What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

Should I buy a used Harmon/F1 Rocket or a normal RV?

D

Duncannon

Well Known Member
I don’t possess the skills or the time to build a standard RV, let alone the added complexity of the Harmon or F1 Rocket. There are currently two Harmons for sale at fairly reasonable prices. One is listed at $168k and the other at only $120k though with minor damage. Could this be a more affordable and far quicker way to own a Rocket over building? The F1 kit is no longer offered (I think it’s still possible to build an F1 kit, but it’s much more convoluted).

Would the same Vans specialists (such as Syracuse aviation in Peachtree City Ga) be willing to do pre-buys and CI’s? What is parts availability like? Would a typical aircraft mechanic be willing to do maintenance like so many do on standard RVs? What extra expenses do Rockets have over RVs (such as the io-540 engine & prop that would cost more to overhaul than a 320/360)? Would you recommend sticking with a normal RV at least to start with? Again, many 7’s and 8’s cost more than what these two Rockets are listed at.

Ps. I know there’s a subforum for the Rocket, but I thought this post would get more replies in this forum?
 
I've worked on both (RV/F1), flown both RV/F1, built an RV-4 that I love. As others may mention, and my fellow Rocket owner friends have told me, getting insurance on a Rocket may lessen your desire to own one. Cool factor and exhilarating climb.. Rocket is the plane. Practicality, cost and parts availability, the RV series is still no slouch and I'm personally fine with my RV-4's performance . have you personally flow or ride in either (RV 4/8 vs Rocket?) I assume you understand the Harmon is a modified/enhanced RV, and The F1 , though similar, uses no RV components.
 
There’s no question that a Rocket performance blows away any of the RV models, period. I poked around with getting a Rocket and the prices for a decent one aren’t that far beyond an RV-8. It’s also not very different to maintain as it’s pretty much built like an RV just a couple more cylinders as far as maintenance goes. The problem is getting reasonable insurance. I checked with my insurance company, Gallagher and they wouldn’t even give me a quote until I got around 5-10 hrs dual and a full checkout. Kinda hard to do that before you buy one. There are other companies that would insure it but the cheapest one is about 3 times what I pay now for the -8. If you want hull coverage expect to pay $4-5K per year depending on your experience and qualifications. Sure you could just get liability and self insure the hull but not all of us have deep pockets or the justification to spend that much money for insurance. Just food for thought…….
 
Get the Rocket its an entirely different plane especially the F1 if you can afford it. Insurance is more but I dont have hull insurance on mine it just got too expensive lately.
 
As I understand it insurance is pretty costly. The HRII's are a bit prone to tipping up on their nose. The F1's remedied this with a gear geometry change. But the damage was already done from an insurance perspective. So if you can afford the insurance, or skip the hull coverage, rockets are great airplanes.
 
olyolson said:
There’s no question that a Rocket performance blows away any of the RV models, period. I poked around with getting a Rocket and the prices for a decent one aren’t that far beyond an RV-8. It’s also not very different to maintain as it’s pretty much built like an RV just a couple more cylinders as far as maintenance goes. The problem is getting reasonable insurance. I checked with my insurance company, Gallagher and they wouldn’t even give me a quote until I got around 5-10 hrs dual and a full checkout. Kinda hard to do that before you buy one. There are other companies that would insure it but the cheapest one is about 3 times what I pay now for the -8. If you want hull coverage expect to pay $4-5K per year depending on your experience and qualifications. Sure you could just get liability and self insure the hull but not all of us have deep pockets or the justification to spend that much money for insurance. Just food for thought…….
Click to expand...

Insurance sounds like the same problem that Lancair owners have.
 
My philosophy leans toward "In thrust we trust" so I totally get the appeal, but what sort of range and payload do they have compared to say and RV7 or 8? I don't know much about Rockets, I'm just curious.
 
