second-guessing model choice

Has anybody else here been through the (painful) experience of second-guessing their choice of which RV to build, after already well-committed? Don't get me wrong, I am sure I am going to love my -9A, and as a low-time pilot (~120 hrs private, ~20 hrs glider) it will be a great choice for me to do more training (IFR) in. But lately, I keep daydreaming about how cool a fastback super-8 would be. I used to dislike the look of taildraggers on the ground (somehow look "old fashioned" to me), but over the last year I've warmed up to them, and now prefer the look of a taildragger to a nosedragger). As for aerobatics, while I think my main mission will always be x-country to visit family and freinds scattered about the province, my next flight in a rental is going to be in the Grob 115C, and I've decided to do a bit of aerobatic training.
I guess I may eventually become a "repeat offender", but I wish I could stop daydreaming about a fastback super-8 for now and get back to daydreaming about my -9A!!! I need someone to talk some sense into me

Phil, keep pounding those rivets....

The RV9A is a great plane to fly. I moved up from flying my C172 and what a difference. It is so responsive, yet stable. Slower at landing the all the other RVs.
Yes, it is not made for acro, but I don't do that. Yes it doesn't have 4 seats, but I don't have that many friends anyway.

Keep working at it. You won't be disappointed.

As you said, you can always build another plane after you get this one flying.

Kent

Second guessing? Yeah sometimes, sort-of

I try to always stop shopping after I've bought something. No good can come of it. Technology advances, prices come down, etc, but when I make a purchse (build) decision, I make it with the best information I can possibly gather at the time.

Does this stop the second guessing? Nope, but it sure does help reduce it. I now mostly second guess the tandem vs side by side decision. So, that would be a 7 or an 8. Either way, I'm building an awesome airplane I am going to enjoy immensely.

Depending

On how far along you are you could always build it as an RV9...I.e a taildragger.

You really have boxed yourself into one end of the performance range...I.e you have the most efficient wing for cross country work...I.e you will go the furthest for the least amount of fuel. It will also be the best IFR platform as far as the 2 seaters go.

Nothing wrong with this little airplane. I would be tempted to put an IO360 with a FP metal prop on it...I.e FI for max fuel economy while running LOP. The 360 engine will be derated to roughly 160HP with the Sensinech prop but will be a bunch cheaper and one less knob to fiddle with...A welcome relief when flying IFR.

You also have side by side seating which for a newby IFR pilot is a big advantage...Nice to have your Wife hold the plate for you when things get VERY stressful.

The RV8 is amuch more single purpose machine...I.e goes fast, looks cool and is the best for aerobatics...I've had my IFR ticket for 8 months and I would definately not feel comfortable flying it in the soup...Not sure I'd be all that keep flying as saftey pilot form the back seat either..

The RV 7 is sort of the cross over model, i.e does not quite as well as the 9 wing for XC work, but is strong enough for acro but won't roll as fast as the RV 8.

if you can give up on the idea of acro then you will realise you have an excellent airplane there.

If anyone says it "Just a trainer" offer to race their 172 round the pattern...

Cheers

Frank

Often

But not too seriously anyway. I would really love to have an -8. Real fighter style flying. My one and only RV ride was in an 8. I went with the 7 for practical reasons. I love to fly to far away places. My wife would not like being in back. I also like to be able to access the baggage area while in flight. I also love my pup, and she'll fit in the baggage area of the 7. There's no place for her in an 8.

It's ok, I can still play fighter in my -7 from time to time

Actually, my friend who has the -8 wishes he built a -7, lol.

io360

Intrigued by this IO360 idea. I was planning on an O-320 with a FP prop. Vans doesn't endorse anything above an O-320 for the -9A. What would I need to do differently for an IO360? Bigger/different engine mount? Cowl change? other changes?
What about getting it approved (in Canada)? Would the fact that the airframe is not endorsed for more than 160hp cause a problem here?

vmirv8bldr said:

I try to always stop shopping after I've bought something. No good can come of it. Technology advances, prices come down, etc, but when I make a purchse (build) decision, I make it with the best information I can possibly gather at the time.

Click to expand...

I did alot of research too, couldn't decide between RV-7, Sonex, CH-601, CH-701, RV-9; so I ended up with an RV-4 I have definitely stopped shopping, but if it was due to all the information gather up front, I'm not so sure. I think someone said that we investigate with our minds, but take decitions with hour hearts

If anything, the only other airplane I would like right now (while building maybe) is a single seat motorglider, a modernized version of the RF4D.

