FLYVANS.COM Why the RV7A?

Why the RV-7A

There is a number of different models (the A means: nose-gear version):

RV-3: single seater, taildragger, very basic kit only
RV-4: double seater version of RV-3.
RV-6/RV-6A: former most popular model, side-by-side 2-seater, wings of the RV-4 but new fuselage
RV-8/RV-8A: 2 seater but tandem/centerline seating, new and faster wing, set up for more powerful engines
RV-9/RV-9A: side-by-side 2-seater, set up for smaller engines, for cross-country flights and no aerobatics, very different wing
RV-7/RV-7A: side-by-side 2-seater, wing practically identical to RV-8 but new fuselage, replaces the RV-6, better kit (prepunched/matched holes, etc.)
RV-10: 4-seater, no aerobatics, nose-gear version only, 200hp+ engines
RV-11: all metal sailplane (Van's personal project)
RV-??: new LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) under development.

According to our profile, the RV-8A or the RV-7A would be what we are looking for. Performance-wise almost similar, the RV-8A definitely has the edge as far as looks are concerned…
But what speaks in the RV-7A’s favor is the side-by-side seating, because of:

better outside-view for 2 pilots/pax operation
more comfortable and easier communication between the two seats, esp. during longer flights
center of gravity and trim differences between solo or 2-seat operation (even construction/arrangement problems in case of a very heavy engine => nose heavy during solo flight!)
only one panel (=> weight & complexity reduced), or 2nd seat has no panel in the RV-8A which would not be an option for us
And last but not least, the model 7 comes as the most advanced and newest (now second to the 10) kit developped by Van's: prepunched and matched holes as well as a quickbuild option!

Why QUICKBUILD?

Well, it is one of our main concern that we really can finish the kit and get airborne relatively “as soon as possible”. The more parts pre-built, the sooner it looks like an aircraft – yes, psychology is also involved - the better the chances to finish and the fewer are things that can go wrong. Therefore we looked right from the beginning wheter there are prefabricated parts, i.e. a jump-start or quickbuild option available. And if it didn’t exceed the costs and still was a good value, we would go for it certainly. The time and hassle savings are dramatically visible with other builder’s projects. Especially when you see what kind of repetitive and precision work you can save yourself, the wing geometry as a prime example, you don’t want to build the standard anymore unless you enjoy it and are "building for the building's sake".


	1. Intro 2. To own or rent an airplane? 3. Certified vs Experimental? 4. Our Mission Profile 5. Why Van's Aircraft? 6. Why The RV-7A? 7. Why not a used one?

PROJECT