Which RV to Build....

[keen9]

The old Van's RVator articles include one on an open tipup canopy (don't know if there is a non-dead tree version). It'll sit slightly open, and can affect pitch a bit as it moves, but not a big deal . . . assuming that the pilot correctly ignores it and continues to fly the airplane.

 

[bflynn]

They are not as safe in any way shape or form.

You had me up to here. A significant part of the safety problem with E-AB is rusty pilots proudly crashing what they have spent years building because they just aren't ready to fly...anything. Sometimes they flat out don't build things right or do stupid stuff like reverse control cables. There is a smaller part which comes from ignorant builders maintaining their planes in bad ways and/or not listening to advice from knowledgeable people (Vans lawsuit is a perfect example). But if you remove these from the statistics, E-AB aircraft are about as safe as GA aircraft. It really isn't the aircraft, it is the builders.

 

[DaleB]

I've made up my mind with a -14. It's the best of both worlds. It's 10k more for the kit then the 9 but its easier to build and it's beefed up.

Keep an eye on the VAF classifieds too. Picking up a partially completed project can save you quite a bit of time and money, if the construction is good. It's easy to determine the quality of the build when it's still half baked.

 

[painless]

Lets not forget that the slider is just.....cool!

 

[nauga]

The RV-4 (throwover, not tip-up or slider) is one that has been known to strip the canopy if it comes open in flight. I know of a few that have landed without the canopy, but I don't know of any that have not recovered safely after loss of a canopy.

I'm somewhat amused by people that complain about the lack of homebuilts outfitted the way they want them. If you want it your way, build it your way.

Nauga,
for recreation and education

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

For me, the slider was the only way to go because of ventilation. It's so great to slide that suckah back on a hot day right after you clear the runway. In the unlikely event I should find myself on my lid, the healthy roll bar adds some peace of mind. It doesn't impact outward visibility that much, but nothing beats a tip-up. And as Painless says, there is the cool factor.

The slider rail that goes down the turtle deck is bent down at about a 30-degree angle in profile (at its leading edge), so as you pull the canopy closed, the rear plastic rubbing block goes down that 30-degree ramp. To open a slider, you unlatch it and pull back, while simultaneously pushing up on the canopy frame about two-thirds of the way back. It's this, and the aerodynamic effects, that don't allow it to open more than a couple inches in flight if left unlatched.

I just happened to have the preview plans at home...here are a couple of drawings that are worth 1000 words apiece, and better written.

 

[DaleB]

I'm somewhat amused by people that complain about the lack of homebuilts outfitted the way they want them. If you want it your way, build it your way.

No joke. I have yet to see a factory built plane equipped the way I would want it - not for less money than my house, anyway.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

No joke. I have yet to see a factory built plane equipped the way I would want it - not for less money than my house, anyway.

Bar none, the absolute best thing about building my plane was deciding exactly what panel components to use, and where to place everything. A great feeling to have it fit like a glove...for instance, I really sweated the exact location of the flaps switch, for easy thumb operation with my hand resting on the throttle. My panel's pretty modest compared to a lot of builds out there where the panel alone can be $25K and up. Mine's in the roughly $10K range, with a Garmin GTX 327 transponder, GTR 200 radio/intercom and an iFly 740 back-up GPS.

 

[nauga]

I have yet to see a factory built plane equipped the way I would want it - not for less money than my house, anyway.

I can understand complaining that such-and-such factory airplane doesn't have a feature you want, but complaining that someone hasn't build a homebuilt the way you like it seems...strange to me.

Nauga,
ergonomically

 

[Skyrys62]

complaining that someone hasn't build a homebuilt the way you like it seems...strange to me.

You do remember this is PoA right?

 

[Dav8or]

Many preferences both ways.
Tip up leak onto avionics from hinges.
Tip ups have blown in wind on ground.

You know the A model flip over rate? the slider has a roll bar.

Slider comfortable after landing and for warm climate ground ops.

My understanding is both canopies have a "roll bar" and that the tip his possibly more robust and right near your head, where as the slider roll bar is forward at the windshield with not a lot near your head. Am I wrong? I'll have to look into those leaks and see if anybody has a solution. My plane is always hangared unless I travel and I only fly pretty much in fair weather these days. However in the nearly eight years I've had my Mooney, it has been rained on a couple of times. I would imagine a canopy cover like from Bruce's would really help with the leaks when I travel.

 

[kyleb]

You'll also read a lot of glossing over serious problems. We all want to believe what we want to believe.

