Are RV's really the best ?

[Spike]

A few days ago, John posted this in another forum.

Notice though, we are all building the hands down, best all around experimental on the market, bar none!

I have been considering this statement for a while and thought it would be an interesting point of conversation. Are we really building the best all around experimental on the market? I dont think I agree with the statement. They are fantastic planes, but I dont know what truly makes them the best, at least not outside of any subjective view point.

There are more of them flying than any other type, but Im not convinced that means they are better, just that their audience is bigger. I would imagine that Lancair builders, Sonex builder's, etc, would disagree that the RV's are the best.

What do you think?

[cjensen]

I can certainly agree with that Spike! I can agree with John on some levels as well, but that's a somewhat biased opinion.

The RV's are a fantastic airplane, fantastic value, and have a fantastic following and community. The last part speaks volumes.

However, I do think it's hard to say it's the best. That's a very subjective statement, as you've already said. It completely depends on your mission and bank account.

It's my opinion that the Lancair IVP with a turbine up front is the best experimental...but it's composite, it slurps fuel, and it's a half mil. It does a LOT more than the RV will. Hmmm...now that I think about it, the Epic LT is nice...so is the Viper Jet MkII.

RV's are great, and the best for ME. I think that's as far as one can go with that statement.

CJ?

[dons]

The "Best" is way too subjective depending on your criteria for saying what is best, like your priorities, flight mission, bank account, pilot experience, etc. to say there is one best experimental. Chad hit it right on the head "the best for ME". If I had unlimited funds/time/shop, yeah I would build something other than an RV and consider it the 'best', but given ALL my criteria, the RV is also best for me.

If you consider the ONLY criteria to determining the 'Best' to be that more people find the RV to be best for them, then, yes, I could see saying these are the best, but there is no way you could get near unanimous consensus on that criteria.

Having said all that, of course it's the best, we all chose it .

[JohnR]

Best is relative.

Depends on your point of view and circumstances.

I think the RV7-A is the best plane for me to be building. Everyone else is free to choose whatever they want. For me it came down to bang for the buck and the labor it takes to get the plane in the air. I believe the RV series provides the best value from where I am standing at this point in my life. Plus I didn't want to work with all of that sticky stuff it takes to build a plastic plane.

[svanarts]

It's the best plane for me at this point in my life. If my flying buddies all give up flying, the best for me might be that light-sport amphib I was looking at. If I go into mission work, maybe a STOL plane would be the best. Right here, right now, it's the best!

[captain_john]

I will tell you what makes a Van's plane the best one to fly and maintain.

Parts availability.

Lets say you gink an elevator pushing it into the hangar. A simple call to Van with a parts list and you are on your way.

With a Cessna (or other spammer) parts cost WAY more, are harder to come by and don't arrive any more ready to use.Some cowlings (and other parts) are no longer in stock! They need to be manufactured on demand! Down time!!!

With another experimental (depending on the company) replacement parts may come from $pruce, Wicks or the local lumber yard. Okay, you built the plane. You can rebuild the elevator. Not as easy as ordering parts from Van.

With Van's plane, the builder network is HUGE! Help is right around the corner, often times.

That is whay I say these planes are the best!

CJ

[JohnR]

Good point on the parts situation CJ. One of those things that is kind of just there and you don't think about it to much.

[aparchment]

Like many of you said above, the RV is best for ME at this point in my life and with the flying needs I have. Would I love to own a Lancair IVP -- absolutely, but cost to purchase, cost to operate and insure keep me from doing that -- at least if I want to stay married.

If I could own two experimental planes I would own an RV 7 with a tapered wing (like the EVO rocket) and a big comfortable traveling airplane like the Lancair ES or Lancair IVP (though the more I see the RV 10, the more I like it. It just needs sexier lines like the composite planes). The hershey bar wing on our planes is ugly in my opinion.

Antony

[papakeith]

Just to echo other's comments.

If the RV meets your mission best, then it is the best plane.

Obviously it's not the end all be all for everyone. That's the beauty of it. We get to decide what is best for our particular wants and needs.

as for parts, all you need is snips and a hammer to make most of them

[svanarts]

And if Van's ever stops making parts I bet PK could make a mint suppling replacement parts to the RV world.

And you are right. The RV will not always fit my mission profile. For instance, my next plane will probably be an amphib flying boat.

[Wicked Stick]

And if Van's ever stops making parts I bet PK could make a mint suppling replacement parts to the RV world.

And you are right. The RV will not always fit my mission profile. For instance, my next plane will probably be an amphib flying boat.

If I had to own something that was going to land in lakes, I'd take a SeaWind hands down. What a beautiful looking air/water craft. Of course, I'd want to fly it first to see how it handles.

As for SEL, the RV is the all around winner for me. (Speed, Acro, Short Field, and of course ease of build, parts avail. and builder commradery.)

[yukon]

I looked at most all popular homebuilts, and I chose the best, not just for me but for the mission. Low cost, easy build, safe flying. If you are building an airplane you don't consider to be the best for your mission,
I've got to ask why?

Anfibs are a different mission. Pressurized turbines are a different catagory. Comparing apples to apples, I am still very satisfied with my choice.

John

[Spike]

... you are building an airplane you don't consider to be the best for your mission, I've got to ask why?

Im not sure you were speaking to me or not, but Ill answer in case you were. Right now, I am building an airplane that fits my mission incredibly well. Was it the only one that would fit my mission? No. The Glastar fit really well as well.

I can think if lots of reasons why someone might not build the plane that is best for the mission. Cost, ease of build, length of build, experience. There are some fiberglass planes that really would have done well with my mission, though I didn't feel I wanted to work with glass, at least not this time.

There is also a very large emotional aspect to this, which I think that while driving decisions gets ignored or gets counted as empirical data. I dont think its very uncommon for a plane that fits a mission better than another get passed by because it lacks the desired pizzaz. Or, to have someone's desired mission to change into something that better fits the plane that they really want to build. I also think the pizzaz and primal appeal that some designs instill in their builder's hearts have an elevating effect on the opinions of the design.

Hence why I asked the question in the first place.

[jim_geo]

YES! nough said.