.

Empty weight with an electrical system is 750 lbs. That means your useful load is 350lbs.

The RV-3 fuel capacity is 30 gallons of gas, and at 6 lbs a gallon is 180 lbs..... 350 - 180 = 170 lbs

You are 200 lbs - that's 30 lbs over gross.

Add another 30 lbs of baggage and you are 60 lbs over gross.

If you are flying acro and have no baggage you are 30 lbs over gross but if you wear a chute (recommended) that's an additional 15 lbs over gross for a total of 45lbs over gross.

You could fly acro with 22 gallons of gas instead of full tanks.

Now you say you want to cross the alps. Will you need oxygen for that? if so that's more weight over gross.

I briefly looked at the -3 when I started to decide what airplane to buy. It was attractive. But the weights just didn't work out for me.

Same thing happened with an RV-4.

So I ended up with an RV-8 and am very glad I did.