Need your advice, RV-9 vs RV-12

[JMFord]

I want to start my first build next spring. I fly for a living but this will be my first adventure in homebuilts.

The main mission for my plane will be private pilot/instrument trainer for my kids with some occasional cross countries for my wife and I. I?m split between the RV-9a and the RV-12.

The RV-9 is obviously faster and I really like a good Lycoming. But the 12 looks like a more stable training platform and a faster build for my newbie skill set. The 9 is going to be more comfortable on a longer trip but the 12 looks more economical to operate.

Any thoughts?

[joe gremlin]

Go sit in both. I'm 6' and I found the 9 to be tight. Not terribly uncomfortable, but tight. I found the 12 fit me better and was easier to get in and out of.

[JMFord]

Originally Posted by joe gremlin

Go sit in both. I'm 6' and I found the 9 to be tight. Not terribly uncomfortable, but tight. I found the 12 fit me better and was easier to get in and out of.

I?m 6 foot tall as well. What was tight in the 9? Room around the panel, head hitting the canopy, etc?

[Av8torTom]

I would argue that the 9A is just as good a training platform as the 12. The 12 will be quicker and easier to build with its pull rivets.

[Carl Froehlich]

If you have the cash, build a 14. Your bride will be much happier when flying with you (more room for her and her stuff) and the 14 is a nice machine for instruction. I also consider the 14 an easier build than the 9.

Keep in mind the mission of the plane will evolve over the years so plan ahead.

Carl

[JMFord]

Originally Posted by Carl Froehlich

If you have the cash, build a 14. Your bride will be much happier when flying with you (more room for her and her stuff) and the 14 is a nice machine for instruction. I also consider the 14 an easier build than the 9.

Keep in mind the mission of the plane will evolve over the years so plan ahead.

Carl

Ah yes the 14. She?s like the girl in the Ferrari from the National Lampoons vacation movies that had been taunting me from a distance. It looks like a better designed kit but it?s probably 50% more cost. Also I worry the constant speed prop may be too much complexity for a primary student.

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

Nobody has yet mentioned the ride in turbulence...

In my -9A, if the cumulus clouds are of any consequence, I slow down to keep the ride under control. If a cumulus cloud has more than 4-5 thousand feet of vertical development and you're in one, you can go for a ride!! In the -12, with the lighter wing loading, I'd expect things to be worse, which is to say, unacceptable.

The extra speed of the -9/A means that headwinds are proportionately less of a factor.

The -9/A is likely easier to handle in higher winds and crosswinds.

As for costs, there's initial cost, gas, and insurance. But if you're equipping for IFR, and these days that means WAAS/IFR/GPS, the other costs are less significant.

I think that in terms of wing loading, ride in turbulence, etc., the -9/A is about at the bottom of what I'd consider acceptable. My expectation (and my one flight in a -12 was in light winds) is that the -12 will be less than than.

I used to fly an AirCam, which was a light wind, sight seeing airplane, and not a "real" airplane, so I make the next statement advisedly. The -9/A is likely to be more of a "real" airplane than the -12. This is not a knock on the -12, it's just a statement of design point.

As for a -14, I'd go for a -14/A in a heartbeat over a -9/A. Higher wing loading primarily, and if it gets bumpy, you can slow down to -9/A speed, but I've read that the -9/A handling is a little nicer for X-C than the -14.

Try and get a ride in each, but not on nice days.

[gfb]

Such different airplanes with very different missions

RV-9 Pros
- 30kt faster econ cruise (150kt, 8k DA, 8gph vs 120kt? 6gph?)
- lower fuel burn at slow speed (120kt 5gph.)
- Better climb (I usually see 1500 fpm and then slow down to cruise climb at 1000fpm, 110kts.)

RV-9 Cons
- Slower build, less "modern" kit. 2000+ hr build.
- Possibly higher insurance as a primary trainer?

RV-12 Pros
- Much faster, easier build. 1000hr?
- Lower longeron decks.
- Seating ahead of the wings.
- Removable wings.
- Modern 'FADEC' engine.

RV-12 Cons
- Personally I dislike the button rivet look.
- Slow.
- Around me there is minimal access to MoGas. I understand the Rotax does not recommend running constantly on AvGas?

Generally:
- I flew both and found the 9 to be a much more stable platform. Possibly because I was used to it with 350hrs on a 9 vs 2hrs on a 12.
- After economy cruising at 140kts or 150kts at altitude, 120kts feels positively slow.
- 9 & 12 feel like they have about the same room. I'm 6', 205lb.

[Robert Sailor]

Interesting discussion. If it were me I?d build the airplane of my dreams and budget and give no thought to training.
For training I?d buy a Cessna 150 and when your last child gets his/her license I?d simply sell it for close to what I had into it. It?s a purpose designed trainer and very little today can compete in its mission. It would be a simple checkout for any of them to move over to the RV. Much easier to get an instructor as well.

[joe gremlin]

Originally Posted by JMFord

I?m 6 foot tall as well. What was tight in the 9? Room around the panel, head hitting the canopy, etc?

Yes and yes. I sat in the Vans 9a at the factory. The front edge of the slider dips a bit lower at the front edge so I had to tilt my head and scrunch down a bit to get it closed. Once it was closed I could hold my head up again and there was probably room enough for a headset but it would be close. Once in the seat, the panel seemed a bit close to me. Not too close, but it seemed closer than other airplanes.

A couple of things to keep in mind with this. This was the factory demo plane so its built to plans. I believe the seats are able to adjust somewhat and I did not mess with that at all nor do I know what position they were in when I got in it.

The performance numbers had me pretty much settled on going with a 9 kit and hadn't even considered the 12. A 12 project showed up for sale local to me for an attractive price so I decided to go look at it just to see it. What could it hurt to look I thought.

The 12 being a newer (quicker easier build) and more complete kit (everything but paint) was attractive so we decided to jump on it. I hadn't sat in the 12 but I figured it couldn't be worse than the 9 and the 9 tight as it was would still work. We sat in a 12 at Oshkosh this year and we both liked it much better than the 9. That was my experience, obviously your mileage may vary.