Thoughts on Vans RV?

Dana said:
For any specific mission, an probably RV isn't the best aircraft. But they're "good enough" at more things than probably any other airplanes.
Click to expand...

That's what I keep coming back to. A two seater is fine for my purposes. Heck, I could get away with a 1 seater if I could fit a duffel bag somewhere in a baggage compartment! They have good cruise speeds and look like they are reasonably economical. Around where I am, though, I don't know a ton of guys who fly experimentals of any kind, so I don't have anyone to ask who has direct experience with them.
 
LoLPilot said:
That's what I keep coming back to. A two seater is fine for my purposes. Heck, I could get away with a 1 seater if I could fit a duffel bag somewhere in a baggage compartment! They have good cruise speeds and look like they are reasonably economical. Around where I am, though, I don't know a ton of guys who fly experimentals of any kind, so I don't have anyone to ask who has direct experience with them.
Click to expand...
I picked up a 160hp RV9A (VFR panel) back in 2017. My home base is well above 7000 and I was looking for more high altitude performance than my Grumman Tiger. I have been very happy with the low maintenance costs, speed and economy. I have a fixed pitch cruise prop and see 150kts typical cruise on 7-8 gph. Very hard to beat the mpg. I would love to have an RV4 or RV8, but my copilot was not interested in tandem seating.
 
I took a week of aerobatic lessons before deciding which RV to build. I also found an RV-14 to sit in, because I didn’t like the idea of building for a few years and then hating how it fits. I’m halfway through my phase I flight testing and I love the RV-14 so far, even without the gear leg fairings that reportedly add a bunch of speed. If you don’t like aerobatics and fit into the earlier side-by-sides, I think an RV-9 would be hard to beat for efficiency.

As far as maintenance goes, they’re just airplanes, and fairly common airplanes at that. The two-seaters mostly have (I)O-320, (I)O-360, or IO-390 Lycomings. They’re made from a bunch of aluminum and rivets. The average workmanship is no worse than Cessna, and often better. Any A&P can sign off on the yearly condition inspection, and you can do as much or as little of the other stuff as you want. I don’t even want to think about how much my two-screen G3X Touch panel would have cost if I had to pay a Garmin dealer to install it in a certified airplane.

RVs are also more fun than a barrel of flying monkeys.
 
Owned a RV 6 for 8 yrs. Loved it, but for any trip over 2 hrs, preferred my slower C 172 due to space for luggage, ice cooler, passenger comfort, ability to lay back and let the copilot(auto pilot)fly while taking a shot nap, ventilation, high wing blocking the sun. Just got back from 4,000 miles trip with 30 hr flying time in my 172. Would not of attempted in my RV6 unless solo with legs limited to 2 1/2 legs. It was our(my wife) favorite plane for under 2 hr flights with limited overnight luggage. If 80% of my flying was solo and less than 2/2 hrs, I would still have it.
 
kyleb said:
I was thinking that too. Those are excellent X/C machines, although many of them are poorly equipped by today's standards where people are more technology dependent.
Click to expand...
I think they're very cool, but they are tight.
I'm not a big guy at all, but I parked next to one a couple of weeks ago and thought it'd be pretty uncomfortable for XC.
 
Eldorado said:
Owned a RV 6 for 8 yrs. Loved it, but for any trip over 2 hrs, preferred my slower C 172 due to space for luggage, ice cooler, passenger comfort, ability to lay back and let the copilot(auto pilot)fly while taking a shot nap, ventilation, high wing blocking the sun. Just got back from 4,000 miles trip with 30 hr flying time in my 172. Would not of attempted in my RV6 unless solo with legs limited to 2 1/2 legs. It was our(my wife) favorite plane for under 2 hr flights with limited overnight luggage. If 80% of my flying was solo and less than 2/2 hrs, I would still have it.
Click to expand...
Is the -6 baggage area that much smaller than the -9?
The wife and I just took a trip from Kansas City to Destin, FL in our -9A.
All our baggage, a cooler, and full fuel.
No problems.
That 4 hr trip in the -9A would have been 6 in a 172.
No Thanks.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Is the -6 baggage area that much smaller than the -9?
The wife and I just took a trip from Kansas City to Destin, FL in our -9A.
All our baggage, a cooler, and full fuel.
No problems.
That 4 hr trip in the -9A would have been 6 in a 172.
No Thanks.
Click to expand...