Desert Rat said:
My philosophy leans toward "In thrust we trust" so I totally get the appeal, but what sort of range and payload do they have compared to say and RV7 or 8? I don't know much about Rockets, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

From what I’ve read they typically cruise around 200 kts burning around 12 gph and hold 42 gallons of fuel. So the range sounds similar to RVs, maybe slightly worse but still good for x-countrys.
 
olyolson said:
There’s no question that a Rocket performance blows away any of the RV models, period. I poked around with getting a Rocket and the prices for a decent one aren’t that far beyond an RV-8. It’s also not very different to maintain as it’s pretty much built like an RV just a couple more cylinders as far as maintenance goes. The problem is getting reasonable insurance. I checked with my insurance company, Gallagher and they wouldn’t even give me a quote until I got around 5-10 hrs dual and a full checkout. Kinda hard to do that before you buy one. There are other companies that would insure it but the cheapest one is about 3 times what I pay now for the -8. If you want hull coverage expect to pay $4-5K per year depending on your experience and qualifications. Sure you could just get liability and self insure the hull but not all of us have deep pockets or the justification to spend that much money for insurance. Just food for thought…….
Click to expand...
Olyolyson,
Speed costs money.
The performance vs RV is true, yet I would say is minimal.
I do not want to enter into a word war, but having optimized a -4, I was very pleased with the performance (i.e time to climb, rate of climb, max level speed)
See numerous articles on -4 drag reductions written on the guru-Dave Anders.
Also personal discussion with folks developing carbon fiber vs fiberglass parts at OSH, there was no weight savings, but an increase in the "cool factor".
If your aircraft budget is large-go for it and love every minute of flight time.
Daddyman58
 
I was researching a Rocket and spoke with a well known Rocket builder and guru. He asked if I had ever flown or been in one. I had not. He surprised me with a comment that the basic design is an RV and they were not meant to go that fast. When you reach into the 200kt plus knot arena things change. Noises, handling, etc….
Obviously Rockets have been modified or designed to go that fast and do it well. I was just surprised by his comments. He was almost trying to talk me out of it.
I would definitely want to fly one before I committed.
 
A number of years ago a friend in a F1 Rocket that I built and I in my RV7 left for KOSH from CYYJ at the same time. He beat me there by 43 minutes. He burned 97 gallons of fuel and I burnt 63 gallons. I didn't think it was worth the extra cost in fuel for the difference in time BUT the fun factor just playing around in the F1 priceless.
 
Insurance was the decision for me. If money is no object get the rocket. Super 4/8 will get you pretty close if not.
 
the Rocket is mostly awesome….however…they do have some drawbacks too. Stall speed, hence pattern speed is a bit higher. You get used to it quickly.
rocket is awesome for fun acro, but you have to pay attention in vertical down maneuvers, cuz boy will they accelerate.
I loved mine…roomy, fast and fun. Didn’t fit into my farm strip as well as a 4…but I loved the heck out of flying it.
The one thing I always felt, with the 540 and MT 3 bladed prop…was if that engine ever quit, you’d be coming seriously down. Not floaty like a 4 at all…

All around…4 is hands down my favorite. Much less gas to burn….and honestly probably more fun per dollar than anything.
 
I’ll answer one of the OP’s specific questions with a question: Are you fine with a project?
I have an HRII (F1 gear legs) and an RV-4. And I built one of the first -7A’s to fly.
If the HRII you are looking at needs a panel, paint, or other TLC, I would go for it in a heartbeat. The first thing I would do is call Vince Frazier and swap the engine mount and gear over to the F1 units. Also cut the gear legs down 2” straight away.
Suck up the high insurance rates and fly the plane a lot! You will be glad you didn’t settle for a -4. Performance is only half the story. Space, comfort, and loading flexibility put the Rocket in another league even before performance considerations.
If I couldn’t find an HRII project I would hold out for an F1. The sport wing F1 and HRII are basically the same plane. Especially if the Harmon has F1 gear.
Toobuilder nailed it. I’ll put it this way: a rocket will do 99% of RV-4/8 flying. But a -4/8 will only do 75% of the Rocket’s flying.
Subjective numbers, but they make my point.
Good luck!!
 
Last edited:
As far as insurance goes...

If the FAA registration and name plate, both say RV-4, and neither one says "Rocket"...

Nah, it's not a Rocket... Says right here, and here, it's an RV-4... That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
KMMUflyer said:
As far as insurance goes...
….until you make a claim, then hope the adjuster doesn’t have a clue… insurance fraud is taken pretty seriously.

If the FAA registration and name plate, both say RV-4, and neither one says "Rocket"...

