RV, Glassair, or ???

My RV7 was very comfortable to fly long distances. I had the Classic Aero interior and 3-4 hour legs were no problem. An Rv might cost more up front but when it is time to sell there are a heck of a lot more willing buyers out there and I think we are seeing the bottom of the market right now. It seems like I always end up selling stuff at the bottom of the market so you better hurry, they are going to go up soon.:) Don
 
Anyone still on this thread, I'd appreciate reply. Like Mafoo, I'm looking at RV vs Glasair I and IIs. My mission is speed and efficiency for cross country (3 hour commutes 1x per week, with occasional 4 hour 1 way trips and back 2x year with my wife). New to GA, arriving late (50 y/o), and low hour on 152 and Cherokees. No interest in aerobatics, but like the strength of an aerobatic plane. Prefer low speed on approach, touchdown <70 kts. Here's some specific questions:

- Glasair I TD w/ longer wings and larger tail; does this buy any quantifiable greater stability at low speed vs. it's original configuration (what would stall (clean & dirty), approach, and touchdown speeds be)?

- Glasair II FT w/ larger wings, have heard they are more stable at low speeds; how does this compare to the Glasair I RG w/ larger wings?

- How would both of those planes compare to an RV-6 or 7?

- Mafoo, if you're out there, what did you end up doing are are you happy?

Many thanks, Scooby Duke
 
Scooby Duke, a Van's -9A might fit the bill. Not as fast as some of the others (145 KTAS @ 7.2 gph, 155 KTAS @ 8.0 gph with an IO-320), but Vso is 43 KIAS at max gross weight. Part of why I bought it is the slow-ish landing speed. A great glide ratio compared to the -6 and -7 too. Transitioning from a Cherokee would be very easy, as it's a super docile aircraft, but nicely responsive.

My over-the-fence speed is typically 65 KIAS.
 
glasair is a proper aircraft, just get the biggest engine and CS prop you can fit, and ofcourse a RG.

Other comparable aircraft would be a white lightning , if you could find one

InFlight%20Duo.jpg
 
Scooby Dook said:
Anyone still on this thread, I'd appreciate reply. Like Mafoo, I'm looking at RV vs Glasair I and IIs. My mission is speed and efficiency for cross country (3 hour commutes 1x per week, with occasional 4 hour 1 way trips and back 2x year with my wife). New to GA, arriving late (50 y/o), and low hour on 152 and Cherokees. No interest in aerobatics, but like the strength of an aerobatic plane. Prefer low speed on approach, touchdown <70 kts. Here's some specific questions:

- Glasair I TD w/ longer wings and larger tail; does this buy any quantifiable greater stability at low speed vs. it's original configuration (what would stall (clean & dirty), approach, and touchdown speeds be)?

- Glasair II FT w/ larger wings, have heard they are more stable at low speeds; how does this compare to the Glasair I RG w/ larger wings?

- How would both of those planes compare to an RV-6 or 7?

- Mafoo, if you're out there, what did you end up doing are are you happy?

Many thanks, Scooby Duke
Click to expand...

With your low time I would strongly suggest a RV6-7 A. We have checked out several very low time pilots out in RVs with no problems. Even if you wanted a tailwheel RV it still wouldn't take much time to check you out. Both the 6 and 7 with 180hp/CS prop are 200mph cruise airplanes on 10gph. RV's are very docile and comfortable cruisers. The Glassairs have a higher wing loading and higher stall speed so require you to pay attention when slowed up for landing.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Scooby Duke, a Van's -9A might fit the bill. Not as fast as some of the others (145 KTAS @ 7.2 gph, 155 KTAS @ 8.0 gph with an IO-320), but Vso is 43 KIAS at max gross weight. Part of why I bought it is the slow-ish landing speed. A great glide ratio compared to the -6 and -7 too. Transitioning from a Cherokee would be very easy, as it's a super docile aircraft, but nicely responsive.

My over-the-fence speed is typically 65 KIAS.
Click to expand...