The amount of baggage people bring varies widely. See the Lance thread, on how some people back.

I also didn't realize 9As were 150kt planes.
 
EdFred said:
The amount of baggage people bring varies widely. See the Lance thread, on how some people back.

I also didn't realize 9As were 150kt planes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I plan for 155KTAS on 8 to 8.5gph, depending on altitude.
 
I found that a Pitts has enough room for a week long trip with two people.
A Cessna 120 has enough room for a two week trip with two people and camping gear.
How much **** do you people pack?


:)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I found that a Pitts has enough room for a week long trip with two people.
A Cessna 120 has enough room for a two week trip with two people and camping gear.
How much **** do you people pack?


:)
Click to expand...
I showed up at the Skywagon fly-in with a backpack & duffel for my wife and I for a week. I couldn't fathom how people needed luggage carts worth of stuff for a 5-6 day trip. I don't think I could pack that much stuff if I tried.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I found that a Pitts has enough room for a week long trip with two people.
A Cessna 120 has enough room for a two week trip with two people and camping gear.
How much **** do you people pack?
Click to expand...
Agreed. My wife often does 4 day business trips with nothing more than a carry-on bag. Her co-workers will sometimes show up with multiple large suitcases for the same trip.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Yes, I plan for 155KTAS on 8 to 8.5gph, depending on altitude.
Click to expand...

Nice, I gave a flight review in one, but it may have had a smaller engine in it. I don't remember us getting up over 130 even though we were heading to an airport 30 miles out to do some towered field work.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I showed up at the Skywagon fly-in with a backpack & duffel for my wife and I for a week. I couldn't fathom how people needed luggage carts worth of stuff for a 5-6 day trip. I don't think I could pack that much stuff if I tried.
Click to expand...
You've never met my wife. We left for a week long trip at a cabin with her family. I think we may need a bigger truck next year. There's a good reason we had a trailer painted to match the motorcycle when we were doing road trips on it...
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Agreed. My wife often does 4 day business trips with nothing more than a carry-on bag. Her co-workers will sometimes show up with multiple large suitcases for the same trip.
Click to expand...

I went to Africa for 2 weeks with a duffel bag that fit under the airline seat. But when I go camping for a long weekend and bring a tent, cooking gear, barrel chair, camp table, sleeping bag, sleeping pad, water filtration, food for 3-4 days, etc... it takes up a bit more room than a duffel bag. ;)
 
DaleB said:
You've never met my wife. We left for a week long trip at a cabin with her family. I think we may need a bigger truck next year. There's a good reason we had a trailer painted to match the motorcycle when we were doing road trips on it...
Click to expand...
Seriously though what does she bring?

For a non-camping trip I can't fathom more than X days of clothes, toiletries, computer & various electronic chargers.

Camping trips obviously require more gear.
 
DaleB said:
You've never met my wife. We left for a week long trip at a cabin with her family. I think we may need a bigger truck next year. There's a good reason we had a trailer painted to match the motorcycle when we were doing road trips on it...
Click to expand...

We took the kids for a 3-day weekend in Branson and my wife managed to pack an Escalade to the ceiling with the 3rd row folded, lol. Of course, we were dealing with a 1-yr old so all of the pack-n-play/baby toys/etc. had to come along. But still. She had a large suitcase and a medium duffle bag for herself. I had a duffle bag. We did have a large cooler full of food/drinks for the weekend, but I shudder to think what it would look like if my daughter had been old enough to pack her own suitcase!
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Van's Aircraft Builders is a private group on FB. Earlier today someone posted a very nice looking VFR RV6 for $75k. Seller is a CFI and is offering TW checkout if needed. I doubt the plane will still be for sale come Monday.
Click to expand...

