My Vans RV conundrum.

[flightlogic]

Dave,
I have owned a V tail Bonanza, Mooney M20e as well as others.
I now fly a 9A. I am almost obsessive about safety issues. My wife is in the right seat most of the time. We take our small dog and any other gear required on extended trips. The RV is the best we have owned. Simple fact. Good luck with deciding.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Davy8or

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?

I am the opposite - I have a -9A that I am going to sell and "upgrade" to a Mooney 201 or, maaaaaybe a Bonanza, because I need 4 seats. Shame you aren't in Australia! The trans-pacific ferry is always a limiting factor, dammit.

Realistically, I would put $105-110AUD on my -9, which works out to around $85-90KUSD, to which you would have to add the price of a WAAS GPS, as I only have a C129 unit and single comm in mine, but for VFR in Australia, that's all you need. The C129 unit is enough to push the requirement for visually confirming your position out from 30 mins to 2 hours and a second comm can be added for under 1AMU.

I don't find the baggage area limiting in my -9, heck I have even managed to get a folding bike in there without too much trouble. Both seats hinge forwards, and that is now forms the limit, if you don't take the bottom seat cushions out. Remove them and the seat back folds forward easily, but in saying that, I installed automotive bucket seats, so they aren't quite factory.

As I tell people, Experimental's are no safer nor worse than certificated aircraft, so long as you can land/crash under control. That has more of a deciding factor in survivability than who made the aircraft. That being said, there have been several accidents among RV's where the fuselage distortion has resulted in the shoulder harness attachment points being able to move forward relative to the crew, in turn slackening the harness to the point it is rendered ineffective. This is my only concern about spearing in in the -9.

While I would never want to find out, I would guess the slow (<45KIAS) stall speed of the -9 would go a long way to preventing the overturning aspect in the event of a ditching.

With the Vans, I haven't read any stories of a successful ditching yet. Maybe I can find some here?

There was an -8 that went in off Hawaii a few years ago, successfully, the writeup is on VAF HERE. There is also the Alba Adriatica ditching after a mid-air collision, also an RV-8, in which the pilot survived. The video for that is available HERE.

I always wonder how it would have gone with a tip-over...

I think - but have absolutely no data to prove it, that ditching in a tip-up is likely to lead to a more successful outcome. Here's why: With a slider canopy, according to Vans, you can only open it a matter of inches due to air pressure at the back holding it closed. On impact with the water, as was found in the -8 ditching off Hawaii, it can slam forward enough to either bind, or completely jam in its' track. The tip up will float a few inches if opened inflight, and on impact it would probably try to fully open and tear itself off the aircraft.Even if it doesn't, it isn't likely to be jammed closed.

[eric.the.blonde]

My 2 cents thinks that you're in the market for a -14A: Stronger wing, more elbow room, CS prop required, HP endorsement required, better landing gear, potentially better panel/wiring due to available wiring harness, and a range beyond the limits of any human bladder -- all while having essentially the same mission. The drawback is that as a newer model there are not as many available and is commensurately more costly.

[rocketman1988]

According to NTSB data, there are about a dozen GA ditching a year. The didn't break that out into aircraft type. Considering the millions of hours flown by GA aircraft every year, I think that probability is pretty small.

If you are flying in areas where ditching is a factor, are you carrying necessary survival gear now?

I agree with most of the rest of the posters here; The wife factor outweighs ALL other factors.

I have owned several different GA aircraft over the years and I am nearly finished with my RV-10. I doubt that I will EVER own another "certified" aircraft...for all of the previously posted reasons.

The RV series of aircraft are incredibly safe, fun, affordable aircraft. Fly them all and see what you like. I'm betting that the -14 will come out on top!

[Northernliving]

Originally Posted by Davy8or

Thanks for the response! The baggage thing I'm still exploring and it's good to know there is a mod for the slider and the link to the bags you bought are helpful.

Ditching in a Mooney is pretty well documented over the decades and it does pretty well as long as you ditch gear up. They rarely flip unless you hook the wing in big swells. Usually they end up right side up with ample time to get out. Lots of stories out there.

With the Vans, I haven't read any stories of a successful ditching yet. Maybe I can find some here?

The cabin size is just a feeling I got from sitting in an RV-7. It seemed tight and possibly tighter than the Mooney, but I haven't gotten out a tape measure, or done a lot of research on the subject. It just feels like a squeeze which is fine for my solo missions 98% of the time, I'm just wondering about flying two up.

I'm OK with steam gauges for the six pack as that's what I have now, but good radios, a good GPS and a good engine monitor is a must. I have to admit though, my steam gauges are pissing me off right now. My AI is tilted a few degrees to the left sometimes (No way would I fly with this thing IFR!) my HI precesses like a MoFo, but that's expected after over 50 years of service I guess and my ASI wobbles a little, but again, over 50 years old.

I fly only VFR these days and haven't been IFR current since 2006, so not huge deal. However it still bugs me and I've been thinking about replacing my AI and my HI with Garmin G5 units and picking up the functionality of an HSI in the process, but if I'm going to change planes, this would be a huge waste of money.

I flew with my Mooney with it's shotgun panel for the better part of a year, so I can be tolerant, but in the end I hated it. I rearranged to be standard 6 pack and fixed up the radios and added a engine monitor. It's nothing that special, but here's how it looks now-

Not sure if this qualifies as "ditching" but it was a forced semi-off field landing with a "successful" outcome. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/0...september.html

Don't disagree that a "planned" gear-up forced landing would have less chance of a roll over, but then again, there are plenty of those other gear-up landings that are "unplanned" that aren't so plesent. Those are well documented, too!

[N941WR]

If the OP is concerned about stall speed and crash survivability, the -9's stall speed is still significantly lower than the -14's. (9 mph at GW.)

That is very significant, if that is what you are worried about.

Personally I have never not purchased a car, truck, or plane because they had a poor accident survivability rating.

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by kaweeka

Dave,
I have a -9A and live in Roseville. I'd be happy to take you flying, let you get the feel for the plane. Mine is an IO 320 with CS prop, G3x and G5 with all the bells you stated. I used to have a Socata Trinidad and my wife and I have never looked back after getting the -9A. Give me a call anytime. My coordinates are listed on my profile.
Best,
David

That is so awesome!! I won't waste you're time with tire kicking. If I get more serious about actually executing this plan, I'll definitely call you and buy you gas/lunch/whatever makes it right and legal.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by KRviator

I am the opposite - I have a -9A that I am going to sell and "upgrade" to a Mooney 201 or, maaaaaybe a Bonanza, because I need 4 seats. Shame you aren't in Australia! The trans-pacific ferry is always a limiting factor, dammit.

As I tell people, Experimental's are no safer nor worse than certificated aircraft, so long as you can land/crash under control. That has more of a deciding factor in survivability than who made the aircraft. That being said, there have been several accidents among RV's where the fuselage distortion has resulted in the shoulder harness attachment points being able to move forward relative to the crew, in turn slackening the harness to the point it is rendered ineffective. This is my only concern about spearing in in the -9.

This can be resolved by installing a cross brace at the seat belt cable fuselage attach point.

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by flightlogic

Dave,
I have owned a V tail Bonanza, Mooney M20e as well as others.
I now fly a 9A. I am almost obsessive about safety issues. My wife is in the right seat most of the time. We take our small dog and any other gear required on extended trips. The RV is the best we have owned. Simple fact. Good luck with deciding.

Excellent! How did you convince yourself the RV was as safe as your certified planes? What was the rational? Was there any data, or just a feeling? I really need to find some statistics or something.

[David Paule]

Kitplanes has an occasional article about this topic.

Dave