Why do you guys like the RV-4 so much?

Hey folks, newbie here

I'm an old school tube a fabric builder finally coming around to the whole RV thing. I have spent some good time researching all the different models online and have flown a buddies RV-9 years ago.

I really think the -4 fits me well but wanted some expert opinions here. Why did you all decide on it? It seems to me that over the years there is the RV crowd and then there is the RV-4 crowd. Not sure why maybe it just seems that way. Anyhow, the extra work involved in not having the holes punched doesn't really bother me so that didn't enter the equation for me.

From what I understand I need to order the preview plans than if I decide to build it I buy the emenage first right? Then after it's done I order the next section???? Is that how people do it or do they just order the whole package.

To me it makes sense to not have all the extra airplane materials laying around that could potentialy get damaged. Not sure how to approach it I guess.

Just wondering if you guys could help me a little by telling me why you finally decided on the -4 and how you got started etc.

I really appreciate the advice, knowledge, and any stories you have.

Butch Clay

welcome!

I actually chose the -8 over the -4 because of the roomier back seat, the quick-build kit, and the somewhat more "refined" aspects of the modern kits.

Whichever you choose, the trade-off on ordering the kit in phases or all at once is the balance between having to store the materials and being able to save on shipping. I had Tony Partain bring the whole kit at once, saved a lot on shipping. But if you can't inventory and store the whole kit, by all means order it in pieces.

Whichever model you choose, you will love it, and find lots of informative support here on the forum!

Welcome.

1. Preference for tandem seating over side-by-side, better vis, no ones shoulder pressing against your shoulder.

2. Feet apart on the rudder pedals vs 8 with feet closer together

3. No canopy bow, (same as the F-16)

4. Stronger wing spar

5. Cooler cowl, both function for engine cooling and looks (subjective)

6. Some say handling but I have only flown the 6, 7, 9, and 4 so I don't know about the 3, 8, 10, 12


Those are some of the advantages..... you did not ask about the disadvantages..... of the 4 vs 8

1. Smaller inside

2. Less storage

3. Not suppose to take a 200 hp engine

4. Significantly more difficult to build

5. Lower gross weight

6. Lower Vne

Welcome to VAF!!!!

Butch Clay said:

Hey folks, newbie here

Click to expand...

Butch, welcome to the good ship VAF.

I would dearly love to have a 4, best looking of the entire RV line far as I am concerned. But, too small for me

Once you get the hang of sheet metal and rivets, you will do just fine.

Enjoy

The preview plans...

...come in a binder. You get all of the plans in an 11 x 17 inch format so that you can look at the entire project. You will also get a copy of the builders manual...that list the step-by-step (sort of) instructions for building the aircraft. These preview plans may not be the latest level of the true builders drawings that you will receive with each kit.

Each kit (empennage, wing, fuselage, finish) will come with its set of drawings. The only way to see how the empennage interacts with the fuselage is to look at the preview set. That is unless you ordered all of the kits at one time so that you have all of the drawings.

RV4

Hi

The decision you make should be made on your mission profile. I have a Rv 9 and a 4. The RV 9 is a great long legged tourer. The RV 4 is a different animal its snug inside for the pilot but can accomodate 6'2 plus pilots. There is more space in the rear but nothing compared to the RV 8 or 9.

You can tour in a 4 but not as easily as in an 8, but the 4 handles better. Just after they brought out the 8 I spoke to several Vans employees at Sun and Fun and asked each of them which they prefered, the 4 or 8, they all said the same thing the 4 because of its better flying qualities.

But, the 8 is easier to build and has more room.

So, what mission do you want to fly, do you want something with more room or does the 4 have enough space for you.

Well I certainly can't common on which rv to purchase when it comes to building.
However I can certainly say I absolutely love my 4. it is an amazing machine. Light and nimble. Never Misses a beat. It's fast, efficient and reliable.
First off I love tandem seating, so that's my first choice. So that offers me the 8 and 4. The 4 has beautiful lines and in all honesty comparing the 4 and 8 is similar but really it comes down to how much space do you want. Hey I'm 6 foot and float between 175 and 195 pounds and there is lots of space for me up front in the 4.
Now if you intend on taking passengers often and or on longer trips then they will find the back a little tight.

