What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

My Vans RV conundrum.

Davy8or

Active Member
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A. It better fits my mission which is mostly me flying around by myself in good weather with no particular place I need to go. I think it would save me a bit of money in fuel burn, replacement parts and upgrades and it would be newer with not so much history, mechanics, repairs, annuals and the like on it.

My ideal Vans would be the 9/A with an IO-320, CS prop and either a tip up, or slider, I haven't decided. It would also have to have a nice, standard layout panel with at least two axis auto pilot, dual coms, WAAS GPS, engine monitoring and a good audio panel. ADS-B in and out and a 406 ELT would be great too. Unfortunately there are four serious things preventing me from pursuing this plan. In order of seriousness-

  1. Safety. I like the 9 because it has the lowest stall speed and that means the slowest touch down in an off field landing scenario, but it seems that if you land a Vans on anything that isn't hard and prepared, you end up upside down, hanging from your harness and most times trapped by a stuck canopy. Ditching a Vans in water sounds like suicide, or at least very, very slim chances of a good outcome. I feel much more confident in the Mooney's ability to land off field and in water. I also feel very confident of the Mooney's strength in the airframe. I'm not so sure about the Vans.
  2. The wife. I mentioned in passing that I was thinking of trading the Mooney and she was ho-hum about that... until I told her I was thinking of an experimental! She was pretty strongly against that idea! It will take a lot of convincing that it is just as safe and I first have to convince myself.
  3. The wife. The cabin in the Mooney is tight, but I think the Vans cabin is even tighter. It feels very narrow to me. As we get older, neither of us is getting any skinnier. There is also poor baggage area access, or capacity. While it has only occurred three or four times in the last seven years, it would be nice to keep the ability to take the wife along for a weekend. I'm not so sure how well the Vans can handle this job.
  4. Money. I don't think I can get anywhere near enough money for my Mooney to get a nice clean, well built RV-9 configured the way I want it and then do all the things that will need to be done to make it mine. I will have to sell my Mooney and then likely pony up even more money. While I have the money and could do this, right now is not a financially great time for me to do it.

What do you guys think?
 
1. Most any plane with the wheels down will flip under the right circumstances, especially ditching. RV-9A with the anti-splat nosewheel brace should be no worse than any other plane.
2. Depends upon the individual airplane. Craftsmanship is an indicator, but the systems installations and cockpit design (human factors) are also significant. Most homebuilt panels are full of human factors errors, and half of homebuilts are poorly wired. Then again, lots of older factory built planes have layers and layers of A&P errors in them, too. And you won't be able to toss the keys to any random A&P for an RV annual -- you'll need to be prepared to hold their hand.
3. Try one on for size. And the Almost RV-14 seatback mods can help. There's also, for the slider, canopy rail extensions to ease baggage access. But it won't be as good as reaching into the back seat of a Mooney.
4. An RV-9A such as you describe, if you can find one, would be on the order of a hundred grand, depending on whether the owner wants to sell or not. Mine, for example, has dual Garmin G3X touchscreens, autopilot, ADS-B in and out, and far more capability than you'd get in a factory built for anywhere near that price.

Best advice? Go hang out with the homebuilt crowd for a year or more, go to Oshkosh and/or Lakeland, pay your dues. Make knowledgeable friends, lots of 'em.

And good luck!

Ed
 
I'm thinking you probably need to keep the Mooney.....unless your wife gets onboard with an experimental aircraft.

But in spite of that....welcome to VAF! :)
 
Last edited:
How much baggage do you bring when you travel? (I'm not calling your wife "baggage"!) The -9 can lift 100 lbs, which is a lot of "stuff". (When we were building I bought four good size duffle bags from Target that can hold more than we want to take. Here's a link.) I have filled those four and added stuff on top of them.

Ditching is never a good option but what makes you think you will be able to get out of your M20, if it is upside down in the water? There is a good chance the door might jamb and you don't have any other options to get out. If you are that worried, you need to buy a Stearman so there is no canopy.

You are on your own convincing her that a homebuilt is better than store bought. All I can say is to arrange a visit to a builder or a completed plane that was well built and let her decide for herself.

The cabin is more roomy than that of your Mooney. You will have to sit in one and judge for yourself. The downside is that the two seat RV's are a bucket and getting in and out can be a challenge.

If you are looking for an RV with steam gauges, then the price will be less for one with a glass panel. You can always change out the panel later, when your cash reserves are built back up. Remember, this is an E-AB and changing the panel, adding auto pilots, etc. is fairly easy and inexpensive when compared to your Mooney.

Good luck with your search.
 
The -9's 20 knot (or so) lower stall speed would actually help you in most off-airport landings. From a probabilistic standpoint, that's probably the most important safety factor.

As far as space goes, for two people, the side by side RV's allow up to about 100 lbs of baggage, which is CG dependent. There is a canopy rail mod which makes access better than the stock slider. Regarding shoulder room, the side by side RV's can be cramped, but so can Mooneys. I found (online) a reference that Mooneys have a 43.5" cabin (but that lacks enough detail to make a clear evaluation) and the RV-9's cabin is 40" at the fuselage deck and 43" in the canopy (shoulder) area.

The wife/experimental factor is something you could probably work through. Come visit Homebuilt Camping at Oshkosh and she can sit in a bunch of airplanes, drink the beer.. I mean Kool-Aid, and get a better sense of the RV series and the support that is available in the community.

