My Vans RV conundrum.

[Charles in SC]

Maybe I missed it. What Mooney do you have?

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by tgmillso

As a fellow single engine, fixed gear, overwater nutbag, it appears we have a situation on our hands that needs rectifying... wheels that fold away on a fast two seat RV.
If Roy can do it, then surely Van's can, as they are both up there in demigod aeroplane guru status.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zto0uqU93Tg
I'm about two months from wrapping the -7 up, so as much as I swore and declared at times during the build process I would wouldn't build another one (especially the day I drilled into my finger with that #40 bit), I'd be the second person to put in the order for the RG model. I'd only be second because I would be attempting to be courteous to the OP of this thread, as he currently doesn't have an RV at all.
Tom.

Agreed. I thing a retractable RV would be fantastic! However it needs to be designed from the ground up to be a retractable and not just a conversion to be truly successful. I doubt Vans will ever do it because it goes against their quick and simple to build core values. Retract would require more expense and more build time.

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by Charles in SC

Maybe I missed it. What Mooney do you have?

I have an M20F with the IO-360 motor in it. It has a lot of speed mods, so it's kind of a half assed M20J now. It's faster than the stock F, but not quite as fast as the J.

[Mike S]

Maybe you need something like this???

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Maybe you need something like this???

No, not so much. I think the ditching thing has been taken a bit out of proportion here. I actually avoid flight over water beyond glide distance now in my Mooney. I'm not planning to fly to Hawaii or explore the Caribbean, or cross Lake Michigan, or anything like that. But I can see flying to Catalina island maybe and that requires over the frigid water out of glide distance. The common wisdom by pilots there is, if you lose your engine, ditch near a boat if you can.

The attached photo does make me wonder why Vans has not come out with an amphibious sea plane kit though. Seems like something that would fit in nicely with the Vans portfolio. Not an RV on floats like the photo, but something more like a SeaRey.

[AviatorJ]

Originally Posted by Davy8or

Agreed. I thing a retractable RV would be fantastic! However it needs to be designed from the ground up to be a retractable and not just a conversion to be truly successful. I doubt Vans will ever do it because it goes against their quick and simple to build core values. Retract would require more expense and more build time.

Core values aren?t cheap and quick to build... would place it more on safety and simplicity.

As someone stated on your POA thread, doesn?t sound like the RV is right for you. Maybe you can find a solid Lancair if you want to get into expirementals.

[Davy8or]

Originally Posted by AviatorJ

Core values aren?t cheap and quick to build... would place it more on safety and simplicity.

As someone stated on your POA thread, doesn?t sound like the RV is right for you. Maybe you can find a solid Lancair if you want to get into expirementals.

If you say so. I certainly haven't made up my mind. A Lancair is not in my future though. While I do admit that I think the 360/Legacy model is just about as sexy looking as an airplane can get and their efficiency is legendary, their safety aspects are not. Their high landing speeds, stall characteristics and fiberglass construction does not make me comfortable with and engine out scenario in a Lancair. I also don't like how much runway they require.

As to the Vans core values thing, here is my exact quote-

their quick and simple to build core values.

Here is your exact quote-

...would place it more on safety and simplicity.

I admit that Vans has gotten very serious about safety and hence why I am considering the type and not some other. Perhaps I should have included that in my statement. However I am not wrong with what I said. Vans' emphasis on simplicity is to make the airplane quicker to build. It's also to make the airplane lighter and therefor better performing.

[AviatorJ]

Originally Posted by Davy8or

I admit that Vans has gotten very serious about safety and hence why I am considering the type and not some other. Perhaps I should have included that in my statement. However I am not wrong with what I said. Vans' emphasis on simplicity is to make the airplane quicker to build. It's also to make the airplane lighter and therefor better performing.

Some might say Total Performance....

[Brent]

I have spent the last sixty years flying professionally, General Aviation, military, airline then back to general aviation. I have owned a number of aircraft, both retract gear and fixed. I built an RV 9a, and was so impressed that I am in the final stages of building an RV 8. I have finally decided that retract gear for small aircraft is not for me for a number of reasons.

My RV 9a with an iO320 and constant speed prop cruised at a verified consistent 16o kts. I think Vans claims 163. I don?t think that there are many similarly powered light aircraft with retractable gear which are appreciably faster. The point being that they are very efficient and Vans numbers are pretty close. If safety is to be an issue, then the most Important factors are landing and take off speeds. I don?t think that the Mooney can match them. Just a few knots extra speed adds an enormous amount of additional energy to be dissipated.

Again considering safety, I prefer a sliding canopy. I acknowledge that with considerable deceleration forces the canopy will likely be jammed. I can?t see any benefit in a tilt up canopy, but that is merely my preference. That being the case, I have secured the front of the canopy with quick release pip pins rather than bolts. Mine are actually from an old ejection seat so are probably up to the design standard, but they are easily available. In event of any kind of questionable forced landing I have the option of ejecting the canopy just prior to touching down either water, trees or wherever.

If Vans offered a retract version, I most certainly would not be interested, I can?t see the point of the additional cost and complexity.... and to an extent, weight. The question of floats was mentioned. One of the joys of Experimental/amateur built, is that if the mood strikes, one could fit amphibious floats...... having said that, i suspect that rather a substantial amount of money would be involved!

Finally as someone else said, an old, Mooney versus a superbly designed aircraft with everything new. Neither of my rv?s has even a used Adele clamp, and I think most RV builders are the same. To my mind there is no comparison, and how many Mooney?s do we see carrying four people?

Best of luck with the decision making. Brent

[Charles in SC]

I have done a fair amount of flying in Mooneys over the years from wood wing ones to a couple of 231s and taught an instrument rating in a 20f. They are fine airplanes and would be proud to own any of them. With all that said my memory said the 20f was about 145 knots. Maybe I did not remember that correctly. Does your wife know how old your Mooney is?