|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

08-17-2012, 07:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Taylorsville, GA
Posts: 748
|
|
DA-40
DA-20, not -40
If you're looking for a club airplane that is 2 seat, economical, somewhat sporty (ie compared to a Piper) and suitable for a club environment, I'd go with the Diamond DA-20. It's a very fun airplane to fly and is designed with training / rental / club type use in mind. And eaqually priced to a good RV-9 and probably burns less fuel (per hour, not per mile).
A club will trash an RV out in short order - even a good club kind of views the airplane as a rental. An RV-9A is a fine airplane, but it won't take that kind of flying.
__________________
Jeff Rhodes - Taylorsville, GA
RV-9, 7 - going fast
BC-12D - going slow
jrhodes@v1salesmgt.com
|

08-17-2012, 07:25 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
If you're looking for a good two-place airplane with RV-ish performance or handling, look at something like a Grumman or a Swift. Not as fast as an RV, perhaps, but still very solid, light on the controls aircraft that might fare better in a club environment.
For that matter, get a Super Cub, and join the ranks of people dispelling the myth that tailwheels are hard.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

08-17-2012, 08:58 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near Scipio, in Southern Indiana
Posts: 1,779
|
|
I tend to agree that the 9A isn't for a large club, although I think it great for partnerships and small clubs. Since you considered Light Sport, I think the RV-12 might be more acceptable than the 9A. Also, it is one of the few planes out there with lower operating costs. While I have limited hours in the 12 (lots in the 9A,) it seems to be more rugged in some ways, especially the gear. I have seen many people fly the 9A like a Cessna, and that will cause the problems mentioned earlier. I don't think that will happen with the 12. I may be way off base here, but the flying characteristics seem different enough that it just might work. You might see what others think of this idea--I bet some chime in.
Bob
__________________
Bob Kelly, Scipio, Indiana
Tech Counselor
Founder, Eagle's Nest Projects
President, AviationNation, Inc
RV-9A N908BL, Flying
|

08-18-2012, 12:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,685
|
|
Wow to the response from Chile
I am impressed and wonder how you achieved such success. My wife and I owned an Archer for 22 years and for the first 5 years it was on lease back to the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics - West Flying Club. It was an oustanding airplane, I personally watched over it every day and it held up well. The club had good members but love of airplanes, good intentions and flying skill vary all over the place. Our club folded when it got too adventurous and leased a Mooney 201 (landed rough went off the runway, collapsed the gear, prop destroyed etc.) and a Bonanza (returned from Catalina with 6 people on board flaired too high anf drove the landing gear up through the wing, etc.). I have to agree with most and say the plane will not last but that is just my thought. HSANTIBANEZ has real experience. If you want to pursue this it would be good to explore his valuable experience further.
Bob Axsom
|

08-18-2012, 08:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,868
|
|
I just want to reiterate what most posters on this thread have already stated. An RV9A is not a suitable aircraft for a large flying group.
Having been a shareholder in a 38 member group I can confirm that the lowest common denominator of flying skills for such a large group will be very low indeed. Typically such a large group will have some members who are flying very minimal hours per year, and other members who are quite old and starting to struggle with their coordination. The end result will be that aircraft flown by such a group will be severely punished. In particular the landing gear, and especially the nose gear, will take a real pounding in that environment. The RV9A is a performance sports aircraft and I don't believe it was designed for that sort of abuse.
__________________
You’re only as good as your last landing 
Bob Barrow
RV7A
|

08-18-2012, 08:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,291
|
|
Another aircraft worthy of consideration for this purpose is the GlaStar. Good performance, not as fast per HP as the RV's. Good handling, but definitely more Cessna-like than the RV's. Great useful load characteristics as well as excellent cargo volume available.
Like all of these "light" airplanes, my concern would be the durability of the nose gear. If outfitted with the gear from the Sportsman that concern would go away. Also, several builders have converted from the little Lamb nosewheel to a 5.00x5 through the use of a new nose gear fork, and all report much better performance on surfaces other than smooth concrete. GlaStar pricing is also more like RV6 pricing than RV9A pricing in today's used aircraft market.
|

08-18-2012, 10:08 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,182
|
|
For a sporty handling... faster-than-your-average-spamcan airplane with fixed gear that would still be suitable for the hard life in a flying club, I'd take a good look at the Grumman Cheetah /Tiger.
__________________
Neal Howard
Airplaneless once again...
|

08-20-2012, 07:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Novi, MI & Venice, FL
Posts: 66
|
|
I think the fact that Experimentals fly so much different from similar certified planes makes it mandatory that anyone in the club that wants to fly it will have to attend one of Van's authorized transition schools. Not that many around and it can get expensive. How many would be willing to travel to Texas or Oregon and take the course? Don't think I'd want anyone flying it that hadn't taken the course.
__________________
Rich Bond
Just a wishful observer
Gave up awaiting AOPA/EAA exemption request
2015 =VAF= Contributor
|