Anyway we all know the 4 is the true rv and 8 was just something brought out later where they traded off some performance for a little more width. lol Just joking 8 owners.
In all honesty I'd like to compare head to head with an 8 owner out there. I believe IMHO that the 4 will out perform an 8 with the same equipment. Slightly bigger aircraft requires a little more power to offer the same performance. As said before this is my opinion.

You need a buddy with a side-by-side....

...if you're gonna build a -4. My wife refuses to ride "in that hole back there" in either a -4 or -8....she's ridden in both.

I've flown all the RV's but a -3 and sitting in the middle, like a wannabe fighter pilot is cool for a short while. It's tight with not much room to squirm around on cross-countries and maps and things need to be managed much more carefully since it's tight in a -4. It's a good handling airplane but IMO, after 500 hours in my -6, I still think the -6 sets the standard for best-handling RV.

Consider your significant other and have her sit in the back of a -4 and preferably take a ride in one, or you could end up like a friend of mine who had to sell his F-1 Rocket because neither his wife nor any of his buddies wanted to ride in the rear after their first flight back there.

YMMV,

Back seat in a 4

The comfort of a -4 back seat is all a matter of perspective. Personally, I like to have my wife ride in a Stearman from time to time. She has a blast, and it makes the back seat of a -4 seem like a Lexus.

M

small things make a difference also in the back of the 4. For example having electric flaps avoids the flap handle which gives more room to the passenger.
It really has a lot to do with being able to stretch out your legs. I was shocked on how much room there is in my Rocket compared to my 4.

One thing I didn't see mentioned is price of admittance for the performance.

A nice -4 can be had for $40k - $60k. Double that for a -8. I would venture to say that the majority of -4's you see flying around don't still belong to the builder.

For around $50k you get...
Aerobatic
190 MPH cruise with 3+ hours of fuel
8 GPH
Great looks
Take a friend on occasion
STOL
Proven Design
Great Flying Qualities (Easy to land for us newbies)
Low Maintenance Cost (A true gas and oil airplane)

You get almost all of those things with a -8 and the side-by-side machines at twice the price.

Saying that, I would never build a -4. The -8 will cost the same amount to build, take half as long and have double the resale value.

Cheers.

If you're a die-hard tandem seat pilot, want great handling, AND a second seat, only the -4 will do. When people say the 4 handles better than an 8, what they really mean to say is that the 8 is a boat compared to the 4. I've flown both and was very surprised at the difference, not that I didn't enjoy the 8. If the 4 is a sportbike, the 8's a "sport touring" bike...

The -4 fits me like a sailplane does - just enough space, nothing extra. Amazing visibility without the "A pillar" to borrow a car analogy.

Flying qualities of the -4 are the best of any RV I've flown. Granted, I have very little RV time, but both -4s I've flown were just perfect.

Panel space is tight for IFR goodies, but fine for VFR. Tanks are smaller than the -6/-7 or -8.

If it were available in matched hole / quickbuild .....

TODR

Flew the 4,6,7 and the 8. Bought a project 4 and never looked back. Love it.
My mission is basically local flying though. Never far enough away to even need a map. (maybe 200 miles in any direction from home) Passengers are almost always kids, or local flight instructors who just want a ride. Thats maybe 5% of my flying. Mostly a solo bird.
Centerline seating is the best. (again, I fly solo most of the time) Why would you sit an other way unless your wife was with you? ;-)
The A/C goes where you point it, climbs great, flys fast and lands slow...
I agree with a post above that characterizes it as a true gas and oil airplane. (if you can restrain you urges to "upgrade stuff")
I will probably build/acquire a 9 eventually, so the wife can come along, and I can resume teaching as my career winds down...
Good luck,

DM

Rockets Rule

The RV-4 is the absolute most bang for your buck in any civilian light plane. I built mine and subsequently put 1400 hours on it. (I must have liked it However comma, my Harmon Rocket is ALOT more bang for ALOT more bucks! Combine an RV4 kit with John Harmon's kit and what do you get?

