Van's priorities?

[N941WR]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Van say the he was going to put some more development time into a single seater next?

Does this mean he is going to redesign (match hole) the RV-3?

I have seen some outstanding acro work done in a -3 and it made me question why I'm building a -9. Oh, that' right, there is that wife who I would have to leave behind. Some people might consider that a plus.

[Steve]

Van stated at OSH '04 that even if RV-3 shipments doubled to 10 per year, it still wouldn't cover his costs to re-engineer the kit in any way.
Steve

[flymustangs]

Originally Posted by Steve

Van stated at OSH '04 that even if RV-3 shipments doubled to 10 per year, it still wouldn't cover his costs to re-engineer the kit in any way.
Steve

OK, that makes sense, but the same would hold true for the redsign for the 8. If he sells 5 more kits per year because of the redesign, will it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the sales of the 8 will not double because of the redesign.

[sprucemoose]

The matched hole -8 was not as difficult a task as a 3 would be. The tail and wings are already matched hole. The -8 fuse was developed during the "pre-punched skins" era, which preceded matched hole, so was probably a much easier task to do. The -3 design is over 3 decades old. It would be a much greater task to re-engineer the entire thing to make it matched hole. And there would not be much of a demand for the thing when it was done. I think they made the right decision to concentrate on the -8.

[TShort]

Originally Posted by Steve

Van stated at OSH '04 that even if RV-3 shipments doubled to 10 per year, it still wouldn't cover his costs to re-engineer the kit in any way.
Steve

Does that mean only 5 kits are sold per year? Wow ... small number

T.

[praterdj]

I think the 3 is a neat plane but unpracticle for the way I plan to use the plane. Fun flying solo but cross country with the wife or a friend.

Actually I think the 4 has the best appearance of all RV's (personal opinion) but I'm too big for the 4. That made the decision easy for me after flying in an 8.

[TShort]

Van's says 224 completed 3s...
They must sell more than 5/year ... even at 10 kits / year that would be almost 100% completion rate... ?

I think it is the perfect sunny evening sport plane, perfect for solo x-country and for Saturday breakfasts with other RVs. I've heard flying one feels like there is almost no plane, you almost strap it on, just you and the sky.

Thomas

[Roadster]

Originally Posted by TShort

Van's says 224 completed 3s...
They must sell more than 5/year ... even at 10 kits / year that would be almost 100% completion rate... ?

I think it is the perfect sunny evening sport plane, perfect for solo x-country and for Saturday breakfasts with other RVs. I've heard flying one feels like there is almost no plane, you almost strap it on, just you and the sky.

Thomas

I'm sure back in the day when the -3 was the shizzle, Van's sold a lot more than 5 per year. However, now that the model options have expanded to two-place and four-place planes, it wouldn't surprise me if Van's only sold 5 in all of 2004.

[flymustangs]

Originally Posted by TShort

I think it is the perfect sunny evening sport plane, perfect for solo x-country and for Saturday breakfasts with other RVs. I've heard flying one feels like there is almost no plane, you almost strap it on, just you and the sky.

Thomas

That's exactly what has drawn me to the RV-3B. I thought that would be enough motivation to get past the kit/plans issues. I love my Glastar, but can't swing keeping it and building or buying something like an RV-8. An RV-3B should be substantially less cash outlay than an RV-8 (maybe not if they did do a redesign, can you say Catch 22)?

I guess to me it's an image issue. I think Van's will damage their reputation by continuing to sell "substandard" kits. I think they've established a new standard with the RV-10. You could argue that other companies have had plans of that quality for years, but that argument serves no purpose.

Is it cost effective to continue producing a kit with only five sales a year, irregardless of a redesign?

[panhandler1956]

It makes sense to me that they brought the -8 along with all of the "newer" models, but I would definately build -4 if it was match-holed over the -8. I plan to start an -8 in the fall, but I have been back and forth on which one of these to build.
I am not a big guy and I like the looks of the -4 better, but the less complex build along with other factors (resale) drives me to the -8.

My friends have heard me say all summmer, "if I buy a flying airplane, I want an RV-4, if I am building it is an -8."

My 2 cents.....

Brent