What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What is this RV-9A worth?

Lemos

Active Member
I am trying to buy an RV-14A but the one that I am looking at has some issues, which I am not sure we will be able to get past.

So in the meantime I looked at an RV-9A yesterday. Based in Nevada, where it was built in 2010. 525 hours total time, with a new YO-320 motor with the same time. Fixed pitch prop made by Catto. Dual Dynon SkyView with a GNS 430W. Paint and interior are acceptable but average.

The builder says he will sell for no less than $102,500. I cannot really put my finger on the actual selling prices for these aircraft. For anyone in the market or that follow the market, what thoughts can you share on this pricing? It's a very easy $60,000 under the RV-14A price that I am looking at and I am not sure that an RV-14A is a $60,000 better airplane.
 
Based on what I paid for my RV-9A about 3 months ago, that's about 10% higher, but I perceive there's been a kind of price escalation over that period of time so I don't know. Mine is about 9 years old with about 360 hours, IO-320, C/S prop, IFR panel, fair interior, really excellent paint. Lot's lof little doo dads like nose gear and wheel upgrades and other Anti-Splat kind of stuff. It's a wonderful airplane. I couldn't be more pleased.

Perhaps that price difference over mine is reflected in the IFR panel of the one you're looking at. Skyview is nice stuff. I'm a big fan of the AFS 4500/3400 panel that I have, but my AHRS just died and now I find myself either fixing it for about $1000 (in which case I'll still have a 9 year old and obsolete EFIS) or shelling out about $7000 for an upgrade to the most current hardware. I've opted for the latter.

Depending on what other value-added accessories are in that RV-9A your talking about, $102,500 might not be that far off the mark. In my relatively uninformed opinion.
 
$102,500 is probably in the ballpark.

The problem with these threads is that the aircraft is worth whatever it is to the buyer. It isn't for us to decide. To one person, it may be a $120,000 airplane, and to another, it's worth $80,000. Neither are right or wrong.. it's all about a meeting of the minds between the buyer and seller. If both the buyer and the seller are happy with the number, then it sold for what it was worth.
 
I would agree the asking price is in the ballpark, and any difference would be personal preference and build quality.

I would surely pay the $102k for a well built machine vs less for one that has poor build quality just so I felt like I got a deal.

Prebuy by someone who knows RV's would tell you. Be aware, not all prebuys are created equal though.
 
If it’s painted by a pro shop that’s barely the price of the parts. Take it.

0541821B_DD61_49EF_B6FA_28A920A39253.jpeg
 
I love the -14, but I note that there aren’t many available, and that supports the very high prices that I see. For my use, I just can’t see a -14 being cost effective when you can buy a -9 for $60k less. YMMV.
 
market prices

There's a few -9As on barnstormers from 72 AMU up to 105 AMU. It's hard to advise what each is "worth" without knowing all the details and a first hand inspection...:rolleyes:
 
There are a whole lot of good things about the 14/a being a newer more complete design, but - - most of that benefits the builder. If the quality is equal . . . .

The cabin size is forever.

They clearly are holding value.

If the plane fits, meets your mission, buy it.
 
I look at a more reasonably priced RV-9A yesterday in the San Francisco area. We were able to take it for a flight, and I found that it didn't meet the Van's performance numbers from their website. :mad: Is this expected?

Airplane is RV-9A with 900 hours, and 1300 SMOH of an IO-360 Lycoming. Fixed pitch prop and six pack flight instruments along with an ancient engine computer of some variety, which the owner said is no longer supported. I'd plan to re-panel the airplane.

We climbed to the coast and flew at 7,500 ft. First, it climbs like a rocketship. We were climbing 1700 feet per minute after takeoff. At 7500', we were reduced throttle at 75% power and the true airspeed was just 171 MPH. Fuel burn was 9.4 gallons per hour. Do these performance figures sound right? I like the airplane and like what I can do with it, but I am concerned about not making performance numbers.

Asking price of $62,500. Deal, or no deal?
 
Climb prop maybe

I may be wrong, but “we” equal two adults climbing at 1700 fpm is better than I would expect. This means you suffer at cruise a bit. Make double sure ASI is mph or knots. Lastly, should do better than 9.4gph if leaned till she quivered 😀.

If not dog ugly paint and interior, the price is about right IMHO. Happy RV hunting.
 
We climbed to the coast and flew at 7,500 ft. First, it climbs like a rocketship. We were climbing 1700 feet per minute after takeoff. At 7500', we were reduced throttle at 75% power and the true airspeed was just 171 MPH. Fuel burn was 9.4 gallons per hour. Do these performance figures sound right?

I doubt you could accurately evaluate performance from the flight:

Was the TAS accurate. As a minimum you would need to do two runs in opposite directions and average the GPS speed to get an approximate TAS.

At 7,500 feet you would not want to pull the throttle much or you would be under 75%.

Was the fuel flow accurate?

Were you really at 75%? What was the mixture setting? As an example an 0 360 at 75% and 2,700 rpm will burn about 9.8 (best economy) to 11.5 g/h (full rich).

Fin 9A
 
Last edited:
...I found that it didn't meet the Van's performance numbers from their website.... Is this expected?

Probably not - but the last I knew, the 9A shows specs for a 160hp engine. And, it would seem that your fixed pitch prop is a little more inclined to be a climb prop than a cruise prop. That would easily account for what you saw.

