What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Reconsidering the RV-3

C

copterdoc

Member
Hi! I am currently building a RV-8 but I'm not sure that's what I really need anymore. I've been looking at the -3 again lately. My problem is I'm 6'2, 230 lbs. Realisticly, would I be comfortable in a -3? How close is the -3 to a -4? There is one at my local airport. I've sat in the back of it on the ground and it wasn't too comfortable back there! I'm mainly thinking head and leg room here but since I'm a glutton for punishment today take your best shots! Just looking at the numbers on Van's website, an RV-3 with an electrical sys is 750lbs. With a gross wt. of 1100 lbs that only leaves 155lb for the pilot with full fuel. So do most builders up their GW, fly half tanks, go on diets, or all the above?:rolleyes: Also Van's says the -3 will take 100-160 hp. Has anyone ever built one with a O-235? Thanks and any info or advice is deeply appreciated!

Brad
 
Even though I think the -3 is by far the best flying RV, I don't think you would be comfortable. Most people who fly -3s enjoy aerobatics. With your already "large stature" plus a parachute, you would be very cramped (If you could get in at all). Next best would be a -4 built as a single place.
 
A friend built an RV-3 that should fly soon. The cockpit is very small. I don't think you would be comfortable, unless you lose a lot of weight. Even then your height is might be an issue, depending on whether you have long legs, or a long torso.

If you decide to go with an RV-3, and you pick up someone else's project, or a flying aircraft, I would not consider increasing the gross weight, unless you eschew aerobatics. There have been several in-flight wing separations that suggest that there isn't much margin in the design.

Van eventually completely redesigned the RV-3 to use spars somewhat similar to the RV-8. That wing design probably has more margin in it than the preceding RV-3 wing designs, but the 100 lb gross weight increase you would need to match your weight represents quite a significant jump. The wing bending moment is essentially proportional to the weight of what it supports, i.e. the fuselage. An extra hundred pounds in the fuselage is quite a large increase on a percentage basis.

The RV-3 kit is much more work than the RV-8. It would almost certainly be less work to get your RV-8 flying than it would be to start over with a -3.
 
Brad,

Your post was pretty timely. I was working on a post concerning an article in the recent RVator (2nd 2006). The article is titled "Ignoring Factory Recommedations" and appears to be penned by Van himself. The main focus was on adding aux fuel tanks, but the latter part of the article concerned setting a gross weight above factory recommendations.

I went the same route you are considering. I was working on an RV-8 and decided to go with an RV-3 instead. This was after a year of fretting over the gross weight and aerobatic gross weight limitations. The aerobatic weight limitation was resolved when Van made the statement that wing fuel does not count against the aerobatic gross weight limitation. This applies to any RV, not just the RV-3. This caused quite a stir on the newsgroups, but eventually died away.

I thought the gross weight limitation wasn?t a significant issue either. Out of the 23 RV-3?s currently listed on Randy?s site, www.rv-3.com, 3 have a gross weight at or under 1100, 5 had no gross weight listed, and 15 had a gross weight over 1100. I was planning on setting mine at 1200. Unless Randy has changed his lately, he was also planning on a 1200 1b. gross weight, which he would need for his projected empty weight of 800-820 1bs.

I?m not trying to pick on Randy. I?m using him as an example because Randy and Van are officers/directors in their local EAA chapter and Van has visited Randy?s project. It seems highly unlikely that Van is not aware that Randy plans on setting a higher-than-recommended gross weight. Does this article not apply to RV-3?s? Maybe Randy and/or the other builders with a gross above 1100 have done additional engineering analysis to support the higher gross weight. That would be good information to know.

The RVator article is very adamant about sticking to the recommended limitations unless the builder is in some way more qualified than Van?s engineers to validate any changes. The first time I read the article it came across as arrogant with a hint of CYA. After reading it again, I can understand their point. I do think they are sending mixed signals, though, at least concerning the RV-3.

As you mentioned, you would have to be a pretty light pilot to keep it at the 1100 1b. gross weight. That?s assuming it can be built with a 7501b empty weight. That doesn?t seem very likely based on the empty weights on the rv-3.com registry listings.

Van?s has asked for feedback on this issue and I will certainly provide mine.
 
Hi Brad, I like you're thinking on the RV3 it is THE best flying RV. I have been fortunate enough to fly a lightweight RV3 and full up RV8 both for about 200 hours and there is no comparison, the RV3 wins hands down. Ours had an 0-235, wood climb prop and no electrical system with a handheld radio and 1100# GW. I rarely flew it with more than 1/2 a tank of fuel and the radio. For pure sport flying, there is nothing finer!
For myself, I compromised and built a lightweight RV4 that has served me well for 10 years and 1500 hours. All of the above points are well taken, the RV3 is harder to build, has a thinner GW margin, sturctural limitations and less practical. However comma, it is more economical and most importantly, more sexy! You could modify it slightly inside to house your frame but no matter how you slice it, it will be tight.
Who builds for practicality anyway? Every airplane is a compromise, do what suits you best and makes you happy...

