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

[ColoRv]

The 8 is a wonderful machine. I've put my wife in the back, 10 days worth of clothes for us both and all of my skydiving gear in it....and flew a 5000nm trip around the east coast and back to Denver. No issues, LOVE that plane.

But. I have this bus driver who posted above me that lets me fly both of his 3's and that rv3 is a ton of fun. If I ever ball up or sell my -8.....I'm building an RV3. 99% of the time I'm solo anyway....why burn the fuel, carry the weight and slow down my roll rate for a seat that is always empty? The -3 flies like a dream. Sit in all of them, fly in the ones you can get a ride in and build the one you dream about.

[Saber25]

I guess I had two above average builders and pilots. One fellow built his RV4 in just over one year and within two months of that received his PPl while celebrating his 65th birthday. In the next ten years or so he completed -4s, HR?s and even a couple of sixes while enjoying his personnel -4. Of course I should mention he was a participant of the Greatest Generation.

Then another fellow built a -4 and I set him up with an instructor teaching in a Citabria. Shortly after completing his PPL and finishing his project he went into the test phase and after his first flight in the -4 he claimed it felt as though he?d flown it all his life, this from an aviator with just over 80 hours.

Different strokes for different folks and if you?re a sailor and bike rider you should have most of the physical and mental skills to be an excellent pilot. Find a tail dragger and instructor, C172?s will diminish that burning desire for three dimensional performance. Then work on both projects zeroed in like a laser.

?Failure is not an option?

Cheers, Hans

[Saville]

Originally Posted by n82rb

It can be done, mine came in at 995 no paint, O-360 and hartzell constant speed.

Bob burns
Rv-4 n82rb

Yes that's why I was very careful to specifically and clearly write:

"1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully."

[fixnflyguy]

I built a -4, and it took a looong time. I made my choice when only 3 models existed..-3,4,6 where it, and I got a ride in a -4. I was hooked. There wasn't yet an decent internet, forums or anything to helo, just VANS periodic flyer. At the time, almost all my flying was solo, but I wanted a second seat and loved the cowl cheek look of the -4. By the time I completed the plane (15 yrs.), I had meet a wonderful lady who took her first ride in my 46 Taylorcraft, and she was hooked. At 40.01 hrs on the Hobbs, and into phase 2 , the -4 had a passenger, and I seldom fly solo anymore..in fact that wonderful lady and I got married in the plane at 5280 feet over our airport last spring. 2 seats are must, although I would love to have a -3 someday just because I want one!

[sdh]

Originally Posted by rv7charlie

My -4 was built by a guy who didn't have a pilot's license (had previously built/restored several cars). His instructor put him in the back seat, and when he could land the plane from the back seat with only rudder pedals (no brakes), they swapped places for the rest of his training.

Don't know if that will work (legally) in Europe. But training in your own plane will be a lot less expensive than renting, if you intend to own a plane after you get your license. If you decide you don't like flying after all, you will have had the building experience and you should be able to at least recover your investment in parts.

None of the above would be possible in a -3. And I'll bet that at least *some* of the time, you do have people willing to go sailing (flying) with you, right? Again, not possible in a -3. Given how expensive flying/gas is in Europe, it's hard to imagine being unable to find a willing passenger fairly often.

I would absolutely love to own a -3, but I can't justify such an expense as a 2nd airplane in my one-pilot family. :-)

Charlie

The EU regulations are changing (in a hopefully good way) at the moment, and at least the info I got for the UK is that as long as certain conditions are met, initial training in an uncertified/amateur-built airplane is/will be possible. If this will be possible in practice might be the question as it would mean for the flying school that they miss out on rental fees for their planes (which I assume makes up a substantial bit of their income).

But to be honest, I personally would not feel comfortable with tandem-seat instructions from the beginning as that would preclude visibility as back-seater and would also not enable me to see what my instructor does (with the -7, that would be a completely different story).

Regarding the possibility to take someone up with me: Perhaps it's a personal thing but I enjoyed most of my motorcycling *because* it was a solitary activity (and taking a girlfriend with me was never for day-trip, just for a hop down to the lake, or such). Flying a single-seater would - taking the useful load issue out of discussion - not limit my future flying in a substantial way, and for taking up someone, I can still rent something larger from the aeroclub.

[sdh]

Originally Posted by Saville

If you start with a 1000 empty weight airplane full tanks and a 200 lb pilot you get 108 lbs left over. 30 lbs baggage and that's 78.

If you go CS prop it'll be a little less than 78.

And all your XC will have to be solo unless you bring a very small person with you.

1000 empty weight is achievable but you have to build carefully.

Plus the build time for an RV-4 vs an RV-8 QB may be longer.

I thought MTOW for the -4 was specified at 1500lbs? So with my 200lbs + 32gal fully fueled (short of 200lbs if I'm not wrong) would give me about 100lbs of usable load if built at 1000lbs empty (which seems actually more the lower achievable limit). Building to 1100lbs empty weight would mean slightly overloaded conditions, but if it's OK to up MTOW for a -3 from 1100 to 1300 for non-acro purposes, going from 1500 to let's say 1550 would be relatively minor increase for the -4.

[sdh]

Originally Posted by Jaypratt

Sebastian,

Really,,,,, you have had two rides in a C172? Get 200 hours in a 172. then think about what your mission is. You might want something besides a RV.

Getting more flying hours before deciding has been at least one good result of my asking here for advice. The time in the C172 was as potential student, I've had additionally the chance to go a few times as rear-seat passenger with two colleagues who own a share in a Cirrus SR22.

It's a very, very limited hands-on experience, I concede, but I cannot really see myself going for a family-compatible four-seater since there's no use for that for me.

