Completed RV-7 Prices

[RatMan]

Originally Posted by Jconard

[P.S. I would like to point out that Mr. Barrow os probably one of the most credible people who post here, when it comes to aircraft construction.

Although I haven't ever met Bob nor do I know of his background, I don't think I called Mr Barrows credibility into question, quite the contrary. If you feel that I did, I apologize. If you feel that he is more credible than I (although you don't know me either) that's O.K. too. Actually he called my credibility into question by stating that my point contained not an ounce of truth. (A polite way of calling me a liar Doug likes it when we are polite.) He then pointed out that the average RV is quite roughly built. If he has found this to be true, so be it. I'm OK with that. It's just not what I have observed. I readily admit that I am not an award winning builder, I'm an amature builder. Still, that doesn't take away from the truly beautiful RVs that I have seen. I guess I've just seen the best there is out there which would make my statement true. I really don't mean to lie to anyone and if he knows better than I, I yield to him.

You took what I said about primers out of context. Just because Cessna uses a specific method and procedure doesn't necessarily mean a paint shop (or builder for that matter) couldn't do just as good or better, which of course is a matter of opinion. I didn't mention anything about what type of primer is better than another. I actually feel to imply that a Cessna is built better that an average RV based on what type of primer is under the paint is a bit unfair as well. But like I said, that's my standards and I wouldn't force that on anyone else. I've seen RVs that weren't even painted or primed that I would say were better built than some certified airplanes. I know, that's just CrAzY but don't worry, I'm not a judge at Osh. I'm just a regular guy building a regular airplane, just so happens it's an RV too.

[Jconard]

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearhawk260.html

One of Bob's designs, just as an introduction. I just meant that I take his view of the typical RV as pretty reliable.

[RatMan]

Very nice, I have seen Bearhawks on the net before. Seems he probably does have a good idea of what a nicely built plane should look like and may very well be qualified to judge those planes. I'm not, I still think they're beautiful. If he really does think that the average RV is "quite roughly built" and that most builders "do not have capacity to study and learn". I concede, perhaps he is correct. I do have a capacity to learn. Maybe he has dealt with enough builders to develop that opinion.

Thank God I've not had the same experience with either the RVs I've seen nor the builders I've met. I have found them to be intelligent people with spirit and determination. He has obviously more experience than I in the home-building game however put simply, I just don't share such a dim view. It's just a difference of opinion, that's all.

[Bob Brown]

Having owned a wonderful Cessna 182 for the last 10 years, and having been through 10 thorough annuals in that time, I can confirm that "certified" just doesn't carry any weight with me if we are speaking of quality of workmanship. There can't be more than two rivets on my 182 that are bucked to the same size...the fit of the aluminum sheets sucks, the wiring is loose inside the wings, there is no strength to the integrity of the control system, the doors don't fit the same, the windscreen is crooked, the vent system leaks, the fuel vents crossfeed, the fairings all fit badly (even when new)...yet it is most definitely a certificated airframe, and one which I've placed the safety of myself and my family in for 10 years. I'd submit to anyone that the workmanship of ALMOST every RV I've laid eyes on is superior to anything you'd find in my or any other Cessna.

Now, about the 6 being MUCH STRONGER than the 7...I think that's open for debate too, but we'll leave that for another thread...they are both fine airplanes. With 25 hrs in each, I'll take the 7...it's got a more "stable" feel to it, I'm not sure if it's the wingspan difference, the difference in the tail feathers, or the weight and balance, but it was definitely a pleasant surprise the first time I flew it...and noticeably different than the 6.

When you look at prices for homebuilt aircraft, I think you have to discount the labor factor...the prices are going to reflect the going rate for the kit, the avionic/engine/prop package and the general demand for the airplane. FWIW, I completed a spreadsheet on my 7A the other nite and it came to just under 95K for an IFR plane. If I were to sell it, I MIGHT get a little more than that, but not much. Selling this plane now would sure be a lot like putting my son up for sale...the WOW factor is still pretty high and I'd be selling it short to say I LOVE IT.

[gmcjetpilot]

The RV-7 is likely to be newer.

It's more likely to have the newest flight inst (EFIS) avionics and autopilot.

The engine and prop likely to have less time, plus the other 100 correct comments previous.

Back in the day 150/160HP used engines and fixed prop was more common. Now many more RV's are built with new engine and 180HP, fuel injection and C/S props are becoming the status quo.

Bottom line RV-6 is a fine plane & What the market will bear. I have seen some very nice RV-6(A)'s.

(In fact right now there are two six'es for sale that look very nice for the price, one is on this site and the other I recall is on barnstormers or aerotrader. I was surprised at the price (reasonable) verses the picture and description. I notice several RV's have been reduced or not sold on eBay of late. So may be the price has peaked for the time being. For a while I was seeing some rough RV's at what I thought was way to high asking prices.)

[J5Cub]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

I'm sorry but although often said, the above comment contains not an ounze of truth. In fact very very few RVs are of certificated quality. If you look at the EAAA Airventure judging guidelines you will find that homebuilt planes are rated from 1 to 10. "Average" quality is actually 4 ("Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or overbuilt in some areas. Little finesse or detail").

Only planes rated a 9 or 10 (very rare) are considered to be "equal or better than a factory new aircraft".

