Vans RV-9A

[Spamcan defender]

Hi folks, I am half-heartedly contemplating starting a build of an RV-9A (to IFR equip spec) and was wondering if anyone could answer a few regulatory questions for me concerning homebuilts....

1. If I do build an RV-9 could I fly airways (if suitably equiped)???
2. Could I take it outside UK??


I suppose these might sound like silly questions but basically I want to know if I can operate one as I would, say, an Arrow and do all the stuff I want to do such as continental trips, bit of airways stuff etc.

I'm just a bit confused by the regs and how they affect the operation of homebuilts such as the RV-9 etc

Ta in advance.....

spamcan

[Zulu Alpha]

You cannot fly IFR in a Homebuilt PFA/LAA permit aircraft. Some countries require IFR to follow airways, some (France I think) allows VFR on the lower levels of airways.
There is talk of this changing, but don't hold your breath.

You can fly abroad. Some countries require you to get overflight permission for each aircraft individually, some countries have blanket rights. The PFA/LAA website has the list, but most of the countries close to the UK have reciprocal rights, so you can fly there without doing anything.

DJ

[Rod1]

1. If I do build an RV-9 could I fly airways (if suitably equiped)???

You are restricted to daytime VFR only.


2. Could I take it outside UK??

The permit will say you need permission of the state you are visiting. In practice a standard agreement exists to let you just fly, the exceptions being the Channel islands, Belgium and Spain, all of which will let you in but you have to write in advance.

Rod1

[Humaround]

"You cannot fly IFR in a Homebuilt PFA/LAA permit aircraft."

Not strictly true, you can fly IFR in VMC (in any aircraft). <pedant mode off>

In all other respects, wot ZA and Rod1 said.

In order to build an RV, you will need to be whole-hearted I'm afraid. :)

I see you have already moved from RV9A in the title to RV9 in the post - a most wise decision IMHO.

[Rod1]

“Not strictly true, you can fly IFR in VMC (in any aircraft). <pedant mode off>”

The exact wording for the restriction is;

“The aircraft shall be flown by day and under visual flight rules only”

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

It is the usual old chestnut - no instrument qualification is required to operate IFR ourside controlled airspace in the UK but conditions need to be VMC however in the case of homebuilts the legislation specifically over rides the "usual" rule by specifying the aircraft may only be operated under VFR and therefore whilst you can be in VMC but IFR you can only be VFR in VMC. It is the aircraft that is the restricting element not the pilot.

[ChrisVJ]

I'd be interested to learn your reasons for choosing an RV9. If you are experienced enough to worry about flying Airways why not choose an RV7?

[englishal]

Isn't an RV7 still a "homebuilt" and hence not IFR certified in Europe....?

[Rod1]

“It is likely that travel between EU countries will no longer need special permissions.

It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.”

The special permissions are already a non problem. The problem with building an aircraft now and expecting it to be IFR later is huge. We have no idea what the new rules will be. One possible scenario is you will have to build an exact duplicate of a factory approved machine to get the VFR restriction limited. Another is it would be assessed against a set of currently unknown criteria. If I was building my MCR now I would go for a full uncertified Glass panel, but I expect this would stop any chance of removing the restriction.

RV7 v RV9

When I was looking 5 – 6 years ago I put the RV9 on the short list because you can use quite small engines with low fuel burn. In the end the considerable savings offered in running costs by the Rotax won the day. With the price of Avgas likely to hit £2 soon and £3 in the not too distant I would be very nervous of anything burning more than 15 – 20 lph, or something which could not be run on Mogas. Despite my MCR only burning 15lph of Mogas, fuel is still my largest single cost:(

Rod1

[stiknruda]

I am half-heartedly contemplating

In that case, I suggest that you buy one that somebody else has completed.

Embarking on an aeroplane build is not something that should be approached half-heartedly; I suggest that with that mindset it is unlikely ever to fly.

No criticism implied - building is a huge commitment, even renovation/rebuilding is a far larger job than many folk perceive and the harsh reality of the amount of physical work can be very daunting!

