Vans RV or Glasair for low time pilot

They're home-builts so they can be real good, real bad or somewhere in between. The one with which I'm most familiar was really, really bad so my opinion will probably be different than that of somebody who has been around a really, really good one--assuming one exists.

Tmpendergrass said:
Maybe I should put this on a new tread...

Has anyone here flow a velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the canard design but I've heard it's very stable. It also has efficacy of a two place plane but with 4 seats. There seems to be a few of these on the market at comparable prices to RVs.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Tmpendergrass said:
Maybe I should put this on a new tread...

Has anyone here flow a velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the canard design but I've heard it's very stable. It also has efficacy of a two place plane but with 4 seats. There seems to be a few of these on the market at comparable prices to RVs.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have one but you're getting into a whole different type of mission now.

RV- sporty, aerobatic, 2 seats, short field/grass strip, metal construction.
Velocity- range, comfort, baggage, non aerobatic, not so stable (pitch), not short field/grass strip (nose wheel), composite construction.

An RV is like a sports car and a Velocity is more like a Luxury car. You'd be hard pressed to get a Velocity for the price of an RV-6A also.
 
Velocity173 said:
I have one but you're getting into a whole different type of mission now.

RV- sporty, aerobatic, 2 seats, short field/grass strip, metal construction.
Velocity- range, comfort, baggage, non aerobatic, not so stable (pitch), not short field/grass strip (nose wheel), composite construction.

An RV is like a sports car and a Velocity is more like a Luxury car. You'd be hard pressed to get a Velocity for the price of an RV-6A also.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I had figured from my other research. We're really looking for more of a "GT car" for the sky. The more research I do, the more appealing the 6a/7a become.:wink2:
 
INCREDIBLE how puffed up everyone is here. Glasair, Vans, Cessna, Mooney, who cares? They are all light singles. If you are the sort of pilot for whom the a/c talks to you and you listen, not a problem. Get instruction and then learn.

If you are not that sort of pilot, then train adequately for it, and learn.

It's just a light single!
 
bbchien said:
INCREDIBLE how puffed up everyone is here. Glasair, Vans, Cessna, Mooney, who cares? They are all light singles. If you are the sort of pilot for whom the a/c talks to you and you listen, not a problem. Get instruction and then learn.

If you are not that sort of pilot, then train adequately for it, and learn.

It's just a light single!
Click to expand...

Thanks Bruce. I plan to get a lot of transition training before soloing.
 
You're going at this from the wrong direction.

Job One is to determine the mission profile. Is this for fun flying, or XC? Short strips or Superslab International? Weekend flying or commuting? Ask those and other questions about what you want the plane to do for you. Mark each thing by priority, what you're willing to compromise on and how far.

With your list in hand, now look through the available planes in your price range. The ones which meet your needs go on your next list.

Narrow it down to 4 or 5 planes, and then FLY THEM. You don't want to buy something that you don't enjoy flying, because it won't get any better with time.
 
SoloEqs said:
You're going at this from the wrong direction.

Job One is to determine the mission profile. Is this for fun flying, or XC? Short strips or Superslab International? Weekend flying or commuting? Ask those and other questions about what you want the plane to do for you. Mark each thing by priority, what you're willing to compromise on and how far.

With your list in hand, now look through the available planes in your price range. The ones which meet your needs go on your next list.

Narrow it down to 4 or 5 planes, and then FLY THEM. You don't want to buy something that you don't enjoy flying, because it won't get any better with time.
Click to expand...

I have already defined the mission. I you
Haven't read it hear it is;

Cruise reasonably fast (close to 200mph)
Comfortably seat 2 6ft men with some room for bags
Aerobatic capable
Fun to fly
Light IFR capable (with proper avionics)
Efficient

Basically what I'm looking for us a plane that does everything equally well. Not just focused on one thing(aerobatics,xcontry,etc), hence the term "GT car for the sky".

The airplanes that best fit this mission are the RV-6a/7a and the glasair 1ft/2ft. Right now I'm leaning toward the RVs because of two reasons. Larger builder/owner/A&P community, and better slow speed/short field performance with minimal sacrifice in cruise speed. Short fields aren't a huge priority right now(not in the mission profile) but I'd rather have the option of going places with ease that would challenge the glasair.

Would love to get a chance to fly in all these aircraft. What would be the best way to find local owners and get in contact?

Thanks for all the posts guys, it's been a great discussion and I've learned a lot.
T
 
Tmpendergrass said:
I have already defined the mission. I you
Haven't read it hear it is;
Click to expand...

I don't need to know it, YOU need to know it.

I was only listing the steps to take. I have no real opinion on what plane you should buy, I just want you to buy the one that's right for you.