Nah, it's not a Rocket... Says right here, and here, it's an RV-4... That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...
 
justa6ereh said:
the Rocket is mostly awesome….however…they do have some drawbacks too. Stall speed, hence pattern speed is a bit higher. You get used to it quickly.
rocket is awesome for fun acro, but you have to pay attention in vertical down maneuvers, cuz boy will they accelerate.
I loved mine…roomy, fast and fun. Didn’t fit into my farm strip as well as a 4…but I loved the heck out of flying it.
The one thing I always felt, with the 540 and MT 3 bladed prop…was if that engine ever quit, you’d be coming seriously down. Not floaty like a 4 at all…

All around…4 is hands down my favorite. Much less gas to burn….and honestly probably more fun per dollar than anything.
Click to expand...
I’ve never flown a -4, but I think there’s a big “it depends” when it comes to gliding.
My F-1 Rocket has the MT 3-bladed prop, too. And an “aerobatic” governor that uses oil pressure to drive the blades to FINE pitch.

I’m still gathering data, but my Rocket is gliding 1.1 nm per 1000’ altitude lost with the prop in fine pitch.
If I select coarse pitch, the gliding range increases to 1.8 nm/1000’ - so more than a 50% improvement.
Granted, you’d want the prop in the fine position for engine restart attempts. But if that proves fruitless, It’s nice to have a option that will yield more glide range.
 
Last edited:
GyroF-16 said:
I’ve never flown a -4, but I think there’s a big “it depends” when it comes to gliding.
My F-1 Rocket has the MT 3-bladed prop, too. And an “aerobatic” governor that uses oil pressure to drive the blades to FINE pitch.

I’m still gathering data, but my Rocket is gliding 1.1 nm per 1000’ altitude lost with the prop in fine pitch.
If I select course pitch, the gliding range increases to 1.8 nm/1000’ - so more than a 50% improvement.
Granted, you’d want the prop in the fine position for engine restart attempts. But if that proves fruitless, It’s nice to have a option that will yield more glide range.
Click to expand...
I would think that if you have an engine out and get the prop into course pitch for a better glide the last thing that should be entering your mind is having the prop in fine pitch for an easy start.
 
Norman CYYJ said:
I would think that if you have an engine out and get the prop into course pitch for a better glide the last thing that should be entering your mind is having the prop in fine pitch for an easy start.
Click to expand...
I was thinking/planning more the reverse.
Leave/put it in fine while running through the “gas, spark, air” sequence.
Then if no success, select “coarse” and commit to an engine-out landing.
Or, if low altitude and short on time, go straight to coarse and concentrate on the forced landing.

It’s just good to know that there are options to significantly increase the glide range.
 
Last edited:
My EVO has a gross weight of 2100 lbs. I can carry me at 200 lbs and my wife at 130 and 125 lbs of gear and still be in the envelope. I can get down to 165 knots its close to my old RV 7 fuel burn and with 52 gallons it will cover some ground. I usually run it at 12.5 GPH at 200 plus knots. It loves altitude and I typically fly at 14 to 15K where the EVO wing really shines. Beats the hell out of my T206 on lighter trips and lots less fuel
 
Daddyman58 said:
Olyolyson,
Speed costs money.
The performance vs RV is true, yet I would say is minimal.
I do not want to enter into a word war, but having optimized a -4, I was very pleased with the performance (i.e time to climb, rate of climb, max level speed)
See numerous articles on -4 drag reductions written on the guru-Dave Anders.
Also personal discussion with folks developing carbon fiber vs fiberglass parts at OSH, there was no weight savings, but an increase in the "cool factor".
If your aircraft budget is large-go for it and love every minute of flight time.
Daddyman58
Click to expand...
Daddyman,

Yep you are so right about the RV-4. Had one for a while and personally think it was the best flying of the bunch. The only thing I didn't like about it was the tilt over canopy and only 32 gals of fuel.
 
Everyday of the week and twice on Sundays… BUY A ROCKET!!

I have owned (still own one) two extremely nice RV3’s and have accumulated about 600 hours of RV3 time between the two of them. For those who are unaware, the RV3 is the best flying machine Van has ever concocted! And RED is the fastest color (see my profile pic).

I recently purchased a really nice Rocket II and have accumulated 50 hours in it since July. It’s an absolutely fantastic machine. It’s honestly a better all-around machine. The 3 flies a little nicer in terms of sporty feel. I’m not an aerobatics guy, but I would imagine someone into that would prefer the 3.