Vso @ 43 KIAS is pretty impressive. Do you have a pref for the 9A over the 9?
 
yakdriver said:
With your low time I would strongly suggest a RV6-7 A. We have checked out several very low time pilots out in RVs with no problems. Even if you wanted a tailwheel RV it still wouldn't take much time to check you out. Both the 6 and 7 with 180hp/CS prop are 200mph cruise airplanes on 10gph. RV's are very docile and comfortable cruisers. The Glassairs have a higher wing loading and higher stall speed so require you to pay attention when slowed up for landing.
Click to expand...

Very encouraging! Thank you. Puts the 6 and 7 on my radar too. Will ask you same question I asked So Cal RV Flyer. Any pref for TG vs Trike?

Also, any thoughts on which would do better in an off-field, controlled landing (think soybean-like row crops...weedy/soft bush vs a corn field, I live in GA)?

Have heard trike may flip forward if front gear snags. I think it would break first, perhaps cushion a flip, where a TG has nothing to slow the pitch.
 
RVs are built very robust and have a rollover structure. They do slow down well and come over the fence at about 65-70 on short final. Most guys fly them much too fast on final but that's another topic. I'm in Idaho and I fly over mountainous terrain all the time. I have had one partial engine failure in 3000+hrs and have more time in airplanes older than me (I'm 67) so I don't think about crashing. I would suggest the tricycle RV just because you are low time and it will take much less time to transition. Personally I prefer tailwheel but two thirds of my time is in tailwheels. I have flown all of the RV series except the 3 and 14 plus I built a 7 and helped build a couple others. I have flown a Glassair II TD and a III. One thing I suggest you do is go take a 5 hour aerobatic course as that will to more for your flying skills than anything else. It will also help with your fear of a forced landing because you know you can control the airplane down to the slowest airspeed without stalling it.
One other thing about the RVs is they are easy to inspect the workmanship as they have lots of access to the interior areas. The composite airplanes are hard to tell how they are built and the quality varies wildly. All of the RV 7,8,9,10 and 14 and late 6 kits are manufactured with matched hole tooling so it was pretty hard to screw one up and you can see if it is on an inspection.
 
I'll say it again. You can't touch an RV for what you pay for a short body Mooney. The Mooney won't do acrobatics, but it will eat miles. If maintaining the aircraft yourself is important to you then, yes, you want the Experimental aircraft. But if you want to get from here to there in the most inexpensive way possible, a Mooney M20C or E is hard to beat.
 
An RV is much faster and flies much nicer than a Mooney. A Mooney flies great straight line point A to B but is one of the ****teist flying airplanes I've flown. No fun at all to just go out and yank and bank. Also with experimental you get away from all the expensive certified parts for a certified airplane. I will only own experimental airplanes.
 
Scooby Dook said:
Vso @ 43 KIAS is pretty impressive. Do you have a pref for the 9A over the 9?
Click to expand...

I went with the -9A because I trained on and am comfortable with trike-gear aircraft, it looks more modern, and for the improved visibility when taxiing. -9 is great if you like tailwheels...so cool that Van's gives you the option to build either one.

I think in the "landing in a soft soybean field" scenario, either one would likely flip, but I do think the nose gear would fold over and help to dissipate some energy. I like that my slider has a very stout tubular roll bar for just such an occasion. 5-point harnesses are also wonderful in this scenario. Land into a 10-knot wind and your ground speed could be as low as 33 KIAS.

Nice big rudders on the -7s and -9s...very easy to land in a crosswind. I can't speak for the -7, but my -9 has next to no adverse yaw. Rudder is strictly for takeoffs, landings and slips.