A 9 means ("Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail").
A 10 means ("Flawless in all respects").

A 9 or 10 is a major award winner. And there are not too many of those around.
:

http://www.eaa.org/judging/

I am not sure what experience you have in EAA Judging but I worked with the Homebuilt Judging group for 7 years in programming support and worked on the line with many of the Judges over that time. I was also a Contemporary Judge for 2 years. The only reason I am not still working with them is that my wife has been too ill to make the trip for the last 2 years.

While the tree that you see in the standards book does say that it has to be equal or better than a factory new aircraft to receive a 9 or 10, I can tell you for a fact that most of the judges would rate the typical production aircraft as a 45 point aircraft (out of a possible 100). There is no comparison between an award winning aircraft quality/workmanship and a production aircraft and every year the bar keeps getting higher. That is the reason I didn't like being a Contemporary Judge, I was too tough on them after having worked with the Homebuilt Judges for several years.

Yes, there are many aircraft Judged at Oshkosh every year that are not show winners and there are even a few dogs on the line. But the typical RV that shows up at Oshkosh is far better in workmanship than what you get out of Cessna, Mooney, or even Beachcraft. More than half of the RVs that are judged are in contention for awards each year but not everyone can be Grand Champion. That does not mean they are not quality construction. Bring any production aircraft of your choice (that has not been completely rebuilt by an individual) and I can guarantee that the Judges at Oshkosh would pick it to pieces.

The difference between Grand Champion and Reserve is often as simple as too many/too few threads showing on the bolts, improperly installed cotter keys (not unsafe, just not correct), a slight mismatch in the cowl to spinner dimension, or too much paint (a metal aircraft is not supposed to look like a composite).

I am in the market for an RV right now and I would not purchase one without inspecting it as not everyone's skills are the same. On the other hand, it does not bother me to purchase a homebuilt RV because of the general quality that I have seen at Oshkosh.

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by J5Cub

Yes, there are many aircraft Judged at Oshkosh every year that are not show winners and there are even a few dogs on the line. But the typical RV that shows up at Oshkosh is far better in workmanship than what you get out of Cessna, Mooney, or even Beachcraft.

Let's think this through. If one thing has become apparent on this and other "RV Value" threads it's that Quick Builds are generally thought of as being fabricated to a higher standard than Slow Builds....and generally speaking that is true (not always but usually). In other words the RV hull that is built in Manila by a bunch of low paid third world workers is generally of much better quality than one built by the typical RV builder in his garage.

Why is that so. Well when you get around to building your 500th plane you probably get pretty good at it. Having all the right jigs and rivetting everything two up in a systemized factory production environment probably helps as well.

So we need to ask ourselves whether it is possible that for some hugely inexplicable reason the workers in the slums of Manila possess greater skills, technique and expertise than the average RV builder whereas the company in the United States that produces the Citation jet does not.

And is anybody really suggesting that the average RV built by a first up builder exhibits the detail, finish, and consistency of construction (to aviation best practice) as found on say the Cirrus and the Columbia.

[jcoloccia]

Originally Posted by Jconard

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearhawk260.html

One of Bob's designs, just as an introduction. I just meant that I take his view of the typical RV as pretty reliable.

I that the same Bob Barrow? I own a set of Bearhawk plans. The Bob Barrow I know, last I checked, doesn't even have an e-mail address. Maybe I'm just totally wrong on this.

[jcoloccia]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

And is anybody really suggesting that the average RV built by a first up builder exhibits the detail, finish, and consistency of construction (to aviation best practice) as found on say the Cirrus and the Columbia.

The difference is, I have years to build it.

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

So we need to ask ourselves whether it is possible that for some hugely inexplicable reason the workers in the slums of Manila possess greater skills, technique and expertise than the average RV builder whereas the company in the United States that produces the Citation jet does not.

First, I think we are comparing the Cessna single engine piston aircraft to the RV, not the jets. I have not looked that closely at the jets, so I can't comment.

My guess is there could be a huge difference in motivation between someone in the slums of Manila and the suburbs of Independence. I don't know if you've ever been to places like the Philippines, but I can tell you that the people who work there are usually very happy to have a decent job, and they will do whatever they need to do to keep it. Not sure if Cessna workers feel that if they lose their job they will be scrounging on a giant trash heap to feed their family. Here are some pictures from the Bonanza factory before they moved: http://www.rv8.ch/gallery/v/bonanza/...0a9f917de41409 Also, as we all know, the basic skills of riveting and drilling holes can be learned very quickly. After that, it's all about motivation and attention to detail. In my experience I have not seen a correlation between these two factors and absolute salary. Also, management plays a huge role in the quality of the product. Good managers can be found in all parts of the world, and so unfortunately can bad managers.

In any case, I think your point is on target, pros can do a better job than homebuilders, since they are doing it all day long. I know the first rivet of a session is rarely my best. The question comes down to who will consistently do a better job?

I agree with previous posters that the RVs I have seen at OSH, SNF and other fly-ins around the world have almost all been of better quality than the production aircraft I have seen. I'm referring to metal aircraft, and I'm excluding the interiors. I don't really look at plastic experimentals, and I don't feel qualified to compare the interiors.