I've been in the Van's game for almost 25 years. The only serious problems I'm aware of are the RV-3 wing strength deficiency (subsequently corrected), the relatively weak nosegear on the -9a and earlier, and the RV-10's doors. The canopies are not a problem, although if you don't latch them, they may distract you when they come partially open.

 

[painless]

We think alike! Just finished upgrade and am working out some set up kinks.

Bar none, the absolute best thing about building my plane was deciding exactly what panel components to use, and where to place everything. A great feeling to have it fit like a glove...for instance, I really sweated the exact location of the flaps switch, for easy thumb operation with my hand resting on the throttle. My panel's pretty modest compared to a lot of builds out there where the panel alone can be $25K and up. Mine's in the roughly $10K range, with a Garmin GTX 327 transponder, GTR 200 radio/intercom and an iFly 740 back-up GPS.

View attachment 60160

 

[jesse]

The RV-4 (throwover, not tip-up or slider) is one that has been known to strip the canopy if it comes open in flight. I know of a few that have landed without the canopy, but I don't know of any that have not recovered safely after loss of a canopy.

I'm somewhat amused by people that complain about the lack of homebuilts outfitted the way they want them. If you want it your way, build it your way.

Nauga,
for recreation and education

BTDT w/ a throwover style canopy (not a RV). Occurred at about 200 AGL after takeoff. I watched it come off in perfect slow motion. Once it opened it made it to about 40 degrees before the wind ripped the whole deal off. Did not strike the tail or the airframe. It was pretty surreal to watch occur. Looked like the movies right before the ejection seat killed Goose.

There were three latches. One that would automatically latch when you'd close the canopy and two you had to manually secure. Failed to secure the manual ones. They weren't very visually obvious. Small black latches attached to wood that was painted black. Roughly 1" tall and 1/2" wide.

It was a test flight after having had replaced all of the important structure that would keep the wings attached to the airplane. I had also just done a bunch of engine work. Very distracted paying attention to everything that I thought was going to go wrong. Not enough attention towards a pretty basic item of importance. Lesson learned.

 

[Dav8or]

You had me up to here. A significant part of the safety problem with E-AB is rusty pilots proudly crashing what they have spent years building because they just aren't ready to fly...anything. Sometimes they flat out don't build things right or do stupid stuff like reverse control cables. There is a smaller part which comes from ignorant builders maintaining their planes in bad ways and/or not listening to advice from knowledgeable people (Vans lawsuit is a perfect example). But if you remove these from the statistics, E-AB aircraft are about as safe as GA aircraft. It really isn't the aircraft, it is the builders.

Well, you and I will just have to disagree on this point. Statistics and stupid pilot tricks aside, a look at the engineering is all you have to do. Possibly due to regulation, or possibly due to liability exposure, or both, certified plane makers design and engineer their aircraft with safety as one of the foremost design criteria. With E/AB, safety is basically an after thought. First and foremost for them is low cost, light weight and easy to build.

You are correct that most E/AB accidents seem to be due to poor piloting, questionable construction, or design and well, people experimenting, but side by side sitting on the ramp, the certified airplane is just a safer airplane because of all the work that went into to try to compensate for bad piloting and also when things do go totally wrong, trying to protect the occupants. This makes the certified airplane heavier, slower, more expensive and a lot harder to build.

Try this next time when you're at Oshkosh- Ask the Vans guys if they ever thought about certifying any of their planes (beyond the quasi- sort of certification of the LSA RV-12). When they stop laughing and giving you in no uncertain term, "Hell no!", ask them what it would take to certify one of their planes. Their answer will be, basically start over and design a whole different airplane. I know, I have asked this question to them... twice and with the same result. These are people that are very close to the RV design and know aviation and in their opinion the Vans RV- anything is uncertifiable.

Certification is ALL about safety and nothing else. This tells me the certified airplane is safer than the uncertified airplane as logic would dictate.

 

[wayne]

Certification is all about documentation. Yeah, there are a few minimums to meet, but mostly it’s about documentation.

 

[wayne]

No joke. I have yet to see a factory built plane equipped the way I would want it - not for less money than my house, anyway.

That’s easy to fix. Get a bigger house.

 

[RoscoeT]

Try this next time when you're at Oshkosh- Ask the Vans guys if they ever thought about certifying any of their planes (beyond the quasi- sort of certification of the LSA RV-12). When they stop laughing and giving you in no uncertain term, "Hell no!", ask them what it would take to certify one of their planes. Their answer will be, basically start over and design a whole different airplane. I know, I have asked this question to them... twice and with the same result. These are people that are very close to the RV design and know aviation and in their opinion the Vans RV- anything is uncertifiable.

