My Vans RV conundrum.

Dav8or

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A. It better fits my mission which is mostly me flying around by myself in good weather with no particular place I need to go. I think it would save me a bit of money in fuel burn, replacement parts and upgrades and it would be newer with not so much history, mechanics, repairs, annuals and the like on it.

My ideal Vans would be the 9/A with an IO-320, CS prop and either a tip up, or slider, I haven't decided. It would also have to have a nice, standard layout panel with at least two axis auto pilot, dual coms, WAAS GPS, engine monitoring and a good audio panel. ADS-B in and out and a 406 ELT would be great too. Unfortunately there are four serious things preventing me from pursuing this plan. In order of seriousness-

  1. Safety. I like the 9 because it has the lowest stall speed and that means the slowest touch down in an off field landing scenario, but it seems that if you land a Vans on anything that isn't hard and prepared, you end up upside down, hanging from your harness and most times trapped by a stuck canopy. Ditching a Vans in water sounds like suicide, or at least very, very slim chances of a good outcome. I feel much more confident in the Mooney's ability to land off field and in water. I also feel very confident of the Mooney's strength in the airframe. I'm not so sure about the Vans.
  2. The wife. I mentioned in passing that I was thinking of trading the Mooney and she was ho-hum about that... until I told her I was thinking of an experimental! She was pretty strongly against that idea! It will take a lot of convincing that it is just as safe and I first have to convince myself.
  3. The wife. The cabin in the Mooney is tight, but I think the Vans cabin is even tighter. It feels very narrow to me. As we get older, neither of us is getting any skinnier. There is also poor baggage area access, or capacity. While it has only occurred three or four times in the last seven years, it would be nice to keep the ability to take the wife along for a weekend. I'm not so sure how well the Vans can handle this job.
  4. Money. I don't think I can get anywhere near enough money for my Mooney to get a nice clean, well built RV-9 configured the way I want it and then do all the things that will need to be done to make it mine. I will have to sell my Mooney and then likely pony up even more money. While I have the money and could do this, right now is not a financially great time for me to do it.
What do you guys think?
 
Happy wife, happy life. You clearly want the RV. Do you want it enough to rock that boat?
 
No clue if the 9 is for you but there’s a Vans for about every mission. Up to you to educate your wife...
 
Bulldog573 said:
Happy wife, happy life. You clearly want the RV. Do you want it enough to rock that boat?
Click to expand...

In all fairness the wife's objections are probably misplaced and an RV with a modern glass panel/autopilot is probably a safer IFR machine than an old Mooney with an old panel and autopilot that is too cost prohibitive to upgrade.

Stall speed is low across the board on them. Spring gear taildraggers probably fairly forgiving on a rough field landing.
 
dell30rb said:
In all fairness the wife's objections are probably misplaced and an RV with a modern glass panel/autopilot is probably a safer IFR machine than an old Mooney with an old panel and autopilot that is too cost prohibitive to upgrade.

Stall speed is low across the board on them. Spring gear taildraggers probably fairly forgiving on a rough field landing.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I think you’ve given the OP some great talking points to help with the wife’s objections.
 
dell30rb said:
In all fairness the wife's objections are probably misplaced and an RV with a modern glass panel/autopilot is probably a safer IFR machine than an old Mooney with an old panel and autopilot that is too cost prohibitive to upgrade.
Click to expand...

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".
 
kyleb said:
The Titanic and Hindenburg, on the other hand, were fully approved by the relevant governing agencies.
Click to expand...
You're talking to the wrong person because I believe you. But you can say that all you want to passengers and they still won't be convinced.
 
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...

You could just tell the wife, the plane's former owner was a scientist and that's what he named it. And it's bad luck to change the name of a plane so we're keeping it there.
 
dell30rb said:
In all fairness the wife's objections are probably misplaced and an RV with a modern glass panel/autopilot is probably a safer IFR machine than an old Mooney with an old panel and autopilot that is too cost prohibitive to upgrade.

Stall speed is low across the board on them. Spring gear taildraggers probably fairly forgiving on a rough field landing.
Click to expand...

Actually, my old '66 Mooney has a reasonably modern panel and auto pilot. I'm a little bit of a panel snob and don't abide junk avionics, or bad panel design within budgetary constraints. I rebuilt the panel on the Mooney and I expect to have to rebuild the RV panel too as most of what I see for sale is pretty lame panel wise.

My concern is this. Avionics and auto pilots do very little to help you when the engine quits. Avionics have gotten much better over the years, but piston engines... not so much. The engine in the Vans is pretty much the same as I have now, so how do the two compare dead sticking into something other than a prepared hard surface?
 
Dav8or said:
it seems that if you land a Vans on anything that isn't hard and prepared, you end up upside down, hanging from your harness and most times trapped by a stuck canopy.
Click to expand...
Can't help much with the rest of your situation, but that right there is at best an overstatement... edging right alomg toward silly.
 