my 2 cents..
Rob Ray
Ps: for a really cool single seater for big dudes check out this site:www.bkfliers.com
 
Brad, I don't mean to sound Clintonesque, but it depends on what you mean by "comfortable". If you're willing to play with the seat cushions I don't think there would be any issue with legroom or headroom. The cockpit is exactly 24" wide at the skins. At 5'10" my seat cushion (by Oregon Aero) is fairly thick in order to get my head with headset on up within 1" of the plexi. If a guy were to have a large belly then getting full aft stick might be a problem, but then making the seat back thinner would help there too. At the end of the day if you are the type that can be comfortable in smaller spaces rather than being able to spread out then you'd probably like it. In exchange for that you'll have an airplane you feel like you're wearing and supposedly flys better than anything in the RV family. I can fly in a glass glider with a very tight cockpit for six hours (with pee relief) and be perfectly comfortable, in fact I've tried to model my RV-3 cockpit after a glider to some extent. Anyway, find an RV-3 and plead with the owner to let you sit in it starting with the seat cushions out, that's the only way you'll know for sure. If you can make it work you will be rewarded with a very special aircraft and experience that will also be relatively economical to build and operate.

Ken, I read Van's recent article with great interest also. He was fairly strident in his viewpoint, but with what some recent builders are doing with RV-7s and RV-10s then I think it was timely and appropriate. Regarding the RV-3B, I can tell you that it is way off their radar screen. Your summary of the RV-3 GW listings in the registry on my site was good too, and virtually all of those planes have the older wings that are not as strong. That said, just because most other people are doing it doesn't make it right. Yes, Van has seen my project in person and knows what I'm up to. Van is a fairly uncompromising individual and he won't hesitate to say he thinks my plane should be lighter. I'm building it as light as I can while keeping functionality in mind. I can't tell you how long I agonzied over the decision to add 5 lbs worth of autopilot servos.

Regarding the RV-3 specifically, keep in mind that the recommended GW of 1100 lbs was set years ago when you could build an RV-3 that weighed 750 lbs and it only carried 23 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank with a weaker wing. At 1200 lbs GW an RV-3 can be a practical airplane and there are lots of them flying successfully. My personal opinion is that if they were to do an engineering update on the RV-3 with the current wing, and taking into account the way a reasonable aircraft needs to be equipped, they might well set the GW at 1200 lbs. I am NOT an engineer of any kind, but I am willing to take personal responsibility for MY aircraft in doing so. I will also use common sense and in operating it and will restrict it to Utility category limits when over 1100 lbs (guideline will be whenever over half tanks) just to be prudent. That's no sacrifice though, I flew lots of aerobatics in my RV-8 and found I could fly them all within Utility category limits very easily, in fact it's preferrable since the short RV wing bleeds off airspeed so quickly when you G it up.

Regarding Van's comments on fuel capacity, yes I'm planning on an auxilliary tank also, but when it is removed (99% of the time) there will be zero weight penalty other than the weight of a few nutplates and about 24" of aluminum fuel line. I'm doing the aux fuel cell for two reasons, 1) so I can enter the AirVenture Cup race and be able to run the distance flat out. RV-4 drivers tell me they can't quite do that with their 32 gallons, I'll have 42 with my aux tank. And 2) so I can go on cross country trips with all my RV buddies and not have to be the guy who mandates the short flight legs when they could keep going for another hour.

Is the RV-3 for everyone? No. Could it be right for you? Depends.
 
Last edited:
I'm 6'1" (all neck) & 190 lbs, so I need extra headroom in every model of Van's aircraft I've tried (3,4,6,7,8), except for the -8. On my -3, I had Todd's Canopies build me a custom canopy with about 3" extra headroom, and it worked out great. With that, I found the -3 to be an excellent fit, and completely comfortable.

I keep reading that the -3 is nicer to fly than the -8, but I didn't personally notice any significant difference. The -8 is a much more useful aircraft, and doesn't need to cost much more than a -3B would to build. The resale on the -8 is over double what a -3 would sell for.

FWIW, I don't see any reason why you'd want to change from an -8 to a -3 at this point. Press on with the -8 :)

Rusty
 
Hi guys! I want to thank everyone who answered. I got exactly the info I needed. I've worked on Army helicopters for allmost 20 yrs now. Everything from OH-6's to Apaches and am currently flying in the OH-58D. I have come to realize that there isn't that much room in a 58-D, and there is a LOT to be said for keep it simple! I'm going in search of a -3 to sit in and brouse around at some air shows and fly-ins. Maybe I'll see you there! By the way Smokyray. I work at Ft. Rucker so wave as you pass by! Thanks again!


Brad
 
Will do Brad, my RV-4 has made the round trip from my little grass strip near LAL to MGM and back twice a month since 2002, no worries!

I'll go right over your place tomorrow...inverted!

RR

BTW, In my humble opinion the absolute best bang for the buck is the RV4, flies closer to the RV3, lands slower and better over the top acro than the RV8, and way, way better looking than the 8...

Point to ponder: Can you build an RV3 as cheap as you can buy one right now...T/F?
 
