Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
There's a place that sells panel-mount sun readable LCDs, another that sells solid state gyros.
(http://www.planepc.net/images/layout/products/1040L.gif)
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...
(http://www.sonic.net/~tsprague/pcavionics/images/ShastaWithAttitude.jpg)
-
Chairboy, what do you think about the turbine legend kit?
-
It's FAST and cool, but I don't know if I could afford to build/fly it. Pretty sweet though!
-
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.
-
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
-
That's almost twice the cost of the Vans, but jets are cool, so they cost a little extra.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.velocityaircraft.com) ? 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. :D Off into the wild blue yonder I go!
-
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. :D 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:
(http://www.wrightaircraft.com/images/P6170088.JPG)
(http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/customerpictures/wright1.jpg)
From http://www.wrightaircraft.com
-
Does that really fly?
-
Yep. Fast too.
-
them things will get you killed fast...like.
-
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.
-
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. :D
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.
-
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 :)
-
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. :D Still considering. Maybe I can fox a friend into building this as a partnership...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here is the kit for ya ;)
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com
Article here:
http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Magazine.htm#article4
-
Look at it..... ;)
(http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Images/Pics/Flying/bradfieldLG.jpg)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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. :D
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 $$$.
5. After instrument checkride, save up for my multi-engine. I heard that if you get your multi-engine before you get your instrument rating, then you're only certified for VFR ME but instrument SE. Someone else said the smart thing to do was to get your instrument training, do multi training at the end, and combine the instrument and multi-checkride to save $$$.
-
Your situation is exactly why Van first sells the tail kit... You can simultaneously build your toolkit, build some skills, determine if building is the right thing for you to do, and see if you can remained married while building. Some spouses get involved in the building process because banging rivets is a 2-person job and they decide they really like doing something as a team with their spouse, and some decide it's just another stupid thing their husbands have gotten themselves into.
Either way, if you start with the tail kit and don't go overboard buying tools, you don't risk all that much money and you can even recover some of the cost if you bail out by selling the tools and the remains of your tail kit.
My Dad had a good enough experience with his RV-6A tail kit that he got the wing kits. By the time he was done with the wings however, he was through with the whole thing and he sold the parts and most of the specialty tools. It was an expensive experiment but he took it farther than most would have before quitting. If they had the pre-drilled quickbuild kits, I'm very sure he would have finished because most of the time he spent "building" was actually spent agonizing over where to drill the next hole. With the new kits, there is much less cutting and drilling so it's easier to gain confidence and see some results. I wouldn't consider trying to build the original RV-6A kit due to the skill required, but if I was out of the military I'd start a quickbuild RV7 or 8 tomorrow.
-
Absolutely. I'm sold on it, and I've been looking at just getting an empennage kit and going nuts (heck, I might even be able to break even if I changed my mind and sold it when completed) but I'll push that off just a little longer if I buy a certed plane first.
It's neat, that Synergy Air company has an empennage building class too. It's a 6 day course. You bring your RV tail kit, and use their tools and place to build it yourself with a bunch of experienced guys (2:1 student:instructor ratio) there to help answer the questions you might have assembling/fabricating. The idea is that by the end of the 6 days, you have built it yourself and know all the skills needed to finish the rest of your structural build on your own.
Very cool, and it makes the decision to build an RV-7A that much more appealing. Definate cogitation needed.
-
I've come to the conclusion that I would never, ever fly in something that I built myself. My self preservation instincts forbid it.
-
Chair, it sounds like you are in the same situation so many of us private pilots are in....we want to fly something more fun and exciting than what is currently offered as a production version. the C172s are fun and all, but all the sharp designs and such are in the Experiemental/Homebuilder categories.
I think the Columbia (or maybe Im thinking Lancair?) is a production built plane that is really an impressive aircraft. Naturally, it has an impressive sticker price too.
-
Agreed on all points, LePaul. You have hit the proverbial hammer on the head, on everything from WHY to HOW, and finally the cost of WHAT. :D
-
I thought it was...
"...the cost of WHAT?!?!?!?!!!!!" *shriek!*
:)