Cost wise, I'd go with Ed's $100k figure for the airplane you describe. Your operating costs should go down with a new(er) RV vs your Mooney.

Good luck and hope to see you at Oshkosh.
 
Dave, there are a lot of RVs in your neighborhood. I can personally offer you a ride in my RV-7 out of KDWA or O88 (depending on day of the week) and there are lots of others, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9A (no 9s around here, they are scarce) in NorCal if you'd like to give one a try. To fly one is to understand.
 
How much baggage do you bring when you travel? (I'm not calling your wife "baggage"!) The -9 can lift 100 lbs, which is a lot of "stuff". (When we were building I bought four good size duffle bags from Target that can hold more than we want to take. Here's a link.) I have filled those four and added stuff on top of them.

Ditching is never a good option but what makes you think you will be able to get out of your M20, if it is upside down in the water? There is a good chance the door might jamb and you don't have any other options to get out. If you are that worried, you need to buy a Stearman so there is no canopy.

You are on your own convincing her that a homebuilt is better than store bought. All I can say is to arrange a visit to a builder or a completed plane that was well built and let her decide for herself.

The cabin is more roomy than that of your Mooney. You will have to sit in one and judge for yourself. The downside is that the two seat RV's are a bucket and getting in and out can be a challenge.

If you are looking for an RV with steam gauges, then the price will be less for one with a glass panel. You can always change out the panel later, when your cash reserves are built back up. Remember, this is an E-AB and changing the panel, adding auto pilots, etc. is fairly easy and inexpensive when compared to your Mooney.

Good luck with your search.

Thanks for the response! The baggage thing I'm still exploring and it's good to know there is a mod for the slider and the link to the bags you bought are helpful.

Ditching in a Mooney is pretty well documented over the decades and it does pretty well as long as you ditch gear up. They rarely flip unless you hook the wing in big swells. Usually they end up right side up with ample time to get out. Lots of stories out there.

With the Vans, I haven't read any stories of a successful ditching yet. Maybe I can find some here?

The cabin size is just a feeling I got from sitting in an RV-7. It seemed tight and possibly tighter than the Mooney, but I haven't gotten out a tape measure, or done a lot of research on the subject. It just feels like a squeeze which is fine for my solo missions 98% of the time, I'm just wondering about flying two up.

I'm OK with steam gauges for the six pack as that's what I have now, but good radios, a good GPS and a good engine monitor is a must. I have to admit though, my steam gauges are pissing me off right now. My AI is tilted a few degrees to the left sometimes (No way would I fly with this thing IFR!) my HI precesses like a MoFo, but that's expected after over 50 years of service I guess and my ASI wobbles a little, but again, over 50 years old.

I fly only VFR these days and haven't been IFR current since 2006, so not huge deal. However it still bugs me and I've been thinking about replacing my AI and my HI with Garmin G5 units and picking up the functionality of an HSI in the process, but if I'm going to change planes, this would be a huge waste of money.

I flew with my Mooney with it's shotgun panel for the better part of a year, so I can be tolerant, but in the end I hated it. I rearranged to be standard 6 pack and fixed up the radios and added a engine monitor. It's nothing that special, but here's how it looks now-

Right_Panel_After_Small.jpg


Left_Panel_After_Small.jpg
 
The -9's 20 knot (or so) lower stall speed would actually help you in most off-airport landings. From a probabilistic standpoint, that's probably the most important safety factor.

As far as space goes, for two people, the side by side RV's allow up to about 100 lbs of baggage, which is CG dependent. There is a canopy rail mod which makes access better than the stock slider. Regarding shoulder room, the side by side RV's can be cramped, but so can Mooneys. I found (online) a reference that Mooneys have a 43.5" cabin (but that lacks enough detail to make a clear evaluation) and the RV-9's cabin is 40" at the fuselage deck and 43" in the canopy (shoulder) area.

The wife/experimental factor is something you could probably work through. Come visit Homebuilt Camping at Oshkosh and she can sit in a bunch of airplanes, drink the beer.. I mean Kool-Aid, and get a better sense of the RV series and the support that is available in the community.

Cost wise, I'd go with Ed's $100k figure for the airplane you describe. Your operating costs should go down with a new(er) RV vs your Mooney.

Good luck and hope to see you at Oshkosh.

The slow stall speed is a huge draw for me. The older I get, the more about safety I get. I used to be all about go fast, fly over mountains, fly over oceans, fly at night, fly for hours in the clouds and who cares? But I now think more about what happens when the fan quits and they do quit more than people like to admit. I have not had and engine out, but I have had engine problems with precautionary landings. I always have to figure, that when the motor does quit, it will be in the worst place possible, so I try to think ahead on that.

I have been to Oshkosh twice with my best friend. Stayed a week both times. I have never flown in because my best friend is too big to fit in my plane (so no way a Vans either!), so we have done Southwest both times. I have been over to visit Vans both times, but mostly spent socializing time with Mooney folks, or just a mix of GA folks. I would love to meet up with Vans folks and drink the Kool-Aid... within reason! ;)
 
Dave, there are a lot of RVs in your neighborhood. I can personally offer you a ride in my RV-7 out of KDWA or O88 (depending on day of the week) and there are lots of others, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9A (no 9s around here, they are scarce) in NorCal if you'd like to give one a try. To fly one is to understand.

I would love a ride in a 9/A if you know anybody near by. I figure I should ride in the plane I'm thinking of buying.
 
