Looking to buy Van's RV-4

The Van's RV-4 seems to fit my needs and my budget (around $50k). I like the looks, the low operating cost, its aerobatic capability. I like the idea of being able to legally do the maintenance.

I currently have a '67 KCAB Citarbria. I've put about 100 hours on it in the last 6 months.

I like the looks of the sliding canopy but it isn't a deal breaker. An IFR/glass cockpit would be nice because I hope to eventually get an instrument rating. I am familiar with the Lycoming O-320. I like adjustable pitch prop but not the expense.

What do I need to look for? Electric flaps and trim?

Is there some other airplane that will do what the RV-4 does cheaper?

I'm going to Oshkosh in July mostly to look at RV-4s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltermitty

Is there some other airplane that will do what the RV-4 does cheaper?

---

You might look into the Thorp T-18. They use the same class of engines, just about as fast. Higher stall speed, and they are side-by-side instead of tandem. Cockpit's a bit tighter than some. Significant price difference, though.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltermitty

Is there some other airplane that will do what the RV-4 does cheaper?.

---

not that I am aware of.

As far as maintenance, keep in mind you can work on it, but not sign off the conditional (unless you are an A&P).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbrasch

As far as maintenance, keep in mind you can work on it, but not sign off the conditional (unless you are an A&P).

---

My OCD will kick in here - it's a "Condition" inspection, not a "Conditional" inspection. It's not "conditional" on anything, and it's an inspection of the "condition" of the aircraft. And yes, for you grammar nazis (of which I also am one), that's an Oxford comma :-).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin

My OCD will kick in here - it's a "Condition" inspection, not a "Conditional" inspection. It's not "conditional" on anything, and it's an inspection of the "condition" of the aircraft. And yes, for you grammar nazis (of which I also am one), that's an Oxford comma :-).

---

Me too, I guess. I hate to see "gonna", "wanna", and "prolly" in print.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin

My OCD will kick in here - it's a "Condition" inspection, not a "Conditional" inspection. It's not "conditional" on anything, and it's an inspection of the "condition" of the aircraft. And yes, for you grammar nazis (of which I also am one), that's an Oxford comma :-).

---

Tough crowd.

I have an rv4 that i have owned for 2 years. They are really hard planes to beat and everyone that i know that has flown in one ends up buying one(rvs). I redid my whole panel with 10" glass, new garmin radio, backup 4" screen. Since ive owned it i have also installed led wingtip lights, leading edge taxi/landing lights, all new wiring and switches. I am currently finishing up the install of electric flaps, electric elevator trim, autopilot servos, and infinity aerospace grip. Let me know if you have any questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlin3

I have an rv4 that i have owned for 2 years. They are really hard planes to beat and everyone that i know that has flown in one ends up buying one(rvs). I redid my whole panel with 10" glass, new garmin radio, backup 4" screen. Since ive owned it i have also installed led wingtip lights, leading edge taxi/landing lights, all new wiring and switches. I am currently finishing up the install of electric flaps, electric elevator trim, autopilot servos, and infinity aerospace grip. Let me know if you have any questions.

---

I am a little curious about "tall landing gear". Is this curing a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltermitty

I am a little curious about "tall landing gear". Is this curing a problem?

---

It shouldn't be considered a problem remedy, just an enhancement of landing characteristics. The early RV-4's had "short" gear that made achieving a full-stall landing an exercise in very precise speed management. Later RV-4's have "tall" gear that allows the wing to be more easily stalled (greater angle of attack) when in a three-point attitude. This reduces the tendency to bounce landings and provides a little larger airspeed window for touchdown. Both designs fly beautifully but the later version is more tolerant of less-than-perfect landing technique.

Thanks for the explanation.