Certification is ALL about safety and nothing else. This tells me the certified airplane is safer than the uncertified airplane as logic would dictate.

So much illogic here. You know what an RV with a type certificate is? See the Grumman AA series POS performing (compared to an RV) airplanes. If you think the FAA approved design of a Grumman Yankee realistically protects your safety better than an RV, then I think you could benefit from some mind expanding facts, reason, and experience.

 

[ChiefPilot]

The RV-4 (throwover, not tip-up or slider) is one that has been known to strip the canopy if it comes open in flight. I know of a few that have landed without the canopy, but I don't know of any that have not recovered safely after loss of a canopy.

Per Van's, it's designed to zipper off if released in flight. It's how the tip-over is jettisoned, and is similar to pulling the handle (that many leave out) in a side-by-side tip up canopy or installing pip pins in the legs of the slider canopy. Leaving it unlatched on the takeoff roll is...not recommended.

 

[kyleb]

Well, you and I will just have to disagree on this point. Statistics and stupid pilot tricks aside, a look at the engineering is all you have to do. Possibly due to regulation, or possibly due to liability exposure, or both, certified plane makers design and engineer their aircraft with safety as one of the foremost design criteria.

The 172 is a 65 year old design. The Cherokee is a 55 year old design. The Mooney is a 60 year old design. The Bo (depending on iteration) is up to a 70 year old design. Those airplanes were not designed in today's litigation happy environment, and very little has changed in them (other than cosmetics and accessory choice) since inception. Sure, they took out the ashtrays, installed shoulder belts,and updated the seats, but other than that, they are 1950's designs with 1950's safety features. Cirrus has made some headway, as has Diamond, but otherwise, c'mon...

 

[Dav8or]

Certification is all about documentation. Yeah, there are a few minimums to meet, but mostly it’s about documentation.

If you say so, but like I said, people seem to believe what they want to believe. Answer me this, if it's just about filling put paperwork and "meeting a few minimums", then why do so many companies give up, or fail? They didn't have enough typewriters? There aren't any companies in business to help them negotiate the bureaucracy? Just too tough to meet the few minimums?

I think it's proven there is a lot of testing.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Well, you and I will just have to disagree on this point. Statistics and stupid pilot tricks aside, a look at the engineering is all you have to do. Possibly due to regulation, or possibly due to liability exposure, or both, certified plane makers design and engineer their aircraft with safety as one of the foremost design criteria. With E/AB, safety is basically an after thought. First and foremost for them is low cost, light weight and easy to build.

You are correct that most E/AB accidents seem to be due to poor piloting, questionable construction, or design and well, people experimenting, but side by side sitting on the ramp, the certified airplane is just a safer airplane because of all the work that went into to try to compensate for bad piloting and also when things do go totally wrong, trying to protect the occupants. This makes the certified airplane heavier, slower, more expensive and a lot harder to build.

Try this next time when you're at Oshkosh- Ask the Vans guys if they ever thought about certifying any of their planes (beyond the quasi- sort of certification of the LSA RV-12). When they stop laughing and giving you in no uncertain term, "Hell no!", ask them what it would take to certify one of their planes. Their answer will be, basically start over and design a whole different airplane. I know, I have asked this question to them... twice and with the same result. These are people that are very close to the RV design and know aviation and in their opinion the Vans RV- anything is uncertifiable.

Certification is ALL about safety and nothing else. This tells me the certified airplane is safer than the uncertified airplane as logic would dictate.

Like several others, I have to disagree with much of what you said.

Certification is ALL about liability.

For starters, the RV-9A has a Vso of 39 kias at solo weight, amazingly slow for an airplane that tops out at 170 ktas. One of the key things for survivability is to lower your kinetic energy as much as possible, and the -9 does this really well with its big flaps. Mine's also got Crowe 5-point race-car harnesses inside to help prevent that secondary collision, of your face to the instrument panel. And a big padded lip on the glare shield itself.

Let's look at the glide ratio. Mine's about 10:1, thanks to low-ish frontal area, generous wing area with an efficient Roncz airfoil, flush riveted skin and very effective wheel pants, gear-leg fairings and intersection fairings. A 172 is in the neighborhood of 7:1. Being able to glide somewhat farther is undisputedly safer.

On the active safety side, the bubble canopy is soooo much better at allowing you to spot traffic than a certified 172 or 152. The Cessna stuff feels very claustrophobic by comparison.

And so on...