It's roomier, faster and flies equally as good or better than the 4, still looks sexy and has more back seat room than the 4 or 8 and (my wife says) more comfortable due to the angled rear deck and deeper floorboards. It also burns the same fuel to slightly less at the same speed of an RV but has the capability to go 200 Knots true at 12.5 GPH if you want to burn the gas. I like 180 Knots at 10.5 GPH for traveling. I also can set 20/20 and burn 6 GPH cruising around the swamp at 130 knots. All this in a machine I can land at my 1800' grass strip.

If you're going to drill holes, why not build an HR2?

Smokey
www.harmonrocket.com

Holy Cow!!!!

I thought I would check the forum quick to see if anybody answered the question. I can't believe it's two pages long. I really appreciate everybodys input. Some of you asked me questions about what I like, want, and what kind of flying.

I'm an open cockpit fella, and I love the experience of feeling the flight. What I mean is I enjoy feeling an airplane like it's part of my body. I wont bash other types of airplanes because I like them all but I just don't enjoy airplanes like Cessnas etc. I have never liked side by side seating and I own a Taylorcraft. Tandem or a single seat is what I need to be in unity with what I enjoy. I have flown the -9 and I didn't like it because of the seating.

I'm 6'0" and 180 lbs and as crazy as it sounds I love tight fitting airplanes like a Pitts. I love feeling like i'm wearing it. Most people enjoy room, and for good reason, but I prefer to just fly and have maximum visibility. I'm a VFR fella with an occasional trip to see a buddy and I can put up with some discomfort seems that's what i'm used to anyhow.

My passengers would be children and a buddy once in a while. My wife likes airplanes but has zero desire to fly, she just likes the fact that I build at home in the garage and i'm not in the bar.

I like simple and minimum equipment, I just like to fly and keep things simple and light.

Well, that's about it. I'm a simple guy that just want more feeling out of an airplane.

I know NOTHING about aluminum so this side of aviation will be a new thing for me.

..................................................................................................

OK, so that said, and after reading your comments, I think I'm still leaning towards the RV-4. I just love the looks and I have a feeling the the flight qualities are right up my alley.

One last question though, when you say it's a lot tougher than a pre-punched kit what does that mean? Besides the obvious, is it more HARD than it is TIME consuming? Or is it all about time savings.

Thanks again folks, you guys are great!

Butch Clay

also consider the fastback version

Butch Clay said:

I'm 6'0" and 180 lbs and as crazy as it sounds I love tight fitting airplanes like a Pitts.

Click to expand...

Your size won't be an issue with the 4 then.

I spent many an hour post dating to the beginning of each aircraft on this board before deciding on the 4. This forum is what made the decision for me with mostly two people, Smokyray and Dave Anders and his 265 mph 4 having the most input on my decision, even though I?ve never met either, just read up on everything they had to say about it.

I understand Van the man also still chooses the 4 to this day for his daily flyer. When it comes to two-seaters, just about everybody I?ve read from says that the 4 is Van?s sweetest flyer. When you review all of the posts from the beginning, you?ll also see a few builders of Van?s going back to the 4 after having tried some of his other designs.

The 4 also has sexier legs.

I don?t think the resale value of the 4 is really a problem. Those lower priced 4?s often come from many of the older planes since quite a few are over 20 years old, and had lots of use, so compared to some of the newer lower time 8?s they should have a higher resale value because of that, and also most of the 8's are probably QB's and people generally nearly always put more into theirs such as C/S props, and more instrumentation when the 4 people I think generally go with a fixed prop and often minimum instrumentation. Also since all 4?s are standard kits, builders may not be as pressed to have to get a higher resale value when it?s sweat equity, and buyers also have this in mind. I don?t know if there is a higher profit margin when selling 8?s versus 4?s when all things are considered, but I actually haven?t researched it that much.

You can?t go wrong with any of Van?s aircraft, but a fastback 4 is the plane for me. I think you?ll be happy with any of his designs.

And don't forget, the -4 now qualifies for 2" NX numbers.
Ref. 45.22(b)

Thanks for the post John!

