Completed RV-7 Prices

[RadMan]

All of you have some good points of why the 7 is better than the 6. However, even though the 7 has all these better features that you have mentioned, it still is less labor intensive than a 6 (what I have been told by 2 rv builders), and only a few thousand more expensive than a 6 to build. I have my own bussiness, and I charge according to what materials cost and the labor involved. If one job has more expensive materials, but is less labor intensive, I charge the same amount if the materials cost less, but labor is more intensive. That's just my point of view. I guess I'll be focusing on purchasing a 6. There aren't very many 7's for sale. The 7's must be the cat's meow since noone really wants to part with them.

Rad

[Jconard]

Rat Man,

Of course you miss that the margin on materials/labor that you charge will be dictated by the market. In addition, the value of the labor is influenced by the quality of the product.

My guess is that because the newer kits are more likely to be built straight and true, and with similarly high quality, they are worth more to the market. Really nice 6's still go for pretty good money, but the very best do not seem to hit the market.

But I bet the other big factor in these prices reflects the "new" style of homebuilding.

Most of the original builders I meet, with 6's built light and simple aircraft. Today the norm seems to include an autopilot, constant speed prop, luxurious interiors, etc... This additional "content" will also be reflected in the price. Since many buyers are not builders, they will pay for rv's that look most like the Mooney, or Cesspot that they might otherwise purchase.

[RatMan]

Originally Posted by RadMan

All of you have some good points of why the 7 is better than the 6. However, even though the 7 has all these better features that you have mentioned, it still is less labor intensive than a 6 (what I have been told by 2 rv builders), and only a few thousand more expensive than a 6 to build. I have my own bussiness, and I charge according to what materials cost and the labor involved. If one job has more expensive materials, but is less labor intensive, I charge the same amount if the materials cost less, but labor is more intensive. That's just my point of view. I guess I'll be focusing on purchasing a 6. There aren't very many 7's for sale. The 7's must be the cat's meow since noone really wants to part with them.

Rad

Ah, you're trying to compare this with a business model. Well, toss out the cost for labor cause it wouldn't be the same from builder to builder either in time, quantity or quality. Sure, most builders (myself included) do a good job and better than a certified plane but don't compare to someone that is really talented. All of the RVs I've seen are beautiful but some are truly works of art, when you learn what to look for then see one of these extraordinary aircraft it's truly awe inspiring. Now, what's the Mona Lisa worth when hanging next to your kids college art class, both have the same amount of labor and materials invested.

Next, the -7 is newer and will command a higher price. Yes you could get a better built -6 for less money but in general the -7 will be perceived as being worth more simply because it's newer. I don't think the -7 is better than the -6. You would have to park two of them side by side to really compare them. Because they are built by individuals and not a factory I know there are better built -6's out there than some of the -7's. However, some would say in general the -7 would or could be built better/straighter by the average builder because of the matched holed technology Van put into the -7. Problem with that thought is if someone built any RV and then built a second, the second would be a better plane. You have to compare individual builders and their planes, it doesn't work to compare them like you would a 172 to another 172.

Lastly, if there aren't as many available well, you already know what that means.

Now if you want a cheaper RV you'll have to invest the sweat equity into it other than that, it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it. From what I've seen people are willing to pay pretty well but not very much more than what the cost of the pieces cost. At first glance you see a kit from Vans cost 15-25 grand and then notice one for sale in Trade -A- plane for 100K. Well there's a lot of blood, sweat and tears not to mention wire, lights, autopilots, interiors, paint, engine, avionics that go into the kit on it's way from Vans to Trade -A- Plane. Add to that most buyers don't have a clue as to the time, dedication and sheer will it takes to build an airplane and in the end they are quite a bargain!

Airplanes, especially personal airplanes can be an emotional sale/purchase. This too will affect price just like motorcycles and boats. It's not nearly as simple as the cost of materials + the cost of labor. Nope, my RV is worth a lot more than that.

[jonbakerok]

If logic applied, the 6 would be worth more, all else being equal. It has a much stronger wing design, with a spar that carries all the way through the cabin. Most of them have O-320's, which haven't been included in all the crank-related AD's. Also, for some reason, there have been far fewer nosegear problems on the 6A. I think in general it's just a stronger airframe.