Here's a big reason they're so easy to work on: The split cowling comes off easily and entirely, giving great access to the engine, magnetos, firewall-mounted accessories, etc. (I suggest mounting the wings, canopy and cowling before flight, though. :))

IMG_2176.jpg
 
Last edited:
yakdriver said:
RVs are built very robust and have a rollover structure. They do slow down well and come over the fence at about 65-70 on short final. Most guys fly them much too fast on final but that's another topic. I'm in Idaho and I fly over mountainous terrain all the time. I have had one partial engine failure in 3000+hrs and have more time in airplanes older than me (I'm 67) so I don't think about crashing. I would suggest the tricycle RV just because you are low time and it will take much less time to transition. Personally I prefer tailwheel but two thirds of my time is in tailwheels. I have flown all of the RV series except the 3 and 14 plus I built a 7 and helped build a couple others. I have flown a Glassair II TD and a III. One thing I suggest you do is go take a 5 hour aerobatic course as that will to more for your flying skills than anything else. It will also help with your fear of a forced landing because you know you can control the airplane down to the slowest airspeed without stalling it.
One other thing about the RVs is they are easy to inspect the workmanship as they have lots of access to the interior areas. The composite airplanes are hard to tell how they are built and the quality varies wildly. All of the RV 7,8,9,10 and 14 and late 6 kits are manufactured with matched hole tooling so it was pretty hard to screw one up and you can see if it is on an inspection.
Click to expand...

Thanks Yakdriver. Will definitely do the aerobatic course. I was already leaning in that direction. I believe everyone should, and my plan is to do that before getting my IFR. I'm not worried about forced landings, but am an abundance of caution, "know before you go" kind of person. I don't mind risk, but will take every step I can to mitigate and manage.

What was the build time on the RV-7, in terms of both total start to finish and hands on hours?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I went with the -9A because I trained on and am comfortable with trike-gear aircraft, it looks more modern, and for the improved visibility when taxiing. -9 is great if you like tailwheels...so cool that Van's gives you the option to build either one.

I think in the "landing in a soft soybean field" scenario, either one would likely flip, but I do think the nose gear would fold over and help to dissipate some energy. I like that my slider has a very stout tubular roll bar for just such an occasion. 5-point harnesses are also wonderful in this scenario. Land into a 10-knot wind and your ground speed could be as low as 33 KIAS.

Nice big rudders on the -7s and -9s...very easy to land in a crosswind. I can't speak for the -7, but my -9 has next to no adverse yaw. Rudder is strictly for takeoffs, landings and slips.

Here's a big reason they're so easy to work on: The split cowling comes off easily and entirely, giving great access to the engine, magnetos, firewall-mounted accessories, etc. (I suggest mounting the wings, canopy and cowling before flight, though. :))

View attachment 62862
Click to expand...
Tracking! Beautiful build. Can't help but ask, how much time do you have invested in the build, and when finished, are the wings still removable for storage? What is the width of the cockpit, and which engine & prop did you get?
 
steingar said:
I'll say it again. You can't touch an RV for what you pay for a short body Mooney. The Mooney won't do acrobatics, but it will eat miles. If maintaining the aircraft yourself is important to you then, yes, you want the Experimental aircraft. But if you want to get from here to there in the most inexpensive way possible, a Mooney M20C or E is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
I've heard good things about Mooney's too. Never flown one, but only repeat criticism I hear is the landings can be hard...little absorption in the landing gear.
 
A low time guy would be better matched with a RV than fast glass. The RV has much shorter landing distance than glass. The RV is much easier to learn how to land than glass. Once one knows how to land one of these however I would argue that a lancair is much easier than a RV in crosswind.
 
Scooby Dook said:
Thanks Yakdriver. Will definitely do the aerobatic course. I was already leaning in that direction. I believe everyone should, and my plan is to do that before getting my IFR. I'm not worried about forced landings, but am an abundance of caution, "know before you go" kind of person. I don't mind risk, but will take every step I can to mitigate and manage.

What was the build time on the RV-7, in terms of both total start to finish and hands on hours?
Click to expand...

1400 hrs quick build kit. I could do one in less than 1000 hrs if I did another one. I am a highly experienced builder and an A&P and have a nice well equipped shop.
 
I’m not sure I’m buying all the easier to land comments about an RV. The GA will have a higher wing loading which often times makes an airplane easier to land. I know my Questair is easier to land than my old Grumman Yankee despite being almost 20 mph faster on final. I do think the RV is a better all around airplane but not really easier to fly.
 
Scooby Dook said:
Tracking! Beautiful build. Can't help but ask, how much time do you have invested in the build, and when finished, are the wings still removable for storage? What is the width of the cockpit, and which engine & prop did you get?
Click to expand...

