Instead of leaving the big choices scattered chronologically through the build log, this page collects the major decisions in one place.

Final Aircraft Summary

Kit Aircraft vs. Conventional Aircraft

For the performance I wanted, certified aircraft were substantially more expensive. A typical Piper or Cessna is a good fit for simple transportation, but not for the combination of speed, climb, aerobatic capability, and hands-on involvement I wanted.

The experimental route made sense because the mission mattered: cross-country capability, aerobatics, builder control, and a large support network.

Manufacturer

I chose Van’s Aircraft because the RV line is proven, well supported, and widely represented in the experimental community. The support network, parts availability, and builder knowledge base were major factors.

Model

The mission requirements were:

  • Fully aerobatic.
  • Aerobatic with a passenger.
  • IFR capable.
  • Useful for cross-country flying with limited baggage.

The RV-7 and RV-8 were the strongest matches. I liked the RV-4 for handling and economy, but the RV-8 was the better fit. Centerline tandem seating, the throttle on the correct side, and the pilot sitting on the centerline won out.

Tailwheel

I wanted the airplane to be a taildragger. The tailwheel RVs look right to me, and the skill requirement was part of the appeal. Tailwheels ask more from the pilot, but they also suit the airplane’s character and the kind of flying I wanted to do.

Kit Options

Empennage

Electric elevator trim was the right choice. A properly trimmed airplane matters, and I wanted controls that supported a HOTAS-style cockpit.

Wings

Key wing decisions included:

Fuselage

The fuselage was ordered as a quickbuild to save a major block of build time. I chose ground-adjustable rudder pedals and rear-seat rudder pedals.

Finishing Kit

I excluded several items from the finishing kit because of the Show Planes fastback, other sourced parts, and local builder availability. The canopy is the stock Van’s canopy.

Engine and Fuel System

The early question was whether to choose 160, 180, or 200 HP; carburetion or fuel injection; Lycoming or clone; and new, used, rebuilt, or overhauled.

The final choice became a Lycoming IO-360 A3B6D, 200 HP angle-valve engine with fuel injection, purchased used and freshly overhauled. Fuel injection was important for performance, reliability, and aerobatic goals.

The fuel-system thinking centered on flexibility, future fuel availability, and the long-term cost of flying. The goal was a system that could support the mission while preserving as much fuel flexibility as practical.

Electrical and Avionics

The electrical and avionics choices were driven by IFR capability, redundancy, and cockpit usability. I wanted a modern glass panel rather than steam gauges because avionics were changing quickly and the airplane would benefit from integration.

The final panel uses Garmin equipment, including the G3X Touch ecosystem, GNX 375, GNC 255A, GDU 460, and two G5s.

Propeller and Governor

I leaned toward a constant-speed propeller for performance and IFR utility. A constant-speed prop also matched my operating experience better than a fixed-pitch prop.

For aerobatic considerations, the governor and failure modes mattered as much as the prop itself. The final prop is a Whirl Wind 74HRT constant-speed propeller.

Priming, Paint, and Finish

I chose to prime interior parts with AKZO two-part epoxy primer. The goal was corrosion protection with a process that offered strong protection without excessive complexity.

The priming process:

  1. Scuff the surface with Scotch-Brite.
  2. Clean first with water, then with acetone after drying.
  3. Mix AKZO 50/50, let it sit, test spray, and apply a thin even coat.
  4. Clean the gun and nozzle parts thoroughly after spraying.

For paint, the goal was visibility and a scheme that suited an RV. I planned to paint the airplane myself and complete paint before first flight and final assembly.

Fastback and Canopy

The Show Planes fastback modification with a tip-over canopy became the preferred direction. The standard slider is practical, but the fastback/tip-over combination gives better forward visibility and the look I wanted.

The fastback adds work, cost, and decisions around the canopy and roll bar, but it fits the airplane’s character. I also wrote up the Showplanes Fastback lessons learned after the work was finished. The related build notes are collected on the Show Planes Fastback page.