Before you go IO-360

Check the weight and balance, CG in various conditions and nose wheel weight. Don't be surprised if you have to add ballast in the rear and be a marginal two person aircraft.

Nothing wrong with this little airplane. I would be tempted to put an IO360 with a FP metal prop on it...I.e FI for max fuel economy while running LOP. The 360 engine will be derated to roughly 160HP with the Sensinech prop but will be a bunch cheaper and one less knob to fiddle with...A welcome relief when flying IFR.

Click to expand...

prkaye said:

Intrigued by this IO360 idea. I was planning on an O-320 with a FP prop. Vans doesn't endorse anything above an O-320 for the -9A. What would I need to do differently for an IO360? Bigger/different engine mount? Cowl change? other changes?
What about getting it approved (in Canada)? Would the fact that the airframe is not endorsed for more than 160hp cause a problem here?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't understand the logic of the IO-360/FP recommendation, especially on a RV-9A.

Listen to Van when he puts a limit on the engine for his designs.....the man knows his airplanes. Also, I'm not sure what kind of fixed-pitch prop would work with the angle-valve IO-360. I don't know of any fixed props that have enough pitch to choke that monster down to 160hp......

If fuel injection is desired, then one of the injected 320's would be a nice engine.

320 for sure

yeah, I will definately be sticking with the O320 or IO320... yet to research the fuel injection issue. Being a x-country machine, weight is a big consideration for me, and i'm trying to keep that under control.

If you can afford it change!

If you can afford to change and all you have invested is the slow build fuselage then sell it and get what you want! Life it too short to build an airplane that you don't want then go through all the guilt involved in selling your trusty new creation and starting to build a new one. However, if you are just being whimsical the RV-8 will not satisfy you fertile mind for long either. A year after you get it you will be dreaming about a something or other "Rocket". You do have to draw a line in the sand and and stay on one side for a long time if you are going to actually build an airplane - it is not a trivial task.

Bob Axsom

Yes

I still go through it. I bought a flying -6A while building the 7A. But it seems like I want to take 2 people with me a lot of the time. So I think about the -10. But longer build time, more money to build, more money to fly...

Practically speaking

I think for a pilot with 120 hours total time, the 9A is the perfect choice. It will be an excellent machine to IFR train in, and since you (probably) have never owned an airplane before, it will be the least expensive to own after it's built. Your insurance alone for a taildragger and/or acrobatic plane would be gruesome.

Also, and I know there are exceptions so don't bite my head off, my personal opinion is that a pilot with 120 hours shouldn't be flying a taildragger unless that's what he/she initially trained in, and certainly shouldn't be flying acrobatics for a long time. Again, just my opinion. I have 650 hours, which isn't very much, and I wouldn't consider myself proficient enough for acrobatics, although proficiency has more to do with how often one flies than total hours of course.

Again, though, I think from what you've said, the 9A is a great plane to own. Besides, you can always fly in someone else's 8.

A plane for all seasons

Interesting thread. I'm an -8 driver and have mostly flown tandem taildraggers. I can't get enough of them, but yet sometimes I wish I had a -7 so that I can sit next to my wife on a long trip (she prefers tandem actually) or other days I want a Rocket for the speed and other days I want a -3 or a -4 for more nimble handling.

In reality these are all good aircraft and while you will be wanting in one way or another no matter what choice you made, as many have intimated you can't go wrong with any RV because they are so far superior to most of the spam cans out there in just about every regard. For 120 hour pilot going for an IFR ticket a -9A is a great aircraft. You can always sell it and build something else later as your mission changes.

If you know in your heart that you want to do acro, then your mission may have just changed. And if so, maybe you do want to sell and build something else. You just have to go back and really answer for yourself what that mission is going to be. If you only want to do acro occasionally, well then you can always rent a Super D or something equivalent. For whifferdilling all over the sky each time you fly, well then maybe you do want something other than the 9A. But, if you want to truly compete in acro (beyond sportsman), then an RV is not the best mount anyway and you can have something else in addition to your 9A.

Me, competition doesn't really do it for me, I like whifferdilling through the sky looping and rolling on my x/c, so the -8 was a good choice. Still, maybe I shoulda built a -7 for more x/c comfort. See what I mean!