Thanks! I've got about 1300 hours in mine, and like yakdriver, mine was a Quick Build. I estimate going this route saved me about two years. About 19 months of construction in a two-car garage, then 4 months final assembly in the hangar, working 2-3 days a week. The wings are not meant to be removable for storage...the close-tolerance bolts that secure the spar to the spar carrier have to be tapped into place, and the access to some of these bolts and nuts is quite difficult. The RV-12, however, is designed with removable wings.

Cockpit width specs are found on Van's website, but it feels like a small 2-seat sports car, like a Miata or Lotus Elise. There's a great feeling of spaciousness, though, with the bubble canopy. Mine is powered with a 160-hp IO-320-D1A with a Catto fixed pitch prop, 70x70. It hits Vans posted numbers...170 kts top speed, 145-155 kts cruise. With the fixed pitch I can climb at solo weight at 1400-1500 fpm; get a CS prop and it's more like 1800-1900 fpm.

Here's a pic of me and my buddy, to give you a sense of space. I'm 6'3" and 195 lb., and my friend is about the same size/weight. I've got about 2-3" between my cap and the canopy.

IMG_2816.jpg
 
Saw a comment on a youtube video. Guy said AA1 was good transition plane for the Glasairs. Recommended 30 hours in one before transition.

How is your Questair easier to land?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Thanks! I've got about 1300 hours in mine, and like yakdriver, mine was a Quick Build. I estimate going this route saved me about two years. About 19 months of construction in a two-car garage, then 4 months final assembly in the hangar, working 2-3 days a week. The wings are not meant to be removable for storage...the close-tolerance bolts that secure the spar to the spar carrier have to be tapped into place, and the access to some of these bolts and nuts is quite difficult. The RV-12, however, is designed with removable wings.

Cockpit width specs are found on Van's website, but it feels like a small 2-seat sports car, like a Miata or Lotus Elise. There's a great feeling of spaciousness, though, with the bubble canopy. Mine is powered with a 160-hp IO-320-D1A with a Catto fixed pitch prop, 70x70. It hits Vans posted numbers...170 kts top speed, 145-155 kts cruise. With the fixed pitch I can climb at solo weight at 1400-1500 fpm; get a CS prop and it's more like 1800-1900 fpm.

Here's a pic of me and my buddy, to give you a sense of space. I'm 6'3" and 195 lb., and my friend is about the same size/weight. I've got about 2-3" between my cap and the canopy.

View attachment 62973
Click to expand...

So that's a tilt up canopy?
 
Grum.Man said:
I’m not sure I’m buying all the easier to land comments about an RV. The GA will have a higher wing loading which often times makes an airplane easier to land. I know my Questair is easier to land than my old Grumman Yankee despite being almost 20 mph faster on final. I do think the RV is a better all around airplane but not really easier to fly.
Click to expand...

Yep, my Glasair is far easier to land than my Velocity. The Velocity floats like crazy and is heavy in pitch. My old AA5, if you didn’t nail the speed right on, it would bounce you back up in the air.

Once I got used to the light pitch of the Glasair, it became the easiest landing aircraft I’ve ever flown. Just keep a little power in with a slight nose up attitude and she’ll grease it in every time.
 
Light pitch/slight nose up = 2-3 deg? Little power = Vso * 1.15/1.2?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Thanks! I've got about 1300 hours in mine, and like yakdriver, mine was a Quick Build. I estimate going this route saved me about two years. About 19 months of construction in a two-car garage, then 4 months final assembly in the hangar, working 2-3 days a week. The wings are not meant to be removable for storage...the close-tolerance bolts that secure the spar to the spar carrier have to be tapped into place, and the access to some of these bolts and nuts is quite difficult. The RV-12, however, is designed with removable wings.

Cockpit width specs are found on Van's website, but it feels like a small 2-seat sports car, like a Miata or Lotus Elise. There's a great feeling of spaciousness, though, with the bubble canopy. Mine is powered with a 160-hp IO-320-D1A with a Catto fixed pitch prop, 70x70. It hits Vans posted numbers...170 kts top speed, 145-155 kts cruise. With the fixed pitch I can climb at solo weight at 1400-1500 fpm; get a CS prop and it's more like 1800-1900 fpm.

