F

flymustangs

Well Known Member
I apologize if this offends anyone, but I really don't understand Van's priorities. I'm specifically referring to the big Oshkosh announcement that the RV-8 is now fully pre-punched. That's great news for wanna be RV-8 builders or current builders that haven't bought their fuselage kit yet.

What I don't understand is how they came up with this as their top priority next to the RV-12. Unless I'm just not reading the stats correctly, the RV-8 has been a pretty good seller. I've yet to hear one person say they would buy one if only the fuselage was pre-punched. I have; however, heard many times that a person would by an RV-3 kit in a heart beat if it was pre-punched.

I've ranted before about the quality of the RV-3 plans and kit and largely new this before starting the project. The problem is that if Van's has time to improve a kit why not the RV-3, which on the surface could generate more kit sales? It seems to me like they intend to continue selling the kit, but leave it in an essentally orphaned state.

I'm not an aircraft kit manufacturer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I may just be missing the big picture. If that's the case please educate me.

Thanks.
 
I guess it's a business decision -- they need to apply resources to whatever makes most business sense. The -8 apparently outsells the -3 by a [large] margin and, IMHO, it's not just prepunched vs. non-prepunched thing.
 
I've heard Van say that he doesn't believe there is a market for single seaters so he won't put ressources into it.
If enough people would actually buy a prepunched 3, then you might have a claim, but I doubt it's the case. People always talk a big game until it's time to put the money where their mouth is.

I'm sure a new 3 would sell, just not enough the justify the cost.
 
I have hear a few that stated they would by the 8 if it were pre-punched. I believe Doug has stated he would buy a 4 if it were pre-punched. I'm sure the two seaters have a bigger audience as far as sales go.

Not sure but they probably have received several requests for the pre-punched 8's otherwise I doubt they would have gone to the trouble.

I'm buying a QB so it doesn't affect me.
 
praterdj said:
I'm buying a QB so it doesn't affect me.
Click to expand...

Well, it might. Seems to me that the extra cost of a QB goes towards the labor of putting it together, and if the labor is reduced by pre-punching, you might see some financial gain in a price reduction.
 
Guys,

Van's announced a full 'Matched-Hole" RV-8/8A. Previously the fuse skins were prepunched, but there was a lot of drilling and Jigging to do. This brings the -8 into the same status as the 7/9/10. Being a -8 builder, I was very glad to hear this. Once I am done with the empennage, I will go with QB wings and SB Fuse.

[edit] Also, they managed to lower the parts count and completely re-wrote the fuselage plans to RV-10 standards.
 
Dgamble said:
Well, it might. Seems to me that the extra cost of a QB goes towards the labor of putting it together, and if the labor is reduced by pre-punching, you might see some financial gain in a price reduction.
Click to expand...

Great point and I hope you are right although I can't imagine Vans offering a price reduction. I probably should have said it wouldn't affect my decision to go QB
 
I think the 8 fuse has actually "progressed" over the years towards fully match punched. So they probably just decided to get it over with instead of screwing around here and there adding RV-8 fuse parts to the matched list.
 
I think there is a good chance my next project will be a -3 ... prepunched or not.

An acquaintance (a real old timer) yesterday was telling how he was talking with Van at a fly in and someone came up and asked Van about flying differences between the -6, -4, etc. Van looked at Jim and said, "You've flown them all, what do you think?" Jim told the guy about the -4 and the -6, but then said he thought the -3 was the greatest of them all. After this Van leaned over and under his breath said, "I built the best one first and it's been all downhill after that."

I have not flown a -3, but everyone I have talked to is ecstatic about the airplane. There was a -3 at the fly in yesterday and the owner let his son fly it for the first time ... we saw him back at home base an hour later and he was STILL grinning ear to ear. This from a guy with 175+ types in his logbook.


Thomas
 
Just a guess, but having taken a tour of the Vans facility and seen the newest computer controlled machinery they have that cuts and punches at an amazing rate of speed/accuracy, there's a good chance that prepunching the 8 fuselage was a natural evolution of their production process, influenced, but not driven, by specific market demand.

-- bill
aspiring RV7(A?) builder
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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
 
Steve said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Steve said:
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
Click to expand...

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

T.
 
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.
 
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
 
TShort said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
TShort said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
RV-4 for me!

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
 
New single seater

N941WR said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I heard the same thing at the Oshkosh tandem single seat forum where the pre-punched RV-8 was introduced. After the introduction, A new single seat RV project was alluded too. This was after Van and Scott sang the praises of the flying qualities of the RV-3.