Sale pending as of 9pm last night!

Now they just need the myriad of LODA's for the training. :mad:
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Seriously though what does she bring?
Click to expand...
For mine, it’s shoes. She wears a pair and then has one or two pair for pretty much each outfit. While it doesn’t usually take up weight, it does take up volume.
 
@LoLPilot ...Not sure if this contributes much, but wanted to share the data I received recently.

My insurance agent's information was that, given the same hull value, same hours in type, etc., the Van's RV line would be cheaper than:
Other less proven/less popular experimentals
Probably any retractable gear plane.

And of course, a bit more expensive than most popular fixed gear certified (Cessna, Piper, etc).

Examples:
Mooney 80k hull value
Low or no retract experience
No IFR rating
Est. $3500-3800 year

182RG 80k hull value
Low or no retract experience
No IFR rating
Est. $2700 year

Vans RV 80k hull value
Low or no experience in Vans aircraft
No IFR rating
Est. 2500-2600 year

They all dropped about $1000 per year with 500hrs total time, 200-250 time in type, and IFR rating.
The lower rates also took into account a decent amount of hours flown per year. Not 20-30 but more like 80-100.

Lot's of variables so I'm sure others here get better rates than that (I hope)
 
Skyrys62 said:
@LoLPilot ...Not sure if this contributes much, but wanted to share the data I received recently.

My insurance agent's information was that, given the same hull value, same hours in type, etc., the Van's RV line would be cheaper than:
Other less proven/less popular experimentals
Probably any retractable gear plane.

And of course, a bit more expensive than most popular fixed gear certified (Cessna, Piper, etc).

Examples:
Mooney 80k hull value
Low or no retract experience
No IFR rating
Est. $3500-3800 year

182RG 80k hull value
Low or no retract experience
No IFR rating
Est. $2700 year

Vans RV 80k hull value
Low or no experience in Vans aircraft
No IFR rating
Est. 2500-2600 year

They all dropped about $1000 per year with 500hrs total time, 200-250 time in type, and IFR rating.
The lower rates also took into account a decent amount of hours flown per year. Not 20-30 but more like 80-100.

Lot's of variables so I'm sure others here get better rates than that (I hope)
Click to expand...
I'll add another datapoint to the Vans RV:

Year 1:
Vans RV 80k hull
No IFR
400 hrs (none in type)
$1150/YR

Year 2 (and 3)
Vans RV 80k hull
IFR
600 hrs
$950/yr
 
Nice.
He did warn me those were very rough estimates. I hoped they were high.

I wish the significant other was ok with tandem seating. I'd love to have an -8 ...but I wouldn't want to sit in the back either.
-14 or -10 would be great.


c'mon lottery :fcross:
 
I ran a quote yesterday just using a 6 I found for numbers. Me with ~190 hrs, IFR, about 15 or so in complex, and 6 in tailwheel, and it was $1600 per year for full hull coverage. They would require transition training in an RV6/A, oddly enough.

BUUUUUT apparently the FAA heard about my idea and put the kibosh on it in one fell swoop by essentially outlawing EAB transition training.

106-1065472_harold-thumbs-up-png-download-thumbs-up-meme.png


On a happier note I did go and do my flight review this afternoon and flew with my tailwheel instructor in his Decathlon. After an hour and many trips around the pattern I was doing passable again.
 
LoLPilot said:
BUUUUUT apparently the FAA heard about my idea and put the kibosh on it in one fell swoop by essentially outlawing EAB transition training.
Click to expand...

