My Vans RV conundrum.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You are pretty much going to die if anything happens in an RV or if you attempt to use a grass strip...
Click to expand...

I think some of you guys misinterpret what I mean by landing on "anything that isn't hard and prepared". I consider a grass strip, or dirt strip, or even a gravel strip a hard prepared surface. What I mean is a farmer's field. A cow pasture, an undeveloped field in the wild. I am fully aware that Vans are flown in and out of grass strips all the time.

Since you're all about videos, here's one of a guy who made a landing on the nose gear and was able to pull off a go around-

 
bflynn said:
Something I haven't seen mentioned - don't get hung up on marketing. An RV-9 with 160hp engine only cruises at 165 kts (187 mph) at 8000' and even that might be optimistic. They are showing you mph, but you're comparing it to kts on your Mooney. I don't know your Mooney, but pilotfriend reports the M20F as cruising at 156 kts...so you're getting about 10 kts of speed, maybe less. That's only about a 4 minute difference per hour of flying time.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about wanting to go faster. Not sure where you got that. I do believe the Vans would be a little tiny bit faster, but to me that's just a bonus, not a motivator.
 
yakdriver said:
I have flown all of the RV series except the 3 and 14. I have built two 7s and helped build several others. I also do insurance check outs for the whole series. I also have a lot of Mooney time. First I would get a 7 or 7A over the 9. The difference in stall speed is not that great but the 7 is a lot faster with the same engine size. The best combination for the 7 is 180hp with a constant speed prop. This will get you a cruise speed of 200-210 mph on 9-10 gph. They both have very docile stall characteristics. The & comes over the fence at about 70 mph and the 9 65. Touchdown in the 7 is about 50 and 45 or so in the 9. I can get a 7 down and stopped in less than 500 ft without trying very hard and it will get off at full grosss in about the same distance. The tri gear RVs do fine on any field you would take a Mooney into. The big problem you see with the nosewheel digging in is landing too fast and too flat. Vans has changed the nosegear design to eliminate some of the problem but flown properly there is no issue. The 7 and 9 fuselages are identical and have as much shoulder and legroom as a Mooney. You also sit up a little higher and have a lot more visibility in the RV. There are interiors from Oregon Aero and Classic Aero that are a lot nicer and more comfortable that any stock Mooney seat. The RV series have much higher G limits than the average GA airplane and the 7 does nice gentleman aerobatics if you are so inclined. If you decided to go with the tailwheel the 7 is also very docile and transition doesn't take that long and you should be comfortable in it with 10 or so hours of dual and another 40 hrs of just flying it. They will handle 30+ kts of gusty crosswind pretty easy. As far as avionics there are much nicer things available in the homebuilt world than there are in certified. I have been flying with the Dynon stuff for 20 years and it is utterly reliable and first class hardware. Best would be to find a nice 7 with 180hp/CS prop with steam gauges and put a Dynon Skyview system in it. Around $18000 gets you 10" screen with 3D vision GPS, all flight instrumentation including HSI, transponder with ADS B in and out, Com radios, Two axis fully coupled autopilot, all engine gauges and more. The last thing is the 7 is a really nice flying airplane and is fun to fly. A Mooney in my opinion goes cross country straight and level fairly fast on small amounts of fuel but is one of the ****tiest flying airplanes I have flown.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. You and nearly everyone else would prefer the RV-7 and that's why they are even more expensive and even further out of range. My choice of the 9 is basically, lower purchase price, lower landing speeds and I have heard that it is actually the most efficient RV and saving gas is a draw for me more than speed. I have no interest in aerobatics.

Yes, the lower cost to upgrading a panel, or really anything on the plane is a big draw for me. I hear you somewhat on the handling of the Mooney. It is designed for traveling not dog fighting. You will hear people say the Mooney is like a sports car but they are full of it. It's only like a sports car in the way you sit in it, no way the way it flies. However I think it flies pretty well for what it is designed to do. It doesn't have any real bad habits or quirks, but it is heavy on the controls. I think the Skylane is even worse though! :D
 
Lots of good points above, but I just love my -9A. Will say I went with an 360 in her.
 