For my money, if I were to own one airplane, I would own a Rocket. You don’t have to burn more fuel if you want to go RV speeds. I heard this a bunch before I bought the Rocket and never really believed it, but I can prove it every day. If I’m just flying 40 miles away to breakfast or to my Mom’s house, I pull the power back to 19” and 2200 RPM. At this power setting, I’m burning 8 1/2 to 9 gallons an hour and doing 175 knots. In my RV-3, if I want to fly 175 knots, I leave the power at 24 squared and burn 8 1/2 gallons an hour.

The Rocket is WAY bigger inside compared to the RV-3. Not only do you get a second seat and a huge baggage compartment, the cockpit itself is twice the cubic size. For my particular Rocket, it’s almost impossible to load it outside the CG range. I think a person would really have to be willfully stupid to do this.

In terms of insurance, I got two quotes for a $200,000 hull value. The first was with 10 hours of Rocket time and it was $4400. I called back and told them I had 50 hours of Rocket time and it dropped to $3400. I am a high total time airline guy, but I don’t know how much that really factors in. I have a friend with a Rocket who has substantially less total time (GA only) but 1000 hours in a Rocket and he actually got a lower quote from the same company. I also have around 1100 tail wheel time. I don’t know how all of this plays together, but that gives you some idea of what’s out there. My RV-3 at $60,000 hull value cost me a little less than $1000 this year for full coverage.

You didn’t directly ask, but my suggestion, based on having done it both ways, is to absolutely NOT by a project airplane. You will end up spending more money in the long run and you won’t be flying while you’re fixing the project. I have found with most things that the best approach is to buy the best example you can possibly afford. Of course this does depend on your particular personality. If you’re perfectly OK with the plane that looks like it’s been painted with a roller, you might get by just fine with a marginal airplane. True, it will probably fly almost as well as my shiny award winner, and you’ll be flying for 75% of the cost. If you’re OK with that, I’m sure bargains can be found. My experience, however, is that if the plane looks like it was built to the bare minimum standard it will probably cost you more in the long run to maintain it. Just my $0.02.
 
RWoodard said:
Everyday of the week and twice on Sundays… BUY A ROCKET!!

I have owned (still own one) two extremely nice RV3’s and have accumulated about 600 hours of RV3 time between the two of them. For those who are unaware, the RV3 is the best flying machine Van has ever concocted! And RED is the fastest color (see my profile pic).

I recently purchased a really nice Rocket II and have accumulated 50 hours in it since July. It’s an absolutely fantastic machine. It’s honestly a better all-around machine. The 3 flies a little nicer in terms of sporty feel. I’m not an aerobatics guy, but I would imagine someone into that would prefer the 3.

For my money, if I were to own one airplane, I would own a Rocket. You don’t have to burn more fuel if you want to go RV speeds. I heard this a bunch before I bought the Rocket and never really believed it, but I can prove it every day. If I’m just flying 40 miles away to breakfast or to my Mom’s house, I pull the power back to 19” and 2200 RPM. At this power setting, I’m burning 8 1/2 to 9 gallons an hour and doing 175 knots. In my RV-3, if I want to fly 175 knots, I leave the power at 24 squared and burn 8 1/2 gallons an hour.

The Rocket is WAY bigger inside compared to the RV-3. Not only do you get a second seat and a huge baggage compartment, the cockpit itself is twice the cubic size. For my particular Rocket, it’s almost impossible to load it outside the CG range. I think a person would really have to be willfully stupid to do this.

In terms of insurance, I got two quotes for a $200,000 hull value. The first was with 10 hours of Rocket time and it was $4400. I called back and told them I had 50 hours of Rocket time and it dropped to $3400. I am a high total time airline guy, but I don’t know how much that really factors in. I have a friend with a Rocket who has substantially less total time (GA only) but 1000 hours in a Rocket and he actually got a lower quote from the same company. I also have around 1100 tail wheel time. I don’t know how all of this plays together, but that gives you some idea of what’s out there. My RV-3 at $60,000 hull value cost me a little less than $1000 this year for full coverage.

