Vans RV ownership
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 1
From: Mel-burn
If you can afford the fuel to feed 160-180 HP and a 100 hourly, then go ahead, a great aircraft, great speed and performance that you won't be disappointed with! I wouldn't be expecting any massive cost blowouts unless the engine is tired as some builders use used or close to out of hours engines.
The 7 is slightly more roomy but I wouldn't discount the 6 as it is very similar.
Some are still registered under the old ABAA category so international ops are still allowed with most being experimental these days. Prices seem to range from $90k for a 6 to $150k for a good 7.
You will be up for LAME rates unless you build it yourself.
The 7 is slightly more roomy but I wouldn't discount the 6 as it is very similar.
Some are still registered under the old ABAA category so international ops are still allowed with most being experimental these days. Prices seem to range from $90k for a 6 to $150k for a good 7.
You will be up for LAME rates unless you build it yourself.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 509
Likes: 28
From: Albany, West Australia
If you want a top RV for aeros - get an RV-8, or RV-8A. Tandem, feel great to handle, go like a rocket.
The RV-7 or -7A are much, much more comfy than the -6 models, and if you 180HP them - are faster and better handling.
RV-9 and -9A are actually the nicest to fly in ordinary A-B flying, and have lower stall speeds, bigger flaps, land slower. They do appear to perform better at 10k altitudes too - 12% more wing area.
Never been a better time to buy, even in Oz.
Look for one with a factory new engine when it was built.
The VANS performance numbers are more/less accurate - don't believe some of the bull you hear about 175k cruise. You'll find that 150ktas is the more realistic aim, and you'll get there with fuel still in the tanks.
I've had a -6, now a -9A, but have test flown, and instructed on, the whole range.....except -3's of course!!
PM me if you have specific Q's
happy days,
The RV-7 or -7A are much, much more comfy than the -6 models, and if you 180HP them - are faster and better handling.
RV-9 and -9A are actually the nicest to fly in ordinary A-B flying, and have lower stall speeds, bigger flaps, land slower. They do appear to perform better at 10k altitudes too - 12% more wing area.
Never been a better time to buy, even in Oz.
Look for one with a factory new engine when it was built.
The VANS performance numbers are more/less accurate - don't believe some of the bull you hear about 175k cruise. You'll find that 150ktas is the more realistic aim, and you'll get there with fuel still in the tanks.
I've had a -6, now a -9A, but have test flown, and instructed on, the whole range.....except -3's of course!!
PM me if you have specific Q's
happy days,
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 4
From: Qld troppo
The VANS performance numbers are more/less accurate - don't believe some of the bull you hear about 175k cruise. You'll find that 150ktas is the more realistic aim, and you'll get there with fuel still in the tanks.
Dr
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 509
Likes: 28
From: Albany, West Australia
I'm unsure if that comment was straight or sarcastic. I hadn't considered the RV-10 in my comments. Yes, you'll pull 175 easy enough, but it's at a cost of feeding an IO-540. 160/65 is more the go. And yes, I've flown and instructed in them too.
Firstly, consider the unknowns of the amateur build. For anyone seriously considering an RV purchase ex the US, with the intent of aeros - just ask yourself whether you want to be stressing an airframe about which you know bugga all. At least the local builds have been under some scrutiny, and are probably closely built to VANS' plans.
Then we come to just what your RV has been doing in the US. Some years back there was an RV8 accident in Oregon,(?), where the airframe did fail, and as far as I know, it was due to some quite non-recommended aeros....way outside the aircrafts' envelope. You would really want to know just how many hours your US import had done in the hands of a DYO aerobating cowboy. Maybe you wouldn't!
Try to look past the panel chocka with EFIS and u beaut IFR avionics. It's the airframe build that's important.
Maybe you'd be better off doing your aeros in a local school aircraft, (Decathalon, Pitts,Tiger), which is designed for the job - and get yourself a nice 'cruising' RV which has no aeros history?
happy days,
Firstly, consider the unknowns of the amateur build. For anyone seriously considering an RV purchase ex the US, with the intent of aeros - just ask yourself whether you want to be stressing an airframe about which you know bugga all. At least the local builds have been under some scrutiny, and are probably closely built to VANS' plans.
Then we come to just what your RV has been doing in the US. Some years back there was an RV8 accident in Oregon,(?), where the airframe did fail, and as far as I know, it was due to some quite non-recommended aeros....way outside the aircrafts' envelope. You would really want to know just how many hours your US import had done in the hands of a DYO aerobating cowboy. Maybe you wouldn't!
Try to look past the panel chocka with EFIS and u beaut IFR avionics. It's the airframe build that's important.