Attachments

  • Glenn Brasch 10 10 22 N194GB-2.jpg
    Glenn Brasch 10 10 22 N194GB-2.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 38
Mtns2Skies said:
Maybe some big trips in the plane to new exciting locations will renew it for you? What makes you think that you won't get bored of the RV like it *seems* like you are of the Mooney?
Click to expand...

There is a good chance I may get bored of the RV too. I'll then switch again, or perhaps I'll finally be broken of this stupid flying habit I have! Big trips don't really work out when your wife isn't onboard with what that means. I'm OK with it, I've made my peace.

Single engine airplanes are remarkable simple. As long as you get ahead of the maintenance and spend a bit to be pro-active not re-active, those issues start to fade away.
Click to expand...

This has not been my experience. There is not a lot of fading away. It just breaks in new places. Maybe a Cub with no electrics is simple, but there are plenty of complex things to break on a Mooney with decent avionics. I am very proactive but other than replacing everything, there is always more to fail. Just how it goes. Most of what wears on me is the condition of the airframe after 50+ years and all the bad mechanics and all the bad owners and all the damage a plane picks up living and flying all over the country. Mooney never designed the plane to last this long, or to be disassembled and reassembled over 50 times. It should have been retired by now, but there you have it, the state of GA today.
 
I do think the 9 is the best looking of the RV's. The longer wing and horizontal stabilizer make it look less boxy. If I did a 9 I would go for an 0-235 or 0-320 as max efficiency and light weight would be my goal.
 
Dav8or said:
I think some of you guys misinterpret what I mean by landing on "anything that isn't hard and prepared". I consider a grass strip, or dirt strip, or even a gravel strip a hard prepared surface. What I mean is a farmer's field. A cow pasture, an undeveloped field in the wild. I am fully aware that Vans are flown in and out of grass strips all the time.

Since you're all about videos, here's one of a guy who made a landing on the nose gear and was able to pull off a go around-

Click to expand...


Reason #358 to get a tailwheel.
 
Dav8or said:
She would prefer I quit flying altogether. She doesn't like flying in GA planes, or even the airlines that much, but will tolerate it if need be to get to where she wants to go. No, she doesn't want a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time for a nice MiniVan.
 
Grum.Man said:
I do think the 9 is the best looking of the RV's. The longer wing and horizontal stabilizer make it look less boxy. If I did a 9 I would go for an 0-235 or 0-320 as max efficiency and light weight would be my goal.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Mine came in at 1025 lb. empty, and if you throttle an IO-320 back to Cessna 172 speeds it'll get LSA fuel burn numbers...which I do if I'm on a short sightseeing flight.
 
Maybe a cheaper to operate certified airplane would satisfy her while giving you the reduced costs you seek. My Tiger is nearly as fast as an F or C model Mooney without the maintenance expense of retractable gear and constant speed prop. Grummans are as well known for stength as Mooneys.

As to safety, your wife may have a bit of a point in a general sense. I think it is safe to assume that a Part 25 airplane is designed to a different standard of safety than a Part 23 aircraft. An experimental aircraft even less so, although they CAN be as safe as a Part 23 aircraft, some are not. Convincing her that the Vans is as safe as your Mooney might be a challenge, especially if your argument when you bought the Mooney was how well built and safe they were/are.
 
In a lot of cases, the cheapest aircraft to own is the one that you have sorted out. Buying a "new" to you aircraft means it comes with whatever gremlins the previous owner (and in the case of an RV, the builder) either didn't know or didn't care about. Build quality will depend on the builder. Less history, but I believe you've owned your Mooney for some time and know it pretty well.

Whenever you buy an airplane, there's a couple years of "working the bugs out." While that should theoretically be lower in scope for a newer experimental, I have no doubt that you'll still find it to be true. Plus, you said now isn't the best financial time for it.

