RV6 kit

W

Whiskey

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
15
Location
Northern Arizona
Display Name
Display name:
Whiskey
Just wondering if anyone out there has built the RV-6 or any RV model for that matter using a kit?

Once I get certified and get the cash, I would like to build the RV6 from the starting kits available. I know the company offers hands-on building classes for these models, the closest one to me being in Texas.

If anyone one out there has had experience building or even flying the RV6 or RV4 etc... I would like to know your take on the project and the aircraft in general, is it a good fit for a new pilot?

Thanks,
 
I built an RV-6. I made the first flight just over 10 years ago. Wonderful aircraft. One thing, the RV-7 replaced the RV-6 in Van's lineup about a week or two after my first flight. The RV-7 is an easier kit to build and offers a little more useful load.

Partially complete (used) RV-6 tail and wing kits come available on the market all the time. You can get a good deal on one if your priorities are more aligned with saving money than ease of build.

Vansairforce.net is currently the best resource for anyone contemplating building or buying an RV.

Speaking of buying an RV, in today's market you can probably purchase a complete, flying aircraft for what it would cost you to build the same aircraft.
 
You can now buy a RV-? for less than you can build one, there have been a bunch made already..

That came from a RV-6 owner. (wishing he had bought)
 
Tom-D said:
That came from a RV-6 owner. (wishing he had bought)
Click to expand...

Not my perspective. Building your own aircraft is rewarding in a lot of ways. Also, knowing every nut and bolt in the airplane has merit. Being the builder, you can also hold the repairman's certificate.
 
Last edited:
My dad and I built a -7A together 7 years ago. After talking to the -4 and -6 builders, the -7's are much easier to build (almost 'too' easy according to some of the old-timers ;)).

I'll throw another vote in for vansairforce.net - that is the mecca for RV builder info. Just make sure you have a thick skin - like all online forums, there are several "my way or you're an idiot" types over there. Don't let that discourage you from actually building.

Not sure about doing initial training in an RV. They are a little 'slicker' than the standard trainer, and a little more sensitive to control inputs which could compound the problem that most initial students have of using a death grip on the controls. I personally did my IR training in the -7A, but I already had ~200 hrs in the plane, so it wasns't too big of a deal. It's definitely 'possible' to do initial training in a RV, but expect it to take a little more time to get the feel for the plane than if you were in a 152, etc.

I'll also second the vote that building your own plane has a lot more benefit than just having a 'lower than certified' price tag. Knowing every screw/rivet/fitting that's in the plane helps tremendously with peace of mind as well as troubleshooting issues that come up in EVERY plane - certified and experimental both.

(I'll also add that after flying the -7A for a few years, my dad got the itch to build again and went back to Van's for a -10 kit, so repeat building is a potential disease to deal with. ;))
 
CJones said:
I'll also second the vote that building your own plane has a lot more benefit than just having a 'lower than certified' price tag.
Click to expand...


From my perspective, building a kit plane with with certified plane capabilities (IR, etc) is not an exercise in cost savings, but more for building what you want and being able to put what you want in it without the FAA requirements. How much did your Dad have into the 7A once completed? Did he factor in his time?
 
Anthony said:
From my perspective, building a kit plane with with certified plane capabilities (IR, etc) is not an exercise in cost savings, but more for building what you want and being able to put what you want in it without the FAA requirements. How much did your Dad have into the 7A once completed? Did he factor in his time?
Click to expand...

That's the kicker right there. In 'experimental world', you can put radios in that have similar capabilities (or sometimes 'better') to 'certified' radios for less money. So I could put a Advanced Flight Systems EFIS in for much less than a G1000. I know that it would be very unlikely that I would buy a certified plane with a G1000, but I can actually 'afford' (relative term) G1000-like capabilities in the experimental market.

I know when we were thinking about building, we were considering buying a 177RG instead of building. After the build was completed, I think we decided that we could have bought a nice 177RG for what the -7A cost in total. (But you can't (legally) take an 177RG upside down and it doesn't cruise at 165kts. ;))
 
Last edited:
Used to be that the experimental planes were just the cats meow, and you have to have your head examined for not flying one. I remember when a spam-can like a 172 cost what a Vans did, and the Vans did everything better. That was before the collapse of the economy and the aviation sector. These days experimentals are just another option. You can get a spam can for a lot less, and if you can pay what it costs to build and RV, you can get one heck of a spam can. No, the spam can won't go upside down, and it will cost more the maintain. But you won't have to spend years building it.

No to say anything at all bad about Vans, or any other kit-built or experimental aircraft. They're really neat. But these days I feel that they are more of another option than the tremendous deal they were in a previous age.
 
CJones said:
That's the kicker right there. In 'experimental world', you can put radios in that have similar capabilities (or sometimes 'better') to 'certified' radios for less money. ;))
Click to expand...

Show me one.......

that can't be put in a certified aircraft.
 
Tom-D said:
Show me any RV-? that will do what this aircraft will do for the money.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1312414.html
Click to expand...