That said, I disagree with Craig regarding acro at what may appear to be such a low time. Acro is a completely different skill just like tailwheel, IFR or formation. They all involve precise stick skills one one way or the other, but are otherwise largely unrelated. I don't think it makes a difference whether you have 100 or 1,000 hours when you start your acro training. Excellent pilots skills are universally helpful in all areas, but good IFR skills and lots of hours don't translate at all to acro or vice versa. I don't think it matters when you start because you are going to be a fish out of water anyway. No time like the present to challenge yourself - but with a good acro instructor of course. Find a good instructor and always remember that altitude is your friend.

Fly safe,

Rob

Don't let the tail-wheel airplanes scare you away. A few years ago that's all there was and guys were soloing at 5 and 6 hours. The schools today at least around here aren't soloing their students until they get around 10 to 13 hours and they are flying tricycle gear aircraft! So which one is the easiest to fly?
Which ever one you choose as long as it fits your mission profile that will be the greatest plane to fly.

-9A... for now

Thanks for all the input guys. I definately will finish my -9A. This is the most sensible airplane for me right now, and I've become attached to the project in such a way that don't think i could handle not finishing it. If, after flying it for a while (doing IFR training, building hours and taking lots of trips!), I find I miss the building process, my next plane would very likely be something like an -8. Of course, who knows what else Vans will be producing by then

Selling out on the -9A?

Hi Phil,

I know it must be my fault - it was the ride I gave you. I showed you the stability, the low fuel burn, the slow landing, the gentle stall.

We should have been doing 3G turns and wingovers.......

Sure, sometimes I dream of having a -7 with big motor or a little RV-3B, and maybe someday I will. I snuck out of work today and flew for a bit today and realized once again the -9A does a lot of things really well, and I really like it.

They are all nice machines......really hard to go wrong sticking where you are or making a change - sorry I am no help.......

Hey Pete!
Let me assure you, the ride you gave me totally convinced me that the -9A is going to be a pure joy to fly... especially for x-country!! About a year back i had a ride in an -8. For x-country, i do indeed think i'll be happier in the -9A (especially with an autopilot like yours). When i was growing up i really wanted to be a fighter pilot, and i guess sometimes the kid in me still wants to "play fighter pilot"
But I am definatley finishing the -9A, and my ride in your plane was definately positive reinforcement on this choice!

Everybody

Likes to play fighter pilot!

We should have been doing 3G turns and wingovers.......

Click to expand...

Are those allowed in the -9A?

Nope

prkaye said:

Are those allowed in the -9A?

Click to expand...

Never - I have only heard of other -9A's doing that......

My kevlar underwear is set to the atomic blowtorch safety setting

9a

Hey Phil
I am a low time pilot too and really really had my heart set on a 7. After going upside down it just seemed like a good idea. BUT, since my mission is likely like yours, nice cross countries, a low timer and wanting to learn ifr....the 9a just cant be beat. I was looking at ALL the kits.

I was just investigating the vans site and am happy they are now showing the io320 available in experimental. Couple that brand new FI lycoming with a sens fixed pitch and their discounts....and you have brand new prop and engine for 24K. With our dollar being up....that is a pretty great deal. That same set up would have cost over $30K less than a year ago. Build on and be happy. I used to be into boating...they call it two footitus. Go from a ski boat to a small cabin cruiser, then a bigger cruiser. My wife and I still swear we had more fun with the 20 footer, wasnt perfect for everything but it was one pile of fun for almost everything and was affordable. How many folks can build AND fly an airplane. That is plenty cool for me until I get my spitfire. Keep pounding.

I figure that if I started an "8", then I'd secretly be wishing for an F1/Rocket; just because they look even more wicked; let alone that three bladed prop, pointier spinner & powerful six cylinder lycoming!

But since I can't afford all that, the 6A will be just fine, as it's paid for; and I prefer company up front.

L.Adamson

-9 vs -9A vs ???

Hi Phil.

I have no clue as to how much the transition would be to go with the -9 rather than the -9A but it can't be too much. Aren't the fuses for the two aircraft basically the same? Call Van's and find out what it would take to chnage the fuse you have to a -9 - can't hurt to call.

The best advice I ever heard on the subject is attributed to Tom Green of Van's. When a potential builder was confused about picking a particular model RV to build, Tom's answer nailed it. As I recall from reading years ago, he responded with something like....and I'm paraphrasing here...."When you open the hangar door....what airplane do YOU want to see sitting there?" It must have had some affect as I am building an -8 even though I have no taildragger experience.