Ultimately the airplanes are relatively close in capabilities as you've said. I don't think you'll find the RV will save you any significant money, and it's not that much different overall. If you were talking about swapping to a Cub or a Lancair then I could see it, but I don't see the point.
 
Dav8or said:
That is the exact opposite direction I want to go. I want to lower my cost of operation, not raise it.
Click to expand...

What are you highest operating costs that can be lowered by operating an E/AB? How big is that delta, and how long do you need to operate in to recoup your investment?
 
I agree with @TigerGene - the AA-5's are very under-rated airplanes.

Something I'm not seeing in this discussion (I may have missed it) is the 500 hour build time - that's 12 1/2 weeks of 8-hour days (5 days a week... we are, after all civilized) bucking a lot of rivets. How much is your time worth to you? The AA-5 comes pre-assembled. With the money from the sale of your Mooney, you'll probably have enough left over for panel upgrades.
 
I think one should build because one wants to build. If one just wants an Ex/Ab aircraft to be parsimonious, there are lots of extant examples for sale. Moreover, those for sale often are often going for the price of their components.
 
ironnerd said:
I agree with @TigerGene - the AA-5's are very under-rated airplanes.

Something I'm not seeing in this discussion (I may have missed it) is the 500 hour build time - that's 12 1/2 weeks of 8-hour days (5 days a week... we are, after all civilized) bucking a lot of rivets. How much is your time worth to you? The AA-5 comes pre-assembled. With the money from the sale of your Mooney, you'll probably have enough left over for panel upgrades.
Click to expand...

I think he was considering purchasing the RV-9 pre-built, not assembling the kit himself.
 
asicer said:
This is very likely true, but I find it is hard to convince most passengers that "EXPERIMENTAL" in large letters does not mean "rejected by the FAA".
Click to expand...

Looking at RV's, just sold the Tiger, wife locks-in on that word too

Dav8or said:
Great question. I know Mooneys well, but RVs not so much.
Click to expand...

Check VANSAIRFORCE.NET and start browsing around

Dav8or said:
Since you're all about videos, here's one of a guy who made a landing on the nose gear and was able to pull off a go around-

Click to expand...

Log into "ANTISPLAT.COM", there's an additional piece that is easy to install to prevent bending the nose gear. They also have a cowl flap that looks kick butt and one of the best guys locks I've seen
 
Given what I've read about Van's nose gear I am not not buying or building an A model of any Vans. More importantly, I think the tail draggers look way, way better.
 
Dav8or said:
Great question. I know Mooneys well, but RVs not so much, so my analysis of the comparison is based on perception. I believe the fuel burn will be lower, so there is an on going savings. I think the repair parts will be cheaper. I know the price for upgrades to the panel, or any other part of the plane will be cheaper. I think maybe the annual inspection will be a little easier. I suspect the insurance will be about the same, but I haven't explored that yet.

Two other factors that are motivating me on this trade is one, the Vans will be newer and having worked on Mooney now for several years, I am tired of old. The other is if I want to change something, add something, upgrade something, it's no big deal. With the Mooney, it's a PITA. Technically, changing out the sun visors for better ones is illegal as there is no STC for my plane. The same goes for changing the interior lighting to LED fixtures. That's the stupidity I'm talking about.

Replacement parts for the Mooney are not hard to usually, but they are expensive and sometimes they aren't available. When Mooney goes into one of it's reoccurring near bankruptcy phases, all the parts that fail all the time dry up and most do not have STC replacements from anybody else.

Case in point- The rubber coupling that connects the Ram Air valve to the fuel servo. It's only available from the factory. It is 1950's technology and is pretty much a $300 POS. It has a limited life span. If the factory doesn't have it, you are in trouble. Patching it with RTV is verboten. Finding a good used one is very, very difficult as they are all in some state of decay. It's not something an owner can fabricate. Flying without it is not an option. There have been those that have set out to make a replacement out of new, modern materials and sell them, but once they hit the FAA wall with the STC process, they all give up. 60 years of M20s and the factory is still the only source.

