Vans RV-9A

[EchoKiloEcho]

I'm looking to start building a RV-9A kitplane, but would like to know the following:
1) As they are using Lycoming O-235 / O-320 engines, can you service the engine yourself as with the Rotax 912S, or does it have to be serviced by a licensed engineer, or should I rather install the Wilksh diesel?
2) Does any one know the running costs and PFA registration costs of RVs. Insurance, PFA fees etc.
3) How much more will it cost to run than a Europa XS?
Any information will be helpfull!

[Bluebeard777]

I suggest you go to the very active UK "RV Squadron":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rvsqn/messages/
where you will find a wealth of helpful experience and advice about building and operating RV aircraft.

[Mariner9]

Also suggest you have a look at the PFA website (http://www.pfa.org.uk/engineering.asp).

Lots of advice therein regarding building, maintenance etc, and the various charges.

M9

[Mark 1]

Excellent choice of aeroplane. Good quality kits with no nasty resins, and great 'planes to fly, though my preference is for the sportier models.
I have an RV-4 and am building a -8, so may be able to help a bit.

Engine servicing is as much as your inspector allows and is authorised to sign for. You can do the regular maintenance and sign it off yourself. Changing a pot, or the like will require a signature from an inspector approved for such.

There is an RV-9 being built near me with the Wilksch engine. The idea is appealling, but the reality of putting a new engine design in an aircraft means lots of work and maybe doubling the build time, Putting a Lycoming in is simple and straightforward in comparison. You can get mods like injection, electronic ignition and FADEC approved by a reasonably simple procedure that would be a nightmare for a CofA aeroplane.
PFA charges about £50 for registering the project and about £480 for first permit issue. Permit renewal is £160 plus any inspector's fees. Insurance about £1200-1400 for full, or about £500 for liability only. Fuel, hangarage/parking will vary depending on what/where/how.
A Europa will probably use about 15 l/hr against about 22-25 for an RV-9, but (given the record of Europas), I expect insurance would be less. I quite like Europas, but given the choice, I'd opt for the RV.

Have a fly of both if you can. It'll probably make your mind up for you.

Feel free to PM if I can help any more.

[Floppy Link]

...with no nasty resins...
Should read, not as much nasty resins - there is glass work involved on cowlings, wheel spats, gear leg fairings, wing and tail tips etc, but take proper protection and you'll be OK.
try RivetBangers (http://www.rivetbangers.com), a sort of Pprune for RV builders

[Rod1]

Don’t rule out composite designs. My MCR01 had ½ l of resin total, which is less than an RV!

Rod1

[smarthawke]

These days there is minimal glass work on the non-structural (as it should be)glass bits of an RV - you can buy most bits ready made.

At least you can leave the RV out in the midday sun without fear of it going soft - and you can even paint them any colour you lie unlike our tuppaware brethren...

[tangovictor]

within the near future, I might consider buying a kit, and getting some help to build it ( also location, as I don't have the space )
I looked at the RV9a on the US site, looks a great machine, is there a UK importer ? and whats a realistic all up price, as the US price list is a tad ambiguious !
I do not wish to highjack this thread, however, any other thoughts on building a kit plane ? whats the easiest ? whats the best ?
( the tl sting also the sports cruiser, look great also ? )
tv

[smarthawke]

Your best bet would be to follow the link above to the ever helpful UK RV builders site. There are a load of RV-9 builders there who will help you with the true costings etc.

There isn't a UK importer, everything is done through the factory and it isn't really a problem. Harry Hopkins (Avery tools and RV-4 builder/pilot) provides (provided!) cover at the Rallys of old.

As for what you build. Many RV builders have gone and built another (or more) - you don't do that if the product isn't any good. There's now close to 5000 RVs flying around the world and 134 flying in the UK. You can't get a better machine for the UK - the combination of take-off/climb/cruise and landing performance (both grass and hard) is hard to beat.

Also have a look at:

http://www.rvuk.co.uk/index.htm

[DaveW]

To see the build process in detail, visit Richard Horan's excellent 'Dignity' site. (http://www.rvproject.co.uk/)

(OK, his is an RV-7 not an RV-9, and his third wheel is at the correct end :8 , but other than that it seems to give a very good idea of what's involved.)

Tim R's "GAPilot" site (http://www.gapilot.co.uk/) is equally good.

[Mark 1]

TV

The Van's price list is pretty good. You've probably seen that a complete airframe kit runs from about $18000 for a standard to about $26000 for a quickbuild - good value at the current exchange rate.
Air freight adds about £500 for each sub-kit, so another £1500-£2000 (quick builds are bulky and usually shipped) and VAT on top of course. So about £14-20K so far.

