Author Topic: RV-9A, starting to get the itch (Read 1799 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2005, 01:17:21 PM »

Yep. Fast too.

Yeager · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2005, 01:21:00 PM »

them things will get you killed fast...like.

eagl · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2005, 03:53:36 PM »

For a while I debated whether I'd want to eventually get a long-ez (or variant) or an RV... I think in the end I'd go with an RV due to the acro capability. If the decision was an RV-9 vs. an EZ though, I might go with the EZ just because they look cool.

John Denver died in one, but that's because the builder was paranoid about fuel lines in the cockpit so the fuel selector valve was up on the bulkhead behind and above the pilot's left shoulder. So when he ran the sucker out of fuel, he ended up looking and stretching backwards over his left shoulder to get at the fuel valve, probably accidentally putting in full right rudder as he pushed with his feet. So instead of gliding into a nicely controlled water ditch, he lost control and flopped in hard, nearly vertical dive attitude.

Fly FIRST, then troubleshoot. And when you're not familiar with the plane, top off the tanks. It was either his first or one of his first flights in that plane after he bought it.

Er... I meant to say that the EZ designs are pretty safe if they're built right and you fully understand their flight and stall characteristics.

Chairboy · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2005, 04:12:12 PM »

Some great points about the EZ, and worth thinking about. I guess I've fixated on the RV as of late because of the big web-presence of builders. It seems a little trickier to find the same level of community among the EZ flyers. Not sure if it's because the people who fly them are hippies, or if I'm just not looking in the right places.

Before I looked at the RV, I was seriously eyeing the EZ. I was sad to learn that the only acceptable paintjob is straight up white, to reduce the risk of coming back from a $100 burger to find your airplane melted onto the tarmac. If I had one, I'd love to paint some light 'tiling' type marks on the top, ala the blankets on the shuttle. Paint some big american flags, put some 'NOT A STEP' stencils on, then paint the bottom to look like tiled heatshields. That would be just about perfect. Sadly.... word is Rutan won't fly in one that isn't pure white, because he thinks it's a poor idea to apply that type of absorbed heat (sunlight) to the glue.

eagl · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2005, 04:15:39 PM »

Yea, a shame about the composites and the paint color. I saw a beautiful red and gold one modified with retracts and 200+ hp. Must have been pretty damn fast. I've never flown one though.

You're right about the RV community. Anyone can bang rivets but not everyone can handle epoxy. RV owners are almost as loyal as Mac owners except RVs actually are better than most other designs out there

Chairboy · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2005, 04:22:33 PM »

As a side note, I've been a PC engineer for years, and I just recently found myself kicking and screaming on a Mac group.

...and I gotta say, this OS/these machines are a heck of a lot faster/more powerful then I ever thought. So watch out!

The COZY, for example, looks to be pretty nice, but I've worked with fiberglass before, and I'm not sure I'd have quite as much fun with it versus a monocoque metal RV.

Too bad there isn't a modern run of the RV-6A, it'd probably be a lot of what I want out of the RV-9A, plus the opportunity to have an acrobatic plane. Still not sure that's what I want, but I'm all about options.

Still considering. Maybe I can fox a friend into building this as a partnership...

eagl · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2005, 04:32:29 PM »

There is a "modern" RV-6A. It's the RV-7A. It's pretty close to the RV-6, but with updated quick-build features, more fuel capacity, engine up to 200hp, more head/legroom etc. I think I'd look at getting either an RV-7 or RV-8 if I was looking to buy right now.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2005, 05:42:40 PM »

gah, I'm an idjut. I must have had some blind spot when looking at the website exactly where the RV-7 was. I think I just ASSUMED it was a tandem without ever clicking.

Gracias, inspecting now.

eagl · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2005, 03:37:34 PM »

The RV-8 is the tandem. It's like the other tandem one, but easier to build and a lot roomier. I don't like it's looks quite as much but it would most likely feel a lot sportier than the 6 or 7. I'm not sure I'd want to switch to flying left-handed again after so many years flying right-handed, and putting dual throttles into an RV-7 would be a huge PITA.