Dav8or said:
I have been thinking seriously about trading my Mooney for a Vans RV-9/A. It better fits my mission which is mostly me flying around by myself in good weather with no particular place I need to go. I think it would save me a bit of money in fuel burn, replacement parts and upgrades and it would be newer with not so much history, mechanics, repairs, annuals and the like on it.
Click to expand...

To me it seems like the Mooney and the RV-9 both fit the mission of flying around. Is there anything in particular that the RV is better at? Is the fuel burn really that much lower? Are replacement parts that hard to find for a Mooney?

It sounds like the cost reward isn't there. But I have no experience with Mooneys or RVs, so I'm curious as to why you think it is better.
 
Keep the Mooney:

This guy does all sorts of bush and STOL ops in the Mooney. It really sounds like the marginal benefits you get from the RV are nowhere near what you'll get from the familiarity with the plane you have now. Also not worth the selling/Buying process for a plane that fits your mission when you already have a plane that fits your mission.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Keep the Mooney:

This guy does all sorts of bush and STOL ops in the Mooney. It really sounds like the marginal benefits you get from the RV are nowhere near what you'll get from the familiarity with the plane you have now. Also not worth the selling/Buying process for a plane that fits your mission when you already have a plane that fits your mission.
Click to expand...

That takeoff was “Positive three inches, gear up!” LOL. :) :) :) He knew he wanted that gear drag gone quick. That’s an M-20C with the Johnson Bar gear, isn’t it? You can make that gear come up really quick if you practice throwing that handle.

If he had any engine issues at 6” AGL doing that, he’s out of available hands and options to fix it though. That’s not a maneuver for the faint of heart or inexperienced in that airplane. An unexpected downdraft could have ruined his whole day there too, but I’m sure he knew the wind conditions when doing that.

Hey @steingar you wanna flip your gear up that quick very often? :)

On the landing he could have held that slip in just a little longer. Chicken. :) He was still a touch fast at the roundout.

Pretty darn close to “maximum performance efforts” on both, though. He knows his aircraft.

I wouldn’t recommend anyone who didn’t know for sure they could plant the aircraft by a certain point try that landing. Airspeed control over that obstacle/tree is critical. No floating along fast possible there or you’re off the end.
 
By the way did anyone else chuckle at the spectators backing up on the landing one as a delayed reaction to the slip and their brain calculating that maybe he would touch down crooked and lose directional control?

His plan was to straighten it out and did, but their brains reacted about a second too slow.
 
denverpilot said:
By the way did anyone else chuckle at the spectators backing up on the landing one as a delayed reaction to the slip and their brain calculating that maybe he would touch down crooked and lose directional control?

His plan was to straighten it out and did, but their brains reacted about a second too slow.
Click to expand...
He was backing up so he wouldn't be in the guy's video. Guy to the left is recording with a phone.
 
Bulldog573 said:
Happy wife, happy life. You clearly want the RV. Do you want it enough to rock that boat?
Click to expand...

New age of thinking I guess.

When it comes to what color to paint the walls in the bedroom, or what type of car she is going to drive, or curtains, of what tie I should wear to match her dress, sure.

When it comes to the aircraft that I'm going to be PICing, noooope.

Unless your wife has more aeronautical experience than you, she doesn't get a place at that table.


Seems many men now days ultimately let their woman wear the pants in most all aspects of life, I guess if you're into that type of thing, but letting your non pilot wife make aviation decisions makes about as much sense as letting high school teenagers dictate national policy.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Keep the Mooney:

This guy does all sorts of bush and STOL ops in the Mooney. It really sounds like the marginal benefits you get from the RV are nowhere near what you'll get from the familiarity with the plane you have now. Also not worth the selling/Buying process for a plane that fits your mission when you already have a plane that fits your mission.
Click to expand...

Does the money have a squat switch?

Looks like ones of those gear selector to up before you start rolling type of takeoffs
 
dell30rb said:
You could just tell the wife, the plane's former owner was a scientist and that's what he named it. And it's bad luck to change the name of a plane so we're keeping it there.
Click to expand...

Part of your passenger briefing is to explain exactly what experimental means.
 
The RV's have a lot of merit but comfort isn't one of them. They are tight and most are sparse on interior. Compared to a certified airplane they do feel more fragile but are in fact every bit as strong. If you want more room you should look at the 8. The stall difference isn't that large between the two. You will likely get the best deal on a 9 as they are less desirable than the others.
 