I gave up on the whole money thing long ago.

I realized that I don't like to look at what I spend and resale is prety much on the bottom rung of the ladder as far as decision making for me. I'm not made of money....I'll make that clear for sure, but one thing I have learned over the years is the airplane you build needs to be the one you want.

I want to be clear on the -9 as well. I re-read my post and I don't want to have anybody get the vibe that I don't like the RV-9. It's no doubt an awesome airplane, it just isn't the type of airplane that fits my flying style. I fully understand why a pilot would want a -9, it's a great all around airplane.

I also left something out of the conversation. The truth is I would love to build an RV-3. This whole thing started because I had intentions of building a Midget Mustang, love the Mustang. I bought the plans a couple months ago and spent manyhours looking them over. After doing some research I came to the conclusion that the RV-3 is a much better value, at least from my perspective. Then of course, I have this "thing" in the back of my head that keeps telling me that after all the work it's gonna take to build one I really should have 2 seats. I have three little kids and I can see the writing on the wall.

Anyhow, I really have only two options because tandem is the only choice for me so it it comes down to the -4 or the -8.

I REEEEEEALLY like the 3 and would love to build one.

Of course, the RV wasn't intended to be my primary airplane, but I can see why it could be!

argg!!!

Butch Clay

One other option

Butch,

Talk to Stein about flying Paul's 150 hp RV-8. While larger, Paul's plane is light, thus the O-320 and wood prop wook very well with it. (This is all second hand. Like I said, check with Stein.)

He said that while it won't climb with a 180 hp RV-8, he said it did fly very close to the -4. More so than he expected.

Stein, you listening?

Butch,

None of the RV series are difficult to build. The 4 (and 3) are just more time consuming because there is not so much pre-punched.

My advice is build a 4. Get the emp kit to start with, and a starter tool kit from someone like Avery. You'll have around $3 to 3.5K in it. If you really hate it, you'll be able to sell the kit and the tools for about what it cost you. You won't hate it, its not difficult, and you will really enjoy flying the airplane. The sooner you start the sooner you will be flying .

Pete

Predrilled ?

The predrilled system is quicker to build and much less likely that mistakes will be made. No question.

Provided you are careful and ideally get some help from an experienced builder, the extra work really isn't that much of a chicane.

I am 6 foot tall and with a stretch I can make my head touch the canopy. Having said that getting canopies blown isn't that big a deal so if you are cramped just get a bigger canopy made up.

From what you have written about your philosophy toward flying the 4 is definitely for you.

Say Butch....

Butch Clay said:

One last question though, when you say it's a lot tougher than a pre-punched kit what does that mean? Besides the obvious, is it more HARD than it is TIME consuming? Or is it all about time savings.

Thanks again folks, you guys are great!

Butch Clay

Click to expand...

......."Pre-punched" means that the factory has already punched the rivet holes in both skins, ribs, bulkheads and longerons. Building a -3 or -4, you have to drill them all.

You're a perfect match for an RV-4....VFR day, lightweight, aerobatic and a passenger seat! A man after Van's own heart

Welcome,

Welcome Butch,

Thanks for the Happy Birthday on another thread.

Think long and hard before you make your choice. You have already said that the plane you build should be the one you want. You have three small kids at the moment. The kids will not always be small and the time may come when going off with Dad for a flight is not so cool. If it was me in the same situation, I would build the 3. That is the plane you really like. Your not going to stop liking the 3 if you choose to build a 4. There will always be a "What If" at the back of your mind.

Our chapter president has three kids....

...and a two place Christen Eagle. They simply rotate turns when he flies anywhere and they're all happy.