But it is nice to be able to talk to someone sitting next to you and the RV-7 looks pretty sweet. The only thing I'm not so sure about is seat adjustability in some of the models. In some of them, you really don't have much in the way of adjustable seat position. You basically build it to fit your own body, and bolt the sucker in place. If you want to change the seat cushioning or wear a chute, you're going to be out of your normal seating position. I'm not sure how HT fits into his plane, but my guess is that it's not too comfortable on long flights unless the original builder was also tall.

Chairboy · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2005, 05:10:53 PM »

Good points. I'll have to find out how practical it is to install rails of some sort, especially for the right seat.

I've changed my focus completely to the RV-7A, btw. It looks like it's an even better match for what I want.

Plenty of sooby powered RV-7s too. Good stuff.

Angus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 16, 2005, 01:00:33 PM »

Here is the kit for ya

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com

Article here:

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Magazine.htm#article4

Angus · « **Reply #26 on:** May 16, 2005, 01:17:25 PM »

Look at it.....

Chairboy · « **Reply #27 on:** May 16, 2005, 03:11:44 PM »

Nice. At $100K AUD for the kit, a little spendy, but sure is pretty!

There has been a slight change over the past few days of interest.

A month ago, my wife was saying 'I don't really want you to buy a plane.' Time passes, I grew more and more interested in building a plane, and yesterday she told me 'Please, Ben, just buy a plane. I'm not sure I want you to build one, would you do me a favor and just buy one?'

A very strange sequence of events. More thought is required. No reason I can't build later on if I buy something like a Cherokee or Traumahawk now, but I have to think about this. I REALLY like the idea of building and knowing my plane inside and out...

hmm...

eagl · « **Reply #28 on:** May 16, 2005, 03:15:56 PM »

I heard something about some company where you buy the RV quickbuild kit, then take a vacation. They help you put the plane together almost assembly-line style, but you do enough construction to be the primary builder and meet all the rules. They charge you a fee for whatever services they provide, and you get your RV from box to runway in a few months.

Dunno if you can take that kind of time off of work, but that's one way to do it.

You could look for a used RV too. Or hire someone to build it for you. That could be expensive though.

Check with Vans Aircraft to see if they have suggestions on how to procure an RV without the build time.

Chairboy · « **Reply #29 on:** May 16, 2005, 03:27:28 PM »

Two big disadvantages and a concern surround buying an RV that's completed:
1. No repairmans certificate for me.
2. They cost a lot more then a used Cherokee for a modest increase in performance.
The concern is that if I don't build it myself, I have to rely on the builder doing everything right and the A&P that gave the initial signoff for the AW certificate being legit. I only list this last thing as a concern because I figure it's unlikely to be a big deal, but it's something I think about.

There's actually a company here in Eugene, OR (Synergy Air) that, if I understand correctly, would assist in converting parts and money into airplane while keeping the builder involved enough to be legit, but I can't imagine it's very cheap. If I build, I'd definately attend some of their builders classes, but unless I'm willing to do the real work for myself, it seems like it sorta defeats the purpose of getting to build my own plane.

Obviously, I need to do more research, but that's where I am now. Maybe the thing to do is to buy a certed plane to get my instrument rating in, then start slowly building a plane. If I already have a plane and build an RV incrementally, then I can still fly. I build everything I can except the powerplant, then sell the certed plane to pay for my new Eggenfellner H6 & EFIS, spend a month of furious work finishing it all up, and then start flying my homebuilt.

In the meantime, I'm thinking about which signoff to get next. I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to plan my training as follows:

1. Sign off in Cessna 172
2. Get Complex in 172RG
3. Begin instrument training
4. During instrument training, get my tailwheel endorsement in their instrument rated Aeronca Champ to save $$$.
5. After instrument checkride, save up for my multi-engine. I heard that if you get your multi-engine before you get your instrument rating, then you're only certified for VFR ME but instrument SE. Someone else said the smart thing to do was to get your instrument training, do multi training at the end, and combine the instrument and multi-checkride to save $$$.