What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Would you still have bought or built if...

AL_O_Dine

Member
Hypothetical question. Rv12 excluded.

If all of Van's aircraft were limited to 130mph cruise, for whatever reason, would you still have bought/built one?
 
Speed is a good thing, but I prefer the agility and responsiveness of RV's over their certified counter parts. I would still have built or bought an RV-9a or the -3 that I owned.
 
Depends on the scope of the question.

If it is taken literally and just relating to Vans, no, I would have crossed them off the list and looked elsewhere.

If it is couched in some "rule" that limited all craft, then that is a different world and the offerings from Van would be different so yes they might be on the list of options.
 
It would surly devalue the entire fleet of Van's aircraft ! I would have a Starduster Too .
 
Nope, in that speed range I'm looking at high wing airplanes with fat tires.

...or helicopters.
 
No, The RV offers a great combination of speed & handling.

If it had to go slow, like others, would probably opt for an airplane that can land anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Sure I would. I like to fly and look down. I like to feel like the wings are an extension of my own arms.

I've never found the fun of flying dissipates below maneuvering speed.
 
Considering I was flying a Stinson at the time, no way would I have gotten rid of a paid for 100-110 mph airplane for a measly 20-30 mph.

Sure do miss the Stinson at times though...............
 
No way. In fact, its my experience with the -8 that let me know even it is too slow! A Rocket is now my minimum.
 
No I would not. I would have built another Wittman Tailwind. Which I still have in the back of my head for a future project.
 
Interesting question....

I'm looking at the question and list of answers, and notice no one really asked a question about this question...

All aircraft are a series of trade-offs. We have a list of features we want, and assign a value to them. Features are fixed, but value is dependent on the buyer:

Feature Value to me
====== =========================
Top speed medium
Jet powered? Low
Slow landing speed High
Cost to own medium
Cost to acquire high
4 seats? Low
Certified? Low
Track record High
Tube and fabric? Low
Gross weight? Medium
Modern instruments? Medium
IFR capable? High
etc.

I think you build the list, and compare options that are available.

The key here is what is available. When the list put out the question "What should Van build next?" I said: "High wing pusher, 250knot, O-200 powered 4 seater that runs on Jet-A that costs less than $10,000 to build."

:rolleyes: *sigh*

It is my understanding that folks in heck also want ice water.

CC
 
Cruise 130 anytime

Oftime, if I desired the "low/Slow experience I'd simply throttle back to 130 or so cruise and enjoy the scenery whilst sipping fuel and don't need a lite sport to do it. RV's can be the best of all worlds.

Jerry
 
Interesting question. If all cars were limited to 45 mph would you buy a Corvette? What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?
 
No

NO
If RV 6,7,8s were only 130Knots I would probably would have kept my Bonanza.
I did want to build. I wish my RV8 'Borrowed Horse' was faster! 225 knots cruse would be nice. But I am not looking for another faster kit.
I plan to keep flying this one,,, unless someone comes in with a big fat pile of cash.
 
no i would not have. I built it because of the performance.
now, as to the corvette, mine very rarely goes above 45. but then it never gets driven to far from home and rarely gets off city streets. plus at 45 years old it gets driven real gentle.:D
 
Limited to only 130 MPH cruise, I would've simply kept my old $27K Piper Cherokee instead of spending $65K on an RV.
 
No way. In fact, its my experience with the -8 that let me know even it is too slow! A Rocket is now my minimum.

You are chasing a rainbow! The other week I was talking to a guy with a Lancair Evolution Turboprop and he complaining that 265 knots is too slow.
 
I've been stuck with a 130 mph cruise (on a GOOD day, cruising at nearly redline rpm, which is pretty normal for this engine/prop) and spend most of my time close to my home airport while my neighbor takes jaunts all over the SW in his RV-10 like it's nothing!

With any wind on my nose, I'm not much faster than a car. *sigh*

Waiting to see some -14 taildraggers and maybe I'll finally start building something that actually goes fast.

The only advantage to the Cessna is it lands in less than 200' touching down at about 40 mph. (with no wind, any headwind helps even more) That short field landing performance doesn't come in too handy since it can land in a lot shorter of a field than it can take off in. The only advantage is if the engine quits I don't need much room.

 
Last edited:
You are chasing a rainbow! The other week I was talking to a guy with a Lancair Evolution Turboprop and he complaining that 265 knots is too slow.

Last night on my last leg of a 3 day trip Mach 0.82 was not fast enough! Depends when and where.

200mph is my happy RV speed... For now ;)
 
You are chasing a rainbow! The other week I was talking to a guy with a Lancair Evolution Turboprop and he complaining that 265 knots is too slow.

I'm well aware of the trap I'm headed into!

...I just hope that 200 KTAS holds me over until my financial status can catch up.
 
Last night on my last leg of a 3 day trip Mach 0.82 was not fast enough! Depends when and where.

Squeezed into Cancun on Thursday - beat the Thomson Wet Dreamliner.

Only had to do .84 for 30 mins......

:D

you guys are all depressing me, yesterday coming in to MIA we were #1, ATC asks for speed, I tell him .76 and he asks can I give him at least .77 had to tell him sorry .76 was the best I could do.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
Back
Top