You didn’t directly ask, but my suggestion, based on having done it both ways, is to absolutely NOT by a project airplane. You will end up spending more money in the long run and you won’t be flying while you’re fixing the project. I have found with most things that the best approach is to buy the best example you can possibly afford. Of course this does depend on your particular personality. If you’re perfectly OK with the plane that looks like it’s been painted with a roller, you might get by just fine with a marginal airplane. True, it will probably fly almost as well as my shiny award winner, and you’ll be flying for 75% of the cost. If you’re OK with that, I’m sure bargains can be found. My experience, however, is that if the plane looks like it was built to the bare minimum standard it will probably cost you more in the long run to maintain it. Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I have to say…if you could own just one plane…Rocket does it for me…however…if you have a wife…mine prefer sitting next to me.
Thus the 6…

So for me…it’s a built in excuse to have more than one!! ( cuz everyone needs a rocket)
 
justa6ereh said:
I have to say…if you could own just one plane…Rocket does it for me…however…if you have a wife…mine prefer sitting next to me.
Thus the 6…

So for me…it’s a built in excuse to have more than one!! ( cuz everyone needs a rocket)
Click to expand...
A guy i know use to have a rocket, he loved it and his wife hated it especially when he said he was going to the airport saying he was going to polish his rocket.
 
Another question I’d like to ask is how much more should I plan to spend to have the IO-540 engine overhauled over the 320/360 engines on most Vans aircraft, not to mention the prop? Whatever I buy, it would hopefully be long term, which means inevitably an overhaul would need to be done.
 
50% more cylinders, lifters, rods…. 50%

Of course when the Rocket came out 540’s were worth far less than 360’s…. You almost couldn’t give them away.

The RV-10 changed that metric.
 
RWoodard said:
Everyday of the week and twice on Sundays… BUY A ROCKET!!

I have owned (still own one) two extremely nice RV3’s and have accumulated about 600 hours of RV3 time between the two of them. For those who are unaware, the RV3 is the best flying machine Van has ever concocted! And RED is the fastest color (see my profile pic).

I recently purchased a really nice Rocket II and have accumulated 50 hours in it since July. It’s an absolutely fantastic machine. It’s honestly a better all-around machine. The 3 flies a little nicer in terms of sporty feel. I’m not an aerobatics guy, but I would imagine someone into that would prefer the 3.

For my money, if I were to own one airplane, I would own a Rocket. You don’t have to burn more fuel if you want to go RV speeds. I heard this a bunch before I bought the Rocket and never really believed it, but I can prove it every day. If I’m just flying 40 miles away to breakfast or to my Mom’s house, I pull the power back to 19” and 2200 RPM. At this power setting, I’m burning 8 1/2 to 9 gallons an hour and doing 175 knots. In my RV-3, if I want to fly 175 knots, I leave the power at 24 squared and burn 8 1/2 gallons an hour.

The Rocket is WAY bigger inside compared to the RV-3. Not only do you get a second seat and a huge baggage compartment, the cockpit itself is twice the cubic size. For my particular Rocket, it’s almost impossible to load it outside the CG range. I think a person would really have to be willfully stupid to do this.

In terms of insurance, I got two quotes for a $200,000 hull value. The first was with 10 hours of Rocket time and it was $4400. I called back and told them I had 50 hours of Rocket time and it dropped to $3400. I am a high total time airline guy, but I don’t know how much that really factors in. I have a friend with a Rocket who has substantially less total time (GA only) but 1000 hours in a Rocket and he actually got a lower quote from the same company. I also have around 1100 tail wheel time. I don’t know how all of this plays together, but that gives you some idea of what’s out there. My RV-3 at $60,000 hull value cost me a little less than $1000 this year for full coverage.

You didn’t directly ask, but my suggestion, based on having done it both ways, is to absolutely NOT by a project airplane. You will end up spending more money in the long run and you won’t be flying while you’re fixing the project. I have found with most things that the best approach is to buy the best example you can possibly afford. Of course this does depend on your particular personality. If you’re perfectly OK with the plane that looks like it’s been painted with a roller, you might get by just fine with a marginal airplane. True, it will probably fly almost as well as my shiny award winner, and you’ll be flying for 75% of the cost. If you’re OK with that, I’m sure bargains can be found. My experience, however, is that if the plane looks like it was built to the bare minimum standard it will probably cost you more in the long run to maintain it. Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the best insurance quote from?
 
