RV4 Ad

[Small Rodent Driver]

Following on from the Chippy vs RV debate, I note a really nice RV4 has come up for sale on AFORS.

RV,s are known to command high prices and have good residuals and at £50k this one is in the ball park for those interested.

Cant help thinking though that you can get a really nice Chipmunk for that sort of money.

[foxmoth]

The '4' does not really compete with the Chippy for aeros as you can really only do that one up, this one is on the high side for age/price - but RV prices have been rising and there have not been many come up for sale so I would not be surprised to see it go for that price!

[360BakTrak]

It's a fantastic RV4 (I used to own a share) and with the right amount of fuel it's perfectly fine performing 2-up aeros.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You could get a Chipmunk for that sort of money.

Which of course comes with Chipmunk running costs and the joys of owning a Gypsy Major engine!

Not that I'm in the market, but I can see every reason to own the RV as an alternative to a Chipmunk, albeit that certainly the RV will lack the de Havilland tail and old world charm.

G

[Jetblu]

Like kit cars. You either love them or hate them. I fall into the latter. Not helped by its unappealing aesthetic attraction.

[Mark 1]

Aerobatic weight limit is 1375lb and typical empty weight for one with O320 and FP wood prop is about 950-1020lb. So with 2 180lb people you can only take 30-40lbs of fuel and you could well have the CG aft of the aerobatic limit.

Plenty of people do aeros 2-up in the RV-4 and that is quite legal under FAA experimental conditions, but not under LAA limitations unless you build very light and most of the weight saving opportunities push the CG further aft.

The consequence of the aft CG is very light pitch forces making it easy to exceed g limits at high speed.

[foxmoth]

So with 2 180lb people you can only take 30-40lbs of fuel and you could well have the CG aft of the aerobatic limit.

Not all of us weigh 180lbs, with two lighter people it is not that hard to be under the aerobatic weight though CoG might still be a problem - even with only 40lbs of fuel you have 30mins fuel plus and you can get airborne with more fuel than that as long as you delay the aeros until you burn off the excess.

[john ball]

I have owned many aircraft over the last nearly 40 years and they all have the attributes and negatives, but I must say the RV6 I currently have is a superb design, that is safe, economical on fuel, very fast and pretty cheap to maintain. It may not have the heritage of a Chipmunk, that is the personal taste. I always equate cars to aircraft to my non flying friends --- so the Chipmunk is a vintage 50's Aston Martin, the RV6 a modern day BMW Z4. Our Comanche was a big fast BMW 535, our Robin DR400 a Citroen ( with delicate electrics but fast tourer ). A chipmunk is a labor of love. An RV is a lets blast down to S France at 150 kts or go up for half an hour of twirling around.

[Pace]

John I had the privilege of fly a beautiful RV6A over the Welsh hills low level years back.
It was an absolute delight to fly for most fun flying. I agree if your looking for an aerobatic machine as thats what turns you on there are better choices but then I wouldn't choose a ChIppy either

Pace

[blueandwhite]

Originally Posted by john ball

........... but I must say the RV6 I currently have is a superb design, that is safe, economical on fuel, very fast and pretty cheap to maintain. .............................. An RV is a lets blast down to S France at 150 kts or go up for half an hour of twirling around.

I did the half hour twirling last week and will do the 150Kts to South of France next week.

(not sure I fancy the RV4 for the south of France BTW, limited baggage as well as issues with aero's W&B. The 6,7,8 and 9 all make better tourers)

[john ball]

The RV's all vary in style and capability in ''my opinion'':-

RV4 small and aerobatic and fun but limited person and baggage space.
RV8 bigger and aerobatic and the ultimate macho fighter version.
Both these are Tandem seating, where the passenger is in second class.

RV6 lovely tourer with good baggage space.
RV7 updated version with bigger fin and wingtips.
The 6 has AUW 726KG and the 7 AUW 820KG, thus 7 better two up for aero's. Some landing and parking fees change at 750KG !!

RV9 similar to 7 but bigger wing and tailplane, so better out of strips.

Then of course the big debate tailwheel or nosewheel. Pro's and con's, the nose wheel is prone to digging in and nosing over, but better ground visibility. Tail wheel not good on rough grass due to springy legs attached to engine frame. I think nosewheel is an ugly afterthought for the America's.

New RV14, probably now the best of the two seater side by side.
Effectively a larger version of a cross between a 7 and 9

RV10 Ultimate 4 seater homebuilt, but thirsty IO-540 engine.

RV12 small two seater, cheaper to build, Rotax engine !

So, they all have their attributes and differing performances.

[foxmoth]

You forgot the "3", considered by many to be the nicest to fly, but only a single seater.