Phil, Phil, Phil:
Build on and enjoy your 9a....you will love it!!!! Then join the ranks of those who from addiction, become repeat offenders....and build your 8...

Rick6a said:

The best advice I ever heard on the subject is attributed to Tom Green of Van's. When a potential builder was confused about picking a particular model RV to build, Tom's answer nailed it. As I recall from reading years ago, he responded with something like....and I'm paraphrasing here...."When you open the hangar door....what airplane do YOU want to see sitting there?" It must have had some affect as I am building an -8 even though I have no taildragger experience.

Click to expand...

I think you are right on the money here Rick. When I'm struggling to choose between two items my wife will ask me "If you had both which one do you think you would use more often?" I like your example above also.

Best,

they are now showing the io320 available in experimental.

Click to expand...

I still need to search the forums and read the never-ending debate about fuel-injection vs carbeurators. Weight is somethign I'm paying attention to, so I would guess FI would be better in this regard.

Couple that brand new FI lycoming with a sens fixed pitch

Click to expand...

I guess this is the metal 2-blade prop? I was hoping to go with a fixed-pitch 3-blade prop, but honestly that's just for the "cool-factor".

Question about engine/prop purchase... when? Should I order it at the same time I order my finish kit (this coming summer)?

It was Mahlon's idea

prkaye said:

Intrigued by this IO360 idea. I was planning on an O-320 with a FP prop. Vans doesn't endorse anything above an O-320 for the -9A. What would I need to do differently for an IO360? Bigger/different engine mount? Cowl change? other changes?
What about getting it approved (in Canada)? Would the fact that the airframe is not endorsed for more than 160hp cause a problem here?

Click to expand...

Actually the IO360 was Mahlon Russels's idea that I was copying. First off the I was talking about the parallel valve engine, not the angle valve which is quite a bit heavier.

The 360 straight valve engine is not that much heavier from what I have been told and as you won't be running a CS prop the weight may well come out close. The CG could actually be further aft as the C?S prop won't be right on the nose.

The other point is that with a cruise prop the engine will not be making 180HP...Nearer 160, which is exactly what the airplane is designed for.

I understand the mount is the same and because of the popularity of the 360 was about the same price as the 320 when I was buying my engine.

So you get the full 160HP, one less control knob and save a bunch of money.

What's the problem with is idea again?

I would call Mahlon at Teledyne if you want the real expert scoop.

As for the engine rating, simple get your engine builder to slap a plate saying 160HP at 2500RPM...Which is what you'll be getting...No problem, at least in the US.

Frank

Wingovers, chandelles, lazy 8s, and rolls are all low stress maneuvers which the -9 handles very well. The RV9 can be as fun or boring as you want it to be and if you want to play fighter pilot then give it an OD green paint job!
Nothing wrong with planning your next project either.

Norman CYYJ said:

A few years ago that's all there was and guys were soloing at 5 and 6 hours. The schools today at least around here aren't soloing their students until they get around 10 to 13 hours and they are flying tricycle gear aircraft!

Click to expand...

To be fair, I think the requirements for solo now are a bit more stringent than they used to be. My understanding (from hearing the "old-timers" talk) is that, in those days, you were signed off for solo as soon as you could take the airplane around the patch and get it back on the ground in one piece; and that you were trained only on pattern work until after said solo--then everything else followed. (ok, maybe a slight exxageration...)

These days, you're required to cover a lot more stuff (we covered ground reference stuff, VOR navigation, stalls and recoveries, engine out, etc. before mine) and take a "pre-solo examination", and most instructors seem to wait until you're ready not just for an initial "around-the-patch" flight, but for subsequent "within 25 miles" soloing too.

Sam Buchanan said:

Sorry, I just don't understand the logic of the IO-360/FP recommendation, especially on a RV-9A.

Listen to Van when he puts a limit on the engine for his designs.....the man knows his airplanes. Also, I'm not sure what kind of fixed-pitch prop would work with the angle-valve IO-360. I don't know of any fixed props that have enough pitch to choke that monster down to 160hp......

Click to expand...

Hi Sam

I agree that an IO-360 angle valve is not the right choice for a -9(A). However, I have a fixed pitch Catto 3 blade on my IO-360-A3B6D and it works great. It is a 66"x78", and I get 2150 static, and 2700 in flight.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan View Post
Sorry, I just don't understand the logic of the IO-360/FP recommendation, especially on a RV-9A.