Best,

Being Devil's advocate

You said:

"I know NOTHING about aluminum so this side of aviation will be a new thing for me"

We all have intentions of finishing a project when we start one; that being said IMHO your chance of completing a pre-punch, match drilled airplane like the RV-8 is a cake-walk compared to having to build Empanage, Wing and Fuse Jigs and back-drilling 14,000 holes on a 4 project. The difference in size between a 4 and 8 is measured in inches. The comfort level of an 8 is higher; the range cross country is longer; the back seat is more wife/kid/buddy friendly. The baggage capacity of a 4 is 50 pounds. On an 8 it's 125 pounds. The cruise between the two birds are close; the 8 can take a 200 HP lycoming and give you a cruise of 212. The 8 with a 180 HP Lycoming will give you a cruise of 203. The same 180 HP in the 4 will give you a cruise of 201. The only difference is the 8 will use a constant speed prop; the 4 a fixed pitch.

Resale value should be a factor as well. For sure you can finish an 8 in less time than a 4. Mainly because a 4 has no factory holes to line up the parts.

Less time means you can be in the air sooner. That 4 project might get so slow that you get discouraged and end up selling it on Ebay. Build something you can finish in a timely manner; that will haul *** cross country; that the wife will go with; that has good value and is popular. If you like the looks, just add in an 8 Fastback kit. Now that's a good looking airplane.

Here's the 8 fastback link:

http://www.showplanes.com/RV8Conversion2.htm

Bob

I'm with OceanBob on this

I have flown the RV 3, 4, 6, and have 700+ hours on my RV-8. The 3 and 4 are slightly lighter on the controls, but they all fly pretty much the same; they are wonderful, responsive, fast, efficient, aerobatic airplanes. As OceanBob says, a big issue is starting and finishing the project. Van's pre-punched kits are significantly more complete, come with better plans, and are easier to build. You are more likely to finish a pre-punched kit than an RV-3 or RV-4 kit. I suggest that you get a ride in both an RV-4 and an RV-8 to experience their performance, utility, comfort, and handling. Then decide if you want to deal with the differences in the kits, building time, and complexity.

Good luck,

Dan Miller

Built two RV-8's. Incredible airplanes!

Old School Homebuilt.

Hi Butch,

Each to his own, but if you are an old school homebuilder the RV-4 will suit you fine as a project. OK, I live in a different "economic zone" but the difference in price between an RV-4 kit and an RV-8 would pretty much see me right for an O-320.

I doubt the argument regarding resale stacks up so well, if the RV8 was equipped as you'd build an old-school light and simple RV4. The resale argument can back fire on you as it also makes it more difficult to justify keeping the plane if it's worth so much!

So, if providing your own holes and having a simple plane to go FLY in, are your goals, the economics stack up pretty good.

You're about where I was a year ago in the decision process. I opted for an RV6 over an RV7 or 9 for these reasons, and a -6 over a -4 for exactly the reasons Pierre describes.

Good luck! Building an aluminium plane is a sight lot less messy than grinding away at steel tube and is generally pretty civilised.

Cheers,
Andrew.

It might help if we can define terms like pre-punch and matched hole. The original kits had no holes anywhere. The modern kits for -7,-8,-9 have darn near all the holes already poked, so you can cleco assemblies together right out of the crate without jigs. This is referred to as matched-hole. Meanwhile, the current -4 kits have most of the skin holes already done (pre-punched) but no holes in the underlying ribs or bulkheads. Thus, jigging is required for virtually everything.

Additionally, the -4 plans are traditional mechanical drawings, whereas the newer stuff is a bit more readable by the average Joe. The instructions for the new stuff takes you step by step all the way through engine install, but this is not the case with the -4. You get pretty detailed instructions for the tail feathers, but by the time you get to the fuse, it's sort of "step one: build a fuse".

Regarding your lack of aluminum knowledge, both kits will be the same. The only real fabrication required is limited to some cutting and drilling...oh, and bending those darned canopy skirts

Resale value of 4's compared to 8's

I thought I’d look into this further since this seems to be an issue for some thinking the 4 might not hold its value as much compared to the 8’s. I didn’t spend much time on it, so it may have some errors, but I think it will still give others something to think about when their decision comes down between a 4 or 8 on the resale value. I did several things, first going to Barnstormers and quickly scanning the first 10 pages for completed 4’s and 8’s, writing down the year if listed and going with the priced asked for if shown, not actual selling price. I realize hours on engine and other things would be important too, but wanted to make this one a bit simple. One 8 listed was complete minus paint. My list didn't format very good, but the 4's year and price are on the left, while the 8's on the right. I used a question mark for unknown year. Here’s what I came up with:


RV-4’s RV-8’s

Year Price Year Price

98 58k ? 67.5k
? 53k ? 98.5k
92 51k 05 85 k
97 46k ? 82.5k
89 39.5k 07 59.5 complete minus paint
? 54k 01 82k
? 45k ? 75k
91 47.5 05 88.9k
...........04 79.5k


So for years listed, the 4’s median age is 1993 while the 8’s are 2004 which is a 11 year difference. If this was reversed, and the 8’s came in 11 years older while the 4’s the newer planes, I think the gap would be narrowed considerably, but the 8's having mostly the CS props, and still spending the extra money on the QB's would perhaps still be higher.

The median price on the 4’s came in at $49.25k. The 8’s at $79.8. That’s a 30.55k difference. That seems quite good for the 8’s, but keep in mind the age difference of planes compared, and surely the 4's had considerable more time on engines and airframes as well. Now we should consider what each builder has in their plane.

The second thing I did was go to Van’s aircraft estimator. I kept most options the same including do it yourself paint and supplying your own tools. A couple of exceptions: I went with the new 160 HP engines with wooden prop on the 4’s while going with the new 180 HP engines with CS metal prop with the 8’s since these are generally popular choices with quite a few builders on the types built. The other major difference is naturally the 4’s are not quickbuilds, while I listed the 8 as a QB. Again, I’m just trying to get an idea of what kind of money people are putting in their plane, and then seeing if the asking price of one particular model over another is doing that much better. I have a feelin’ the 8’s are probably putting more instrumentation in theirs too, but I didn't include that, and just used same basic instrumentation panel. Here’s what I came up with. For the 4’s Van’s estimator from lower to higher came in with this: $50,690-$57,795. For the 8’s from lower to higher it came it with this: $75,300-$91,660.

Anyway, on the low end, you will have $24,610 more dollars in your 8 than your 4. On the high end, you will have $33,865 difference you will need to cough up. Based on this, an 8 needs to get about 30k more on theirs than the 4 builders to break even.

This data is by no means complete, it was just a quick study, but it certainly appears the 8's don't hold any advantage over the 4 in resale value when one considers the money invested. There are other practical reasons of why one would want to choose an 8 over a 4, and vice-versa, which many have been listed, but I don't think resale value is an advantage one holds over the other when costs are considered. Both seem to do just fine.

The reason why the RV-4 has such a following is because a light 160 hp wood prop RV may be the best flying airplane there is at any price.

I have owned two RV-4's and two Rockets, among a bunch of other airplanes in the last twenty years, I have flown over 150 types of airplanes including several WWII fighters.

Nothing i have flown flies as nice as a light wood prop RV-4....

And nothing for the money will do as many things well as the RV-4...

I love my Rocket, but the RV-4 is, without a doubt, a nicer flying airplane.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

pierre smith said:

......."Pre-punched" means that the factory has already punched the rivet holes in both skins, ribs, bulkheads and longerons. Building a -3 or -4, you have to drill them all.,

Click to expand...

Just a minor correction here (unless they've changed stuff). The longerons on the -7, -8 and -9 are not pre-punched. But yeah, still it's just a matter of bending them to the correct shape them putting them in place and match-drilling them to the pre-punched skins. I say "just". Took me a week of work to bend those suckers to the right shape.

B25Flyer said:

The reason why the RV-4 has such a following is because a light 160 hp wood prop RV may be the best flying airplane there is at any price.

I have owned two RV-4's and two Rockets, among a bunch of other airplanes in the last twenty years, I have flown over 150 types of airplanes including several WWII fighters.

Nothing i have flown flies as nice as a light wood prop RV-4....

And nothing for the money will do as many things well as the RV-4...

I love my Rocket, but the RV-4 is, without a doubt, a nicer flying airplane.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Click to expand...

well said. also it's very true that the wood prop and 160hp go together like cheese and crackers.