Would love to get a chance to fly in all these aircraft. What would be the best way to find local owners and get in contact?
Click to expand...

Go to the websites for the owners' groups and your local EAA chapter. If you can get to the forums, post messages that you're trying to decide which plane to buy, and ask if anyone is near you that you can go talk to about owning and flying them.

If you can't get to the forums without having to pay, send messages to the group admins, asking if they can find you some nearby owners to talk to.

Go talk to two or three of them, ask what they DON'T like about their planes. Take notes and pictures. Chances are pretty good that they will be willing to take you up.
 
SoloEqs said:
Go talk to two or three of them, ask what they DON'T like about their planes.
Click to expand...

I can't even imagine what an RV owner would say they don't like about their plane. I think if they say something critical, they get thrown out of the gang. I can only imagine them saying, "This airplane is actually a little too good for me.", or "I wish they were even cheaper to own and operate."
 
I think you'd find that KyleB and some others are objective rather than rabid about their planes and understand both sides of the equation.


Dav8or said:
I can't even imagine what an RV owner would say they don't like about their plane. I think if they say something critical, they get thrown out of the gang. I can only imagine them saying, "This airplane is actually a little too good for me.", or "I wish they were even cheaper to own and operate."
Click to expand...
 
Dav8or said:
I can't even imagine what an RV owner would say they don't like about their plane. I think if they say something critical, they get thrown out of the gang. I can only imagine them saying, "This airplane is actually a little too good for me.", or "I wish they were even cheaper to own and operate."
Click to expand...

A few 'cons' about the RV:
  • They are hot in the summer - that glass canopy turns it into a greenhouse on sunny days.
  • They are a bit 'cozy' for full-sized folks. I'm 6'7" and my dad is 6'5" and we are definitely rubbing shoulders and elbows when we fly together.
  • They're noisy - we don't have much extra insulation on the side panels of the -7A (see previous point about being 'cozy'), and the thin aluminum doesn't do much for noise cancellation. ANR is a must for flying in RVs IMHO.
  • They're cold in the winter - that glass canopy from point #1 combined with lack of insulation in point #3 combine to provide ample opportunity for heat to escape. Feet and shins stay very toasty warm, but not a lot of the warm air escapes into the rest of the cockpit. The heat that make it into the 'living' area escapes quickly through the thin sides or glass canopy.

But dang, they sure are fun! ;)
 
CJones said:
A few 'cons' about the RV:
  • They are hot in the summer - that glass canopy turns it into a greenhouse on sunny days.
  • They are a bit 'cozy' for full-sized folks. I'm 6'7" and my dad is 6'5" and we are definitely rubbing shoulders and elbows when we fly together.
  • They're noisy - we don't have much extra insulation on the side panels of the -7A (see previous point about being 'cozy'), and the thin aluminum doesn't do much for noise cancellation. ANR is a must for flying in RVs IMHO.
  • They're cold in the winter - that glass canopy from point #1 combined with lack of insulation in point #3 combine to provide ample opportunity for heat to escape. Feet and shins stay very toasty warm, but not a lot of the warm air escapes into the rest of the cockpit. The heat that make it into the 'living' area escapes quickly through the thin sides or glass canopy.

But dang, they sure are fun! ;)
Click to expand...

1. Any plane with a canopy is hot. If I just wanted to stay cool I'd buy a spam can:no:

2. I know they are cozy but we can deal with it for the performance. Heck, I've rubbed elbos in a 172 with my buddy in the right seat.

3.what isn't noisy? That's what Bose headsets are for :)

4. Here in SoCal cold is not an Issue
 
Tmpendergrass said:
1. Any plane with a canopy is hot. If I just wanted to stay cool I'd buy a spam can:no:
Click to expand...

Just to set the record straight, RVs and all light GA planes are "Spam Cans". The term was coined by airline pilots decades ago to describe annoying GA planes that were cheap, filled with amateurs and clogging up the low level skies. It was done decades before there ever was a Vans RV, or any such thing as a kit plane. Now the EAB community has adopted the term as their own to describe any factory built GA plane, but not them. Ridiculous and kind of pathetic. Ask any old time airline pilot and they'll tell you, yeah, an RV is a Spam Can.

Try not to lose sight of the fact that all aircraft engineering is a trade off and the kit builders have chosen to give up certain qualities for speed, or ease of assembly. You'll be reminded of this when your two friends show up at the airport to check out your new ride and you have to tell them it'll have to be one at a time.
 
Dav8or said:
I can't even imagine what an RV owner would say they don't like about their plane. I think if they say something critical, they get thrown out of the gang. I can only imagine them saying, "This airplane is actually a little too good for me.", or "I wish they were even cheaper to own and operate."
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more like "I wish the fuel valve was on the other side," or "it's got this little Dutch roll all the time." Little stuff, not obvious, but that can make a difference in comfort.
 