RV-8 Successful Ditching

I recall reading a story of someone ditching an RV8 off the coast in the Hawaiian Islands. It nosed over; he struggled with the slider canopy but eventually got it open and escaped. I always wonder how it would have gone with a tip-over...
 
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A.

I tell people my RV-9A would have a lot in common with a mythical 2-seat Mooney 201.

My ideal Vans would be the 9/A with an IO-320, CS prop and either a tip up, or slider, I haven't decided. It would also have to have a nice, standard layout panel with at least two axis auto pilot, dual coms, WAAS GPS, engine monitoring and a good audio panel. ADS-B in and out and a 406 ELT would be great too.

This is how my RV (which is a slider) is equipped. It does have an EFIS rather than the standard six-pack in my previous ride. Took a bit of time to transition to the EFIS, but I definitely wouldn't go back.

Unfortunately there are four serious things preventing me from pursuing this plan.

I don't know enough about engineering or Mooneys to comment meaningfully on the safety difference, although I will say that ditching seems like a pretty rare event.

My guess is that the wife issues will be dispositive, easily eclipsing everything else, and that you will therefore be happiest sticking with the Mooney. Which is hardly a terrible outcome. :) Be thankful you have a spouse that will fly with you!

If you somehow do get her buy-in--and are confident you can keep her buy-in (an entirely separate issue)--then you need to figure out if the airplane fits the two of you (literally), obviously.

If all that is in gear, you are correct that a good RV-9A, equipped in the way you describe, will be expensive relative to most legacy Mooneys with six-packs. I spent a long time looking for the right RV-9A. There aren't a ton of them out there relative to other RV models, and they hold their value well, I think because of all the capabilities you've identified. When you find the right one you may need to act fast.

At least if you find a good airframe and engine, you can upgrade an RV panel for much lower cost than upgrading a Mooney or any other certified airplane.
 
See you at OSH!

By then you'll likely have flown somebody's 9, and hopefully you can arrange a ride or two for your wife. Just be sure the pilot isn't a yahoo who will scare her with the greater maneuverability of an RV. The 7, by the way, is the same fuselage so it will serve a fit check. The RV's are going to be noisier, so ANRs are definitely required.

The obvious: ditching isn't an issue if you don't fly beyond gliding distance, yada, yada. Our trips up the AK coast offer a choice of trees or water. I'll take the trees, thank you. A ferry pilot I chummed with always flew low wingers from the right; that's the side the door's on. The pilot needn't crawl over pax or pedestal in the RVs, so getting in and out may actually be easier for you.

A slider is easily modified to make it tip up for easy baggage loading/extraction. My squeeze and I can only carry additional on some trips by grinding it up and sifting the dust around the other cargo. Much can be stored under your knees, also. A slider has greater clearance between the seat backs and canopy (no roll bar) if you want to reach behind you. The RV might feel tighter until you appreciate the wonderful visibility. Then there's no going back.

I remember my Mooney days (loved seeing the flap pump handle in your posts) and if the rest of your M is just as nice as the panel, well, you've a tough choice. The big swinger for me is the ease and substantially reduced cost of maintaining an amateur built. Our 172 is relatively cheap, but the regulatory nonsense and certified parts costs are becoming really repulsive, let alone labor costs. What are your plans for ADS?

John Siebold
 
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A. It better fits my mission which is mostly me flying around by myself in good weather with no particular place I need to go. I think it would save me a bit of money in fuel burn, replacement parts and upgrades and it would be newer with not so much history, mechanics, repairs, annuals and the like on it.

My ideal Vans would be the 9/A with an IO-320, CS prop and either a tip up, or slider, I haven't decided. It would also have to have a nice, standard layout panel with at least two axis auto pilot, dual coms, WAAS GPS, engine monitoring and a good audio panel. ADS-B in and out and a 406 ELT would be great too. Unfortunately there are four serious things preventing me from pursuing this plan. In order of seriousness-

  1. Safety. I like the 9 because it has the lowest stall speed and that means the slowest touch down in an off field landing scenario, but it seems that if you land a Vans on anything that isn't hard and prepared, you end up upside down, hanging from your harness and most times trapped by a stuck canopy. Ditching a Vans in water sounds like suicide, or at least very, very slim chances of a good outcome. I feel much more confident in the Mooney's ability to land off field and in water. I also feel very confident of the Mooney's strength in the airframe. I'm not so sure about the Vans.
  2. The wife. I mentioned in passing that I was thinking of trading the Mooney and she was ho-hum about that... until I told her I was thinking of an experimental! She was pretty strongly against that idea! It will take a lot of convincing that it is just as safe and I first have to convince myself.
  3. The wife. The cabin in the Mooney is tight, but I think the Vans cabin is even tighter. It feels very narrow to me. As we get older, neither of us is getting any skinnier. There is also poor baggage area access, or capacity. While it has only occurred three or four times in the last seven years, it would be nice to keep the ability to take the wife along for a weekend. I'm not so sure how well the Vans can handle this job.
  4. Money. I don't think I can get anywhere near enough money for my Mooney to get a nice clean, well built RV-9 configured the way I want it and then do all the things that will need to be done to make it mine. I will have to sell my Mooney and then likely pony up even more money. While I have the money and could do this, right now is not a financially great time for me to do it.

What do you guys think?

Based on your later posts you seem to have much concern over ditching. If your mission is still a lot of necessary flying over water or rough terrain I would keep the Mooney. Much better possibility of a successful outcome with the gear retracted in an engine failure situation.