I think the real answer to the question depends on the what snack bracket you are in. If money is no object get the Rocket. If you are in the limited funds bracket then get the RV. I have never owned a Rocket...although it would be nice. If I owned a Rocket I couldn't afford to fly the 100 hrs/year I do now. I have owned a 4 (x2), 7 and currently an 8. You can't go wrong with any of the RV's. They are all a joy to fly so the choice just depends on your mission!
 
Robb said:
Where did you get the best insurance quote from?
Click to expand...

Not directed at me, but it’s my understanding that there are very few companies left that will underwrite a Rocket. All the agents end up at the same doorstep. That said, I’ve been with Crest for 10 years on my Rocket and my premium has been essentially the same $600 for the last 4 years. It feels like my increasing time in type is keeping the yearly rate hikes at bay. I have more than 700 hours in type, and this is liability only.
 
Robb said:
Where did you get the best insurance quote from?
Click to expand...
My quote was through Gallagher. The underwriter was USSIC. It was obtained somewhere around October, 2025. $3440 for $200k hull, $1 mil/ $100k, and $250 deductible not in motion and $2500 in motion deductible.

Liability only was $595/year.
 
I love the Rocket…so don’t take this wrong…but it is not the light, nimble machine that the 4 is…if I were flying just for the pure fun of it…a 3 or 4 is a delight.

If you like the speed and mass and solidness of the Rocket, it’s awesome.

To be honest. I don’t think you should buy either, if you have to ask for others input… I’d instead, spend a couple hours in each I was considering. Not too hard to find willing owners here, generally.

A light 4 with 160hp and a fixed pitch prop is an absolute delight to fly…and maybe a good place to start, depending on your experience.

( from an RV-6 180, Hartzell owner…with a rocket like machine taking shape just behind it in the hangar)
 
RWoodard said:
You didn’t directly ask, but my suggestion, based on having done it both ways, is to absolutely NOT by a project airplane. You will end up spending more money in the long run and you won’t be flying while you’re fixing the project.
Click to expand...
II wasn’t very clear in my earlier post. My question to the OP about a project was to draw a distinction between the merits of owning an F1 over an HRII.
My point was to highlight that the biggest practical difference between the 2 is the gear. Since I consider the the gear swap highly desirable, a Harmon becomes a project right off the bat. If a new panel is in the cards then a “good deal” on a Harmon starts to outweigh a top dollar F1.
I acquired my HRII project at 90% complete. The first thing I did was swap to the F1 gear. Then panel and paint. I painted her myself, so there was huge savings there.
If I had the choice between a nicely equipped Harmon and an equivalent F1 I’d likely spend the extra 20K (?) for the F1…
I’m carrying $150k hull for just over $3K a year. I’m a high time ATP, CFI with lots of TW and RV time. I have 125 hrs in the rocket Iiic, Gallagher wouldn’t bind me until I had 10 hrs in type. I took the hull risk for those first 10 hrs.
 
andoman said:
II wasn’t very clear in my earlier post. My question to the OP about a project was to draw a distinction between the merits of owning an F1 over an HRII.
My point was to highlight that the biggest practical difference between the 2 is the gear. Since I consider the the gear swap highly desirable, a Harmon becomes a project right off the bat. If a new panel is in the cards then a “good deal” on a Harmon starts to outweigh a top dollar F1.
I acquired my HRII project at 90% complete. The first thing I did was swap to the F1 gear. Then panel and paint. I painted her myself, so there was huge savings there.
If I had the choice between a nicely equipped Harmon and an equivalent F1 I’d likely spend the extra 20K (?) for the F1…
I’m carrying $150k hull for just over $3K a year. I’m a high time ATP, CFI with lots of TW and RV time. I have 125 hrs in the rocket Iiic, Gallagher wouldn’t bind me until I had 10 hrs in type. I took the hull risk for those first 10 hrs.
Click to expand...

I do NOT want a project; I actually enjoy flying over spending hours turning wrenches. 😎 Many pilots actually will admit to enjoying working on their aircraft more than actually flying it, but I’m not one of them.
 
No one has clouded the discussion by throwing the F4 into consideration. Best of both worlds?

Very interesting that a very well known F1 builder converted to a four cylinder or a Grand Champion owner kept his F4 and sold the Rocket.

My point? No perfect plane (firearm/woman/job/whatever) for everyone. The hunt is part of the fun.
 
Last edited:
Freemasm said:
No one has clouded the discussion by throwing the F4 into consideration. Best of both worlds?