Did the FAA do something new? Last I knew transition training just required finding someone qualified who held a LODA. Vans site even tells you a few people to contact:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-flight-training/

And here's an article on avweb from 2020 about someone going through transition training in an RV.
https://www.avweb.com/features/whats-a-nice-guy-like-you-doing-in-a-plane-like-this/
 
skier said:
Did the FAA do something new? Last I knew transition training just required finding someone qualified who held a LODA. Vans site even tells you a few people to contact:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-flight-training/

And here's an article on avweb from 2020 about someone going through transition training in an RV.
https://www.avweb.com/features/whats-a-nice-guy-like-you-doing-in-a-plane-like-this/
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't their interpretation yesterday say that the student during training constitutes a passenger hiring the instructor to fly the aircraft, and so both the student and the instructor both need LODA's for the transition training?
 
Don't settle on a TYPE, settle on a plane that will accomplish the mission.

A Wittman Tailwind, or any of the two seat 100hp E/ABs (Sonari, Long EZ, etc) will do the exact same thing and at a significant discount.

Everyone is correct, RVs have a name based premium on them. Why walk past a $28k Tailwind with EFIS for a $60k RV-6A??

https://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1672746

Or a Sonerii 2LT for $18k?

https://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1670135

If simply want an RV and have $60k to spend, sure. But there are other options.
 
pfarber said:
Everyone is correct, RVs have a name based premium on them. Why walk past a $28k Tailwind with EFIS for a $60k RV-6A??
Click to expand...

No doubt the Tailwind goes just as fast and is less expensive. But the Tailwind is (relatively speaking) tiny inside, stalls ~10 mph faster, and doesn't have a great field of view from the pilot's seat. There are reasons RV's dominate the market and Tailwinds are niche airplanes.
 
schmookeeg said:
"Being able to sell quickly" is a mission in itself, and justifies most or all of the price premium.
Click to expand...

Avionics get outdated quickly and engine TBO is a bigger factor.

We are in a bubble now.. that $60k RV is not going to retain that value without another refresh.

OP wants to go fast, you can go just as fast, for quite a bit less. If OP just wants and RV then ask 'what RV should I buy.
 
LoLPilot said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't their interpretation yesterday say that the student during training constitutes a passenger hiring the instructor to fly the aircraft, and so both the student and the instructor both need LODA's for the transition training?
Click to expand...

Here is a semi official Sonex post that clears it up:

https://sonexbuilders.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5734

Basically a CFI can charge no matter what. You are not renting the plane nor carrying the CFI for compensation or hire.

LODA is basically a 'case by case' basis and only good for 30 days typically:

D. LODA Special Flight Authorization (LODA SFA). A Flight Standards office normally issues a LODA in cases where frequent operations of a specific nature occur over a protracted period of time. However, there may be situations such as ferry flights, sales demonstration flights, and training flights where the 60-day requirement may not be feasible. For these situations, a Flight Standards office may issue a LODA SFA on a case-by-case basis for specific flights. A LODA SFA is a LODA authorizing an operator to accomplish short-term operations (normally a maximum of 30 days) in accordance with 14 CFR part 91, and can be issued for the following:
1) Sales demonstration flights when the operator is not certificated under part 119 or the holder of an A125 LODA.
2) Ferry flights when the operator is not certificated under part 119 or the holder of an A125 LODA.
3) Training flights conducted for certification under 14 CFR parts 61 and 63, associated with certification under part 119, or an applicant for an A125 LODA.

Can a CFI use HIS aircraft for training? He would need a LODA if he charges a rental fee for the E/AB, but not for his time.

LODA is for the E/AB owner to charge a fee for training. Something that can be easily avoided.
 
pfarber said:
LODA is basically a 'case by case' basis and only good for 30 days typically:
Click to expand...
Reading the recent changes, it appears they will soon be good for 2 years. It also appears a LODA will be required to receive instruction even in your own experimental aircraft, and that LODA may be held by the owner, the cfi or both.
 
pfarber said:
Here is a semi official Sonex post that clears it up:

https://sonexbuilders.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5734
Click to expand...
Predates the latest from the FAA.

I own my Sonex and am getting a flight review or WINGS training.
No LODA is required since aircraft is not being used for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...