I fly regularly with an M20J owner in our group of RV3s, 4s, 6A, 7, 7As, 8, and one 9A. I find the Mooney cockpit less comfortable with 2 of us than my 7 (meaning more confined). Both require some agility to get in and out of. Visibility in the Mooney is very restricted compared to the RV. The Mooney is more solid in rough air due to the extra weight. The RV is more fun to fly due to it's agility and lightness on the controls. Less complexity in the RV...no retracts, speed brakes or turbo limits. Much lower annual inspection cost on the RV. My 7 full hull insurance cost is less than his M20J.

In terms of safety, IMHO this depends on the pilot/owner. If you purchase an RV that is well built and maintained, has been inspected by someone who knows RVs and maintain it properly, an RV is as safe as any well maintained certified aircraft. In terms of crash safety I believe the Mooney has the advantage, assuming flying it into the crash and depending on terrain, of being able to do a gear up possibly resulting in a better outcome...no stats, just my opinion.

With the boost limitations on my friends M20J on his IO-360 turbo my O-360 7 is faster with lower fuel burn below 5000'. It upsets him greatly that most of the RVs are as fast or faster with less burn. He has talked, like you, of getting an RV himself although I doubt he ever will as he likes the generally perceived "status" of the Mooney. His Mooney useful load is about 500lb with full fuel and mine is 460lb in the 7 with full fuel.

Went on a week long trip to the Udvar-Hazy museum last year in a 7A with a friend. CG allowed for 40 lb ea of luggage plus canopy cover, tie downs etc. No issues with CG, weight or storage. Just do your planning.

Unless your wife has a change of heart, don't do it. My wife has no issue flying in our 7, which she occasionally helped with during the build. She would never fly with me if she felt unsafe in the plane.

All the best with your decision.

Al
 
Perhaps a 10 or 14? Sell her on size and comfort.

I think safety is more decision making than aircraft, even when you have failures. In that regard, the safest aircraft is the one you are most experienced with.
 
I would love a ride in a 9/A if you know anybody near by. I figure I should ride in the plane I'm thinking of buying.

To get a feel for flight characteristics, yes, absolutely. For fit, keep in mind that the fuselages of the 9 and 7 are mostly identical. There are several 9A's around here. I could probably arrange a ride.
 
Others have commented quite effectively on your concerns. I will only expound upon one. The perception of lack of space in the 9A vs Mooney. As a data point. I am 6'1" 260. I have no problems with the cockpit space with my wife. I would give her info, but. . . well I like my current job as her husband. ;) Just suffice it to say we do not have issues fitting in the cockpit. We load up the plane going to OSH. It is always stuffed full of camping gear, etc. You cannot carry an anvil in the baggage area but you can carry pretty much most anything you and your wife would want to carry on a normal outing.

I have had many occasions to fly with other men who are similar in size to me. Though I have yet to fly with one as big or bigger than me, many have been close. Indeed when I am flying with, say someone in the 200+ lb range, there is considerably less shoulder room. However, I would expect that to be true in a Mooney as well. At any rate, I do not consider the cockpit space a substantial handicap in my 9A.

Good luck with your decision. Actually, it kind of sounds to me like you think you should maybe keep the Mooney. Maybe so, but only you can answer that for sure.

Live Long And Prosper!
 
Last edited:
First off, I'd suggest you stop calling it an "EXPERIMENTAL" to your wife. That stirs fear and in most everyone that doesn't know any better. :eek:

Call it 'owner built and maintained' or even 'amateur built' or even just a 'Van's RV'. You probably don't refer to your Mooney as a "STANDARD" (category), right?

Given what I have observed (friends with certificated aircraft), you are likely to save a large fortune with an RV (in maintenance and parts). Of course, that always depends on you (the owner) - and, as you said, buy/sell costs.

All opinion here... Having flown amateur built aircraft for the last few decades, I cannot imagine any pilot wanting to fly a certificated aircraft (in the category/type that we are talking about here). The feel of the controls, visibility, and performance of certificated aircraft is sooo disappointing. Obviously, different strokes for different folks. :D
 
Dave,
I have a -9A and live in Roseville. I'd be happy to take you flying, let you get the feel for the plane. Mine is an IO 320 with CS prop, G3x and G5 with all the bells you stated. I used to have a Socata Trinidad and my wife and I have never looked back after getting the -9A. Give me a call anytime. My coordinates are listed on my profile.
Best,
David
 
owned both

Dave,
I have owned a V tail Bonanza, Mooney M20e as well as others.
I now fly a 9A. I am almost obsessive about safety issues. My wife is in the right seat most of the time. We take our small dog and any other gear required on extended trips. The RV is the best we have owned. Simple fact. Good luck with deciding.
 
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A. It better fits my mission which is mostly me flying around by myself in good weather with no particular place I need to go. I think it would save me a bit of money in fuel burn, replacement parts and upgrades and it would be newer with not so much history, mechanics, repairs, annuals and the like on it.