 

[Dav8or]

The 172 is a 65 year old design. The Cherokee is a 55 year old design. The Mooney is a 60 year old design. The Bo (depending on iteration) is up to a 70 year old design. Those airplanes were not designed in today's litigation happy environment, and very little has changed in them (other than cosmetics and accessory choice) since inception. Sure, they took out the ashtrays, installed shoulder belts,and updated the seats, but other than that, they are 1950's designs with 1950's safety features. Cirrus has made some headway, as has Diamond, but otherwise, c'mon...

Yes, and they are all designed to be safer than any RV design. What is your point?? That engineers in the '50s and '60s didn't know anything and a guy in the '90s knew better? Seriously, ask a Vans representative if they could even meet CAR 3 standards with any of their designs. I am certain they could not.

That does not mean that a Vans, or any E/AB design can not be safely flown. I will point out that none of the aircraft that defended America in WWII could pass certification either and yet they have been flown safely since then... mostly. Be a good pilot, don't ever screw up and never break down and you'll be fine.

 

[wayne]

If you say so, but like I said, people seem to believe what they want to believe. Answer me this, if it's just about filling put paperwork and "meeting a few minimums", then why do so many companies give up, or fail? They didn't have enough typewriters? There aren't any companies in business to help them negotiate the bureaucracy? Just too tough to meet the few minimums?

I think it's proven there is a lot of testing.

You seem to believe what you want to believe too.

I don't own a EAB nor do I plan to build one. I've never even flown in one. I think they are pretty neat. I just don't have the time to build one; and maybe not the skills either.

Companies fail because they were not properly prepared. Lots of businesses fail everyday. Some of them are aviation businesses. It's hard because the "devil is in the details" in designing and building a good airplane. Then on top of that the company has to deal with a huge Federal bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are notorious for say "no". When I say "documentation", there's a lot involved than just typing some text. Tens of thousands of pages of documentation, including engineering drawings/schematics. Plus reviews, updates, more reviews, rewrites, even more reviews. And yes, there is testing. All of this is going on while the company is not making money. They are burning large amounts of cash and making zero income. It's not easy.

On top of all of that there is, as SoCal pointed out, liability. If something goes wrong, the jury is all too likely to point at the manufacturer, even when the idiot pilot flew into terrain. Many people don't want that level of risk and find something with less business/financial risk to pursue.

 

[steingar]

Anyone who honestly thinks that EAA is safer is just making up alternative facts. Seems to be in fashion these days.

 

[wayne]

Anyone who honestly thinks that EAA is safer is just making up alternative facts. Seems to be in fashion these days.

Isn't it 90% of all accidents are pilot error? We're arguing over the small part of the pie.

"Bikes don't win races, riders do."
- Steve Hegg, Olympic gold medalist

Pilots are the biggest cause of accidents. Fix the pilots.

 

[steingar]

Pilots are the biggest cause of accidents. Fix the pilots.

An FAA apparatchik not long ago said to Van himself "fix it, or we will".

 

[tsts4]

These POA threads slay me. The OP asks a question for help on choosing a particular RV model and we’ve got 3 pages of everything but:

-- Don’t build an RV, build a Flivver 5000
-- I’d never build/own an E-AB
-- For the money buy a used whatever
-- RV canopies/nose gear suck
-- E-AB safety is fine
-- E-AB safety sucks

I hope the OP went over to VAF to get some solid advice from the RV community (to be fair there were a few posts here that provided good input), as by in large this thread went off the rails into left field.

 

[TCABM]

I...Answer me this, if it's just about filling put paperwork and "meeting a few minimums", then why do so many companies give up, or fail? ...

The market is too small to efficiently recover the overall cost to certify us why this happens.

Until your product is selling, everything is a cost and nothing is revenue. The GA airplane market as a whole just isn’t large enough to attract the capital necessary to recoup development costs and produce ROI that’s quick enough and big enough to be attractive to the financer.

 

[Skyrys62]

These POA threads slay me.....
This thread went off the rails into left field.

Must have got hit by a drone. Those things need to be regulated.

 

[ChiefPilot]

An FAA apparatchik not long ago said to Van himself "fix it, or we will".

You're leaving out quite a bit of context. So much so that this could be characterized as a half truth. At best.

 

[DaleB]

I hope the OP went over to VAF to get some solid advice from the RV community (to be fair there were a few posts here that provided good input), as by in large this thread went off the rails into left field.

Todd, that's how you know you're on POA.

 

[tsts4]

Todd, that's how you know you're on POA.

I know, but POA is like an addiction I can’t shake.