Very interesting that a very well known F1 builder converted to a four cylinder or a Grand Champion owner kept his F4 and sold the Rocket.

My point? No perfect plane (firearm/woman/job/whatever) for everyone. The hunt is part of the fun.
Click to expand...
Nice job clouding the discussion… 😉
Your point is well made.
Though I’ve never flown one, I believe the Raider is a Goldilocks plane. A mildly massaged angle valve of 220-230 hp would be the ticket.
But for me, and to the OP’s question, if it’s between the Rocket and any other Van’s model I’ll take the Rocket. Similar to Toobuilder’s situation: I’m fortunate to have a -4 and a Rocket. I’m thankful that I have 2 partners with the -4 or she would never get flown….
 
While I think the F4 is intriguing and would likely be the best “RV” for my taste, there is something about the 6 cylinders and big prop that sets the Rocket apart on the visceral level. I don’t care how much power a 4 banger makes, it still feels like an angry weed whacker in comparison.
 
More discussion clouding, a.k.a. thread drift. Sorry.

Gotta admit, the fantasy retirement project of putting the 235HP delta hawk on the front of a Rocket plays in my mind. Honestly, the cowling part of such an integration is the scariest part to me.
 
Curious how the insurance companies would classify an F4. Does it depend on what the builder actually calls it on the data plate? Since it has a 4 banger you could massage it like Andoman said and bring up the HP to about 220 which would be a nice performer.
- So would the insurance companies rate it as an RV-4 since it has an IO-360 or is it still technically a Rocket?
- Is an F4 a “Harmon Rocket” or an “F-1” just with a smaller motor? Which gear? Probably not a big deal either way since it’s a lighter engine.
 
Toobuilder said:
Not directed at me, but it’s my understanding that there are very few companies left that will underwrite a Rocket. All the agents end up at the same doorstep. That said, I’ve been with Crest for 10 years on my Rocket and my premium has been essentially the same $600 for the last 4 years. It feels like my increasing time in type is keeping the yearly rate hikes at bay. I have more than 700 hours in type, and this is liability only.
Click to expand...
I am paying $555 liability only with 1500 hrs tailwheel time on my F1, Full was $4000@ $220
 
Freemasm said:
More discussion clouding, a.k.a. thread drift. Sorry.

Gotta admit, the fantasy retirement project of putting the 235HP delta hawk on the front of a Rocket plays in my mind. Honestly, the cowling part of such an integration is the scariest part to me.
Click to expand...
I’m waiting to follow this project that someone will eventually take on:
-a Harmon that has been over on its nose.
-Needs only a prop and engine. Maybe some light cowl work.
-Vince and Mark hook them up with an F-4 mount and legs.
- a 220ish hp lycoming is hung on the nose
-we all drool…
 
andoman said:
I’m waiting to follow this project that someone will eventually take on:
-a Harmon that has been over on its nose.
-Needs only a prop and engine. Maybe some light cowl work.
-Vince and Mark hook them up with an F-4 mount and legs.
- a 220ish hp lycoming is hung on the nose
-we all drool…
Click to expand...

Unless they took it down, there’s currently a Harmon on BS that once sustained damage during a taxi accident (it tipped over on its nose).
 
justa6ereh said:
The one thing I always felt, with the 540 and MT 3 bladed prop…was if that engine ever quit, you’d be coming seriously down. Not floaty like a 4 at all…

All around…4 is hands down my favorite. Much less gas to burn….and honestly probably more fun per dollar than anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Rocket with its shorter wings, doesn’t glide like a -4, the real reason you experienced that “coming seriously down” feeling is because the low pitch stops on the prop aren’t adjusted correctly..
 
The very first plane I drove some years ago whilst looking to by an RV was a Rocket. I was impressed by its performance but at the gas station the “RV smile” would have disappeared pretty quick! Felt like a tank to drive also.
Then I test flew an 8, nice, better handling and better gas economy for what you got in return. I ended up buying an 8 and loved it but it too was a tank to drive. Enter the RV4 in my life, I went the long way around to finally get the best compromise of all of them, the 4 is nimble, light and quick for the power plant combo (160/FP) For me it was no contest, Mr Vans got the design just right, sex appeal, cost of operation and of course that fighter style feeling you only get with a proper design, tandem, doesn't get any better than that👍 Each to their own but life is good, very good in a 4👍
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top