Here's something else to consider. The first year I flew my six, I could get insurance on it from anyone, even as a low-timer. Two years later, with more than twice as much time and all of it in my RV, Nationair informed me that my rates were going up -- in a year when overall GA accident rates hit an all-time low. They said the underwriter was no longer insuring RV's due to the high casualty rate, so they had to find another one. In over 15 years production, the RV6A had earned such a good reputation that it was actually cheaper to insure than my '73 Cherokee. Now, the underwriter with the most experience with RV's doesn't even want to insure them? What changed?

[pierre smith]

You're absolutely correct, Jon. My 6A was a quickbuild and I'll gladly put it next to anyone's 7. So much has to do with the builder's obsession over details and what is/isn't acceptable workmanship. All our rivets show with only a few in front of the windshield hidden. As far as labor???????? you'll never recoup that but then again, that's not why we build, is it?

[hawker]

I just bought a flying RV6 this month and fell in love with aviation again. This is my fourth and last plane I will own, now that I have found the best. The price of an RV7 if you can find one is about $30K more, but in my view not worth the extra money. My RV6 in the mid $70's with 0-360 and c/s prop and a quick build kit was the perfect combo. Supply and demand have the RV6 market at a good value while the RV7 is just too new. The improvements were minor and the look and design of the RV6 to me was better. Good luck!

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by RatMan

Sure, most builders (myself included) do a good job and better than a certified plane.

I'm sorry but although often said, the above comment contains not an ounze of truth. In fact very very few RVs are of certificated quality. If you look at the EAAA Airventure judging guidelines you will find that homebuilt planes are rated from 1 to 10. "Average" quality is actually 4 ("Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or overbuilt in some areas. Little finesse or detail").

Only planes rated a 9 or 10 (very rare) are considered to be "equal or better than a factory new aircraft".

A 9 means ("Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail").
A 10 means ("Flawless in all respects").

A 9 or 10 is a major award winner. And there are not too many of those around.

The truth is that the "average" RV is quite roughly built, usually by a builder without previously acquired skills. Building an RV to certificated standards takes many thousands of hours of meticulous workmanship and most builders simply do not have the trade skills or patience (or capacity to study and learn correct aviation procedures) to achieve this.

To highlight the point just take a look at what passes for priming on most RVs, including the Vans QBs. Then take a look at the current Cessna and Piper specs (degrease, phosphoric acid etch, alodine, and Boeing spec BMS10-11 two pack strontium chromate epoxy primer on all surfaces, including all skins). Need I say more.

If in doubt you may refer to the EAAA judging guidelines:

http://www.eaa.org/judging/

[kevinh]

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

To highlight the point just take a look at what passes for priming on most RVs, including the Vans QBs. Then take a look at the current Cessna and Piper specs (degrease, phosphoric acid etch, alodine, and Boeing spec BMS10-11 two pack strontium chromate epoxy primer on all surfaces, including all skins).

And then take a look at the puckering around the rivets of my hangar mate's spankin' new 172SP. Really rough.

[RatMan]

I new to this game Bob, and I'm learning. I'm only a year and a half into my-8 and only just about to flip the fuse. The -8 is only my second airplane and the first one was all tube and fabric so I have a lot to learn.

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

I'm sorry but although often said, the above comment contains not an ounze of truth. In fact very very few RVs are of certificated quality. If you look at the EAAA Airventure judging guidelines you will find that homebuilt planes are rated from 1 to 10. "Average" quality is actually 4 ("Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or overbuilt in some areas. Little finesse or detail").

I guess I've just been lucky. Now I haven't seen thousands of RVs only several hundred at Osh and Sun-N-Fun and a few local shows. On the days I've seen those RVs I guess the guys with the crappy ones decided to stay at home. The ones I have seen were built from kits that were purchased from Vans and I wouldn't say any were under-built at all. Maybe Van does design in a bit more strength than is necessary but is that a negative? I'm not an engineer, I have only heard the A&P's on my field and other pilots (all with decades of experience) comment that my kit sure is built strong. I haven't added a thing to my -8, it's being built by the book just as Van's sent it. They are comparing it to the certified airplanes they have seen and worked on.