The Vans does not have this kind of dumbassery.
Click to expand...

When you put it this way, I agree 100% with you. Something like that would work me up even to tell Mooney to shove it and go with someone that cares. Take your money elsewhere. I fear with my older Bo that I will run into this one day too. Then i will be along the same path as you. Along with the above quote of $18k to get all the flight instruments? Thats sorta refreshing.
 
I once checked out a guy in a Tiger who had just sold his M20C. He told me he liked the Tiger better before we were much beyond the pattern.
 
TigerGene said:
Maybe a cheaper to operate certified airplane would satisfy her while giving you the reduced costs you seek. My Tiger is nearly as fast as an F or C model Mooney without the maintenance expense of retractable gear and constant speed prop. Grummans are as well known for stength as Mooneys.

As to safety, your wife may have a bit of a point in a general sense. I think it is safe to assume that a Part 25 airplane is designed to a different standard of safety than a Part 23 aircraft. An experimental aircraft even less so, although they CAN be as safe as a Part 23 aircraft, some are not. Convincing her that the Vans is as safe as your Mooney might be a challenge, especially if your argument when you bought the Mooney was how well built and safe they were/are.
Click to expand...

The Tiger was on my short list of planes when I started to shop for a plane, but ultimately I preferred the Mooney. I have about 50 hours in a Traveller, so I kind of know the type. I did actually enjoy the plane which is the reason the Tiger made my short list. However, if marital reasons keep me certified bound, I will stick with Mooney. I know it inside and out and it is still my favorite certified plane. The cost savings of going Mooney to Tiger would be marginal. The gear and prop really aren't that bad.
 
After partnering with my brother on many different airplanes over the years (Citabria, Scout, C310, Viking, C185..) I moved away, planned to downsize, go for lower mx and fuel costs, and bought a Tiger. I liked it a lot, but my home base is at 6000 msl and the density altitude is usually above 8000. Mountain passes I need to routinely traverse are much higher.

Ended up selling the Tiger and buying a 2008/160hp/fixed pitch Sensenich/ RV-9A. Climb, high alt. performance, speed, and fuel economy are all *much* better with the RV. I really liked the control feel of the Tiger, but the RV is better there as well, IMO. I would have preferred an RV-7 for the aerobatic capability, but not for any other reason. I also would have preferred a const. speed prop and a bigger engine, but I found a beautiful -9A at a good price and not too far from home, so I bought it. I tend to disagree with the comment that a -7 is a lot faster than a -9. I think it is pretty well established that with similar engines/props they are very close to the same speeds. I routinely see 160 kts tas at 2400 rpm with my 0-320 and fixed pitch prop. Amazingly fast, I thought. I wish it carried more fuel than 36 gallons, but 3 hours + reserve at 160 kts is fine for my missions. I'm instrument rated, but my -9 is not equipped for IFR as yet, but it has a 2-axis autopilot and great flying qualities. I see no reason it would be any less suitable for IFR than other singles of similar performance.

As the OP mentioned, many of these aircraft are essentially new. This is a big deal. Every single component on my -9, from the prop to the seat cushions, is less than 10 years old, which is a huge difference from, say, a '77 tiger. I've only had my -9 through one conditional inspection/annual but I'm very confident that mx costs will be lower than pretty much any of my previous aircraft. I've never flown a Mooney, but I would be surprised if the cabin space for two occupants is much different than the -9. I would also wonder if a Mooney would be safe to operate from my home field with 4 seats filled. I carry a evacuation hammer tool in the side pocket for emergency egress.

To the OP- I can highly recommend -9 or most other Van's models. I don't think you can go too far wrong. I agree with you that you want a constant speed prop if you can find it, and a bigger engine is usually better, you can always throttle back. Having said that, a 160hp RV-9 performs better than many 180 and 200hp aircraft. Good luck.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
In a lot of cases, the cheapest aircraft to own is the one that you have sorted out. Buying a "new" to you aircraft means it comes with whatever gremlins the previous owner (and in the case of an RV, the builder) either didn't know or didn't care about. Build quality will depend on the builder. Less history, but I believe you've owned your Mooney for some time and know it pretty well.