Thanks for all the great help everybody! I've decided to not build the -8 model. I've naroed it down to the -3 or the -4.

This is a tough one because I have other airplanes to haul my family around in so I could easily build a single seat. I'm a little nervouse about it because I don't want any regrets with not buildng one with a second seat.

Has anybody taken the hours it takes to build the -3 or -4 and come up with averages that make sense? I'm extremely mechanically inclined and work with blueprints every day. Just wondering what the realistic numbers are and have broken it down for the tail, fuselage, and wings. Being self employed I'm able to work on it during the day periodically if needed.

Butch Clay

No regrets...

Butch Clay said:

I'm a little nervouse about it because I don't want any regrets with not buildng one with a second seat.


Butch Clay

Click to expand...

Butch, I was in a similar situation when I started looking at RV's. I choose the -4 because I wanted to be able to take a friend upside down on occasion and the other airplanes I had access to couldn't do that. I look back on my decision now and I am glad I went with the -4. Being able to share the wonderfull world of RV-ing with my friends and the young kid on the other side of the fence at the airport is the best part of all.

Besides...you can fly cheaper in a -4 than a -3......

Just last weekend, an ASA buddy of mine called and asked if the RV was up and running. I said "yep", he said "I got $75 for gas and a burger". And I said, "be there in 15 min". 4 and a half hours later I put the plane to bed with exactly the same amount of fuel I stared with, a full belly, plenty of upside down time, and a couple hours hanging out with friends at various airparks all around Atlanta!

Butch...

We are slowly building a 3... I think the good points are

This is a tough one because I have other airplanes to haul my family around in

Click to expand...

and

I choose the -4 because I wanted to be able to take a friend upside down on occasion and the other airplanes I had access to couldn't do that

Click to expand...

We have an RV-8, so the 2 seat "near equivalent" is there - for us an easy decision.

The 3 is, by all accounts, the "ultimate flying" RV, but closely followed by the 4.

My concern with the 4, if you will fly it mostly solo, is that the Fwd CG will not be as delightful as it could be (see above), whereas the 3 will always be optimal

Andy

Andy,
With my fly away kit in the baggage area, my four is balanced perfectly. Then again, I can take it out, and put my daughter back there and it's still balanced...
Still, a three would be fun, but only with A LOT of power... ;-)

DM

Butch Clay said:

Has anybody taken the hours it takes to build the -3 or -4 and come up with averages that make sense?

Click to expand...

Don?t know the man hours for the 3?s, but 2,500 hours seems to be the figure I often hear from builders on the 4. The 4?s also have pre-punched wing skins now, but I don?t believe they have done the same with the ribs. I?ll know for sure in a couple of weeks when my kits arrive.

I don?t think any of the 3 is pre-punched, but for additional money they do offer a quickbuild kit on the wing.

It seems I?ve read from others that when flying the 4 solo, the similarities are very similar, but with the 3 having a slight edge on how it handles, IIRC.

3 vs 4 rumors

I lurk and read about RVs as much as possible. Here are some statements I heard that may be relevant.

I phoned a guy selling both an RV-3 & RV-4. I asked wich he liked better, he said "I had way more fun in the -4, if I could only have one, it would be the -4".

You mentioned you like open flight deck airplanes. from time to time on this form a photo of -3 with wind screen and turtle deck appears. it really looks good!

One builder was starting on his -3 and commented the horizontal stabilizer has so few pieces, it was really going together fast and easy.

I have zero experience but must contribute my 2 cents to the wealth of knowledge.
If you can go for it. I hope you GO FOR IT!

I don?t think any of the 3 is pre-punched, but for additional money they do offer a quickbuild kit on the wing.

Click to expand...

Not true at all. The elevator bellcrank is pre punched.

I chose the 3 because of the QB wing and the fact that it was the only plane that would fit in my living room. The 4 is probably the more economical choice, but it surely doesnt look as cool.

B25Flyer said:

Nothing i have flown flies as nice as a light wood prop RV-4....