Is the money saved on fuel and parts enough to offset the difference in purchase price and the cost of getting the plane to your standards? Seems like you have a great plane as it is now, and does everything you want. honest question, I dont have a dog in this fight, I am just curious.
 
denverpilot said:
That takeoff was “Positive three inches, gear up!” LOL. :) :) :) He knew he wanted that gear drag gone quick. That’s an M-20C with the Johnson Bar gear, isn’t it? You can make that gear come up really quick if you practice throwing that handle.

If he had any engine issues at 6” AGL doing that, he’s out of available hands and options to fix it though. That’s not a maneuver for the faint of heart or inexperienced in that airplane. An unexpected downdraft could have ruined his whole day there too, but I’m sure he knew the wind conditions when doing that.

Hey @steingar you wanna flip your gear up that quick very often? :)

On the landing he could have held that slip in just a little longer. Chicken. :) He was still a touch fast at the roundout.

Pretty darn close to “maximum performance efforts” on both, though. He knows his aircraft.

I wouldn’t recommend anyone who didn’t know for sure they could plant the aircraft by a certain point try that landing. Airspeed control over that obstacle/tree is critical. No floating along fast possible there or you’re off the end.
Click to expand...
That takeoff and landing were maximum performance efforts to be certain. I like to get the gear sucked up quick only because it gets more difficult as the aircraft accelerates. Yeah, that was a maximum performance effort if ever I saw one. Guy is certainly a better stick than me, and way braver. I really don't like to be in situations where the only outcome if something goes wrong is fiery death.

But its very nearly an apples and oranges comparison. The aircraft do very different things. An RV should be able to muscle into and out of small strips, they're tiny little airplanes with big engines. They're really good for going out and having some fun, that's their mission.

What they aren't good at. Want to take the whole family? Good luck with that. Sorry, I've filled the seats in my Mooney and been well under gross. Want to take a 400 mile trip? I'm certain the Vans can do it, but I bet not comfortably. And good luck taking any luggage, by the way. Need to do an approach down to minimums? I'm certain the Vans can do it, but I doubt its something you'd want to do on a regular basis. Those things are not ideal IFR platforms. The Mooney is.

Mooneys are traveling machines. They go long distances at great speed, that's what they were built for. To me using them to land little turf strips is like using my old Goldwing motorcycle as a dirt bike. Yeah, it can do it, but it isn't the best machine ego the job.
 
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.

So,
1) I don't think safety is an issue in either aircraft. Issues of being trapped by the canopy are overblown. If it bothers you, it's an experimental. Add a side door or kick out panel.
2) Wife. You lose. Sorry.
3) Wife. You lose. Sorry.
4) You are right about the cost, you won't be anywhere near even.

I get wanting to go faster. But I don't think an RV is the answer for you.
 
James331 said:
Seems many men now days ultimately let their woman wear the pants in most all aspects of life, I guess if you're into that type of thing, but letting your non pilot wife make aviation decisions makes about as much sense as letting high school teenagers dictate national policy.
Click to expand...

upload_2018-3-22_9-29-53.jpeg

One day James, one day...
 
Our RV9a with 150 hp would routinely see 148 kt cruise.
 
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.
 
Tell your wife the Exp category allows you to improve the airplane's safety and utility where the certificated category doesn't. That's a true statement for kit built airplanes.
 
Mtns2SkiesBetterHalf said:
To me it seems like the Mooney and the RV-9 both fit the mission of flying around. Is there anything in particular that the RV is better at? Is the fuel burn really that much lower? Are replacement parts that hard to find for a Mooney?

It sounds like the cost reward isn't there. But I have no experience with Mooneys or RVs, so I'm curious as to why you think it is better.
Click to expand...

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.
 
charheep said:
Is the money saved on fuel and parts enough to offset the difference in purchase price and the cost of getting the plane to your standards? Seems like you have a great plane as it is now, and does everything you want. honest question, I dont have a dog in this fight, I am just curious.
Click to expand...

Great question and I wrestle with it. You are correct that the tens of thousands of dollars difference would buy a lot of gas and parts. A large part of the idea to trade planes is to get something newer. If you've ever owned an old airplane that hasn't been pristinely restored, or meticulously cared for it's whole life, or stored for decades with few hours on it and you work on it yourself, you likely know the frustration and irritant. Another big part is just to change it up and maybe get more excited about aviation and flying again. I feel like a totally different airplane might do that.
 
Stewartb said:
Tell your wife the Exp category allows you to improve the airplane's safety and utility where the certificated category doesn't. That's a true statement for kit built airplanes.
Click to expand...

Or just tell her it's still safer than United.



 
Dav8or said:
Another big part is just to change it up and maybe get more excited about aviation and flying again. I feel like a totally different airplane might do that.
Click to expand...
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?

Dav8or said:
If you've ever owned an old airplane that hasn't been pristinely restored, or meticulously cared for it's whole life, or stored for decades with few hours on it and you work on it yourself, you likely know the frustration and irritant.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top