Maybe you'd be better off doing your aeros in a local school aircraft, (Decathalon, Pitts,Tiger), which is designed for the job - and get yourself a nice 'cruising' RV which has no aeros history?
happy days,
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 1
From: Mel-burn
The Dr. is referring to Jabba's RV10 which is in reference to a "drag" that took place between them where inflated ego's took over and nobody really knows what happened 
I must say that I disagree with this comment. There are no mandated inspections on Australian built experimental aircraft during the build process. The only "inspection" per-se is the cursory check for the issue of the C of A by the SAAA or CASA delegate. This "inspection" involves a basic look-over and check of the flight controls to ensure the ailerons and elevator do what they are supposed to. Blame this cursory check on the liability issues of recent times. I once watched an RV builder attaching his wings using a sledge hammer to put in the bolts, not to mention him banging in his prop bolts with an over-sized hammer; there is nothing in the system that prevents this.
An RV purchased in the USA or AUS could be a mixed bag in which you have no idea what you are getting, but hey, that's no different to any other aircraft on the market after all.
The initial purchase price is not so much important as the on-going running costs. A mate bought a second-hand RV6 and was hit with a $6k LAME 100 hourly bill as he had a leaking pot and a cracked engine mount. It's the luck of the draw really, even on a new aircraft, things happen.
In reality, RV owners are generally middle-aged with solid incomes, capable of supporting such an aircraft. If you don't fit this category and can't afford the fuel burn, $1000 - $2000 hundred hourlies with the occasional large expense, then the RV or any aircraft of this calibre maybe not your cup of tea...
Insurance is usually based a percentage of value figure, mixed with a variable on your experience and may be higher for a tailwheel versus nose wheel in the case of the RV.
QBE used to offer discounts for SAAA members that have completed their training programs for pilot proficiency and maintenance. Hard to give a ballpark for insurance, but I know people getting insurance for 1.8% through to 4% of hull value + 22-25% taxes and surcharges. Eg. ($100,000 * .03) * 22% = $3,660 + liability cover.... quickest and easiest way would be to give QBE a call and ask what it would be for your situation.
At least the local builds have been under some scrutiny, and are probably closely built to VANS' plans.
An RV purchased in the USA or AUS could be a mixed bag in which you have no idea what you are getting, but hey, that's no different to any other aircraft on the market after all.
The initial purchase price is not so much important as the on-going running costs. A mate bought a second-hand RV6 and was hit with a $6k LAME 100 hourly bill as he had a leaking pot and a cracked engine mount. It's the luck of the draw really, even on a new aircraft, things happen.
In reality, RV owners are generally middle-aged with solid incomes, capable of supporting such an aircraft. If you don't fit this category and can't afford the fuel burn, $1000 - $2000 hundred hourlies with the occasional large expense, then the RV or any aircraft of this calibre maybe not your cup of tea...
Insurance is usually based a percentage of value figure, mixed with a variable on your experience and may be higher for a tailwheel versus nose wheel in the case of the RV.
QBE used to offer discounts for SAAA members that have completed their training programs for pilot proficiency and maintenance. Hard to give a ballpark for insurance, but I know people getting insurance for 1.8% through to 4% of hull value + 22-25% taxes and surcharges. Eg. ($100,000 * .03) * 22% = $3,660 + liability cover.... quickest and easiest way would be to give QBE a call and ask what it would be for your situation.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: Australia
No RVs are the same. The one I am looking to buy a share in is a 6 with a 160HP O-320 and fixed pitch metal prop. NVFR steam gauges with Garmin 430. In the lower altitudes, you can run it 28 lph for 140KTAS. Still need to fly it up to 9500 to see what it does there, but the previous owner suggests 150.
So if you want to get from a to b, it need not be more expensive in fuel burn than a recreational type, except you do it 40-50 kt faster...
Unless there are any parts to replace, an independent LAME away from the major airfields can do the 100-hourly at about $1000; a figure I hear from many owners.
So if you want to get from a to b, it need not be more expensive in fuel burn than a recreational type, except you do it 40-50 kt faster...
Unless there are any parts to replace, an independent LAME away from the major airfields can do the 100-hourly at about $1000; a figure I hear from many owners.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 1
From: Mel-burn
Had 2 mates that built their 6's at the same time. One went the metal constant speed prop and the other a 2 blade timber. You could hardly suggest that one was faster than the other. It was an interesting comparison.
Have another mate put a 3 blade constant speed on his 6 and found it went a bit slower, but was noticeably smoother and more comfortable and a little quieter.
Both of them were a 150 knot TAS machine up high in the 7,500ft+ range.
One of the guys I know took his 6 up to New Guinea and Vanuatu, 160hp C/S, that thing would still climb at close to 1,000 fpm at 12,000 ft.
The 6 does have a tendency to fish-tail (yawing) at high speed when you are pushing it whereas the 7 doesn't. Even the 10 does this when pushed.
Great performers.
Suggest the Van's Airforce forum for more info on the RV and maybe a trip to OshKosh this year.
Have another mate put a 3 blade constant speed on his 6 and found it went a bit slower, but was noticeably smoother and more comfortable and a little quieter.
Both of them were a 150 knot TAS machine up high in the 7,500ft+ range.
One of the guys I know took his 6 up to New Guinea and Vanuatu, 160hp C/S, that thing would still climb at close to 1,000 fpm at 12,000 ft.