My ideal Vans would be the 9/A with an IO-320, CS prop and either a tip up, or slider, I haven't decided. It would also have to have a nice, standard layout panel with at least two axis auto pilot, dual coms, WAAS GPS, engine monitoring and a good audio panel. ADS-B in and out and a 406 ELT would be great too. Unfortunately there are four serious things preventing me from pursuing this plan. In order of seriousness-

  1. Safety. I like the 9 because it has the lowest stall speed and that means the slowest touch down in an off field landing scenario, but it seems that if you land a Vans on anything that isn't hard and prepared, you end up upside down, hanging from your harness and most times trapped by a stuck canopy. Ditching a Vans in water sounds like suicide, or at least very, very slim chances of a good outcome. I feel much more confident in the Mooney's ability to land off field and in water. I also feel very confident of the Mooney's strength in the airframe. I'm not so sure about the Vans.
  2. The wife. I mentioned in passing that I was thinking of trading the Mooney and she was ho-hum about that... until I told her I was thinking of an experimental! She was pretty strongly against that idea! It will take a lot of convincing that it is just as safe and I first have to convince myself.
  3. The wife. The cabin in the Mooney is tight, but I think the Vans cabin is even tighter. It feels very narrow to me. As we get older, neither of us is getting any skinnier. There is also poor baggage area access, or capacity. While it has only occurred three or four times in the last seven years, it would be nice to keep the ability to take the wife along for a weekend. I'm not so sure how well the Vans can handle this job.
  4. Money. I don't think I can get anywhere near enough money for my Mooney to get a nice clean, well built RV-9 configured the way I want it and then do all the things that will need to be done to make it mine. I will have to sell my Mooney and then likely pony up even more money. While I have the money and could do this, right now is not a financially great time for me to do it.

What do you guys think?
I am the opposite - I have a -9A that I am going to sell and "upgrade" to a Mooney 201 or, maaaaaybe a Bonanza, because I need 4 seats. Shame you aren't in Australia! The trans-pacific ferry is always a limiting factor, dammit. :p

Realistically, I would put $105-110AUD on my -9, which works out to around $85-90KUSD, to which you would have to add the price of a WAAS GPS, as I only have a C129 unit and single comm in mine, but for VFR in Australia, that's all you need. The C129 unit is enough to push the requirement for visually confirming your position out from 30 mins to 2 hours and a second comm can be added for under 1AMU.

I don't find the baggage area limiting in my -9, heck I have even managed to get a folding bike in there without too much trouble. Both seats hinge forwards, and that is now forms the limit, if you don't take the bottom seat cushions out. Remove them and the seat back folds forward easily, but in saying that, I installed automotive bucket seats, so they aren't quite factory.

As I tell people, Experimental's are no safer nor worse than certificated aircraft, so long as you can land/crash under control. That has more of a deciding factor in survivability than who made the aircraft. That being said, there have been several accidents among RV's where the fuselage distortion has resulted in the shoulder harness attachment points being able to move forward relative to the crew, in turn slackening the harness to the point it is rendered ineffective. This is my only concern about spearing in in the -9.

While I would never want to find out, I would guess the slow (<45KIAS) stall speed of the -9 would go a long way to preventing the overturning aspect in the event of a ditching.

With the Vans, I haven't read any stories of a successful ditching yet. Maybe I can find some here?
There was an -8 that went in off Hawaii a few years ago, successfully, the writeup is on VAF HERE. There is also the Alba Adriatica ditching after a mid-air collision, also an RV-8, in which the pilot survived. The video for that is available HERE.
I always wonder how it would have gone with a tip-over...
I think - but have absolutely no data to prove it, that ditching in a tip-up is likely to lead to a more successful outcome. Here's why: With a slider canopy, according to Vans, you can only open it a matter of inches due to air pressure at the back holding it closed. On impact with the water, as was found in the -8 ditching off Hawaii, it can slam forward enough to either bind, or completely jam in its' track. The tip up will float a few inches if opened inflight, and on impact it would probably try to fully open and tear itself off the aircraft.Even if it doesn't, it isn't likely to be jammed closed.
 
Consider the -14A

My 2 cents thinks that you're in the market for a -14A: Stronger wing, more elbow room, CS prop required, HP endorsement required, better landing gear, potentially better panel/wiring due to available wiring harness, and a range beyond the limits of any human bladder -- all while having essentially the same mission. The drawback is that as a newer model there are not as many available and is commensurately more costly.
 
and...

According to NTSB data, there are about a dozen GA ditching a year. The didn't break that out into aircraft type. Considering the millions of hours flown by GA aircraft every year, I think that probability is pretty small.

If you are flying in areas where ditching is a factor, are you carrying necessary survival gear now?

I agree with most of the rest of the posters here; The wife factor outweighs ALL other factors.

I have owned several different GA aircraft over the years and I am nearly finished with my RV-10. I doubt that I will EVER own another "certified" aircraft...for all of the previously posted reasons.

The RV series of aircraft are incredibly safe, fun, affordable aircraft. Fly them all and see what you like. I'm betting that the -14 will come out on top!
 
Ditching

Thanks for the response! The baggage thing I'm still exploring and it's good to know there is a mod for the slider and the link to the bags you bought are helpful.

Ditching in a Mooney is pretty well documented over the decades and it does pretty well as long as you ditch gear up. They rarely flip unless you hook the wing in big swells. Usually they end up right side up with ample time to get out. Lots of stories out there.

With the Vans, I haven't read any stories of a successful ditching yet. Maybe I can find some here?

The cabin size is just a feeling I got from sitting in an RV-7. It seemed tight and possibly tighter than the Mooney, but I haven't gotten out a tape measure, or done a lot of research on the subject. It just feels like a squeeze which is fine for my solo missions 98% of the time, I'm just wondering about flying two up.