Tools will likely be £1,000-2,000.

After that it's engine, prop, exhaust, instruments/radios, upholstery, paint etc.. This is where the big differences usually occur. 2nd hand engine and basic instruments plus DIY paint might be possible for another £10k. Best of everything may turn that to another £60k. Most people end up somewhere in the middle.

[tangovictor]

thank you for your helpful info, I had always thought I'd buy a "rotax" engined machine, ease of maintenance and cost being paramount, I will have to rethink my stratagy,
TV

[BlueRobin]

Mark, you're not wrong about the development time on Steve Arnold's diesel RV-9A, but as you know about to fly so it wil be worth it in the end.

Vans are developing a 2-seat aircraft with a Rotax for the US LSA category, namely the RV-12. I imagine in the fullness of time we will see it over here on a UK PFA permit.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm

Mark 1's RV-4 is Red and looks a total nutter. I imagine it's very easy to have a "Mr Toad" moment with. Poooop poop! :)

[smarthawke]

Subject to the weather, a smattering of RVs may join in the fun of the VAC fly-in at Sywell tomorrow, 28 Oct - if the weather is naff they that might go Sunday.

(Bits of many early RVs nearly qualify for vintage status - the kits are a lot quicker to build these days!)

[tangovictor]

bluerobin, thanks for the RV12 info, very interesting

[rvator]

get airborne in an RV-8 formation... (http://www.vansclubdefrance.org/flash/patroldude.swf)
look at those...La Baule 2nd of June 2006 (http://www.vansclubdefrance.org/webgallery/category.php?cat=20)
http://www.vansclubdefrance.org/

[poteroo]

RV-9A's and Engines

The -9A is the nicest flying model of all the VANS range, and I've flown or instructed in them all - right up to the -10. With 15% more wing area, and longer span, plus bigger flaps, I've believe the -9A to be the best marque for the average PPL. Sure, it's non-aerobatic, but if you want to yank & bank - then go for the -7A.

I've found the -9A to have probably the best glide of all the RV's, and it gives a smoother ride in rough air too - important out here.

Engine choice is controversial, because VANS himself recommends against anything higher than 160HP. His concern is exceeding design limits in rough air,especially at higher altitudes. You can read his article on www.vansaircraft.com An opposing view is available on the Superior site, www.xp-360.com, which isn't surprising as they have only had a 180HP engine until recently. After flying 43 years in hot climates, I'm very aware of keeping the speeds down in rough air - so I am careful to pull off power as needed. But, the higher HP is really great to get up to 8-10,000 quickly so that it's cruising in smoother air.

I have flown the -9A with a 160HP Lycoming and fp Sensenich propellor, the -9A with 180HP and a fp Sensenich, and a -9A with a 170HP Jabiru with fp Sensenich 'wood' prop. The 180 with the 86 ins metal Sensenich is the best - you get the performance that you pay for !

There are several -9A's flying in the USA with 0-235 Lycomings,(115HP),and their owners swear by them, but it's a 30 knot lower speed you're looking at, and slower climb. When you look at the fuel consumption, the 0-320 is probably 3-6 LPH heavier on fuel, but has advantages. Remember that Jon Johansen flew his RV-4 twice round-the-world with only 150HP, and he used 24LPH for 140KTAS - not bad at all.

Of course, if LSA comes into your country with a 720-750 kg AUW limit, then the -9A with a 115HP Lycoming will be legal, as VANS has it listed as 727kg AUW with that engine- 795kg with the 0-320 Lycoming. So, you'd be able to get out of GA, and into LSA.....if that's going to be an advantage there.

There are lots of other engines for RV's, but my observations are that you are wise to stick to Lycoming or Superior, because the knowledge base of the RV 'airforce' is based on them. Someone, somewhere on the planet, will have an answer to your question....see www.vansairforce.com and you'll be amazed at the collective experience there alone.

Good luck with your building,

[Hen Ddraig]

If you plan to build an RV-9A in the UK budget on spending £40k. This will get you a slow build kit, a new O-320 lycoming and a minimal/avionics instrument fit. It will also cover tools, shipping charges and the dreaded VAT :* (who says aviation isn't taxed).
If you are prepared to do your own paintwork you might shave £2k off the above figure.
How do I know these figures are correct ?. I built one, it's been flying 12 months now and I still have an ear:O to ear:O grin :O every time I get in it.
The Manchester low level route takes on a whole new aspect at 150kts
Hen Ddraig

Time to spare, go by air.

