RV-12 vs RV-9

[mark schoening]

Originally Posted by WVM

I am very interested in data on the RV9 with an IO-320. Do you have any data on them related to cruising speed and fuel consumption?

About the MOGAS on Lycomings. I know a mechanic with loads of experience on Lycoming engines. He told me that it is not a good idea to fly them on MOGAS. They immediately see when you did during maintenance, especially on the cylinder heads.

Have burned Reg car gas in 0-320 lyc for years and if anything, less problems. But, I have 0-320 with 7.5 - 1 comp pistons @ 150 hp. No lead fouling of plugs or oil. Also I never fly above 8-9 thousand ft. Hot weather has never affected my engine. Cylinders extremely clean. I generally run from 8 to 9 gph --rich down low and slightly leaned at higher altitudes. Not hung upon LOP or ROP. But then I don't believe everything I hear.

[Jim T]

Something else to consider, if you're going to build, is the build time. The RV-12 will build faster than the RV-9 and can be built pretty much without help, where-as the RV-9 will require some help in places. Folks who have experience building both could provide more info on this.

Regards, Jim

[WVM]

Originally Posted by mark schoening

Have burned Reg car gas in 0-320 lyc for years and if anything, less problems. But, I have 0-320 with 7.5 - 1 comp pistons @ 150 hp. No lead fouling of plugs or oil. Also I never fly above 8-9 thousand ft. Hot weather has never affected my engine. Cylinders extremely clean. I generally run from 8 to 9 gph --rich down low and slightly leaned at higher altitudes. Not hung upon LOP or ROP. But then I don't believe everything I hear.

I agree with you that you don't have to believe everything. That is why I greatly appreciate others opinions. My point is that it is now that I have to decide which RV to build and I have to do it with the information that is available. Fuel prices are really a concern in Europa, but I also don't what to focus too much on it, especially not if it will impact my joy of flying. But based on my earlier post with the comparison on the RV9A and the Europa, if it is only about 10 kts in differences, for about half the fuel price, then I would not mind going a bit slower. I just want to ensure that I don't have to keep the plane in the hangar, because there is a bit to much wind or because my friends are flying to a grass strip that is out of reach for the RV12.

[WVM]

Originally Posted by Jim T

Something else to consider, if you're going to build, is the build time. The RV-12 will build faster than the RV-9 and can be built pretty much without help, where-as the RV-9 will require some help in places. Folks who have experience building both could provide more info on this.

Regards, Jim

I understand that the build time is less because of the rivet type used on the RV12. It is another debate but aircraft engineers told me that these pop rivets are of less quality then the regular AN rivets on the other RVs. It is not that the frame will fall apart, but over time it can become an issue. Knowing that the RV12 is still a very young air frame design, it is hard to say what the future will bring on this. I have asked VANS if I could use AN rivets, and they told me that it would be "Impractical and probably impossible.". Purely on esthetics I don't really liked the rivet hats on the RANS 19S. I am waiting to see a RV12 to make an opinion on it.

[N941WR]

First, the -12 is a great airplane! Other than being limited to two seats, it out performs a Cessna 172 and that says a LOT!

One of my EAA chapter member has a Europa and he does remove the wings to take it home for the annual condition inspection. Other than that, the wings stay on all the time.

Have put over 510 hours on my RV-9, the first 275 hours with a 135 HP O-290 and the remaining with a 180+ HP O-360.

The -9 performs as Van's states and flies like, well, it flies like an RV. Very similar to the -12.

I can cruise at 150 to 155 Kts while burning around 7.1 GPH. With the standard 7.5:1 compression, you can run premium auto fuel. (I realize you don't have ethanol in your auto fuel, which is good!)

The biggest issue is the cost and time to build. They can be equal or you can go overboard on the -9, it is all up to you. The -9 is more of blank canvas whereas the -12 is pretty much "paint by numbers".

Best of luck with your choice. Whatever you pick, you can't go wrong.

[Bill_H]

A 2000' runway? I WISH I had that!!! RV12 operating out of a 1260 foot home grass strip with no problems, just careful. Before I started operating here, I had the prop pitched for cruise, wheel pants on, and was getting 122kt at 5450 rpm at just less than 5GPH (US gallons) of auto premium fuel. When I started using this strip, I have temporarily taken off the wheel pants (lost 3 to 4 kt) and repitched the prop just slightly for better takeoff. Still getting 116 to 118 kts cruise at same fuel consumption. For a really short strip I recommend adding the AOA.

