What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV Competitors

There are many different models of RV’s, and each one addresses different requirements - so your question really can’t be answered unless you tell the group what you want the airplane to be and do - then folks can suggest alternatives.

Otherwise, its not a useful question, and the answers will be just as useless.
 
Vans products are the triathletes of the homebuilt world. There are plenty of options to go faster, land shorter, or do better acro. There aren't many options that do all three as well.
 
I hope darkaero does well, price point and performance they will be compete if things work out like they hope.
 
I hope darkaero does well, price point and performance they will be compete if things work out like they hope.

Darkaero as fas as I know have a training wheel under the nose, no option for a proper U/C set up.
Vans, no contest -):)
 
RV-3/Panther

My first build was an RV-10, so obviously the bar was pretty high for my second build with respect to kit quality, support, documentation, etc. I wanted an RV-3 but just didn’t have the stomach for the time commitment needed, so I built a Panther. While I’ve never flown a -3 or -4, I’m confident the Panther stacks up nicely. Of course, Paul Dye’s glowing review of the aircraft was all that was needed to sell me on it.:rolleyes:
 
I guess a non-Vans builder will have to reply if you want anything other than "Vans is the best"

I think the one thing that Vans got really right is the development of the kit. For my money, if you really want to build something, the Vans kit will likely give you the least headache. The Vans builder community is top notch and due to the number of Vans being built, they get great deals on a lot of stuff.

I constructed a plans-built LongEZ and it took 13 years to finish. It was brutal. The plans were barely adequate (but were drawn in 1979ish) and there was a need for working with the builder community to put things together correctly (made more difficult because Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet). Each aircraft is basically custom with everyone solving the same problems in different ways. In the end, it was a joy to fly, loop and roll capable (gentlemen aerobatics), cruised at 155 KTAS at 6.0 gph (with baggage pods). If you fly solo mostly or have a GIB who is under 5'7", its a great plane.

I think the Cozy is basically the same as the LongEZ, but either 3 or 4 seat. Long time to build, but a great plane (bigger engines and can be a bit faster).

The canards are spin resistant and the stall is a porpoising and 500fpm decent. You can fly the stall with full aft stick at 55 KIAS with full rudder and still fly straight and level.

One of my other favorite airplanes is the Express. They had fits and starts when the original Wheeler was developed. They had deep stall issues due to the cruciform tail at aft CG. This wasn't helped by factory folks coming back from OSH who reportedly told the fuel guy that they were going to loop and roll their way home... but never made it. The company has since been taken over back in 2000 and are still making kits. However there are occasionally some for sale on Barnstormers (look under both Express and Wheeler). I flew the factory plane when I was deciding what to build. It has so much room in the back seat, at some point their was a fold down bench on the side for sleeping! Its fast and economical and rivals or surpasses the RV10 (IMO).

The Velocity is the 4 seat canard which is built from a kit. I thought it would be more standardized than the Long or Cozy and bought one (just didn't want to build another plane). Turns out the plans are woefully deficient and never updated and the new twin is basically built by word of mouth or down at the factory where they can show you what to do that isn't in the "plans".

There are several versions of the plane, the recent ones with the gull wing doors, comes with either fix or retracts (I urge the fixed gear), and gets reasonable performance. Its roomier than most planes, I'm 6' and I can stretch my legs out in the back and front seats. The handling qualities are okay. They dorked up the wing design with the Long Wing (173)...its slower and has poor handling below 100 KIAS (when compared with other canards or Velocities without the 173 wing). You'll see a lot with VGs. Its the Family Truckster of canards. The big XL has 540 or 550 motor, is 4" wider than the SE and the cruise speed is too high to believe (I would guess its in the 200KTAS range). The slightly smaller SE fixed gear will cruise at the 145 TAS on 6.5gph and carry 4 people and full fuel. You can get a nice XL for $150-175k... Find a RV10 for that price.

Oh, and by the way... with all the canards, stay out of the grass and any field shorter than 3000' is a pretty high pucker factor. If you are off your speed by 5-10 KIAS, add 1000' to your landing distance. In the LongEZ and Cozy, add another 1000' if you don't put the landing brake down on final (won't sink into ground effect).

Anyway, those are some of my choices. It really depends on what you want to do with the plane... aerobatics, long trips, short/grassy fields...

Hopes this helps.
 
Comparable to the -6 are the Mustang II and the Thorp T-18.