I'm OK with steam gauges for the six pack as that's what I have now, but good radios, a good GPS and a good engine monitor is a must. I have to admit though, my steam gauges are pissing me off right now. My AI is tilted a few degrees to the left sometimes (No way would I fly with this thing IFR!) my HI precesses like a MoFo, but that's expected after over 50 years of service I guess and my ASI wobbles a little, but again, over 50 years old.

I fly only VFR these days and haven't been IFR current since 2006, so not huge deal. However it still bugs me and I've been thinking about replacing my AI and my HI with Garmin G5 units and picking up the functionality of an HSI in the process, but if I'm going to change planes, this would be a huge waste of money.

I flew with my Mooney with it's shotgun panel for the better part of a year, so I can be tolerant, but in the end I hated it. I rearranged to be standard 6 pack and fixed up the radios and added a engine monitor. It's nothing that special, but here's how it looks now-

Right_Panel_After_Small.jpg


Left_Panel_After_Small.jpg

Not sure if this qualifies as "ditching" but it was a forced semi-off field landing with a "successful" outcome. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/09/vans-rv-8-accident-occurred-september.html

Don't disagree that a "planned" gear-up forced landing would have less chance of a roll over, but then again, there are plenty of those other gear-up landings that are "unplanned" that aren't so plesent. Those are well documented, too! :)
 
If the OP is concerned about stall speed and crash survivability, the -9's stall speed is still significantly lower than the -14's. (9 mph at GW.)

That is very significant, if that is what you are worried about.

Personally I have never not purchased a car, truck, or plane because they had a poor accident survivability rating.
 
Dave,
I have a -9A and live in Roseville. I'd be happy to take you flying, let you get the feel for the plane. Mine is an IO 320 with CS prop, G3x and G5 with all the bells you stated. I used to have a Socata Trinidad and my wife and I have never looked back after getting the -9A. Give me a call anytime. My coordinates are listed on my profile.
Best,
David

That is so awesome!! I won't waste you're time with tire kicking. If I get more serious about actually executing this plan, I'll definitely call you and buy you gas/lunch/whatever makes it right and legal. :cool:
 
I am the opposite - I have a -9A that I am going to sell and "upgrade" to a Mooney 201 or, maaaaaybe a Bonanza, because I need 4 seats. Shame you aren't in Australia! The trans-pacific ferry is always a limiting factor, dammit. :p

As I tell people, Experimental's are no safer nor worse than certificated aircraft, so long as you can land/crash under control. That has more of a deciding factor in survivability than who made the aircraft. That being said, there have been several accidents among RV's where the fuselage distortion has resulted in the shoulder harness attachment points being able to move forward relative to the crew, in turn slackening the harness to the point it is rendered ineffective. This is my only concern about spearing in in the -9.

This can be resolved by installing a cross brace at the seat belt cable fuselage attach point.
 
Dave,
I have owned a V tail Bonanza, Mooney M20e as well as others.
I now fly a 9A. I am almost obsessive about safety issues. My wife is in the right seat most of the time. We take our small dog and any other gear required on extended trips. The RV is the best we have owned. Simple fact. Good luck with deciding.

Excellent! How did you convince yourself the RV was as safe as your certified planes? What was the rational? Was there any data, or just a feeling? I really need to find some statistics or something.
 
If you want your wife to beg you to buy an RV, just arrange a flight for her in a nice 10.
 
RV-9A

Dave
I hear your concerns and appreciate your asking questions on this forum
I have 650 hrs on my 9A that fits most of your criteria. My wife and I have flown it all over the west & NW.
I am currently building a 10, and will eventually have to let go of the 9A.
As to the safety factor, note that according to AOPA RVs are at least as safe as production planes. I am comfortable flying over mountains and open water (as much as one can in an SEL plane.
I also installed the antisplat nose gear mod.
All airplanes are a compromise, but I have found the RVs to have the best blend of features. It?s the flying qualities that make us fly more than the usual GA pilots.....
Jim Frisbie
 
This can be resolved by installing a cross brace at the seat belt cable fuselage attach point.
No - It can't, and it is a longstanding limitation of the 2-seat RV's. The accidents I referred to resulted in the fuselage longerons being displaced laterally around the cockpit area, in turn bringing the shoulder harness attachments forward. And it is not specific to any particular RV, an RV-3 did it when crashing on my school oval 20 years ago, and an RV-6 did it last year at Mudgee, and there are several I cannot recall the specifics that I'd have to Google. Which is why it is critically important you plan your unplanned arrival the best you can in the RV, lest the same thing happen to you...

The ATSB said:
The sides of the cockpit buckled outwards during the impact, allowing the fuselage behind the pilot to move forward, and the pilot's shoulder harness to slacken. He was no longer adequately restrained and received fatal injuries.
RV-3 VH-BEM

The ATSB said:
During the impact sequence, the sides of the cockpit buckled, reducing the liveable space and allowing the fuselage behind the pilot and passenger to move forward (Figure 4). As a result, both occupants’ shoulder harnesses slackened and the occupants were no longer adequately restrained.
RV-6 VH-TXF
 
HBC

Come and hang around Home built camping at Oshkosh. Lots of women for your wife to meet. Plan on staying most all week. Let her get to know the girls and she will eventually come to realize there is no more fear in experamentals than certified.
 
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
http://www.equipped.com/watertrees.htm

While not definitive the above articles do a pretty good job of giving a reasoned discussion on the matter using actual data, not hearsay.

Ditching is far from the death trap it's often parroted as, the vast majority being survivable. You are also likely to be uninjured in a water landing.

Nevertheless folks will continue to climb over each other to tell you otherwise.