[Spamcan defender]

Thanks for the replies folks....
In that case, I suggest that you buy one that somebody else has completed.

Embarking on an aeroplane build is not something that should be approached half-heartedly; I suggest that with that mindset it is unlikely ever to fly.

No criticism implied - building is a huge commitment, even renovation/rebuilding is a far larger job than many folk perceive and the harsh reality of the amount of physical work can be very daunting!

Sorry I was not making myself crystal clear here. When I said half-heartedly I was referring to the initial will I/wont I of buying a kit in the first place. As for the motivation to build and subsequently complete, it is there 110%. Having been a motor mechanic many moons ago I have no doubts about my ability and im not lacking in the confidence department either. Having briefly read both the Vans and RVUK websites I gather the technical complexity is not, say, in the realms of building a 'plan only' aircraft. I have a reasonable amount of space in my workshop and have a vast amount of tools gathered from my years as a mechanic so these boxes are ticked also.

Having looked further on Vans website I feel that an RV-7A may better suit my needs as opposed to the RV-9A (sorry folks, tricycle all the way for me:ok:).

However, I am still trying to assess my long-term needs from an aircraft...I intend to get an IR within the next 5 years and looking at the broader picture would like to fly around the UK and possibly do some continental trips too. However if I cannot expect to use my Vans and IR together legally then perhaps I should look at something else??? I just dont know at the moment and this is the frustrating part. The sensible me says buy an RV-7A which will still allow me to bumble up and down the country easily but theres another part that says I should buy something capable of IMC flight.
The other problem is that an RV-7A with the 200hp option will cruise just shy of 200knots at reasonable economy while an IFR certified A/C, say a Cessna 152 will cruise at less than half that and gulp fuel at an alarming rate.

Anyone with words of advice who have perhaps been in the same position??

Spamcan

[Rod1]

“The other problem is that an RV-7A with the 200hp option will cruise just shy of 200knots at reasonable economy while an IFR certified A/C, say a Cessna 152 will cruise at less than half that and gulp fuel at an alarming rate.”

This is a bit hard on the 152. A 152 will burn about 20lph and a 200hp lyk will burn 40 lph. Admittedly the RV will be much faster and more fun.

In the end it comes down to cost. If you can afford an IR and a top of the range Cirrus then you are home free and no need to build. If you want to build then assume no IFR allowed.

I owned a selection of C of A IFR “4 seaters” and flew extensively on my IMCR. After 700 hours several things became apparent.

1 I almost never used the third seat (the 4th not possible anyway for W&B)
2 Most of the “IFR” flights were actually possible VFR. This is self evident if you do a lot of European touring as your IMCR is not valid, but we all still fly round quite happily in a Fly for Fun environment.
3 Most of the aircraft handled like a soggy balloons
4 Most struggled with shortish strips
5 Most struggled to climb in hot weather, which almost cost me on more than on occasion.
6 The cost of fuel and maintenance was set to rise dramatically and price me out of the sky, or at least restrict my flying time.

This resulted in me spending £50k and 3 years building a Rotax powered MCR. I actually get more mission capability out of this than I did out of my IFR machines, but I fly for fun and wanted fast, good stol, good handling and good R of C. I am saving about £10k a year in running costs which will rise rapidly over the next few years and I am having more fun!:ok::ok::ok:

Rod1

[flybymike]

Bloody hell Rod, stop rubbing it in. I am getting more and more depressed with each post you make....!

[Spamcan defender]

Thanks for that Rod, thats exactly the thing I'm after; peoples experiences.

TBH, I dont need 4 seats as the missus would NEVER fly with me again anyway (err, no bearing on my flying skills, just that she was a bit put of by the size of the 152 I took her up in). All I would need is a 2 seater so I could fly with friends etc and a reasonable range. Vans quote between 750-920 SM for the 200hp RV-7A which is probably more than I need. I would be planning on doing the occassional Hampshire-Fife route which I would prefer to do direct with no fuel stops.

TBH I couldnt afford a cirrus as much as I would love one. The beauty of homebuilt is that the costs can be spread by buying sections at a time.