08-22-2012, 06:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: allentown, pa
Posts: 13
|
|
Wow, I go away from the forum for a couple days and come back to a bunch of posts and activity, thanks everyone!
An observation from the posts so-far are that only people in Chile are capable of having an RV-9a in a flying club.... interesting
It seems that many folks who have RV-9a's are not recommending the rv9a due to the landing gear. Many folks who don't have rv9a's but who have other RV's have expressed concerns over an RV in a flying club. Some folks without RV's (experience unknown) have expressed sentiment that an RV9a is not suited to a flying club (presumably this opinion is based on research / experience as well). All of that feedback is very valuable and I appreciate it. I must say however that people seem to have jumped on the "all-negative" bandwagon (as pilots sometimes do).
I've inspected RV9a's at Oshkosh and found them to be (on the surface) solidly built, at least on par or better than the light sports' I've seen.
Lets think positive: A RV9A will get you there faster, with better mpg, than almost any aircraft out there regardless of price. It has a great useful load. It has factory support and thousands of experienced builders around the world. It uses proven technology and is repairable. Are my rose colored glasses to rosey?
To be honest, comments to the effect of "a flying club will destroy an RV" are somewhat useful because they convey a feeling born out of experience, but they are also not conclusive because it is not a statement backed up by specific facts or experiences. What flying club tore the gear off an RV9A? What components will fail? Why is it a "weak" airplane for this use?
From what I've heard so far the RV9A decision comes down to club risk acceptance. Do the members want to keep the conservative status quo' or to push the envelope and expect better aviating out of the club (and gain the rewards). At the moment that is how I will likely present the case for the aircraft.
Last edited by bikesandcars : 08-22-2012 at 07:36 AM.
|

08-22-2012, 07:22 AM
|
 |
been here awhile
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
|
|
a rose-tinted view
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikesandcars
Wow, I go away from the forum for a couple days and come back to a bunch of posts and activity, thanks everyone!
An observation from the posts so-far are that only people in Chile are capable of having an RV-9a in a flying club.... interesting
It seems that many folks who have RV-9a's are not recommending the rv9a due to the landing gear. Many folks who don't have rv9a's but who have other RV's have been very clear that they feel a flying club will outright destroy a RV9a. All of that feedback is very valuable and I appreciate it. I must say however that people seem to have jumped on the "all-negative" bandwagon (as pilots sometimes do).
|
Who is better to evaluate the suitability of the -9A for club use than actual RV owners? Non-owners?? There are very good reasons why so many of us have "jumped on the "all-negative" bandwagon".....ignore us at your own risk.
I would love to see a -9A be enjoyed by your club, but have serious reservations for reasons stated by several posters.
Quote:
|
I've inspected RV9a's at Oshkosh and found them to be (on the surface) solidly built, at least on par or better than the light sports' I've seen.
|
I don't see much value in a cursory inspection at a fly-in. What matters is how actual owners consider an RV to be suited for a club environment.
Quote:
|
Lets think positive: A RV9A will get you there faster, with better mpg, than almost any aircraft out there regardless of price. It has a great useful load. It has factory support and thousands of experienced builders around the world. It uses proven technology and is repairable. Are my rose colored glasses to rosey?
|
In my opinion...yes. You have admirable intentions, but I think your enthusiasm for adding the -9A to your club is affecting your objectivity.
Quote:
To be honest, comments to the effect of "a flying club will destroy an RV" are somewhat useful because they convey a feeling born out of experience, but they are also not conclusive because it is not a statement backed up by specific facts or experiences. What flying club tore the gear off an RV9A? What components will fail? Why is it a "weak" airplane for this use?
From what I've heard so far the RV9A decision comes down to club risk acceptance. Do the members want to keep the conservative status quo' or to push the envelope and expect better aviating out of the club (and gain the rewards). At the moment that is how I will likely present the case for the aircraft.
|
If you pursue this, I think insurance carriers are going to be the major factor in whether or not the -9A is a frequently flown aircraft in your club. In order to be added to the pilot list for the plane, pilots must have transition training. I suspect insurance carriers are going to be very strict in this regard and this will filter out pilots who either don't have the incentive or skill to be added to the policy. This may end up making your plan workable, but it would also exclude (many?) pilots in your club from access to the -9A. How many "RV" pilots your club needs in order to justify the expense and upkeep of the -9A will be interesting to see.
Maintenance will be interesting as well. I assume you will have an A&P caring for the plane and this may or may not dovetail into your present maintenance program. Not all A&Ps will want to take on an experimental, especially one being pounded by a club. The liability exposure is going to be a very real concern for some A&Ps.
Best wishes, and let us know how it works out.
Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 08-22-2012 at 07:28 AM.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 AM.
|