Here's a pic of me and my buddy, to give you a sense of space. I'm 6'3" and 195 lb., and my friend is about the same size/weight. I've got about 2-3" between my cap and the canopy.

View attachment 62973
Click to expand...
My wife and I would fit in that easily. Believe I prefer the 160-hp too, though the 118-hp numbers from Van's website are pretty impressive.

My parents didn't raise me well. They bought me Lincoln Logs instead of an Erector Set. But the Van's construction plans read almost like recipe books. Were your 1300 hours all by yourself or did you have help from others with RV build experience?
 
Scooby Dook said:
My wife and I would fit in that easily. Believe I prefer the 160-hp too, though the 118-hp numbers from Van's website are pretty impressive.

My parents didn't raise me well. They bought me Lincoln Logs instead of an Erector Set. But the Van's construction plans read almost like recipe books. Were your 1300 hours all by yourself or did you have help from others with RV build experience?
Click to expand...
 
Mine's a slider canopy. Here's a pic that shows the roll hoop for the windscreen, plus the canopy hoop, roller and slider tracks. I don't have a decent external shot with the canopy open. It is the best thing ever for hot days....I typically slide it all the way back once I exit the runway for taxiing to to the hangar, restaurant, etc. Amazing ventilation!

The way it's designed, if you took off with it unlatched, the canopy will move back only two or three inches and stay there. Slow down to 70 KIAS or so and you can relatch it in flight.

I was mostly self-taught by going over thousands of archived posts on the Van's Air Force (VAF) website--best resource imaginable--and looking at other people's build logs. I also made a couple of friends with guys who already had built theirs, and they'd come over periodically and look at my work, and help with certain riveting operations that required two people. But mostly me, toiling away in the garage, maybe 4-5 days a week and working an average of 4 hours or so a day.

IMG_7420.jpg
 
I learned to fly on AA5s. Then promptly bought a Glasair which I own and fly. And I still rent an AA5 once in a while — rental fleet at my airport. From my experience, perhaps the only thing you might take away from the AA5 is the sensation of coming over the fence at a speed similar to a Glasair and maybe landing attitude. Compared to the AA5, the Glasair flies much more quickly (if you want it to), has a larger and wider cabin, reacts less to ground effect and turbulence, seats the pilot in a much more reclined attitude (think sports car), and has so much more power upfront. I still power off land “most of the time” and I wouldn’t claim landing a Glasair is any more difficult or easier than any other GA airplane — just get some good transition training in it.

Good luck on your search!


Scooby Dook said:
Saw a comment on a youtube video. Guy said AA1 was good transition plane for the Glasairs. Recommended 30 hours in one before transition.

How is your Questair easier to land?
Click to expand...
 
Scooby Dook said:
Believe I prefer the 160-hp too, though the 118-hp numbers from Van's website are pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Get the 160 or 180. I don't believe a single customer has used the O-235, which indicates the market preferences. An O-235 costs virtually the same as the bigger engines, has more expensive parts, and would kill resale (and climb performance).
 
kyleb said:
Get the 160 or 180. I don't believe a single customer has used the O-235, which indicates the market preferences. An O-235 costs virtually the same as the bigger engines, has more expensive parts, and would kill resale (and climb performance).
Click to expand...

Good advice, unless you could find some sort of crazy deal on an 0-235. You can throttle back with an IO-320 and get amazing economy at 125 KTAS, but you won't want to. Leaned out, 145 kts true works out to roughly 7.2 gph on mine. Go with an injected engine so you can take advantage of LOP economy.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Good advice, unless you could find some sort of crazy deal on an 0-235.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd install a free O-235 on an RV-9. But you could probably get a good deal on a used O-320. That market is reasonable again, since so many builders are going with -360's.
 
Scooby Dook said:
Saw a comment on a youtube video. Guy said AA1 was good transition plane for the Glasairs. Recommended 30 hours in one before transition.