[tangovictor]

Thanks for the info HD, as I mentioned earlier, I don't have the facility to build one, so, I would be looking for a premisis and some help to build which ever kit I decide upon !
I would imagine the quick build kit would considerably cut the build costs here, the one thing that does worry me, a bit, is the lycoming engine,
they seem to be a fortune not only to buy, but keep maintained, in comparison to a rotax ????
TV

[Rod1]

My experience of going from an 180hp Lyc to a Rotax has been very positive. The engine is much more modern, no mags to go wrong and £18 of oil a year are just two of the advantages. The bits seem very inexpensive compared to Lyc and props are modern and a fraction of the cost, with a VP coming in at £2000 ish.

The Vans range is very good, but it is an American design with 98% flying in the US. Vans have experienced a sharp downturn following the LSA launch which is dominated by European designs. The new Rotax powered version is an attempt to stop the rot, but it will be interesting to see if the traditional Vans can match the best Europe has to offer.

The fuel burn difference will cause a huge difference in costs as the new green tax comes in and Avgas becomes more expensive and eventually disappears completely. I cost justified my VLA over 10 years, and firmly believe the VLA category is the one with the future in Europe.

Rod1

[tangovictor]

thank you Rod, sort of confirms my fears, I think a Rotax engined a/c is the way to go, in the UK,

[EchoKiloEcho]

Yes, it sounds like there are a lot of negatives for the RV's and lycomings. I think I might wait for the RV-12A then (All aluminium with Rotax), as I'm looking for metal airplane kit with a rotax/modern engine.

I love the Europa end product, but prefer a metal building project rather than composites.

Any other sugestions then?

[Rod1]

There are a lot of proven designs, which are available in the VLA category. The Eurostar is the most popular, then there is the Sport Cruiser, the Sonex and possibly many more I am not aware of. Why the dislike of Composite, it is a very wide range of materials and aircraft to dislike.

Rod1

[Hen Ddraig]

Vans have not suffered a drop in sales due to the introduction of the LSA rule in the USA. The LSA rules open up a new market to allow people who previously could not obtain a pilot certificate to take up flying. The LSA rules allow lower medical standards and restrict aircraft weight and performance. The RV-12 is being developed to meet these new LSA rules.
I burn 20-22 litres an hour of 100LL with an O-320 Lycoming cruising at 140-150 kts and I expect to reduce the fuel burn when the engine is fully run in and I start to lean off fully.
The TBO on a Lycoming is 2000 hrs, they frequently run to 2600hrs in non certified aircraft. Looking at Rotax the TBO on the twostrokes is 300 Hrs, the 4strokes have TBOs varying from 600 to 1200hrs. Basicly you get what you pay for.
Rod1 whats this green tax? Is this in addition to the £1.09+VAT per litre that I already pay.

Hen Ddraig
Time to spare, go by air.

[Rod1]

The TBO in the UK of a Rotax 912S is 1500 hours and expected to rise to 2000 ish over the next 5 years. PFA aircraft can run engines on condition indefinitely, so this is of little relevance. A modern composite aircraft such as an MCR01 VLA with a 912 will burn 15lph at 140kn. My 180 Lyc burned 40lph of Avgas at £1.40, my Rotax uses Unleaded at 85p. Add in the difference in the cost of bits and the heavy oil use and frequent oil changes and it is what you would expect when comparing a 1940’s design with something 50 years newer. With 100,000 912’s flying worldwide and an exceptional safety record I would find it hard to go back having sampled the difference.

Rod1

[tangovictor]

I have to agree with Rod here, maybe in the US a lycoming is fine, with there fuel costs, the rotax in the UK seems a much better bet, not only the cost of a replacement but also maintenance, and the fact that avgas is so expensive and will probably be made not available in the near future !

[Andy_RR]

If Rod is burning 40L/h in his Lyc 180, he obviously doesn't know how to lean properly.

Plus, comparing the fuel burn on a 180hp Lycoming to a 100hp Rotax is a little disingenuous. I think you'll find that a properly operated certified Lycoming will be close to competitive with a Rotax (on a BSFC basis), and in a PFA aircraft with an electronic ignition system, even more so.

Rod is obviously blinkered when he says the Lycoming is 1940's technology. If he were given the design brief to deliver 180hp at a Lyc power/weight, he would struggle to achieve much better without turning out something that looked pretty much like a Lycoming.

A

PS: even at the extortionate 25L/h premium over the Rotax that Rod claims, it's still relative peanuts cost-wise compared to the other costs of running an aircraft for a typical 100hrs/year flyer. 100hp might do 140kts, but how much can it lift and how fast?

