Fixed Gear Vs. Retracts

[Bill Watson]

If you are looking at Vans, you should consider an RV-10. Compared to a Mooney Ovation Ultra, the RV-10 has higher useful load, more Kts per HP (although 25 kts slower at CRZ due to 50 fewer ponies), and slightly better fuel economy. All of the Van's planes are notable for their excellent flight qualities and enjoyable handling, and they have a large, passionate following (see "Van's Air Force").

I don’t know the numbers but my sense is that the Mooney goes faster, carrying a bit less with a bit more complexity. There’s no ‘Kool Aid’ in the flight qualities or performance of RVs. The Vans people are straight shooters in the extreme though it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of their fans.

What I didn’t see coming was the ‘big plane’ feel and comfort. After landing at KHPN one day with 4 aboard and luggage, a Mooney of not ancient vintage parked next to us. I have to say I enjoyed looking down from my RV10 perch and watching the 3 aboard the Mooney emerge and unfold themselves onto the ramp. (Have they improved the single door access yet?)

The ‘10 has some significant deficiencies for some missions; someone has to build it, it’s experimental, there’s no ice protection. But it’s fun & easy to fly, comfortable for 4, a solid IFR platform and just plain simple to own and operate.

I like Mooneys a lot but I love my ‘10.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ironnerd]

I don’t know the numbers but my sense is that the Mooney goes faster, carrying a bit less with a bit more complexity. There’s no ‘Kool Aid’ in the flight qualities or performance of RVs. The Vans people are straight shooters in the extreme though it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of their fans.

What I didn’t see coming was the ‘big plane’ feel and comfort. After landing at KHPN one day with 4 aboard and luggage, a Mooney of not ancient vintage parked next to us. I have to say I enjoyed looking down from my RV10 perch and watching the 3 aboard the Mooney emerge and unfold themselves onto the ramp. (Have they improved the single door access yet?)

The ‘10 has some significant deficiencies for some missions; someone has to build it, it’s experimental, there’s no ice protection. But it’s fun & easy to fly, comfortable for 4, a solid IFR platform and just plain simple to own and operate.

I like Mooneys a lot but I love my ‘10.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I went to the manufacturers' web sites for the data... and they NEVER lie or exaggerate.

Mooney's are nice, but I have worked on a few as an A&P, and did not fall in love with them. Bonanzas are also nice, a bit easier to work on, built like a brick [out]house.
Van's sells a good product with a rabid following (deservedly so IMHO). But... all those rivets!!!! I look at the AA-1, -5, and -7 and I wonder why Van's does not try a bonded structure. Cuts the build time down, gives you a slick exterior, and it's strong to boot.

 

[Salty]

The johnson bar in the mooney takes away useful space. That’s the only criticism I have for it. I love it’s simplicity. But I hate not having storage between the seats.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

I went to the manufacturers' web sites for the data... and they NEVER lie or exaggerate.

My RV-9A is within a knot or two of advertised top speed and cruise. V-speeds are dead on as well, and it's nice how they break them out pertaining to engine choice and solo/max gross weights. We verify all this stuff as we're writing out our own POHs.

The data on the website is pretty solid, and I'm a very happy customer.

I look at the AA-1, -5, and -7 and I wonder why Van's does not try a bonded structure. Cuts the build time down, gives you a slick exterior, and it's strong to boot.

Don't some of these aircraft have issues with the trailing edges of control surfaces coming unglued? Lots of progress in structural adhesives, of course, in the many decades since these Grummans were put together.

My RV uses both an adhesive and rivets on the trailing edges of all control surfaces...they should be fine 100 years from now. And for the rest of the airframe, rivets are time-tested, slick (with flush rivets), cheap and a lot less messy.

 

[GRG55]

...Van's sells a good product with a rabid following (deservedly so IMHO). But... all those rivets!!!! I look at the AA-1, -5, and -7 and I wonder why Van's does not try a bonded structure. Cuts the build time down, gives you a slick exterior, and it's strong to boot.

I suspect Van's feels it is difficult to screw up driving a million rivets. Even if the cosmetics of the rivet job are poor, it'll still be plenty strong enough.

Generally the builder is manufacturing one airplane and that's it. Quite different from a Grumman factory I expect. Bonding is fraught with all sorts of issues around controlling the working environment temp, humidity, and judging the quality/strength of the finished assembly. Cessna discovered this with the TTx. Although perhaps it could be applied in controlled conditions by Vans in a quick build option.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

I suspect Van's feels it is difficult to screw up driving a million rivets. Even if the cosmetics of the rivet job are poor, it'll still be plenty strong enough.

You're right. Not that I would ever suggest that someone do this, but a Van's plane would probably fly just fine with every other rivet set.

(Fly fine...for awhile. )

 

[hindsight2020]

and I wonder why Van's does not try a bonded structure. Cuts the build time down, gives you a slick exterior, and it's strong to boot.

Because it won't be when it's these yahoos doing the assembly outside the QC and repetition of a factory. Joking aside, we lost a professional peer when his Tango Foxtrot crashed after take off in KABI years ago. The NTSB was less than impressed with his fiberglass work, which was causal to the compromising of occupant restraint anchors and their subsequent fatalities. Whoever had bought that airplane from his hands would have likely never known until they found themselves in a forced landing. No thanks.

 

[Glen R]

Don't some of these aircraft have issues with the trailing edges of control surfaces coming unglued? Lots of progress in structural adhesives, of course, in the many decades since these Grummans were put together.

There was only a problem in the early years when they were using the "purple glue". Those planes have been fixed by now and later models switched over and had no issues. I believe mid-76 and later had the better adhesive.

 

[denverpilot]

The johnson bar in the mooney takes away useful space. That’s the only criticism I have for it. I love it’s simplicity. But I hate not having storage between the seats.

Quite a few aircraft lose that space however. I’ve flown a 172 with the Johnson bar flaps there, as well as the Seminole which also has the same.

And there’s some aircraft that have a true center console there with various things. Aerostar comes to mind.

Usually there’s someplace else to put “stuff”. I do like the space between the seats in the 182 but we have a fire extinguisher bolted to the floor there as well. Many people build a little box to put over that for storage but I can’t quite bring myself to make the extinguisher harder to access.

Anything I put there would need to be light and removable quickly.