How is your Questair easier to land?
Click to expand...

AA1s are great transition planes to high performance stuff, agree 100%
 
Scooby Dook said:
Saw a comment on a youtube video. Guy said AA1 was good transition plane for the Glasairs. Recommended 30 hours in one before transition.

How is your Questair easier to land?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t get bounced around by wind, doesn’t float for days, not as easy to over flare.
 
Grum.Man said:
It doesn’t get bounced around by wind, doesn’t float for days, not as easy to over flare.
Click to expand...

Plus the wing loading, and the landing and takeoff attitude and style of rotation, also you can't rely on the flaps to act like barn doors, and they get a little nippy when slow. Great trainers shy of a Tailwheel
 
Scooby Dook said:
I've heard good things about Mooney's too. Never flown one, but only repeat criticism I hear is the landings can be hard...little absorption in the landing gear.
Click to expand...
I won't say landing a Mooney is as facile as a trainer. One has to be right on speed or they float. Do it wrong, they bite. That said, I'll bet landing a Mooney is no harder than landing an RV. And I'll bet money that landing a Mooney is more facile than landing a tail dragger RV.
 
steingar said:
I won't say landing a Mooney is as facile as a trainer. One has to be right on speed or they float. Do it wrong, they bite. That said, I'll bet landing a Mooney is no harder than landing an RV. And I'll bet money that landing a Mooney is more facile than landing a tail dragger RV.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they're all just airplanes. Fly a stabilized approach, hit your proper over-the-fence/touchdown speeds and you're good. My RV-9A with the big wing and an FP prop will float for daaaaaaays if I'm 5 knots too fast!
 
I have an RV-4 since most my flying is solo and I prefer tandem/centerline seating. It is the, by far, the easiest landing tailwheel I've ever flown. A J-3 is more humbling to land well than an RV...and occasionally my J-3 reminds me of just that when I let my feet get lazy in the RV despite over 1500 hours in tailwheel a/c.

Both the RV and J-3 are speed sensitive for landing. Too fast and both will float forever. Fly them at the right speed, and they both will round out into a beautiful three pointer. The biggest difference is getting the RV slowed down. The Cub, pull the power and it will slow down. Now. The RV is tough when needing to slow down and go down at the same time.
 
N3368K said:
The biggest difference is getting the RV slowed down. The Cub, pull the power and it will slow down. Now. The RV is tough when needing to slow down and go down at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yup. The -9A has a pretty low Vfe of 78 knots, so it's easy to arrive in the airport vicinity too fast if you don't stay ahead of the plane. In my training days with a 172, it was draggy enough (and the Vfe high enough) that a simple power reduction would get it into flap operating range. Now it's a lot of power reduction and pitch...those elevator trim buttons get a workout!
 
May be hard to believe, but there are reasonably fast experimental airplanes out there besides RVs and Glasairs (although those are among the best). If you want decent speed, reasonable price, fast build, and you can stand a tip-up canopy, check out the Arion Lightning. It's a composite airplane that is purchased further along than most "quick-builds" and also has a relatively economical factory assist, if desired. They look GREAT, and are OK in canopy space. Most of them on the market are fitted with a smaller engine, but there are many engine options if you are building. You get 170 mph TAS and 1500 ft/min on an O-320. (LSAs are available with the small engine and no fairings to slow it down to LSA speed).

If you want to buy an existing airplane in a short time, the RV would be the way to go since there are so many available, with so many different variations. However, if you are wanting to build, build time on an RV can be WAY longer than expected. I know one guy building an RV-9A (standard build) that has his engine hung, panel built and ready to install, wings and stabs built but not installed, and no paint after 4 years+ of religiously spending 20 hours per week. So that's 4000 hours and counting. Ok, he's meticulous. But another guy has his 8A ready to get his A/W inspection after 18 years. Of course, experienced guys can do a lot better, but you don't start out experienced. That's why you can always find an unfinished kit. I wanted to build, but I tend to be slower rather than faster, so that killed the RV for me. Maybe I'll start one just for something to do after I finish my Lightning when the weather is bad.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top