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

Only planes rated a 9 or 10 (very rare) are considered to be "equal or better than a factory new aircraft".
A 9 means ("Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail").
A 10 means ("Flawless in all respects").

I guess in this respect I've been unlucky. If the standard is a 9 or 10 when it comes to factory new then I haven't seen a "flawless in all respects" airplane of any sorts that came from a factory. Actually, if a builder were honest I don't think any plane is "flawless".

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

A 9 or 10 is a major award winner. And there are not too many of those around.

Given that you consider a 9 or 10 to be equal to a factory built airplane, then all of the Cessna's, Pipers, etc should be major award winning quality? Wow, can you imagine, you've put in the time, money and skill to build an airplane, fly it to Osh and win! Holy cow, you've just won at Osh and a guy walks up and says congrats, you've just built a plane that's as good as my 152. What an eye-opener! I thought it really meant something to win at Osh, not to mention what it says for those that didn't even place. I hope they all made it home safely!

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

The truth is that the "average" RV is quite roughly built, usually by a builder without previously acquired skills. Building an RV to certificated standards takes many thousands of hours of meticulous workmanship and most builders simply do not have the trade skills or patience (or capacity to study and learn correct aviation procedures) to achieve this.

The average RV is "quite roughly built"? O.K. fair enough, from the few builders that I have talked to they didn't have any special skill before building. But I certainly wouldn't say any that have actually completed any major portion of an airplane didn't have the capacity to study or learn. Actually I would say that they certainly DO have a capacity to learn. They learned to study a manual, read drawings, take pieces of metal and turn them into flying machines. That's gotta count for something. I just gotta ask Bob, and I'm not throwing stones 'cause I'm far from an award winning builder, is your RV "average"?

Originally Posted by Bob Barrow

To highlight the point just take a look at what passes for priming on most RVs, including the Vans QBs. Then take a look at the current Cessna and Piper specs (degrease, phosphoric acid etch, alodine, and Boeing spec BMS10-11 two pack strontium chromate epoxy primer on all surfaces, including all skins). Need I say more.

I'm not going to debate primers, just because the government has decided this is what Cessna should do to meet a standard doesn't mean what any good paint shop does isn't better than that gov't standard. It's a matter of opinion.

I will admit I haven't read the EAA guidelines for judging aircraft but I will. If what you are saying is an Osh winner is considered by EAA standards to be just as good as any average Cessna that rolls off the line well, I'm a bit disappointed. I guess I am a bit naive 'cause I thought the standard would have been a lot higher than that. All I've had to go on was my untrained eye so far. I've been very lucky and I guess my standards are too high because if you were to park a nice RV next to any new Cessna, I would probably give the edge to the RV. But then again I would give a few extra points knowing the love and passion put into the RV that simply isn't there in the Cessna. I know that is skewed but still, that's just me. I also realize that a number of Osh winners were not built by the owners at all but by hired guns that have the skill to build a winner. That too is disappointing and in my opinion takes away from the awards.

So if there isn't an ounce of truth in what I say, I'll yield to you. I guess my standards aren't high enough but from what I have seen and the builders I meet, they sure do have some purdy airplanes.

[Jconard]

I'm not going to debate primers, just because the government has decided this is what Cessna should do to meet a standard doesn't mean what any good paint shop does isn't better than that gov't standard. It's a matter of opinion.


Not sure it is a matter of opinion.

The decision to prime or not prime may be a builder decision, but there is no doubt that primers which meet government specifications, often Mil Spec's, are superior to those that do not, when it comes to corrosion protection.

For example, the MIL-P-23377 primers must meet rigid standards for application, peel, and ability to resist corrosion, even when disturbed by a scribe mark, for many hundreds of hours in salt spray, fluid imersion, etc.

Others may or may not be able to meet the spec, but knowing is worth something.

"Any Decent Paint Shop" may or may not be woried about the corrosion and other factors necessary to an airplane.

P.S. I would like to point out that Mr. Barrow os probably one of the most credible people who post here, when it comes to aircraft construction.