Don't let myths, anecdotes, and old wives' tales force you into making rules for yourself that could get you killed some day. Look at the facts and draw your own conclusion.
 
The RV8 that went in the ocean off Kauai, HI landed into the wind at about 60 miles an hour. The pilot had slid open the canopy before touchdown. The aircraft remained upright in the water at about a 45? angle, nose down.

On impact the slider slammed shut and jammed, the windshield shattered and the cockpit filled with water. It's fortunate the pilot was able to force the canopy open and exit the plane. The plane floated for a few minutes before sinking. He treaded water for about 45 minutes before being rescued.

He had a flotation device and portable ELT with him which he grabbed before impact. Both were immediately lost when he hit. (They were in his lap). When I'm flying over water I'm wearing my floatation device.

I flew in this beautiful plane as a passenger and while it's a shame it was lost, it's wonderful that the pilot survived with little injury.
 
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
http://www.equipped.com/watertrees.htm

While not definitive the above articles do a pretty good job of giving a reasoned discussion on the matter using actual data, not hearsay.

Ditching is far from the death trap it's often parroted as, the vast majority being survivable. You are also likely to be uninjured in a water landing.

Nevertheless folks will continue to climb over each other to tell you otherwise.

Don't let myths, anecdotes, and old wives' tales force you into making rules for yourself that could get you killed some day. Look at the facts and draw your own conclusion.

Those are interesting articles, but how many of the crashes in the statistics used for the article involved short-coupled, fixed-gear, high-CG aircraft with bubble canopies being the only means of egress?

Ditching an RV remains an outcome that is difficult to predict due to the extremely low number of occurrences. In any case it is a violent event that we all wish to avoid.
 
one more data point

okay Dave, you are getting ALL the feedback you asked for!...and then some!

a couple more points from a former -9a owner.

safety; to address some of the issues.....
upgrade to the rv-10 nosegear and 5.00x5 wheel...will possibly improve overall ground handling and reduce risk on those rough surfaces.
sit in any RV - the visibility HAS to be a big improvement in safety and situational awareness in the pattern...plus the feeling of spaciousness.

cost: look at the typical 10 year investment in your Mooney vs the RV. If you still don't like the numbers, get a partner, and build an RV-14

fit: get a -14a...solves 90% of my issues.. if not feasible, do the canopy slider and seat-back mods to get more seating options/accommodation.

wife approval: show her a couple of pristine RV's, talk to the builder/pilots to show how they know every nut and bolt....and have only a hundred or two hours on them ( ie. nearly all new components!)

Show her a couple of crappy 'certified' aircraft ( usually every third one on the ramp, leaking something!) and the oft clueless owners who may accompany them. Note the vintage, and that evey nut and bolt is 30 or 40 years old...radios out of date, replacement parts rare or exorbitant $$$ ....or both. Upgrade path for everything determined by the dang ol gummint, not you.
 
wife approval: show her a couple of pristine RV's, talk to the builder/pilots to show how they know every nut and bolt....and have only a hundred or two hours on them ( ie. nearly all new components!)

And stop right there. You may want to *talk* about costs of type-certified aircraft, but I wouldn't do any of the "look how awful these planes are", unless you want to risk scaring her into not flying AT ALL.
 
Those are interesting articles, but how many of the crashes in the statistics used for the article involved short-coupled, fixed-gear, high-CG aircraft with bubble canopies being the only means of egress?

Ditching an RV remains an outcome that is difficult to predict due to the extremely low number of occurrences. In any case it is a violent event that we all wish to avoid.

At the time he appeared to be looking at total incidents. You're right there aren't a lot of examples, and the one that's often touted as proving "always" RVs flip is misleading (guy lands in shallow surf).

Just wanted to provide some reasoned analysis to the "You'll flip over and DIE!!1!" line of non-thinking.
 
At the time he appeared to be looking at total incidents. You're right there aren't a lot of examples, and the one that's often touted as proving "always" RVs flip is misleading (guy lands in shallow surf).

Just wanted to provide some reasoned analysis to the "You'll flip over and DIE!!1!" line of non-thinking.

Not saying that 2 out of two proves anything with absolute certainty but here is another first hand account http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/Ditching.htm

I know of others that flipped but can't point to a document with details.

A noteworthy one was an RV-4, 25+ years ago that flipped in shallow enough water that it prevented the occupants from opening the canopy to get out.

I haven't ever heard of an RV that didn't flip when it ditched. If anyone can point me to a factual account, I would be interested in reading the details.

With all of that, I don't mean to imply I promote the land in water , you will die position, but I think it does require some serious personal consideration (regard for the ability's of the occupants to deal with underwater exit, etc.), and I hope that people don't automatically assume it will always be the best option.
 
Not saying that 2 out of two proves anything with absolute certainty but here is another first hand account http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/Ditching.htm

I know of others that flipped but can't point to a document with details.

A noteworthy one was an RV-4, 25+ years ago that flipped in shallow enough water that it prevented the occupants from opening the canopy to get out.

I haven't ever heard of an RV that didn't flip when it ditched. If anyone can point me to a factual account, I would be interested in reading the details.

With all of that, I don't mean to imply I promote the land in water , you will die position, but I think it does require some serious personal consideration (regard for the ability's of the occupants to deal with underwater exit, etc.), and I hope that people don't automatically assume it will always be the best option.

Nor should it be assumed to be the worst either. As with most things in life, it depends...
 