Would you buy that plane? And show me a type-certificated plane that will do everything an RV will do for ANY amount of money.

Tom-D said:
Show me one.......

that can't be put in a certified aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think he meant electronics and not radios specifically, since nowhere in the FAR's does it state that a non-TSO'd radio can't be installed in a type-certificated aircraft. As mentioned, many EFIS units cannot be installed in type-certificated planes.
 
Last edited:
CJones said:
When did this thread turn into a pi$$ing match about RV's vs. certified planes!?
Click to expand...

No need. There is no doubt that the experimentals are GA on the cheap, when it comes to avionics and maintenance. I would not debate that, it is just a loosing proposition.

All I said was by the time you pay for the kit and all that goes with it, you could have bought a spam can that will go just as fast. The can won't fly upside down (or at least not very well or for long) and won't be brand new, but you won't have to spend years building it either. Hence experimentals are another option in the GA world with their own advantages and disadvantages. When I first started, you'd have had to have your head examined for not buying one. Had I not won the Cherokee that is the direction I would have likely went.

All that said, the experience Chris got building an aircraft with his old man is utterly priceless. And there are those who want to build because they want to build. I am eternally grateful that there is a place for this in the FARs, and that the FAA hasn't yet screwed it up too badly.
 
RoscoeT said:
Would you buy that plane? And show me a type-certificated plane that will do everything an RV will do for ANY amount of money.

The point is building isn't cheap any more, the typical RV- will cost as much or more than the used certified aircraft capable of doing the job.

I think he meant electronics and not radios specifically, since nowhere in the FAR's does it state that a non-TSO'd radio can't be installed in a type-certificated aircraft. As mentioned, many EFIS units cannot be installed in type-certificated planes.
Click to expand...

I'll finish that statement for you. " as the primary instrument " or IOW some are not allowed as the only means of nav or control.

When you leave the certified instruments in, you can add any thing you like with the proper paper.
 
CJones said:
When did this thread turn into a pi$$ing match about RV's vs. certified planes!?
Click to expand...

Pretty much in post #9, he made a valid point. EXP no longer = cheap. but it does fill a purpose.

Remember the cost of the kit is just the start. if you are going to build a new aircraft are you going to buy a new engine for it? how about all new instruments?

I've priced these new flat screens nav and efis systems, they are not cheap.
 
Tom-D said:
Pretty much in post #9, he made a valid point. EXP no longer = cheap. but it does fill a purpose.

Remember the cost of the kit is just the start. if you are going to build a new aircraft are you going to buy a new engine for it? how about all new instruments?

I've priced these new flat screens nav and efis systems, they are not cheap.
Click to expand...

It can still be done on the (relatively) cheap - there are lots of VFR-only RV's out flying around with not much more than the basic kit and minimum instruments. It just turns out that you usually hear/read more about the decked out glass panels with electronic ignition engines and composite props - doesn't mean that is the only thing being built anymore. It's like anything else you buy - airplanes, cars, boats, fishing rods - they sky is the limit on how much you want to spend on something...

I'm not saying that experimentals are the one-stop solution for everything - you know better than I that there are some people that just shouldn't even try to build their own plane - but I do think they *can* be a good deal if you find a model that meets your mission profile.
 
CJones said:
It can still be done on the (relatively) cheap - there are lots of VFR-only RV's out flying around with not much more than the basic kit and minimum instruments. It just turns out that you usually hear/read more about the decked out glass panels with electronic ignition engines and composite props - doesn't mean that is the only thing being built anymore. It's like anything else you buy - airplanes, cars, boats, fishing rods - they sky is the limit on how much you want to spend on something...

I'm not saying that experimentals are the one-stop solution for everything - you know better than I that there are some people that just shouldn't even try to build their own plane - but I do think they *can* be a good deal if you find a model that meets your mission profile.
Click to expand...

The OPs point? the aircraft that you are talking about (built on the cheap) can be bought for less than it will take to build it.

T-A-P has 4 RV-4s for sale under 50k.......10 RV-6/6A for sale under 60K.....and the other 7,8,and 10 are on par with what they can be built for, but why wait, just buy and fly for the 5-10 years while your bud builds his.
 
CJones said:
It can still be done on the (relatively) cheap - there are lots of VFR-only RV's out flying around with not much more than the basic kit and minimum instruments.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it would be a really bad idea to have such an aircraft where I live, though I've no doubt there are plenty around. RVs are real hotrods, and at that speed you're likely to run into some weather.

That said, I hope the IFR ones have good experimental autopilots. It would take someone a great deal better on the stick than me to do a stable approach in something that responsive.
 
While RV's are nicely responsive, fast little planes, I realy don't think you need to worry about the VFR ones or less equipped planes more than any other aircraft out there. I bet you could easily fly one with no problem with a few hour checkout.

If I knew the RV I was buying was well built, I'd gladly get one if the price was right.
 
Anthony said:
While RV's are nicely responsive, fast little planes, I realy don't think you need to worry about the VFR ones or less equipped planes more than any other aircraft out there. I bet you could easily fly one with no problem with a few hour checkout.
Click to expand...