The 6 does have a tendency to fish-tail (yawing) at high speed when you are pushing it whereas the 7 doesn't. Even the 10 does this when pushed.
Great performers.
Suggest the Van's Airforce forum for more info on the RV and maybe a trip to OshKosh this year.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 177
Likes: 100
From: sydney
RV-7 180HP C/S
Ignoring hangarage..
XXXs insurance estimate is pretty close ~2% of hull. SAAA deal through QBE still exists.
171kts TAS 40lph above 7500' - Extensively verified - this is right on book value for 180hp. I wouldn’t be surprised if 190 or 200hp -7s can TAS 175kts with the right prop -but agree a standard one wont do it.
150kts TAS 29lph LOP
Much of the time involved in the 100hrly / Annual is removing and replacing cowl / fairings / inspection panels (internal and external) which you can do yourself.
Pay a LAME to do the rest and I cant see you spending much at all.
Add a few oil changes / brake pads & tires every 200hrs, and that’s it for fixed costs.
My 2c - Don’t buy one with the training wheel at the front. The taildraggers are MUCH tougher, and they easier to handle than a Citabria/Decathlon. I can see a time where itll cost you more to insure a nosedragger anyway.
BE
Ignoring hangarage..
XXXs insurance estimate is pretty close ~2% of hull. SAAA deal through QBE still exists.
171kts TAS 40lph above 7500' - Extensively verified - this is right on book value for 180hp. I wouldn’t be surprised if 190 or 200hp -7s can TAS 175kts with the right prop -but agree a standard one wont do it.
150kts TAS 29lph LOP
Much of the time involved in the 100hrly / Annual is removing and replacing cowl / fairings / inspection panels (internal and external) which you can do yourself.
Pay a LAME to do the rest and I cant see you spending much at all.
Add a few oil changes / brake pads & tires every 200hrs, and that’s it for fixed costs.
My 2c - Don’t buy one with the training wheel at the front. The taildraggers are MUCH tougher, and they easier to handle than a Citabria/Decathlon. I can see a time where itll cost you more to insure a nosedragger anyway.
BE
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: Australia
One thing we found in our search is that you need to check weight figures very carefully. Some people put in a lot of stuff you don't need, layers of heavy paint, etc. Makes them look good, but adds weight.
That's one of the main reasons we went for the fixed-pitch model when we could have had a CSU for about the same price; a CSU weighs a fair bit...
Go through Air Safety Australia and pick all the RVs with collapsed nose gear... They just don't seem to be made for Australian bush strips.
That's one of the main reasons we went for the fixed-pitch model when we could have had a CSU for about the same price; a CSU weighs a fair bit...
Go through Air Safety Australia and pick all the RVs with collapsed nose gear... They just don't seem to be made for Australian bush strips.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 5
From: in the classroom of life
baswell
That may well be true for the early RV6A's....... There has been upgrades since then.
RV8 = pure fun.
RV7 = more room, still aerobatic and with an IO360 and CS prop it will be a great machine.
RV6 As above for 7 just more cozy but still awesome.
RV10 = A lot faster than FTDK claims.....and his V-Tail Banana boat. And that is LOP on 40LPH
That may well be true for the early RV6A's....... There has been upgrades since then.
RV8 = pure fun.
RV7 = more room, still aerobatic and with an IO360 and CS prop it will be a great machine.
RV6 As above for 7 just more cozy but still awesome.
RV10 = A lot faster than FTDK claims.....and his V-Tail Banana boat. And that is LOP on 40LPH
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 862
Likes: 1
From: South Pacific
You've gotten some mileage out of your RV, Jaba. My old hangar-share mate has been ill, and hasn't taken me for a ride in his 6a for ages. He should have finished changing the oil in it yesterday, but didn't feel up to it after something he ate.. He still wreck-ons he prefers his first-build LongEze for a cross-country, but it is down in a shed in South Aus.
pretty average, i have put 300 hrs on bills savvy in the past 12 months.. Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 5
From: in the classroom of life
UL
Do you wanna compare miles then? Suggest you don't hehehe
XXX, I think the average is a bit better than 60, its overall more like 45 to 47.
Thats still about around $32.5K to $33.5K, but it sure beats walking!..............and V35B's
Do you wanna compare miles then? Suggest you don't hehehe
XXX, I think the average is a bit better than 60, its overall more like 45 to 47.
Thats still about around $32.5K to $33.5K, but it sure beats walking!..............and V35B's
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 1
From: Mel-burn
Add Jabba's fossil fuel burning large capacity engine Land Cruiser into the equation, driving him to the airport and back and you have a carbon footprint half the size of Qantas. Oh what ever happened to the Global Warming swindle thread....
Back onto topic though.... if you need to ask you can't afford to own an aircraft, but that being said, they (the RV) should be considered to be highly cost-effective in terms of pocket-rocket type aircraft. Half the speed of an L39 at a tenth of the price.
Back onto topic though.... if you need to ask you can't afford to own an aircraft, but that being said, they (the RV) should be considered to be highly cost-effective in terms of pocket-rocket type aircraft. Half the speed of an L39 at a tenth of the price.