 

[Dav8or]

These POA threads slay me. The OP asks a question for help on choosing a particular RV model and we’ve got 3 pages of everything but:

-- Don’t build an RV, build a Flivver 5000
-- I’d never build/own an E-AB
-- For the money buy a used whatever
-- RV canopies/nose gear suck
-- E-AB safety is fine
-- E-AB safety sucks

I hope the OP went over to VAF to get some solid advice from the RV community (to be fair there were a few posts here that provided good input), as by in large this thread went off the rails into left field.

I think he got what he needed right here. Last we heard form the OP, he has decided on the -14. Good for him, it's a good choice. I hope he can pull it off. It is a long road ahead. It takes a lot of dedication (and money of course). That's why I would never build one myself even though I have the skills, the space and most all the tools. I know I would never finish. I will buy if I decide to go RV.

 

[steingar]

You're leaving out quite a bit of context. So much so that this could be characterized as a half truth. At best.

I wish I could find it, but my Google fu is not strong. Basically, Ex/Ab was such a sore spot in the GA safety record that the FAA was concerned. VanGrunsven described the incident himself. As it turns out there was a pretty good solution that has made things safer.

Normally, when you step into a new type you get some kind of transition training to make certain you can fly the thing before you're set loose. This didn't exist at all for Ex/Ab, and a lot of the fatals were guys in their first flight of their homebuilt, or someone transitioning in. Pretty understandable with folks transition into fire breathing little aircraft that fly like nothing else. The problem is you can't charge anyone to train them in your experimental airplane. At least you couldn't. Others can chime in with more knowledge than I, but apparently now it is possible to get some degree of transition training in your homebuilt or in the aircraft you're purchasing. The FAA makes exceptions in the name of safety, which they should. And I believe things have gotten better.

 

[Lowflynjack]

The hardest decision I've seen for most RV builders is side-by-side or tandem. A lot of guys tell me they built side-by-side because their wives wanted to ride next to them, but 90% of the time they fly alone. Get something you're going to enjoy. Most people I talk to end up liking tandem because they can see out of both sides.

As far as canopies, why not a forward slider? My friend is test flying his 7A with a forward sliding canopy and baggage doors! More to come with a full photo shoot after it's painted.

 

[steingar]

The hardest decision I've seen for most RV builders is side-by-side or tandem. A lot of guys tell me they built side-by-side because their wives wanted to ride next to them, but 90% of the time they fly alone.

That, and I think the tandems are better for aerobatics.

 

[bflynn]

If you say so, but like I said, people seem to believe what they want to believe. Answer me this, if it's just about filling put paperwork and "meeting a few minimums", then why do so many companies give up, or fail? They didn't have enough typewriters? There aren't any companies in business to help them negotiate the bureaucracy? Just too tough to meet the few minimums?

I think it's proven there is a lot of testing.

It isn't about filing a little paperwork. It's about filing A LOT of paperwork. So much paperwork to the point that you need an entire department just to keep up with the paperwork to be filed. The airplane companies love that, it is a huge barrier to entry for new competitors. The FAA has just started to correct this, but the paperwork requirements still account for a significant part of the cost of an airplane. I've had this conversation and know that the leap from E-AB to a TC aircraft is just too huge for anyone to reasonably make. If anyone could do it, it would be Vans, but why should they?

Also, you seem to be correlating successful testing with safety. While the two are related, testing is not required for safety. It is possible to have a very safe design without going through strenuous testing of that design, especially when the design is decades old and proven by thousands of flying aircraft. Besides, the designs are tested, even before flying. They just aren't tested in the same way.

 

[bflynn]

These POA threads slay me. The OP asks a question for help on choosing a particular RV model and we’ve got 3 pages of everything but:

-- Don’t build an RV, build a Flivver 5000
-- I’d never build/own an E-AB
-- For the money buy a used whatever
-- RV canopies/nose gear suck
-- E-AB safety is fine
-- E-AB safety sucks

I hope the OP went over to VAF to get some solid advice from the RV community (to be fair there were a few posts here that provided good input), as by in large this thread went off the rails into left field.

Actually, there were suggestions about which one to build. And then like every other internet board, the conversation wandered. Gee, must be something that humans do. This isn't unique to POA.

 

[RoscoeT]

That, and I think the tandems are better for aerobatics.

Nah not really. I much prefer centerline seating in general, but it really doesn't matter. Most want side by side seating because that's what they trained in, they want to make their wives happy, and they also want the space to fit their array of flat screen wonder gadgets into the panel. Acro works fine either way. 99% of RV pilots aren't really dedicated acro pilots anyway and just do the occasional flopped loop or roll.