You can. That's one of the beauties of the design(s). The first thing most people who are transitioning from certified aircraft do is try a gentle turn. Usually, they end up nearly on knife edge. The control deflections, forces, and resultant rates are considerably different than the C-1XX most people are transitioning from.

I had a very experienced guy with PIC time in everything from a single place Pitts to numerous multi-engined warbirds do my biannual a couple of years ago. He put me under the hood for some unusual attitude work, then proceeded to enter a violent PIO that bounced both of us around the cockpit, off the canopy, etc. He <unexpectedly for both of us> took the plane from +3 to -1 G according to the telltales on the G-meter.

He said: "I didn't expect it to be that sensitive."

Yeah, thanks. ;-)
 
My experiences with the Vans were a delight. Their controls are very responsive and harmonious, and they are indeed an utter blast to fly. The main thing a pilot would need to get used to is the rapid response rate, which I doubt would take very long. Nice aircraft.
 
steingar said:
My experiences with the Vans were a delight. Their controls are very responsive and harmonious, and they are indeed an utter blast to fly. The main thing a pilot would need to get used to is the rapid response rate, which I doubt would take very long. Nice aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're not bad. Once you realize that you really do fly them with two fingers, they're a piece of cake. While it is more sensitive to control inputs than the standard factory-made spam-can, it is far from what I would call 'squirrely'.
 
Tom-D said:
What makes you believe you can't install them in a certified aircraft?
Click to expand...

Tom - you have me intrigued.

I have heard of people who have installed non-certified devices (like Dynon's inexpensive, self-contained AI/Flight Display) in certified planes and had them approved as minor alterations, and others have stated in no uncertain terms that this simply cannot be done. Seems as if the answer varies by FSDO.

As for me, I'd dearly love to be able to use some of the remarkably capable, and less-costly, devices as backups, and I always try to keep an open mind.

Educate me, O Master of As & Ps!
 
Tom-D said:
The OPs point? the aircraft that you are talking about (built on the cheap) can be bought for less than it will take to build it.

T-A-P has 4 RV-4s for sale under 50k.......10 RV-6/6A for sale under 60K.....and the other 7,8,and 10 are on par with what they can be built for, but why wait, just buy and fly for the 5-10 years while your bud builds his.
Click to expand...

Some people also enjoy the act of building - not just the flying aspect of homebuilding - heck, some weirdos ;) might even enjoy building MORE than flying. Can't put a $$ amount on that...
 
kyleb said:
You can. That's one of the beauties of the design(s). The first thing most people who are transitioning from certified aircraft do is try a gentle turn. Usually, they end up nearly on knife edge. The control deflections, forces, and resultant rates are considerably different than the C-1XX most people are transitioning from.

I had a very experienced guy with PIC time in everything from a single place Pitts to numerous multi-engined warbirds do my biannual a couple of years ago. He put me under the hood for some unusual attitude work, then proceeded to enter a violent PIO that bounced both of us around the cockpit, off the canopy, etc. He <unexpectedly for both of us> took the plane from +3 to -1 G according to the telltales on the G-meter.

He said: "I didn't expect it to be that sensitive."

Yeah, thanks. ;-)
Click to expand...
I've never had an issue flying one, though I've flown them very little. Anyone that slams controls around in an airplane they know nothing about before doing small inputs to "calibrate" themselves is asking for trouble.

What really impressed me about the RV-4 I flew in was how well it flew in a very wide range of airspeeds from slow to fast.
 
steingar said:
My experiences with the Vans were a delight. Their controls are very responsive and harmonious, and they are indeed an utter blast to fly. The main thing a pilot would need to get used to is the rapid response rate, which I doubt would take very long. Nice aircraft.
Click to expand...


They are an easy transition from a Grumman. In fact they've used AA1 series Grummans to do transition training.
 
Anthony said:
They are an easy transition from a Grumman. In fact they've used AA1 series Grummans to do transition training.
Click to expand...

Pity someone's equated a nice airplane like a Vans with a dog like a Grumman.:D
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
Tom - you have me intrigued.

I have heard of people who have installed non-certified devices (like Dynon's inexpensive, self-contained AI/Flight Display) in certified planes and had them approved as minor alterations, and others have stated in no uncertain terms that this simply cannot be done. Seems as if the answer varies by FSDO.

As for me, I'd dearly love to be able to use some of the remarkably capable, and less-costly, devices as backups, and I always try to keep an open mind.

Educate me, O Master of As & Ps!
Click to expand...

It really depends upon the installation and the wording in the request for field approval..

We must comply with the requirements of FAR 91.205, thus if the equipment being added does not comply with certification requirements, it must have a back up that does. This is why we often see these as add ons not replacement of.
 
Was looking at some RV4s and I like the seat configurations much beter than the side-by-sides. Seems a little cheaper too.
 
Thanks for the input, I want to build a plane myself to get certified and for the experience in general. Of course this will be well after I get my PPL, and will not be my first plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top