Randy, I appreciate the feedback as always. If this keeps up, I'll have to start paying you consulting fees.

The issue is still very confusing to me. I called Van's yesterday to see if I could get some feedback on the question. Scott Risan and Ken Krueger didn't seem to willing to discuss the issue other than to keep asking why I thought 1200 1bs would be OK for the RV-3B. I can understand their hesitation. They referred the question to Van who wasn?t available at the time.

They did remember my email, but didn't quite understand the question so I worded it this way. If an RV-3B can fly aerobatics at 10501bs, plus wing fuel, why is the gross weight set at 1100 1bs? If I add 30 gals of wing fuel to a weight of 1050 1bs I get 1230 1bs. Why such a small margin between aerobatic weight and gross weight if wing fuel doesn't count against the aerobatic weight?

It seems that if wing fuel doesn't significantly affect the aerobatic weight, the other main issue would be landing gear strength. From what I've seen the RV-3 gross weight was originally 1050 1bs, but it's not clear when or why they raised it to 11001bs.

Ken told me that Van would answer via email to try and avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. I?ll let everyone know what I find out.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Point taken! I looked on Van's site for the wing mod if it isn't a -3 B wing. I didn't see anything listed. What is involved should I find a flying -3 for sale I liked? Van's says they'll sell a new wing kit at reduced savings. Anyone know about how much? Thanks for all the replies!
 
Hi Brad,

I bought an RV-3 (very early version) project about 5 years ago, and found that the original builder had made some life theatening errors in the spar construction. After considering the options, I ended up replacing the wings with -B wings. The discount is substantial, and is available on the standard, or QB version of the wing kit.

It's amazing that there even IS a QB version of the wing kit for the -3B, but even more amazing that they had them in stock when I asked. At the time, the normal price for a retrofit QB -3B wing kit was $6681, and the discount price was $4900. This is a particularly good deal when you consider that it will increase the resale a bit.

Keep in mind that this isn't a weekend mod. With the wing kit, you will get new spar carry through sections for the front and rear spars. Repacing the front spar carry through is doable, but no small job, especially on a complete plane. My project was not quite complete, so it was much easier than it could have been, but still took a full week of vacation time to do it (about 70 hours work). Van's estimated 200 hours to swap wings on an existing plane, and if anything, that's probably a bit on the low side.

Cheers,
Rusty (finally back home)
 
Van's reply

I can't give you the answers which you would like, but I will provide the courtesy of a reply. The weight limits we have set for the RV-3 are based on the testing we have done on our prototype RV-3s, the heaviest of which was about 720 lbs. empty. If you want to operate at higher gross weights, you'll have to rely on the experience of those who have chosen to operate their RV-3s above our published 1100 lb. gross.

The 1050 lb. aerobatic gross was established as a result of our static tests. Because the weight of wing fuel is carried outboard of the wing root (highest strength portion of the spar), the fuel weight does not further stress the spar root. So, the gross weight limitation specified is that we are comfortable with based on our flight experience, not the static test results which would support a higher "wing fuel" gross.
Click to expand...

As promised, here is Van's reply straight from the boss. I think it's certainly reasonable based on the situation. I had pretty much already decided to rely on others when going beyond the 1100 1bs. gross weight. Mel agrees with Randy's reasoning of operating between 1100 and 1200 1bs if kept within the utility category. I think this is a reasonable compromise.
 
RV-3

Just to let you know, I fly a 3, I'm also 6'2" and weigh 206lbs.. Now that I have your attention, I will explain further. My father and I built the 3, 16 years ago, and he flew it for 600 hours before he passed away. I inherited the plane and did some modifications to it, like re-making the seat, and installing the spar mod. My father stood 5'7" and weighed in at 170lbs. Now I did some talking with Vans and they told me that the gross weight of a 3 was 1150lbs. With full fuel, and my butt on board, I come out at 1156lbs. Ok, so with full fuel I'm 6lbs over gross. Consider this, the 3 is stressed for +6G's, even if I fly at max gross weight, as long as I fly normally,(no aerobatics) I encountered no problems. Now, I don't fly with full tanks, that was just to prove a point, I normally fly with the tanks at 3/4 full. The other thing that I changed was to move the battery from behind the seat to behind the firewall. Why? because when the numbers were figured, I was very close to the aft end of the C.G. range, still within it just closer than I would have liked. Moving the battery put me just about in the middle of the range. Just a touch more stick pressure, but not enough to notice.

Now for the important question, how do I fit? not all that bad.. I don't have the leg room that I would in lets say an 8, and it takes more finesse to get in and out of the cockpit, but it is comfortable for me. I still have the full range of stick movement, full range on the rudder, and I can scratch my knees without bending!

The plane is a joy to fly! it's like having my own personal little fighter to tear up the skys with. I know what my limit is for aerobatics, and I follow it very closely. Like I said in the beginning, this plane has flown for over 16 years, and Still is a joy to fly. Like others have said, try to find someone with a 3, and beg them to let you sit in it, but first take the seat out! If you are ever close to my home base in Florida, look me up, I'll let you sit in mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top