maintain without building?

[RatMan]

Originally Posted by joe gremlin

The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk.

Joe, I'm very interested in why you feel this way. Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Rat

[arffguy]

Originally Posted by RV8RIVETER

The -7 is a new larger airframe, not just a CAD version of the -6. The -6 was designed to use an engine range of 150hp-180hp and the -7 150-200hp. The -7 has a 200lb gross weight increase. The -7 and the -9 have the same fuselage, the -7 uses the same wings as the -8.

I am sure there are other differences that -7 builders can point out, but those are the major ones I know.

The RV-7 also has a higher aerobatic gross weight so you can put two people in with chutes and actually be in limits whereas the RV-6 would usually be over the aerobatic gross weight with two people in it.

From: http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm

"The RV-7/7A is designed for much the same mission as the RV-6/6A. However, it will accept Lycoming engines from 150-200 horsepower, giving the builder more options. It uses many parts in common with the RV-8/8A and RV-9A, which keeps production and inventory costs down. Legroom, headroom, and useful load are all greater than the RV-6/6A. The span and area of the wing has been increased. The Vne (never exceed speed) has been increased to 230 mph. Fuel capacity went from 38 gallons to 42.

But the biggest difference is the kit..............................
pre-fabricated wing spars are standard, canopy frames are stiffer and more accurate, internal structure has been simplified................

We estimate the construction time for the RV-7/7A kit at about 13-1400 hours, or about 30% less than an RV-6/6A."

[joe gremlin]

Originally Posted by RatMan

Joe, I'm very interested in why you feel this way. Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Rat

My statement was probably much more broad than it should have been. I was actually speaking from the standpoint of installing an auto engine that no one has ever installed in an airplane and all the potential pitfalls associated with that. I think that even small design deviations can have some risk though depending on who's doing the deviation.

[Deuskid]

Originally Posted by RatMan

Don't know where you've been shopping but I haven't found this to be true at all. Yes, you can build an "RV" for say, 40 grand and you can buy an "RV" for about the same but you have to compare apples to apples.

A new, nicely built VFR -7 or -8 could be done for ~40-45 but could easily command twice that much the day it takes flight. However, you can't compare these to what you might see on Barnstormers in the same price range. At the end of the day, any airplane is only worth what somone will pay for it, it's all in the details. I suppose it happens but I've never seen a flying RV sell for the same price as it was built for.

I'll have to agree with you though, regardless of price, if you aren't dedicated to building, don't! Way too many builders over-simplify and understate the building process. While it's true, building isn't any more difficult than squeezing a rivet. It's the 17,999 remaining that takes commitment. Also, you made the comment "especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount". I would dare say most builders could care less about how much value is placed on their labor. Why? Because building your own airplane is like being a parent you can't put a value on it and the more time you invest the better it will turn out. I think you also mentioned you're a CPA, well you can't create a spreadsheet and include a column that accounts for the emotions you will go through while building and then the the huge payoff when you leave the ground, Microsoft hasn't come up with a program for that yet (but I'm sure they're working on it).

I'm sure you could read a lot of builder's logs and it would say "spent five hours today building my elevator". But what isn't there is "spent another hour tonight admiring it". It's hard to explain but if you really understand why someone would admire a stupid aluminum elevator for an hour you get it. If you can't understand, don't build.

For some it's just easier and smarter to commit themselves to payments either one big one or a bunch of smaller ones. Either way we all win though, you buy and fly a great plane and that has the side affect of driving the value of RV's up.

Rat

Very well said - thank you.

It isn't that I can't appreciate the build process - to the contrary I'd LOVE to build. Like all things, it is a trade off. A prioritization. Flying is more important than building. If I build [and I meet other obligations in my life] I cannot fly. The purpose of building is flying. Building is desired but secondary. I wouldn't build a plane and not fly it BUT to build it will consume the time I have [and reason I have] to fly.

Btw, love your nick, my oldest son's nick since grade school has been 'rat'...

again, ty.

John

[rv6pilot737]

With very few exceptions, the answer is yes you can, if you know how, except for the annual condition inspection, which requires an A&P mechanic. See www.EAA.org site for where this specific question is answered. Surprising that there is so much confusion on this subject.......

[Deuskid]

Originally Posted by rv6pilot737

With very few exceptions, the answer is yes you can, if you know how, except for the annual condition inspection, which requires an A&P mechanic. See www.EAA.org site for where this specific question is answered. Surprising that there is so much confusion on this subject.......

I heard a recommendation [on another forum?] if you buy from the builder request they do the annual as part of the purchase. I thought that was an innovative suggestion

John

[6.6flylow]

You can always request?