Spamcan

[Mark 1]

Not much to add to the previous replies, except that I'd be very wary of the nosewheel RVs. They often have a lot of weight on the nosewheel and there have been many collapse incidents, often in the hands of very experienced and competent pilots.
The tailwheels save a bit on cost, weight, drag and maintenance and are very easy handling.
As for -9 or -7; the -7s are a little faster and sportier (cleared for aeros) whereas the -9s can lift more, land a bit shorter and slightly easier handling.

Personally, I prefer the tandem seat models.

[Andy_RR]

If you are even remotely thinking about building, then remember thousands of people were not wrong in choosing an RV. If you enjoy working with your hands and are thinking about an RV, then don't delay - leap right in with both feet. Time is of the essence and you will thoroughly enjoy it (and be frustrated and disillusioned etc...) but it is an amazing experience.

Go for it and save the IFR decisions for later.

A

(RV-8 under construction)

PS: or migrate to the US or Australia where the experimental regulations are superb and IFR is possible.

[NigelOnDraft]

SD... We've built an RV-8 now flying since late Oct 07 with just over 80hours on it... great machine! See http://www.g-hilz.co.uk RV-7(A) effectively same machine but SBS...

200HP unnecessary :ugh: Our 180HP FI does 180HP to about 20' after takeoff then throttle back a LOT.

As above, watch the NW versions :ooh: An NTSB investigaiton into numerous NW collapses, some with the aircraft flipping right over, has led to a recent "modified" design... yet 2 of these (1 UK, 1 USA) have collapsed already, the UK very nearly flipped as well :{ The reasons for this are numerous, but the "risks" are higher with an RV NW aircraft than most others...

OTOH the taildraggers are fairly benign (I'd never flown a taildragger before) relative to others out there... so you end up with the "risks" being closer than normal for a NW v TW comparison ;)

NoD

[A and C]

Can someone please tell me why you would want to take a very good aircraft (RV-9) and turn it into a death trap by putting a nose wheel on it?

[Rod1]

Can someone please tell me why you would want to take a very good aircraft (RV-9) and turn it into a death trap by putting a nose wheel on it?

Because this is what the majority of the punters want. If a pilot does his training on a NW he will probably fly NW from then on. The tail dragger MCR has not even been UK approved as UK requirements were unique and the numbers likely to be sold were too small to make it worth the effort. The new rules will of course change this.

Rod1

[Spamcan defender]

Can someone please tell me why you would want to take a very good aircraft (RV-9) and turn it into a death trap by putting a nose wheel on it?

Well, TBH I learned on NW aircraft and have always found them to be easy to handle. While I'm sure taildraggers are good they seem a bit 1930's for me. I mean, if taildraggers were so great then all modern airliners would be based on a DC3 type airframe.

I shall investigate the RV NW issues further.

Spamcan

[DaveW]

I shall investigate the RV NW issues further.

This is a good starting place (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2), if you haven't found the Van's Air Force already.

[A and C]

The RV-9A is an accident in the making, the aircraft has a habit of tripping over it's self and is only a matter of time before one flips on its back and the crew are killed.

Vans produce very good aircraft and it is a mystery to me why some one should spend two years and £60,000 to build one of these with a nose wheel rather than go and get a £1000 worth of education to learn to fly a tail dragger.

At the end of the day the they will spend more money get a vastly worse aircraft.

I can't help thinking that these people think that the nose wheel will protect them from the short comings in personal flying skill or education.

[NigelOnDraft]

Spamcan...

You might find "TW" 1930s style... However, excepting the RV-10/12, RV's are basically TW designs. The -A version is a "bolt on modification"...

Taking your analogy further, how many airliners and other types use a "pole vault" arrangement for the NW? The RV -A types require this because there is no structure forward of the firewall capable of taking the NW, hence the angled leg coming back to firewall / rear of the engine mount.

Try http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/RV_Study.pdf

NoD

[gasax]

If you learn to fly on a nosewheel spamcan you should find it easy to handle - after all that is the purpose of the rules they were designed and certified against.

