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

[sdh]

Originally Posted by Saville

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. "

Well, while I surely did my best to paint myself during this thread into the 'newbie with no idea'-corner, this thread has now considerably drifted from the originally posed questions. While my ideas what to actually get and fly will be better put off after having gained flying experience, can we for the sake of the discussion as such concentrate on the issues that do not pertain to my lack of flying experience?

To recap, the comparison/choice would be between a -3B with QB wings, a -4, or a QB -8. In absolute terms the handling could be ranked -3, -4, then -8, with the -8 still much nicer than the planes I will experience during my PPL practical part.

• The -3B at estimated empty/aerobatic zero fuel (see http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ead.php?t=4595) weights of 850/1050 lbs would leave me no usable load for baggage,
• the -4 with estimated empty/gross weights of 1100/1500 lbs would also operate near published gross with full fuel and no baggage, which leaves from that perspective
• the -8 with a gross of 1800 lbs. I'm guessing that an -8 with 1300 lbs empty should be possible, so that at least means full fuel, pilot, and substantial baggage is inside the published figures.

With the originally posted wish list/requirements in mind that would only leave the -8 on the table. On the other hand, it's actually a very good incentive to get rid of some flubber acquired over the last years and return to my weight from a few years ago (165 lbs), since that would make all three options viable with light baggage.

Cheers,
Sebastian

[David Paule]

At least one RV-3B has been built with an empty weight below 750 pounds, complete with an IO-320 and an electrical system. I think there might have been one below 700 pounds, too.

Note that if you're going up for acro you might not need any baggage, and on a longer trip you won't necessarily be doing acro, and can live with a higher gross weight. According the RV-3 Registry, there are plenty of RV-3s flying with higher gross weights.

I've flown an RV-4 that had an empty weight below 1,000 pounds. I think it was around 960 or something like that, and the owner apologized for its high weight. It flew quite well and I enjoyed that flight. It has an O-320 and a fixed-pitch prop, and even though we fly from a field with an elevation of 5,050 feet, it did fine.

Dave

[RV3bpilot]

I did spins at 1250 pounds gross wt. Then I did 3.9 G dives and pull-ups at the same 1250 pounds. That 1250 pounds included 25 pounds of rocks strapped into the baggage compartment. I did have a parachute on but not needed.
The old aerobatic gross weight was when the fuel tank was inside the fuselage and not in the wings...

Originally Posted by sdh

Well, while I surely did my best to paint myself during this thread into the 'newbie with no idea'-corner, this thread has now considerably drifted from the originally posed questions. While my ideas what to actually get and fly will be better put off after having gained flying experience, can we for the sake of the discussion as such concentrate on the issues that do not pertain to my lack of flying experience?

To recap, the comparison/choice would be between a -3B with QB wings, a -4, or a QB -8. In absolute terms the handling could be ranked -3, -4, then -8, with the -8 still much nicer than the planes I will experience during my PPL practical part.

• The -3B at estimated empty/aerobatic zero fuel (see http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ead.php?t=4595) weights of 850/1050 lbs would leave me no usable load for baggage,
• the -4 with estimated empty/gross weights of 1100/1500 lbs would also operate near published gross with full fuel and no baggage, which leaves from that perspective
• the -8 with a gross of 1800 lbs. I'm guessing that an -8 with 1300 lbs empty should be possible, so that at least means full fuel, pilot, and substantial baggage is inside the published figures.

With the originally posted wish list/requirements in mind that would only leave the -8 on the table. On the other hand, it's actually a very good incentive to get rid of some flubber acquired over the last years and return to my weight from a few years ago (165 lbs), since that would make all three options viable with light baggage.

Cheers,
Sebastian

[randylervold]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

...but once you have flown a -3, you realize that the -8 is just not as much fun.
The -3 probably provides the best all-around experince I have had in an airplane...

As one who has built and flown both I would echo Paul's comments exactly. I don't have nearly the flight experience he does, probably only flown a couple dozen aircraft types, but the -3B is in a class all by itself. Until you've spent some time in one, and I don't mean a quick hop but rather some time to get to know it, then I don't know how anyone can understand it.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by randylervold

As one who has built and flown both I would echo Paul's comments exactly. I don't have nearly the flight experience he does, probably only flown a couple dozen aircraft types, but the -3B is in a class all by itself. Until you've spent some time in one, and I don't mean a quick hop but rather some time to get to know it, then I don't know how anyone can understand it.

If only it did not take so long to build one....I'd do it.

[n5lp]

I have experience in a fairly small number of RVs but have found that for handling delight, weight is everything. My metal fixed pitch prop RV-6 (1056 empty weight) handles very nicely but not nearly like a lighter wood prop RV-6A that I have flown. That was the best. Smokey talks about a wood prop RV-4 and I believe him that that would be sweet.

I think the current trend to heavy engines, props, interiors and such are missing out on a lot of the RV joy.

[SMO]

FYI, my -4 was painted, had a 160 hp IO320, Hartzell CS prop, lights, and a steam gauge panel. Weighed 1,034 lbs. Under 1,000 lbs would be very doable with an EFIS, lighter prop (either composite CS or FP), and polished (no paint) aluminum.

[David-aviator]

...do not be disheartened. There are lots of opinions from lots of guys and gals on this forum and all are well intentioned.

The bottom line of the discussion is this, if you build an RV (any RV) and learn to fly it you will love it.

It really doesn't matter - build first learn fly, learn to fly build later. These airplanes have similar flying characteristics and are a delight in the air.

At this point you are over thinking everything. That's ok. Most of us did it to one extreme or another. Just remember, the final product, whatever you choose will please you in the air.

Press on young man, life is lot shorter than you think. Do not let building or learning to fly slip by at this time, do it!!

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by SMO

FYI, my -4 was painted, had a 160 hp IO320, Hartzell CS prop, lights, and a steam gauge panel. Weighed 1,034 lbs. Under 1,000 lbs would be very doable with an EFIS, lighter prop (either composite CS or FP), and polished (no paint) aluminum.

My -4 has paint, O-320, wood prop with 4" extension, vfr steam gauge panel, & had a big wet cell battery when weighed for initial A/W cert. Weighed 910 lbs.

Charlie

[grubbat]

Having had a -3 and then a -6, the -3 is hands down the best flying bird you will ever fly. You become an extension of the plane and together you become one. Well, maybe not one, but you get the picture. However, since there are no dual -3, training yourself to fly the thing is an experience, especially if you are the type to rely heavily on dual instruction. Thank goodness it flys so well.
Cj