Dav8or said:
Just to set the record straight, RVs and all light GA planes are "Spam Cans". The term was coined by airline pilots decades ago to describe annoying GA planes that were cheap, filled with amateurs and clogging up the low level skies.
Click to expand...

Just to set the record REALLY straight, early metal aircraft were called "SPAM cans," "milk cans," "bean cans," etc by people who believed that monocoque metal planes would never be practical replacements for fabric-over-frame planes. "SPAM can" stuck because it just sounds right, but the term was in use before there were airline pilots.
 
Dav8or said:
I can't even imagine what an RV owner would say they don't like about their plane. I think if they say something critical, they get thrown out of the gang.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2: Right. You sound like a butthurt little girl. All airplanes are airborne compromises. Why the burr up your ass?
 
CJones said:
A few 'cons' about the RV:
  • They are hot in the summer - that glass canopy turns it into a greenhouse on sunny days.
  • They are a bit 'cozy' for full-sized folks. I'm 6'7" and my dad is 6'5" and we are definitely rubbing shoulders and elbows when we fly together.
  • They're noisy - we don't have much extra insulation on the side panels of the -7A (see previous point about being 'cozy'), and the thin aluminum doesn't do much for noise cancellation. ANR is a must for flying in RVs IMHO.
  • They're cold in the winter - that glass canopy from point #1 combined with lack of insulation in point #3 combine to provide ample opportunity for heat to escape. Feet and shins stay very toasty warm, but not a lot of the warm air escapes into the rest of the cockpit. The heat that make it into the 'living' area escapes quickly through the thin sides or glass canopy.

But dang, they sure are fun! ;)
Click to expand...

The canopy and cabin can be sealed effectively so flying in the winter is comfortable. I have flown my -12 & -10 in temps under zero F. :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
The canopy and cabin can be sealed effectively so flying in the winter is comfortable. I have flown my -12 & -10 in temps under zero F. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I have too (not YOUR -12 and -10, but our -7A and -10). And will continue to do so when the opportunity arises. People were looking for cons for the RV series, so I gave them some.

BTW - the -10 is much more comfortable than the -7A. Pretty much all of the 'cons' that I listed were based on personal experience in the -7A. Don't think any of those are true for the -10.
 
Tmpendergrass said:
1. Any plane with a canopy is hot. If I just wanted to stay cool I'd buy a spam can:no:

2. I know they are cozy but we can deal with it for the performance. Heck, I've rubbed elbos in a 172 with my buddy in the right seat.

3.what isn't noisy? That's what Bose headsets are for :)

4. Here in SoCal cold is not an Issue
Click to expand...

Well, then.. Seems like you're OK with all the 'cons' that I have listed. So go for it! :)

BTW - Despite all the 'cons' that I listed, I have flown the -7A in San Antonio, Las Vegas, Atlanta during the summer, and Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the winter, and will continue to do so when possible.

Someone asked for cons, so I tried to dig some up.
 
CJones said:
Well, then.. Seems like you're OK with all the 'cons' that I have listed. So go for it! :)

BTW - Despite all the 'cons' that I listed, I have flown the -7A in San Antonio, Las Vegas, Atlanta during the summer, and Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the winter, and will continue to do so when possible.

Someone asked for cons, so I tried to dig some up.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I need to fly in one now!
 
RoscoeT said:
:rolleyes2: Right. You sound like a butthurt little girl. All airplanes are airborne compromises. Why the burr up your ass?
Click to expand...

Ummm... OK, but I'm seeing a lot of down sides to the RV posted from the RV owners. Like you said, airplanes are compromises, what did the RV give up? What do the owners wish was different?
 
I thought I wanted an RV8 for fun, but after flying in a couple of them, they just don't 'feel' right after flying our C-180 for so many years.

I can't explain it well, but they felt like a thrown together bucket of bolts. Maybe I just got in two poorly built ones. They were loud, cramped, (I was in the back hole) and they felt like a toy. One had a wicked shimmy or a vibration right at rotation. I mentioned it, that I thought it was coming from the tailwheel, but the owner acted like it was perfectly normal. :dunno:

Get what you want and what fits your mission profile OP. I just got lucky finding our 180. Just blind luck that my first airplane purchase turned out to be one of the best single engine planes ever built imo. :goofy:
 
txflyer said:
I thought I wanted an RV8 for fun, but after flying in a couple of them, they just don't 'feel' right after flying our C-180 for so many years.

I can't explain it well, but they felt like a thrown together bucket of bolts. Maybe I just got in two poorly built ones. They were loud, cramped, (I was in the back hole) and they felt like a toy.
Click to expand...