Dave
I hear your concerns and appreciate your asking questions on this forum
I have 650 hrs on my 9A that fits most of your criteria. My wife and I have flown it all over the west & NW.
I am currently building a 10, and will eventually have to let go of the 9A.
As to the safety factor, note that according to AOPA RVs are at least as safe as production planes. I am comfortable flying over mountains and open water (as much as one can in an SEL plane.
I also installed the antisplat nose gear mod.
All airplanes are a compromise, but I have found the RVs to have the best blend of features. It?s the flying qualities that make us fly more than the usual GA pilots.....
Jim Frisbie

Thanks Jim for the input! Great to hear of your success. I'm going to find and read that AOPA report.
 
Come and hang around Home built camping at Oshkosh. Lots of women for your wife to meet. Plan on staying most all week. Let her get to know the girls and she will eventually come to realize there is no more fear in experamentals than certified.

I've been to Oshkosh twice and stayed the whole week both times. I will be back. My wife however did not come. I think she could handle about a half a day at OSH. After that... I would get "the look" and grumpy attitude I'm sure. Airplanes really aren't her thing.
 
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
http://www.equipped.com/watertrees.htm

While not definitive the above articles do a pretty good job of giving a reasoned discussion on the matter using actual data, not hearsay.

Ditching is far from the death trap it's often parroted as, the vast majority being survivable. You are also likely to be uninjured in a water landing.

Nevertheless folks will continue to climb over each other to tell you otherwise.

Don't let myths, anecdotes, and old wives' tales force you into making rules for yourself that could get you killed some day. Look at the facts and draw your own conclusion.

Thanks for posting the links. I have already read them in the past. I was wondering more about the Vans RV performance at ditching mostly, but perhaps the type is just too young, or their owners don't fly over open water much. Could be the case. In the case of the Mooney with it's 60 year history and reputation for being a traveling machine, there are lots of real world ditching stories and even one or two videos. The conclusion is, ditch a Mooney in something other than rough seas with the gear up and it will come to rest upright with plenty of time to get out.
 
okay Dave, you are getting ALL the feedback you asked for!...and then some!

a couple more points from a former -9a owner.

safety; to address some of the issues.....
upgrade to the rv-10 nosegear and 5.00x5 wheel...will possibly improve overall ground handling and reduce risk on those rough surfaces.
sit in any RV - the visibility HAS to be a big improvement in safety and situational awareness in the pattern...plus the feeling of spaciousness.

I will have to search and look up this nose gear mod. Could you point me to a link?

I'm already sold on the visibility! I love the view. That's why I can't decide if I'd get a slider vs. a tip up. That tip up view is so awesome! But that's another can of worms...

cost: look at the typical 10 year investment in your Mooney vs the RV. If you still don't like the numbers, get a partner, and build an RV-14

fit: get a -14a...solves 90% of my issues.. if not feasible, do the canopy slider and seat-back mods to get more seating options/accommodation.

No RV-14 for me. It is way out of my price league and I would likely have to increase my fuel budget.

I'm going to have to look into the seat mods and canopy mods. I guess they get you better baggage area access?
 
At the time he appeared to be looking at total incidents. You're right there aren't a lot of examples, and the one that's often touted as proving "always" RVs flip is misleading (guy lands in shallow surf).

Just wanted to provide some reasoned analysis to the "You'll flip over and DIE!!1!" line of non-thinking.

Based on my 'reasoned analysis' and personal 'thinking' over the past couple of decades, I have concluded that if I ditch my RV-6 it will flip over and I'll die. There are several reasons I reached this conclusion, among them is the certainty of an RV flipping over if the gear is suddenly brought to a stop, the extreme violence of a ditching (flip-over), the exposure to the elements due to the canopy design, the difficulty of opening a jammed canopy (especially if injured), and the total disorientation I would experience (if still conscious...) immediately following the event.

I don't fly over a large expanse of water, but others have a different level of risk tolerance and routinely fly to the Bahamas, etc.
 
Last edited:
Based on my 'reasoned analysis' and personal 'thinking' over the past couple of decades, I have concluded that if I ditch my RV-6 it will flip over and I'll die. There are several reasons I reached this conclusion, among them is the certainty of an RV flipping over if the gear is suddenly brought to a stop, the extreme violence of a ditching (flip-over), the exposure to the elements due to the canopy design, the difficulty of opening a jammed canopy (especially if injured), and the total disorientation I would experience (if still conscious...) immediately following the event.

I don't fly over a large expanse of water, but others have a different level of risk tolerance and routinely fly to the Bahamas, etc.

So you’ve set a hard rule for yourself, your prerogative. Folks will decide that for themselves.
 
So you’ve set a hard rule for yourself, your prerogative. Folks will decide that for themselves.

True. My point is that my personal decision is based on careful consideration of several factors unique to RVs, not on some sort of "non-thinking".
 
Last edited:
As a fellow single engine, fixed gear, overwater nutbag, it appears we have a situation on our hands that needs rectifying... wheels that fold away on a fast two seat RV.
If Roy can do it, then surely Van's can, as they are both up there in demigod aeroplane guru status.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zto0uqU93Tg
I'm about two months from wrapping the -7 up, so as much as I swore and declared at times during the build process I would wouldn't build another one (especially the day I drilled into my finger with that #40 bit), I'd be the second person to put in the order for the RG model. I'd only be second because I would be attempting to be courteous to the OP of this thread, as he currently doesn't have an RV at all.
Tom.
 
Back
Top