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've never flown a light, wood prop RV-3.

sandifer said:

Sounds like you've never flown a light, wood prop RV-3.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true... I am told it is better, I wonder how it could be, but if you have one to share, I ready to learn....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

If I still had mine, I'd let you fly it! It's cool watching your own plane fly...too bad that usually only happens after you've sold it.

Still wondering...

Ok guys, so a woodie 160 hp RV-4 is killer combo? How about a woodie 180 hp RV-4 that weighs maybe 20 lbs more? That's 3 gallons of gas, so a 180 hp RV-4 with 20 gallons vs a 160 hp RV-4 with 23 gallons?

Would these two otherwise identical airplanes fly any differently?

My next question will be for props. Even a heavy Hartzell vs wood. 30-40 lbs difference? Just guessing, but with an identical CG, will a Hartzell propped RV-4 with 20 gallons of fuel fly worse than a woodie with 26? (Whirlwind/MT should be even less)

I read this a lot on the forum here and can't see a good reason for the conclusion. I also just finished reading some threads about the Stroker IOX-340 with more hp still weighing what an O-320 weighs.

What am I missing? With equal CG's and equal weights, why would there be a deterioration of handling qualities with a 180 hp c/s combo?

Thanks guys --

build time

It took my dad and myself 2 1/2 years to build our -3 (that was over 20 years ago) The plans were better now than they were then also. If you can build a model, chances are you can build a -3. I am building a -4 so the wife and I can travel in it, She stands 5'6", and is comfortable in the back. and the final word; The -3 is a BLAST to fly

CuriousGeorge said:

...
My next question will be for props. Even a heavy Hartzell vs wood. 30-40 lbs difference? Just guessing, but with an identical CG, will a Hartzell propped RV-4 with 20 gallons of fuel fly worse than a woodie with 26? (Whirlwind/MT should be even less)

I read this a lot on the forum here and can't see a good reason for the conclusion. I also just finished reading some threads about the Stroker IOX-340 with more hp still weighing what an O-320 weighs.

What am I missing? With equal CG's and equal weights, why would there be a deterioration of handling qualities with a 180 hp c/s combo?

Thanks guys --

Click to expand...

George,

This has to do with the gyroscopic effect of the prop. Remember when you were a kid and would take a bicycle wheel and spin it, and then when you tried to turn it, it was difficult?

Well, the heavier the prop, the less it wants to turn. The same forces are at work here.

You can really feel this difference in a small airplane.

Thus identical weight and CG airplanes could feel very different depending on the prop.

BTW, the same issue comes to play when putting on aftermarket rims on a car. Lighter is always better. Heavy rims will reduce acceleration, increase braking distances, and make the car handle worse. (Turning is acceleration.)

good point

Ok, I can buy gyroscopic precession, rigidity in space, etc., but if an MT and/or Whirlwind add little more weight, would that compete with the "cheese and crackers" combo of the 160 hp + wood prop?

CuriousGeorge said:

Ok, I can buy gyroscopic precession, rigidity in space, etc., but if an MT and/or Whirlwind add little more weight, would that compete with the "cheese and crackers" combo of the 160 hp + wood prop?

Click to expand...

George,

I have no first hand knowledge but the less weight you put into your prop, the better the thing is going to handle.

So... Putting a composite CS prop on the front, should be close to the best of both worlds.

N941WR said:

George,

I have no first hand knowledge but the less weight you put into your prop, the better the thing is going to handle.

So... Putting a composite CS prop on the front, should be close to the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

We need a few Hartzell C/S prop owners to weigh in.................because my Hartzell C/S equipped plane is rather lively, gyroscopic forces withstanding. It doesn't feel like turning a spinning bicycle wheel at all..

L.Adamson --- RV6A

L.Adamson said:

We need a few Hartzell C/S prop owners to weigh in.................because my Hartzell C/S equipped plane is rather lively, gyroscopic forces withstanding. It doesn't feel like turning a spinning bicycle wheel at all..

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Click to expand...

It just may possibly be that not all people in all situations feel that a constant speed prop is the only rational choice. And it just may be that some of the people choosing a fixed pitch prop really know what they are doing have huge experience and qualifications.

Who would have thunk it since in some locations "everybody" uses constant speed props.