Whenever you buy an airplane, there's a couple years of "working the bugs out." While that should theoretically be lower in scope for a newer experimental, I have no doubt that you'll still find it to be true. Plus, you said now isn't the best financial time for it.

Ultimately the airplanes are relatively close in capabilities as you've said. I don't think you'll find the RV will save you any significant money, and it's not that much different overall. If you were talking about swapping to a Cub or a Lancair then I could see it, but I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is little doubt that the cheapest solution in the short term is to do nothing. Long term, meaning the next ten years or so, I'm not so sure. Anyhow, there are other reasons for the desire for change other than to save money. The desire for an airplane that is newer and new to me is strong. Also very appealing is the great reduction in government shackles. Basically, I'd like to change airplanes, I'd like to go E/AB and if I'm going to do this, I'd like to save money in the long run as well. I just need to convince myself and my wife that I'm not putting myself at greater risk by going with a Vans.

I need more facts.
 
TCABM said:
What are you highest operating costs that can be lowered by operating an E/AB? How big is that delta, and how long do you need to operate in to recoup your investment?
Click to expand...

It's not just about saving money. There are other factors too.
 
ironnerd said:
I agree with @TigerGene - the AA-5's are very under-rated airplanes.

Something I'm not seeing in this discussion (I may have missed it) is the 500 hour build time - that's 12 1/2 weeks of 8-hour days (5 days a week... we are, after all civilized) bucking a lot of rivets. How much is your time worth to you? The AA-5 comes pre-assembled. With the money from the sale of your Mooney, you'll probably have enough left over for panel upgrades.
Click to expand...

The only way in hell I would build my own plane was if the kit manufacturer offered a four week program where I committed, went to them and spent a month building and flew away. Otherwise forget it.

I have the tools. I have the skills. I have the space. I am the ideal candidate for building and airplane kit... except I also know myself. I do poorly with long term projects. I know I would never, ever finish the damn thing. I would end up selling some half built thing to somebody else for pennies on the dollar. No, I will buy a flying RV if I do this.
 
danhagan said:
Check VANSAIRFORCE.NET and start browsing around

I've been lurking and reading there for awhile now. I just started this same thread over there for their input.

Log into "ANTISPLAT.COM", there's an additional piece that is easy to install to prevent bending the nose gear. They also have a cowl flap that looks kick butt and one of the best guys locks I've seen
Click to expand...

I am aware of the Anti Splat nose gear mod. I'm not so sure how effective it yet. It seems that in the desire to keep the kit light and simple, Vans kind of messed up on the nose gear IMO.
 
Dav8or said:
It's not just about saving money. There are other factors too.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Sounds like the plane you own now isn’t what you want, for a lot of reasons. Could you sell it today and join a club with different types of aircraft?
 
Dav8or said:
The only way in hell I would build my own plane was if the kit manufacturer offered a four week program where I committed, went to them and spent a month building and flew away. Otherwise forget it.

I have the tools. I have the skills. I have the space. I am the ideal candidate for building and airplane kit... except I also know myself. I do poorly with long term projects. I know I would never, ever finish the damn thing. I would end up selling some half built thing to somebody else for pennies on the dollar. No, I will buy a flying RV if I do this.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I know that RV-9 builders are reporting times in the 2000-3000 range and while I don't think I'd quit on such a project, I don't want to check out of flying for 5 years to build. So I'll build when I have a plane to fly frequently OR I'll build something simple - maybe an Airdrome Aeroplanes DR1. It's nearly an ultralight, flies low, slow and local in good weather. The realistic build times are 20% of the time to build a RV-9. If you've seen the movie Flyboys, those airplanes were built by AA - 4 or 5 of them in 57 days.
 
steingar said:
Given what I've read about Van's nose gear I am not not buying or building an A model of any Vans. More importantly, I think the tail draggers look way, way better.
Click to expand...

