Let’s start from the beginning…
Why a homebuilt? I am building a homebuilt because of the rate of return (financially and emotionally). I used to work for Cessna’s Flight Test Department and have some familiarity with their piston singles. Do I love the new (or even old) 172s and 182s? Of course. Would I (or could I) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an airplane with a glass cockpit that only goes 120 kt (150 kt for the 182)? Nope.
I think I’d rather spend a quarter of that (over a few years, of course) for a high performance (200 kt?), aerobatic (+6/-3 g) capable aircraft, that I built with my own hands. The idea of creating something from nothing (pronounced “a Van’s standard kit“) already makes me proud, and I haven’t even started yet.
Why an RV? Having fallen in love with the idea of building myself, I scoured the internet and pretty quickly settled on Van’s RV kits. Why? Because there are something like 6,600 of them flying (January 2010) (7000 in April 2010). It’s a proven design (six? proven designs). Because everyone who has ever ridden in an RV and then written about it on the internet can’t seem to stop praising the airplane, company, builders, flyers, and vendors associated with the RVs. And most importantly, I like them. I like the performance, I like the looks, I like the capability. I do need to score a ride in one…
Why tandem seating? My RV-7 project was a side-by-side, but when I realized that almost all of my flying will be solo, I like the tandem seating for fighter-pilot look and for the centerline seating (which would help during mild aerobatics).
Why a two-seater (instead of four-seater)? I chose a two seater because 99% of my missions will be just me, and the two seaters are more affordable (although the RV-10 does seem like a nice airplane). I hear about this thing called builder’s withdrawal, so maybe the second airplane can be a bigger one.`
Why a taildragger? A lot of people have a lot of opinions about this, but my decision came down to fun-factor, flying skills, and aesthetics.
Fun factor: It’s just plain (plane? Ha.) fun to fly a tailwheel aircraft. Don’t kid yourself. I have about 50 hours of tailwheel time, and I just loved tailwheel flying the whole time.
Flying Skills: It takes better stick and rudder skills to proficiently pilot a conventional gear airplane, and maintaining those skills will keep my stick and rudder skills sharp. When I was boring holes in the sky with that Citabria, my stick and rudder skills were at their best, and I’m afraid to admit that I am probably not as busy on the rudders as I used to be.
Also, I think taildraggers look better (no hate emails, please). I can’t really say that much more about it. Anyway, it looks like it’s decided. I’m going to build an RV-7.
Why an IO-360 (200 HP)? I want the climb and cruise performance. I seem to be able to justify the extra cost at this point in the build (empennage), but I wish money were no object…then maybe I would be putting a 390 in there. Fuel injected is a must for me for a variety of reasons.
Why a 3-bladed MT constant speed propeller? I think three-bladed props look cool, and constant-speed is the way to go for optimum engine operation in various phases of flight. I wish money were no object…so I could actually afford it.