Listen to Van when he puts a limit on the engine for his designs.....the man knows his airplanes. Also, I'm not sure what kind of fixed-pitch prop would work with the angle-valve IO-360. I don't know of any fixed props that have enough pitch to choke that monster down to 160hp......

Click to expand...

rv8bldr said:

Hi Sam

I agree that an IO-360 angle valve is not the right choice for a -9(A). However, I have a fixed pitch Catto 3 blade on my IO-360-A3B6D and it works great. It is a 66"x78", and I get 2150 static, and 2700 in flight.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Mark, glad to hear your Catto is working nicely for you.

However, if you can reach 2700 rpm in flight, aren't you well above 160hp?

Yes

2700RPM the IO 360 is nominally rated for 180HP.

Like I said get a plate on the motor labelled at 160HP at say 2500RPM and your all set to go.

I would add a bit more pitch to the prop as there is not much point in going to 2700RPM (personal opinion)..I mean, most of the cruise efficiency comes from the fact you have the throttle wide open to reduce pumping losses. Add to that running LOP means some serious economy.

If you can run to 2700RPM it means you will be pulling the throttle partially closed to reduce the RPM to something more comfortable which will cost you in economy...I'm sure it climbs out with gusto at 2700 though..

Frank

Sam Buchanan said:

Mark, glad to hear your Catto is working nicely for you.

However, if you can reach 2700 rpm in flight, aren't you well above 160hp?

Click to expand...

Yeah, after I hit send on that post, I realized you were probably talking about keeping it below 160 hp, rather than whether or not you could successfully put a FP prop on the angle valve. I was just too lazy to go back and edit it

On the bright side, I get 190kts WOT in level flight. I'm sure I could get better if I had been more painstaking in the fit and finish of my wheel pants, etc.

Cheers

rmartingt said:

To be fair, I think the requirements for solo now are a bit more stringent than they used to be. My understanding (from hearing the "old-timers" talk) is that, in those days, you were signed off for solo as soon as you could take the airplane around the patch and get it back on the ground in one piece; and that you were trained only on pattern work until after said solo--then everything else followed. (ok, maybe a slight exxageration...)

These days, you're required to cover a lot more stuff (we covered ground reference stuff, VOR navigation, stalls and recoveries, engine out, etc. before mine) and take a "pre-solo examination", and most instructors seem to wait until you're ready not just for an initial "around-the-patch" flight, but for subsequent "within 25 miles" soloing too.

Click to expand...

Basically correct. When I soloed, all I had learned was takeoff, stall, landing.
I was allowed to fly to other local airports, and told to practice practice practice, and contact the instructor in a couple weeks.

After I got back with the instructor, we covered lots of other basic stuff, pilotage, navagation, etc, and after every segment, I was told to go practice for awhile before the next dose of instruction.

This was in 1970/1

phil

just my opinions and they aint worth much but...

regarding the three blade prop.... I really like that too. Want the Catto, but a few issues. Getting the cowl on and off with the three blade is a big pain, and catto for some reason is hard to deal with. I emailed several times and never got an answer, took a phone call to get some info. Prices he charges are now 10% higher than the quotes on his web site. Those things make me crazy. Another builder i chat with gets the prop way cheaper than me...i just dont like doing business that way. Folks with his prop seem really happy.

regarding the io 320 360 issue, its been hashed out that vans only recommends the 320. Fuel costs etc and the smaller price difference are the reasons for going FI. For me anyway, that works

as for ordering the engine and prop. I just think the exp version and the sens from vans is a good deal, but with the extra grand off, that seems REALLY fair.
Would i order it now or with your finish kit. NO, wait. Just my opinion, but i got my finish kit in August and am no where near done. Lots of folks buy it all at once, avionics, lights, prop etc. My opinion is to wait until you are a month or two from needing it and get is just in time. There are folks web sites that have the dash done before the canopy, of pay to have an engine in storage for years. Doesnt interest me. Who knows what kind of prop or engine options or avionics or even led lights will be out there. A little extra shipping is worth it to me. I seem to change my mind so many times and like the cool newest stuff....and there are so many time burning projects to get done before one really needs that stuff.

Good luck, hope you stick with the 9a. We cant beat em with speed but we can get em in numbers. Have a good one. I am new to all this so dont value any of my thoughts to highly.

Thanks Rick. Definately sticking with the -9A, and I won't think about ordering the engine at least until i'm done the canopy and gear. This summer, I'm hoping! maybe unrealistic, but we'll see.