Interesting. When I first flew one, it felt so...right. Like the plane I had dreamt of as a kid.

I've flown in a C-180, and it's like a DC-3 compared to the -8. I see why you thought it felt like a toy! :D
 
txflyer said:
I thought I wanted an RV8 for fun, but after flying in a couple of them, they just don't 'feel' right after flying our C-180 for so many years.

I can't explain it well, but they felt like a thrown together bucket of bolts. Maybe I just got in two poorly built ones. They were loud, cramped, (I was in the back hole) and they felt like a toy. One had a wicked shimmy or a vibration right at rotation. I mentioned it, that I thought it was coming from the tailwheel, but the owner acted like it was perfectly normal. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Well, a Corvette doesn't feel the same as driving an F-150 either. It would feel like a "toy" too. Two totally different airplanes. Regarding being a "bucket of bolts", I'd rather fly the RV through a t-storm than your 180. The RV has higher stress margins. Did you even notice how the RV was put together?? Same damn way as the 180. :dunno: And shimmy is not normal on that leaf spring RV-8 gear. If there was shimmy, then there was an alignment or wheel/tire balance problem.
 
SoloEqs said:
However, I can't remember hearing of an inflight structural failure of a C180 . . .
Click to expand...

Not saying the 180 isn't a good design, or strong enough to meet its design goals. But the RV8 is a stronger airplane. It will sustain more stress before deformation or failure occurs. The RV8 was designed and tested to be in a higher (aerobatic) strength category than the 180. Which airplane would you rather subject to intentional or unintentional 6G stress?
 
RoscoeT said:
Not saying the 180 isn't a good design, or strong enough to meet its design goals. But the RV8 is a stronger airplane. It will sustain more stress before deformation or failure occurs. The RV8 was designed and tested to be in a higher (aerobatic) strength category than the 180. Which airplane would you rather subject to intentional or unintentional 6G stress?
Click to expand...

Depends on my weight,
 
Funny you should ask. After flying them for 57 years it's not something I ever considered as a pertinent question. If it's OK I don't plan to lose any sleep starting now.



RoscoeT said:
Not saying the 180 isn't a good design, or strong enough to meet its design goals. But the RV8 is a stronger airplane. It will sustain more stress before deformation or failure occurs. The RV8 was designed and tested to be in a higher (aerobatic) strength category than the 180. Which airplane would you rather subject to intentional or unintentional 6G stress?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Funny you should ask. After flying them for 57 years it's not something I ever considered as a pertinent question. If it's OK I don't plan to lose any sleep starting now.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Just commenting on another poster's characterization of the RV as some chincy, flimsy, poorly-designed, "bucket of bolts".
 
When the RV fleet accumulates the same amount of age, use and abuse as the current fleet, we'll know much more about them.

RoscoeT said:
Of course not. Just commenting on another poster's characterization of the RV as some chincy, flimsy, poorly-designed, "bucket of bolts".
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
When the RV fleet accumulates the same amount of age, use and abuse as the current fleet, we'll know much more about them.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. The "current fleet" (if you mean factory metal planes) is not subjected to aerobatics. Different MO. I've known RVs with 5K+ hours and there are no core airframe issues different from any other metal airplane...mainly because they are built just like any other metal airplane. There is wear and tear like any airplane - gear fairings, cowl fasteners, wheel pants, etc.
 
RoscoeT said:
Of course not. Just commenting on another poster's characterization of the RV as some chincy, flimsy, poorly-designed, "bucket of bolts".
Click to expand...

Much depends upon the builder. If he doesn't do a good job, decides to deviate from the plans or decides to start substituting different items then the quality will go down.

This is a reality since the builder is free to do as he pleases. There is no QA in a EAB if the builder decides not to use it.
 
Check the records. You'll find numerous metal planes are acro certified. Some of them have had problems over time, as have some that weren't. Nor is it certain that all RV's are used for acro, or the extent. And I've known certified planes with 20k hours.

You're grasping at straws.

RoscoeT said:
Apples to oranges. The "current fleet" (if you mean factory metal planes) is not subjected to aerobatics. Different MO. I've known RVs with 5K+ hours and there are no core airframe issues different from any other metal airplane...mainly because they are built just like any other metal airplane. There is wear and tear like any airplane - gear fairings, cowl fasteners, wheel pants, etc.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
You're grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

I guess. RVs have been around since 1972. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years to find out if they have serious problems not found in factory metal planes. ;)
 
How long have T-34's been around? Bonanza's?

RoscoeT said:
I guess. RVs have been around since 1972. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years to find out if they have serious problems not found in factory metal planes. ;)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top