Brad,
Your post was pretty timely. I was working on a post concerning an article in the recent RVator (2nd 2006). The article is titled "Ignoring Factory Recommedations" and appears to be penned by Van himself. The main focus was on adding aux fuel tanks, but the latter part of the article concerned setting a gross weight above factory recommendations.
I went the same route you are considering. I was working on an RV-8 and decided to go with an RV-3 instead. This was after a year of fretting over the gross weight and aerobatic gross weight limitations. The aerobatic weight limitation was resolved when Van made the statement that wing fuel does not count against the aerobatic gross weight limitation. This applies to any RV, not just the RV-3. This caused quite a stir on the newsgroups, but eventually died away.
I thought the gross weight limitation wasn?t a significant issue either. Out of the 23 RV-3?s currently listed on Randy?s site,
www.rv-3.com, 3 have a gross weight at or under 1100, 5 had no gross weight listed, and 15 had a gross weight over 1100. I was planning on setting mine at 1200. Unless Randy has changed his lately, he was also planning on a 1200 1b. gross weight, which he would need for his projected empty weight of 800-820 1bs.
I?m not trying to pick on Randy. I?m using him as an example because Randy and Van are officers/directors in their local EAA chapter and Van has visited Randy?s project. It seems highly unlikely that Van is not aware that Randy plans on setting a higher-than-recommended gross weight. Does this article not apply to RV-3?s? Maybe Randy and/or the other builders with a gross above 1100 have done additional engineering analysis to support the higher gross weight. That would be good information to know.
The RVator article is very adamant about sticking to the recommended limitations unless the builder is in some way more qualified than Van?s engineers to validate any changes. The first time I read the article it came across as arrogant with a hint of CYA. After reading it again, I can understand their point. I do think they are sending mixed signals, though, at least concerning the RV-3.
As you mentioned, you would have to be a pretty light pilot to keep it at the 1100 1b. gross weight. That?s assuming it can be built with a 7501b empty weight. That doesn?t seem very likely based on the empty weights on the rv-3.com registry listings.
Van?s has asked for feedback on this issue and I will certainly provide mine.