Six years ago I became 'more reasonable', ditched the motorcycle as commuter vehicle - and bought an older Lotus Elise which I since then ran as my daily driver, first in the Bavarian South/Munich, later after my relocation to the Netherlands up here in the windy, rainy low countries. It's a two-seater with very limited creature comfort, leaks when it rains - but with only 750kg curb weight it's very nicely powered by a 120hp engine and goes like nothing else if you have the road available.

So since flying a small GA plane in Europe makes utility-wise no sense, it's for me a toy to enjoy and tinker with - and for that, I aim more towards something light and nimble than useful and heavier, which sparked the initial interest in the -3.

[Saville]

Originally Posted by sdh

I thought MTOW for the -4 was specified at 1500lbs?

It is


So with my 200lbs + 32gal fully fueled (short of 200lbs if I'm not wrong) would give me about 100lbs of usable load


It does. 108 is the number I came up with (32 gallons * 6 lbs/gallon)



if built at 1000lbs empty (which seems actually more the lower achievable limit).

Especially if you want a CS prop. That 1000 is more easily achieved with a wooden fixed pitch prop.

You also postulated 30lbs of baggage for XC trips. That leaves you with a 78 pound margin.

Unless of course you figure on taking the full 50lbs that Van's says you can put in the baggage compartment. Then the margin is 58lbs.....................



Building to 1100lbs empty weight would mean slightly overloaded conditions,



But now you want to add the same load to an 1100lb airplane???

And don't forget, that's all fine on a sea level standard day. High altitude airport and/or hot day? Now what?

This is another reason you might consider suspending your choice of airplane until you've taken the training and gotten a license. Then you'll have a better idea of how things work and what to consider.



but if it's OK to up MTOW for a -3 from 1100 to 1300 for non-acro purposes, going from 1500 to let's say 1550 would be relatively minor increase for the -4.

Your airplane; your life. You get to make the decisions. But for me, if Van tells me the limit is 1500 then I stick with 1500. I don't fly over published gross unless it's an extreme emergency. And I've never had that happen. But that's just me. I don't even allow myself to get close to gross in the Summer.

So here you are - a guy with no flight training already trying to figure out ways to bust the published gross weight limit of an airplane.

I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, but at this point if someone asked me for advice, I'd say it's time to stop and take a deep breath.....and consider that you may not know what you don't know.

[sdh]

Originally Posted by Saville

I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, but at this point if someone asked me for advice, I'd say it's time to stop and take a deep breath.....and consider that you may not know what you don't know.

No worries, I'll gladly learn. But there's then still the discrepancy of the manufacturer's published numbers and what I read people end up with. For the RV-3 I've quickly found on http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Flying/flying.html an empty weight of 878 resp. 889 lbs, and his POH states an utility category MTOW of 1300 lbs (1050 lbs plus fuel for aerobatics); http://www.myrv3.com/Home.html states 845 lbs empty, 1250 lbs gross; and a French -3 states in the registration papers (http://monrv-3.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/CNRAex.pdf) utility max gross weight of 567 kg = 1250 lbs. So at least from these three fast lookups, it seems that 10% added MTOW from factory spec seems empirically acceptable for non-acrobatic purposes.

Applying that analogously to the RV-4 with its published MTOW of 1500 lbs, my initially argued increased MTOW of 1550 lbs with light luggage (using the specified full baggage capability would of course mean reduced fuel load) would have a much lesser impact relative to the original specified numbers than the above-mentioned figures for the -3.

I don't dispute that the factory numbers are there for a reason, and that deviation should be justified, but assuming that the -3 and -4 are designed for aerobatics using allowable load factors compliant with FAR 23.337 (+6g/-3g), and that a reasonable FAR 23.303-compliant safety factor of 1.5 has been used, and that a non-aerobatic utility-catefory use for cross-country-loaded flights is envisaged, an increase in *utility* MTOW for the -4 of less than 10% of specified *aerobatic* MTOW would not prima facie constitute a cavalier attitude towards risk.

[Saville]

Originally Posted by sdh

No worries, I'll gladly learn. But there's then still the discrepancy of the manufacturer's published numbers and what I read people end up with. For the RV-3 I've quickly found on http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Flying/flying.html an empty weight of 878 resp. 889 lbs, and his POH states an utility category MTOW of 1300 lbs (1050 lbs plus fuel for aerobatics); http://www.myrv3.com/Home.html states 845 lbs empty, 1250 lbs gross; and a French -3 states in the registration papers (http://monrv-3.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/CNRAex.pdf) utility max gross weight of 567 kg = 1250 lbs. So at least from these three fast lookups, it seems that 10% added MTOW from factory spec seems empirically acceptable for non-acrobatic purposes.

Applying that analogously to the RV-4 with its published MTOW of 1500 lbs, my initially argued increased MTOW of 1550 lbs with light luggage (using the specified full baggage capability would of course mean reduced fuel load) would have a much lesser impact relative to the original specified numbers than the above-mentioned figures for the -3.

I don't dispute that the factory numbers are there for a reason, and that deviation should be justified, but assuming that the -3 and -4 are designed for aerobatics using allowable load factors compliant with FAR 23.337 (+6g/-3g), and that a reasonable FAR 23.303-compliant safety factor of 1.5 has been used, and that a non-aerobatic utility-catefory use for cross-country-loaded flights is envisaged, an increase in *utility* MTOW for the -4 of less than 10% of specified *aerobatic* MTOW would not prima facie constitute a cavalier attitude towards risk.

Man has to do what he thinks is best.

I repeat:

"So here you are - a guy with no flight training already trying to figure out ways to bust the published gross weight limit of an airplane. "