[gasax]

A direct comparison between an O-200 and 912S is however very relevant. O-200 usually about 21 lt/hr - generating less than 75 hp (which is at somewhere between 2350 and 2500 depending on which souce you use). 912S 15 to 16 lt/hr generating around 75 hp potentially a little more. Installed weights between 100 and 110 lbs lighter.

No a modern 180h engine would not look like a Lycon, it would almost certainly be geared and at least partially water cooled - very much like a 912....

[Rod1]

The 180hp aircraft is burning £5600 of fuel in a 100 hours, my Rotax will burn about £1600 in the same time. This was the main reason I spent 3 years building my own machine. The figures are ‘absolute’, in that they are based on fuel used and paid for so the aircraft would not have been leaned off in the climb for example. The 180hp Figures are based on 7 pilots over a 4 year period, the Rotax is all me. Expect the fuel costs to more than double in the next three years and again for the next three.

No a 220 hp modern engine would bear about as much resemblance to a Lyk as a modern car does to a vintage Austin. How do I know, because Rotax have designed one!

Bombardier Recreational Products Division has introduced its V220 and V300T aircraft engines. The fuel-injected, watercooled, 120-degree V-6 engine line has a single overhead camshaft and starts with a normally aspirated 220-hp and a turbocharged 300-hp version. A dual redundant electronic engine control unit provides true single-lever control of throttle, prop and mixture setting. Adaptive knock controlling allows the engine to sense the fuel (Avgas or Mogas) and adjust the engine timing accordingly. The engine is geared. Etc etc

Rod1

[smarthawke]

I agree that the majority of RVs in the world are found in the USA - but so are the majority of the worlds GA aircraft!

As for the Lycoming/Rotax debate there's enough Lycomings around which work perfectly well and reliably to TBO and beyond. They may not be the most efficient but they don't need radiators, coolant, gear boxes etc to complicate things.

Build an RV, fit a Lycoming in it and fly the a*se off it and you'll see why they are hard to beat as an all round excellent flying machine.

How many Europ/Ban-bi owner/builders have gone on to build another? How many and in how many countries do they operate compared with RVs?

If you don't believe me just go and blag a ride in an RV and try and stop grinning afterwards....

PS The V220 Bombardier engines are very pretty and I'd love one in the nose of the RV but I fear they might be a tad more expensive than a new Lycoming. Still, could be worse, people might start extolling the virtues of diesels........

[Andy_RR]

The Rotax V6 has been 'coming' for about as long as some of the diesels. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a production Zoche diesel before a production V220 or V300T. :}

I think you'll find that the V220/300 has two overhead camshafts - twice as many as strictly necessary - more friction, more complexity, more weight.

Pop a FADEC on a Lyc and you'll see equivalent performance, multi-fuel capability etc as a Rotax without the weight, cooling penalty or complexity that comes as standard with the V300T

re: fuel cost, I agree that you probably can fly a 100hp aircraft for £1600 a year, but it's not the sole domain of the Rotax. You could probably come close with 1940's technology in an O200 or O235. On a PFA machine, it could be possible to convert to MOGAS too. Comparing it to a 180hp flying machine is pointless.

oh, and I could find at least 7 pilots in the UK that all fly around everywhere fully rich. 40L/h is scandalous!

[RVFlyer]

I'm building one, also have rv6, and imported 4 rv9a kits in one go so anything you need to know just ask. I note that no one mentioned how long they take - it's a massive amount of very detailed work. My advice is keep it simple & buy anything pre-built that you can. You also require a fairly comprehensive set of tools not just a drill and rivet gun. You also need to learn riveting - this is not too hard though. Oh, and just one gripe, if you modify anything the PFA can take an age to approve it & countless additional details etc. - they are an inefficient bunch of old women who who milk the pfa funds without regard to the members some of which struggle to afford the fees etc. I'm aware of at least one jolly to the Vans aircraft factory- how much did that cost?
By the way, the Vans guys offer the best tech. support for any product I've ever had. What an excellent well run company!

[BlueRobin]

Check out the Vans website for guff on the first flight of the RV12

www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12_first_flight.htm

[Humaround]

Not a thing of great beauty, is it? A shame as Rans other machines look fab.

[smarthawke]

RANS? RANS? IT'S NOT 'KIN 'RANS' IT'S 'VANS'.....!!!!

I never say 'Vans' on the radio anymore, just RV-6 - otherwise people expect a microlight thing and get confused....

Vans = Dick Van Grunsven

Rans = Randy Schlitter (I jest not)

[Humaround]

Oh no, sorry, really...:O