Now if they would just put it on floats :D

Warren
RV-9A
O-235-C1
AHYUP
 
Self launch glider

flymustangs said:
What I don't understand is how they came up with this as their top priority (improve the RV-8 kit) next to the RV-12. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The RV-8 pre-punch makes sense since it adds value to the kit and will reduce building issues. Makes sense to me. As far as the RV-12, Van has always been interested in gliders and high aspect ratio wings. He is a designer, it is a project that interests him and has some commercial value.

He does not really want to get into the LSA market because he has reservations about the whole concept (as do I). However he could be wrong, and he wants to at least have something for LSA or risk being left behind. Will LSA be a poor man's entry level class? I don't know, not even top end ultra lights are cheap. Flying is expensive; pass it around; remember where you heard it first. :rolleyes: I think getting a regular private and renting or flying OLD planes will be cheaper than LSA, but that is me. The LSA medical issue is a mess and not really a huge relief from medicals that it's reported to be. Any way back to Van.

I doubt Van's aircraft will ever become a manufacture of turn key planes but they may, and the RV-12 may be the first one, since it will be easy to certify (allegedly). The other RV's can not be certified, they just can't meet the regs without major modification (which would ruin them). Look, he has an international company and employees with profit sharing, which will go on when he is long gone. He has to think down the road for the company. May be LSA's and manufacturing will be the next chapter in the history of Van's Aircraft. May be not.

He really wants to do a high performance self launch gluider. He has waxed poetic about it and shown his napkin sketches on many occasion for 20 years I know of. That market is even smaller, therefore we don't have a RV-14 motorglider kit. Really put some longer wings on the RV-12, single center retract gear and out riggers and a folding prop. It could be an answer to high gas prices and an OK motor-glider? :rolleyes: (actually van has some nice ideas on this type)

I started my first RV in the mid 80's and it seems people have always had something to say about how Van should run his business and little gripes about how to improve kit parts, plans and documentation. The kits have always been good but have got so very much better and better. I can't comment on making the RV-3 better, but you can't argue with success, 4,717 flown and counting. Questions? :D
 
Last edited:
warren hurd said:
I heard the same thing at the Oshkosh tandem single seat forum where the pre-punched RV-8 was introduced. After the introduction, A new single seat RV project was alluded too. This was after Van and Scott sang the praises of the flying qualities of the RV-3.

Now if they would just put it on floats :D

Warren
RV-9A
O-235-C1
AHYUP
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about this tread all day long and I was wondering if Van's redesign's the -3 to make it stronger so it can be flown in competition agian. Just another $.02.
 
As others have said, I think this boils down to numbers. No matter how nice they make the RV-3B kit, very few people will buy it compared to the RV-8. Just take a look at resale values of the RV-3 vs the RV-8 if you have any doubt which one is more highly valued by the average buyer.

The RV-8 was the first model drawn in CAD, so making changes is a matter of asking the computer nicely. The RV-3 was hand drawn, and would have to be completely redrawn digitally to even begin the process. I just can't imagine it's worth the trouble, though I bet Van wishes it were easier, since he obviously likes the plane.

Also, I hate to be the only one to say this, but having owned an -8, and a -3B, I can't say that I found the -3B to be any more fun to fly. They both handle about the same to me, but the -8 is about 500% more practical. I guess that's why I'm building another -8 :D

Cheers,
Rusty
 
As far as the quality of Van's drawings, I can say from my perspective they are excellent. I just received my fuselage (RV-9A) and the drawings are very nice, complete, and accurate. I have spent my whole working life dealing with part drawings from small and large companies like Boeing. You should see some of the stuff I have to try to decipher. Most of the time the bigger the company the worse their drawings are. I couldn't be happier with the overall value of Van's kits.
 
rv9aviator said:
As far as the quality of Van's drawings, ...
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, but have you seen the plans for the -3, 4, & 6? They are hand drawn, some items and key dimensions are missing, etc. They could do with a make over, if Van's hopes to continue to sell them.

I could see him dropping the -4, like he did the -6 because I can't imagine him selling many -4's with the -8 out there even though many people think it is a better looking and flying plane. That's part of the beauty of the automated punch, he can make the parts to order. So as long as the planes are modeled in the computer, he can literally punch one out when needed.
 
Other factors

I don't know much about Van's cost structure, but it seems to me that better drawings and instructions combined with a matched-hole prepunched kit would significantly reduce labor (#1 expense in almost any company) for Van, especially on QB's. (Not to mention customer technical support. Less time scratching your head means less time Van pays someone to help you on the phone.) While there is a significant expense up front to create this level of simplicity, it will be paid back relatively quickly on higher demand models. The three is probably not in that kind of demand.

I chose an 8 becuase it's the plane I wanted. I didn't really care much whether it had matched holes or not. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it is, but it didn't weigh on my decision one bit, and I'm doing the whole thing slow-build. If you want to fly by yourself, install a kill switch for the rear intercom! :D In the SBS's, you can't make that other seat disappear from your periphery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.