Author Topic: RV-9A, starting to get the itch (Read 1782 times)

Chairboy · « **on:** May 11, 2005, 05:30:18 PM »

Hi guys,

Anyone here build a Vans airplane yet? I know Hitech bought one, but what about others here?

I've been staring at the RV-9A (It's the tricycle version) for a few days now, and then standing in my garage staring at the layout, then back to the websites.

It's a two seater, non-aerobatic. The airframe will do 190mph cruise, yet will stall only a mile per hour faster then the Cessna 152.

With an Eggenfellner Subaru engine (http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/), some glass cockpit avionics from BMA (http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/), a quickbuild kit and a lot of riveting, I can see myself in a pretty sweet little airplane for around $60-70K, spread out over long enough that I could afford it.

Here's a build-log that's pretty sharp, lots of pictures and some swell panel design: http://www.my9a.com/

2,000 FPM climb, handling characteristics that a low-mid time pilot can take, cheap operating costs (overhaul on the Subaru is under $7K, compare that to an O-320, plus great gph)... it really seems to be an attractive package.

Here's the official RV-9 page:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9int.htm

Still plotting and scheming right now. I've sent off a letter to my local chapter of the EAA to see if I can be a rivet guy or other type of help for someone else who's building to see what it's like, and I've also found that there's a company in town that has builders workshops.

Thoughts?

indy007 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2005, 05:35:28 PM »

I thought Van's were totally against putting non aircraft engines in their planes.

From their website:

We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We’d like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane business:
"the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a traditional aircraft engine.

LePaul · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2005, 05:36:49 PM »

Friend of mine has one, the club he is in all pitched in and built it in his 2-bay garage. Its a gorgeous kit, they really had a good time putting it together. Right now its being fitting for the avionics over on at the airport.

I've been there and watched as they put some of it together. I dont think you'll be disappointed.

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2005, 05:57:07 PM »

I read their quote about the aircraft engines, and I respect their logical approach to it.

The reason I'm leaning towards the Subaru is that this company has sold over 400 so far, most of which are flying. They take a 300hp engine and derate it to where it's putting out what an O-320 puts out for longevity and safety. Instead of priming it and running it like a lawnmower, the way we do with Lycomings/Continentals/etc, it uses the modern ECU to manage the engine more efficiently.

A few days ago, I was in the 'no car engine can do well in a plane' category too, but I've been reading, and watching some videos, and I gotta say, it's pretty persuasive. If I do this, I'd go in with my eyes open and know that I'm making a trade, but these engines have proven themselves enough for the insurance companies, and that's a pretty good start. Before I'd drop the kilobucks for this, I'd want to see it in person, and if I build this, I figure I have a few years before I write any checks for a motor, so there's plenty of time to decide.

You fly with a CS prop, the ECU keeps the engine at peak performance and learns, just like the proven rally cars.

I really like the simplicity in the engines, but... they are still 1930s technology, and not ALL the changes since have been bad.

Check out this video: http://cddevelopment.com/tcm/video.htm

Chairboy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2005, 06:58:54 PM »

There's a place that sells panel-mount sun readable LCDs, another that sells solid state gyros.

I could build my own glass cockpit avionics since it's classified as an experimental aircraft. Put in backup mechanical gauges like the Cirrus, and I'm in like Flynn. More stuff to think about. If this is available now, I gotta wonder what would be out there in a year or two when I get to that phase...

bunch · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2005, 07:02:46 PM »

Chairboy, what do you think about the turbine legend kit?

Chairboy · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2005, 07:09:17 PM »

It's FAST and cool, but I don't know if I could afford to build/fly it. Pretty sweet though!

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2005, 08:39:21 PM »

The subaru is a neat engine and should work just fine. As far as an experimental aircraft is concerned, the builder CAN overhaul the engine himself and sign it off. This makes the cost considerably less than using a pro built engine. Just a thought if you want to consider it.

bunch · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2005, 11:15:17 PM »

i read an article recently about the turbine legend kit & was surprised to see the total cost put at about 120k, not too much more than an RV project. means nothing to me unfortunately, i highly doubt i could build a plane

Chairboy · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2005, 11:16:51 PM »

That's almost twice the cost of the Vans, but jets are cool, so they cost a little extra.

indy007 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2005, 07:54:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I read their quote about the aircraft engines, and I respect their logical approach to it.

The reason I'm leaning towards the Subaru is that this company has sold over 400 so far, most of which are flying. They take a 300hp engine and derate it to where it's putting out what an O-320 puts out for longevity and safety. Instead of priming it and running it like a lawnmower, the way we do with Lycomings/Continentals/etc, it uses the modern ECU to manage the engine more efficiently.

Well in that case, I talked to the reps from an Aussie company a few months back... they make 600hp versions of the Subaru turbo 2.0 & 800hp versions of the 2.5

Chairboy · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2005, 11:09:42 AM »

I'd believe it, I've seen civics that pump out ginormous amounts of power, but at the slight cost of longevity.

Did y'all check out that video of the engine running/flying? Gotta love that sound when it starts up, and it's certainly a bit quieter then the Lycomings.

There's a guy on the web with one of these who says his cabin noise is so low, he flys without headphones, and was even working on routing his music system (the new smart ones that auto-mute when you receive/make transmissions) through the speakers instead of headphones. The possibilities of cutting down on pilot fatigue? Great stuff.

indy007 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2005, 12:40:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I'd believe it, I've seen civics that pump out ginormous amounts of power, but at the slight cost of longevity.

Heheheh, yeah. Those 1500hp 4-bangers are cool.

btw, have you checked out Velocity Aircraft ? They're pusher prop, canard setup, long-ez type. The specs & price range seem right up your alley. Cruise @ 75% pwr w/ Lyc IO-360 = 187 ktas. 70 knot landing speed, 1000nm range @ 65% power. Retractable trike gear option. 20k ceiling & a 60 gallon tank. No flaps though (it'd need leading edge slats on the canards).

Just a point of common sense since nobody mentioned it, don't go completely glass in the cockpit. Always make sure you have your basic T of instruments. Seen too many cockpit pics lately with just glass. wtf does a pilot do when they fail (besides get lost & crash)? edit: erm.. nevermind, you did mention it

Chairboy, your original posts inspired me. I picked up FS2004 so I had a better understanding of instrument flying, navigation, & radio procedures. Got to where I can digitally ride VORs across the entire US (thank god for time compression). Got a 40% raise today & made a call to schedule my intro flight for next week.

Off into the wild blue yonder I go!

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2005, 12:55:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
btw Chairboy, your original posts inspired me. I picked up FS2004 so I had a better understanding of instrument flying, navigation, & radio procedures. Got to where I can digitally ride VORs across the entire US (thank god for time compression). Got a 40% raise today & made a call to schedule my intro flight for next week. Off into the wild blue yonder I go!

Right on! You're gonna have a blast, I hope you keep us in the loop about how the flying goes. I really enjoyed doing my writeups because they helped me organize my thoughts, and I think I retained a lot more info then I would have otherwise because it really made me go over the lesson again in my head.

That Velocity sure is sweet looking. One plane I was also looking at was one of the EZs from Rutan. One guy modified his to be a 'Stagger EZ', and it sure looked like a good way to fly comfortably. Here's are some photos:

From http://www.wrightaircraft.com

Staga · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2005, 12:59:55 PM »

Does that really fly?