Honestly, in my mind retractable gear planes are the real airplanes. They look best period. How the plane looks on the ramp means little to me. If it has it's gear dangling in the wind, it looks crappier. Fixed gear is for cheap planes and training planes, it doesn't matter if the wheel is at the front, or the back, it still doesn't look cool.

BTW, if you ground loop a Vans RV with conventional gear, you end up upside down trapped in a stuck canopy. It's reasonably common. If you end up landing hard on the nose wheel of a Vans RV with trike gear, you end up upside down trapped in a stuck canopy. The tail wheel does not solve the problem. There are plenty of tales of woe with tail dragging RVs out there.

Basically, if you want to not end up badly with a landing in an RV, it's all about technique and discipline... just like in a Mooney.
 
Dav8or said:
BTW, if you ground loop a Vans RV with conventional gear, you end up upside down trapped in a stuck canopy. It's reasonably common. If you end up landing hard on the nose wheel of a Vans RV with trike gear, you end up upside down trapped in a stuck canopy. The tail wheel does not solve the problem. There are plenty of tales of woe with tail dragging RVs out there.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of the tales of woe, and I've been in the RV community for almost 25 years. RV groundloop accidents seem to be few and far between compared to many other types. The RV's have low CG's, a relatively wide gear stance, and excellent control authority. Doesn't mean you can't groundloop one, but it is harder than most tailwheel types. As to the nosegear thing, treat it properly and you won't have any trouble. Abuse it and it might bite you.

But what I hear you saying is that you're not comfortable with the gear design on the RV's. If that's the case, you shouldn't buy one. Honestly, it would take you a long time to recoup the cost of switching from the Mooney to the RV if your only savings are operational costs. If you value better handling, better performance, and better visibility, and can tolerate a reduced payload, the RV is the ticket.
 
Neither of these comments will help convince your wife, but from some of my reading on the Vans board, the RV's are reportedly pretty bouncy in turbulence. I've never been in a mooney, but I'm willing to bet they are a little less so.
Just something to keep in mind if she will in fact be going with you in the RV.

As far as nose gear, I haven't seen it mentioned very often, but the tailwheel versions have had some noseover's and/or prop strikes as well.
It is a shame that the nose gear hasn't been addressed yet.

It's also a shame the -10 is so expensive lol.

If it's just you mostly flying around by yourself and having fun, wanting to 'unshackle', and the other things you mentioned, RV sounds great...and the -9A sounds awesome.
I bet you could sell it fairly easily if you change your mind. Hell, call me. If I haven't bought something by then, I might take it. :)

or come pick me up and we'll have a few beergers
 
Skyrys62 said:
It's also a shame the -10 is so expensive lol.
Click to expand...

What's expensive? You could get a VFR, ADS-B compliant, RV-10 off of the ground for ~130K with a new engine and prop. A good deal on a used engine could put you in barely over $100k territory.

The problem with the -10 (and a lot of the other more recent RV builds) is that the owners over-equip them because of peer pressure and marketing propaganda. There are a lot of $30k panels sitting in aircraft that only fly day VFR.
 
Yeah that would be ideal, but he don't want to do that he said.
I really don't either at this stage. Maybe in a few years when I retire.
I hear the -10's cruise real nice...
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Given what I've read about Van's nose gear I am not not buying or building an A model of any Vans. More importantly, I think the tail draggers look way, way better.
Click to expand...

The tail draggers can get main gear shimmy also ... here's a nose gear problem without Vans SB or AntiSplat


Dav8or said:
I am aware of the Anti Splat nose gear mod. I'm not so sure how effective it yet. It seems that in the desire to keep the kit light and simple, Vans kind of messed up on the nose gear IMO.
Click to expand...

If you log into their site, they'll show bending a stock and stock+antisplat nose gear to the breaking point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top