However moving onto aircraft with more performance will increase the challenges, scan through the old threads here about Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza etc and you will find all sorts of horror stories from people who have not found them easy to handle.

The Vans (and a couple of others that look to have the same sort of arrangement - Europa, Sportcruiser etc) have long cantilevered noselegs hung off the firewall - compared with the certified designs I'm familar with this is a pretty flimsy arrangement - the nosewheel is 'free' to move considerably and that lattitude leads to shimmy and unpredictable behaviour. Worst if there is an overload it will often severely damage the firewall which makes for a very big repair.

On many of the spamcans, the noseleg sits within a tubular frame, often linked to the engine frame so the repair is to that frame only.

At the end of the day the Vans are essentially sport aircraft and designed to do that well, part of that equation is TW undercarriage - saving weight and drag.

[Min Sink]

I built a 9A and converted it to a 9. At the end of a landing run with the stick on the back stop at approx 15 kts the nosewheel hit a series of bumps that resulted in the spat getting damaged. After that I was very nervious about landing on grass.

Other things you might want to think about.

The 9 is cheaper than the 9A so you can spend the difference on TW training
The 9 looks so much better than a 9A
The 9 is about 25lbs lighter

[will5023]

Hi Having instructed on both RV9 and RV9A, I can say that I prefer the tailwheel(ok i have an RV7), but understand why some people prefer nose wheels. The nose wheel on the RV A model, is not fool proof, but what is ? There are mods that are being done to the A model to make them safer, by installing a larger fromt wheel as well as the improved wheel fork, so saying that they are a death trap is a bit OTT. Pilot traing however is something that needs to be sorted, there are those with the A model that have operated for many years without problems, mainly due to there handling of the aeroplane, which is key.
Any way up the RV7 is a superb aircraft, and a good touring machine, capable of standard aerobatic sequence, however, it would be hard work in IMC for long periods, hence why most fit a wing leveller to help with the work load.


Will.

[Spamcan defender]

It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.

I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??

Spamcan

[Rod1]

“It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”

There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.

Rod1

[A and C]

I am not OTT in caling the RV-9A a deathtrap, no amount of modification is going to make the thing safe, there is too much weight at the front already, bigger wheels and stronger legs are just going to make the problem worse!

The RV-9 is a superb aircraft (if you have as much of the weight at the back as you can) and by tail dragger standards it is easy to land.

So why pay more money, add more weight, add more drag and make the aircraft more risky to fly (land)?.
It can only be because some people are too busy thinking that they can build a fool proof aircraft to protect themselfs.

The answer is to remove the fool from the cockpit rather than try to make the aircraft foolproof! This is done with good training and it costs a lot less than an RV-9A nose wheel kit.

[Humaround]

Quite a lot of heat being generated in this debate. It has been rehearsed endlessly in the RV forums (Yahoo rvsqn in UK and Vans Airforce in the US) and both TW and NW RV's have fierce devotees.

The proportion of Type-A (nosewheel) RV's of all types, not just RV 9's, in the US is considerably higher than in the UK - there are far more RV's there than in the rest of the world anyway.

One reason for this is that US aircraft insurers load TW insurance compared with NW - on grounds of accident rates presumably. Many builders seem to opt for the nosewheel because they are worried about the premium for taildragger. It will be interesting to see if the recent (admittedly quite small) spate of A-type pole-vaulting accidents changes this.

I haven't flown an A-type but I can say that it's really not hard to learn to handle a TW RV.

And those looks!!! No contest!!! :D

[Spamcan defender]

“It is possible that IFR may be permitted in pernit a/c. It is being talked about anyway.
I'm interested to read more on this. any links to relevant docs/web pages??”

There is a comment by the LAA CEO in the latest Light Aircraft Mag. It is tied in to the new regs, which are being talked about, and it may come in 2012 ish. Nothing definite at this time but if it does come in I would want to have a copy of the new regs before I started building.

Rod1

Thanks Rod, read the said article yesterday........Seems there is perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon with regards to IFR

:D

Spamcan