[petehowell]

Here is the thread where I have been tracking Perf #'s coming out of my annual.

I have been known to mix in some mogas and if anything she is a hair faster.

The -9A will also loiter at 130KTAS on 5 gallons per hour.

The 12 is great plane, too. Hard to lose here.

From Rosie: Another related thread here.

[AF_Alan]

I built/fly an RV9A w/ an IO-320 160 HP. I got to custome panel, engine etc to what i wanted. Lop of 155 knots true at 8,000 burning just over 7 gph. Can throttle back to 50% down lower and see 125 true on just less than 6 gph for leisurely sightseeing. Performance numbers across board match Van's advertised.

Also building 12. Ready to fly assembly time under 800 hours, mostly single person construction with basic tools vice special dimpling & bucking etc. I've put wings on/off several with help of one person in under 10 minutes each time. Watch YouTube video and believe it IS that easy. I believe Van's numbers which means cruise diff much more than 10 knots.

Do you want, need and can you afford higher performance and gross at a tradeoff of longer build time, higher fuel cost and hangar or tie down cost as long as you own plane?

Either plane great but definitely more difference than 10 knots.
Good luck!

[WVM]

Originally Posted by N941WR

First, the -12 is a great airplane! Other than being limited to two seats, it out performs a Cessna 172 and that says a LOT!

One of my EAA chapter member has a Europa and he does remove the wings to take it home for the annual condition inspection. Other than that, the wings stay on all the time.

Have put over 510 hours on my RV-9, the first 275 hours with a 135 HP O-290 and the remaining with a 180+ HP O-360.

The -9 performs as Van's states and flies like, well, it flies like an RV. Very similar to the -12.

I can cruise at 150 to 155 Kts while burning around 7.1 GPH. With the standard 7.5:1 compression, you can run premium auto fuel. (I realize you don't have ethanol in your auto fuel, which is good!)

The biggest issue is the cost and time to build. They can be equal or you can go overboard on the -9, it is all up to you. The -9 is more of blank canvas whereas the -12 is pretty much "paint by numbers".

Best of luck with your choice. Whatever you pick, you can't go wrong.

Please note that we do have ethanol in our auto fuel. This is the main concern for owners to keep on using AVGAS. Even while there is a big difference in price: a gallon of AVGAS costs about 12,89 USD, while a gallon of auto fuel is about 8,34 USD.

The difficult thing is that there is generally none in, but fuel suppliers are allowed to add a percentage of ethanol if they want. Sometimes to do. To be on the safe side you will need to test each time you refuel and this is what keeps most of the owners away from doing so. On the other hand there are owners that do use it all the time. In general without problems. It depends on how far you are willing to go...

[WVM]

Originally Posted by AF_Alan

I built/fly an RV9A w/ an IO-320 160 HP. I got to custome panel, engine etc to what i wanted. Lop of 155 knots true at 8,000 burning just over 7 gph. Can throttle back to 50% down lower and see 125 true on just less than 6 gph for leisurely sightseeing. Performance numbers across board match Van's advertised.

Also building 12. Ready to fly assembly time under 800 hours, mostly single person construction with basic tools vice special dimpling & bucking etc. I've put wings on/off several with help of one person in under 10 minutes each time. Watch YouTube video and believe it IS that easy. I believe Van's numbers which means cruise diff much more than 10 knots.

Do you want, need and can you afford higher performance and gross at a tradeoff of longer build time, higher fuel cost and hangar or tie down cost as long as you own plane?

Either plane great but definitely more difference than 10 knots.
Good luck!

The 6 gallons at 50% power and 125 Kts comes close to what a RV9A owner told me last weekend.

Related to the wings. I have seen the video and it is easy. The only point is, was this designed with the idea to do it after every flight or only from time to time. The airports that I operate from have only yearly hangar contracts. You basically have to remove them after each flight or never remove them at all.

Concerning the building costs. I calculated, based on invoices from another builder, that the RV9 would cost about 14000 USD more, if you put the same instruments and options in it as the RV12 kit. It is true that you are pretty much forced to use a new Rotax on the RV12. In a RV9 you can easily put a second hand Lycoming, which are easier to find. If you do so the RV9 becomes cheaper to build than the RV12. The RV12 is a big winner on the building time.