We climbed to ... 7,500 ft...[at] 1700 feet per minute after takeoff. At 7500', we were reduced throttle at 75% power and the true airspeed was just 171 MPH. Fuel burn was 9.4 gallons per hour. Do these performance figures sound right?

171mph is in the range of 150 knots. That's about what I recall of a friend's RV6 with a O-320 (160hp) engine. Assuming you were at 2600rpm (a big assumption), then I'd guess the pitch of the prop to be in the neighborhood of 75". For comparison, a Cherokee would probably have a pitch in the range of 60 - 62". If the pitch were 80", you'd lose some rate of climb, but the speed would be closer to what you're expecting.

The rate of climb is possible allowing for the additional horse power and the pitch of the prop.

I don't think the 75% and 9.4gph line up. If your gph was 9.4, I think your actual power being generated at that setting would have been more like 128 hp (based on the fuel flow and a leaned mixture). Take that as a percent of the rated power for the engine, and I think you'll be less than 75%.

Keep in mind that a prop can be repitched or replaced. But before doing so, make sure your static RPM is sufficient. I would think you'd want it to be no lower than 2350rpm and no higher than 2450 rpm.

Good luck
 
My 9 cruises at 145 knots lean of peak at 7.5 at 7.5k. Rich of peak I get ten more knots but lose almost 2gph. Thats with an IO360 and a fixed pitch catto prop. And it climbs like a raped ape too :)
 
My 9 cruises at 145 knots lean of peak at 7.5 at 7.5k. Rich of peak I get ten more knots but lose almost 2gph. Thats with an IO360 and a fixed pitch catto prop. And it climbs like a raped ape too :)

Same basic airplane here, IO-360, Catto prop, and I see low 150 KTAS at cruise at breathable altitudes, and fuel flow in the low 9's when rich of peak.

@Lemos, your airplane sounds fine/comparable to mine. Some are faster, some are slower. But I think the speeds and fuel flows that we're talking about are about average for an IO-360.
 
I've got an IO-320 with constant speed prop in my 9A.

I plan for 147 knot cruise at about 6.5 GPH LOP. At an altitude of around 7 - 12 k.

-Dan
 
I've got an IO-320 with constant speed prop in my 9A.

I plan for 147 knot cruise at about 6.5 GPH LOP. At an altitude of around 7 - 12 k.

-Dan

that's about the same for me. I can go to 5.2 GPH but speed drops to 135 kts.
 
that's about the same for me. I can go to 5.2 GPH but speed drops to 135 kts.

That's really putting the hurt on a RV-12 Legacy with the Rotax 912 ULS motor with dual carbs.
I can do about 105 to 110 kts on 4.5 GPH, @ 6500 ft.

But I can and do get to run Premium unleaded Mogas, which only saves a little in the grand scheme of things in owning an experimental airplane.

And a 16 hour course will allow me to do my own conditional inspections, annually, since I'm not the builder. One advantage of owning a E-LSA vs E-AB.
 
171mph is in the range of 150 knots. That's about what I recall of a friend's RV6 with a O-320 (160hp) engine. Assuming you were at 2600rpm (a big assumption), then I'd guess


Good luck

My 6A with an io-320 with catto does 160 ktas (184 mph) at 8K and 8.2 GPH. Prop is spinning 2730-40 at that speed for me. I think that is near book speed. Would expect similar with a 9. That is with a verified airspeed indication.
 
Last edited:
We climbed to the coast and flew at 7,500 ft. First, it climbs like a rocketship. We were climbing 1700 feet per minute after takeoff. At 7500', we were reduced throttle at 75% power and the true airspeed was just 171 MPH. Fuel burn was 9.4 gallons per hour. Do these performance figures sound right? I like the airplane and like what I can do with it, but I am concerned about not making performance numbers.

Asking price of $62,500. Deal, or no deal?

Like other have said the prop appears pitched for climb which will effect your top-end speed, and if you pull power off at 7500' then you're not producing 75% power. On a standard day at 8000' 75% power is WOT (Wide Open Throttle). With these factors it appears the 171 mph is pretty close to the published Van's #. Also, make sure the TAS is accurate by doing a 3 or 4-way GS run. There's more accurate spreadsheets available to do the math for you, but quick average of TAS vs GS will show if you have any static source error. If the airplane is equipped with static port contrary to the plans you definitely have a static error.

It actually pretty hard to build an airplane that doesn't meet the published Vans # unless it significantly heavier.
 
Last edited:
If it helps, here are the performance numbers in my -9 built almost exactly to plans with an O-320, FP Sensenich prop pitched to 79", and dual Lasar electronic ignition.
- 193mph TAS at 8,000ft spinning 2590 rpm (I forgot to note fuel burn, but it was ROP).
- 182mph TAS at 8,500ft spinning 2510 rpm while burning 7.5gph.
- 160mph TAS at 10,500ft spinning 2290 rpm while burning 5.2gph.
- 173mph TAS at 14,500ft spinning 2440 rpm while burning 5.6gph.
Note that the last two lines are running lean of peak, and yes this is a carbureted engine. I'm based at KPAO if you happen to be in the area and want to learn more about the -9.
 
"I like the airplane and like what I can do with it"
!!!

"but I am concerned about not making performance numbers"
I haven't ran into a second owned plane yet where the new owner didn't want to make changes, update panel or speed mods or.... Welcome to Experimental Aircraft ownership! (or not)

"Deal, or no deal?"
Why ask the crowd?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top