Not any more.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...imental-primary-and-limited-category-aircraft
"The FAA explained in their policy statement that the previous policy on LODAs was erroneous."
"The policy confirms the FAA’s position that any instructor is “operating” an aircraft, regardless of who owns, rents, or otherwise uses the aircraft, and regardless of whether the use of the aircraft is compensated. Therefore, paying any instructor to provide training violates the language of FARs 91.315 (Limited), 91.319(a)(2) (Experimental), and 91.325 (Primary)."

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/1091C7E251904915BBF431FC3EB9B628.ashx

"AA Guidance on Flight Training for Compensation in Experimental AircraftFAA Order 8900.1 contains guidance for FAA inspectors that indicates that flight training in an experimental aircraft for compensation is permissible without a LODA under certain circumstances.6 The guidance states that flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless they obtain a LODA issued under § 91.319(h). Likewise, the guidance states that owners of experimental aircraft may receive and provide compensation for flight training in their aircraft without a LODA, but owners may not receive compensation for the use of their aircraft for flight training except in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h).7The distinction set forth in FAA Order 8900.1 is inconsistent with the definition of “operate” in § 1.1 and the plain language of § 91.319. Where a regulation and guidance conflict, the regulation controls.8 Accordingly, owners of experimental aircraft and flight instructors who have operated experimental aircraft for the purpose of compensated flight training without obtaining a LODA (as allowed by FAA guidance) will be required to obtain a LODA to remain compliant with the regulations. III. Process for Compliance The FAA acknowledges that the disconnect between the regulations and the guidance to inspectors has created confusion in industry. "

Also:
" The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege. "

So, want to buy an E-AB aircraft to get your ticket in? Fuggetaboutit.
 
Last edited:
RV-8A
Hull value $89K
Commercial/Instrument/CFI
750 total time, 5 in RVs with transition training
$1200 first year, $1150 following year
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Predates the latest from the FAA.



Not any more.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...imental-primary-and-limited-category-aircraft
"The FAA explained in their policy statement that the previous policy on LODAs was erroneous."
"The policy confirms the FAA’s position that any instructor is “operating” an aircraft, regardless of who owns, rents, or otherwise uses the aircraft, and regardless of whether the use of the aircraft is compensated. Therefore, paying any instructor to provide training violates the language of FARs 91.315 (Limited), 91.319(a)(2) (Experimental), and 91.325 (Primary)."

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/1091C7E251904915BBF431FC3EB9B628.ashx

"AA Guidance on Flight Training for Compensation in Experimental AircraftFAA Order 8900.1 contains guidance for FAA inspectors that indicates that flight training in an experimental aircraft for compensation is permissible without a LODA under certain circumstances.6 The guidance states that flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless they obtain a LODA issued under § 91.319(h). Likewise, the guidance states that owners of experimental aircraft may receive and provide compensation for flight training in their aircraft without a LODA, but owners may not receive compensation for the use of their aircraft for flight training except in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h).7The distinction set forth in FAA Order 8900.1 is inconsistent with the definition of “operate” in § 1.1 and the plain language of § 91.319. Where a regulation and guidance conflict, the regulation controls.8 Accordingly, owners of experimental aircraft and flight instructors who have operated experimental aircraft for the purpose of compensated flight training without obtaining a LODA (as allowed by FAA guidance) will be required to obtain a LODA to remain compliant with the regulations. III. Process for Compliance The FAA acknowledges that the disconnect between the regulations and the guidance to inspectors has created confusion in industry. "

Also:
" The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege. "

So, want to buy an E-AB aircraft to get your ticket in? Fuggetaboutit.
Click to expand...

Well considering the new policy isn't even effective yet you have a few days to get in that training.

Since the LODA is nothing more than an email with the absolute basic information this seems to be just bureaucracy at work.

"Creating more than 30,000 new LODAs and exemptions is a paperwork exercise that does nothing to advance safety.”"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top