Kent Paser's "Speed with Economy" book was built around his experiments on a Mustang II, and the resulting improvements over time were impressive. The wing is a lot prettier than the RV but the laminar cross section means less attractive stall characteristics, and not as good low-speed performance. Still, a lot of fun to fly.

The Thorp was a little more boxy, a little smaller inside, and a little slower than the RV-6, but not so much that you'd notice.

Used examples of each are significantly cheaper than comparable RV's.
 
Dark Aero

Darkaero as fas as I know have a training wheel under the nose, no option for a proper U/C set up.
Vans, no contest -):)

I love it when a startup aircraft company advertises stellar sounding performance and range specs for a new aircraft design without having flown a single prototype.

I sincerely wish them the best of luck. I personally wouldn't put down any kind of deposit until they have a flying production aircraft with independently verified performance numbers and all kits are shipping...

Skylor
RV-8
 
I love it when a startup aircraft company advertises stellar sounding performance and range specs for a new aircraft design without having flown a single prototype.

I sincerely wish them the best of luck. I personally wouldn't put down any kind of deposit until they have a flying production aircraft with independently verified performance numbers and all kits are shipping...

Skylor
RV-8

I talked to darkaero at Oshkosh last year. If I recall the conversation correctly, one point of concern was that the person I talked to had little concept of handling qualities, and I thought the horizontal tail size was no bigger than adequate. The second concern was payload, but I'm fuzzy on the recollection. I do recall that I was not optimistic about the very small airplane...

Back to the Wheeler and derivatives. Decades ago, when I was an active aviation journalist, I flew both the original cruciform tail and the so-called large tail, back to back. Both versions are on my do not fly list, and they earned their way onto that list when my risk profile was much broader than it is these days.

The Falco is another plane in the RV performance category. I knew the builder of a Gold Lindy award Falco and got to fly it. Nice flying wood airplane (with all that implies), and they are available used for quite reasonable prices. But for all the good looks and such, published cruise speeds are comparable to my RV-9A. The kits are extremely expensive and require lots of time and craftsmanship but the results are very nice indeed.

I did meet Stelio Frati, designer of the Falco, one year at Oshkosh. He only spoke Italian and French, and I had only English and German. Very short conversation...

As for the composite Falco from New Zealand, the price for all the kits is around $106,000 US... plus engine and avionics, etc. Comparing the original Falco with the composite Falco, the composite Falco "normal category" gross weight is 50% more than the original (!), yet the published stall speeds of the two with full flaps are within 1 mph. Can't tell from photos, but it appears that the composite Falco might have more effective flaps. The published aerobatic payload is a mere 467 pounds.
 
Last edited:
Falco: flown 660+ hours on a factory series 3 (experience on that one curtailed by a con-rod failure on climb-out...http://www.aerofun.ch/falco-1.html) and a series 4.
Notwithstanding the sissy wheel upfront, cruise performance on a O-320 was slightly superior to an RV, logical when looking at the sharp wings and tail, and the retracts.
Talking about the retracts, electrically actuated, with a delicate screw mechanism.
Roll feel was similar to an RV say -4 or -6, but pitch was nicer in giving a better response to speed. The Falco is more stable, a superior IFR platform, yet still almost as aerobatic. The cockpit itself is more cramped, luggage space similar to side by side RVs.

Panther: couple of hours flown on a Corvair powered LSA version. It is an LSA and feels like one, everything is light ... nice mimicking of the RV-3, when seen from a distance.
Advantages: quick built using pulled rivets, inside space. The cockpit has a good size which most of you would fit in. Foldable wings, though the fuel tanks are in the wings...
Performance is good considering the 120HP Corvair, but quite noisy with the high revving motor (2850-3300RPM cruise setting). Flight controls kinda mushy compared to an RV, long wings and short wheelbase could lower one's xwind limits.
As a whole, a nice little "cheap" quick-built RV-3 replica, the 2 seater Cougar still being in the works.
 
Last edited:
My first build was an RV-10, so obviously the bar was pretty high for my second build with respect to kit quality, support, documentation, etc. I wanted an RV-3 but just didn’t have the stomach for the time commitment needed, so I built a Panther. While I’ve never flown a -3 or -4, I’m confident the Panther stacks up nicely. Of course, Paul Dye’s glowing review of the aircraft was all that was needed to sell me on it.:rolleyes:

I believe I met this Panther and his owner :D at a fly-in not too long ago. Very nice plane and the build was very nice. I was shocked that we don't hear more about this plane. I was definitely intrigued.

AB
 
Back
Top