What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Real World Numbers, Am I Missing Something?

Let me start by saying long time lurker first time post. My mission is to travel and get my IFR ticket (for safety not for necessity). So naturally the 9 comes into picture. The 14 is a bit too rich for my blood. I want to be done at 80K with an IFR machine not 100K. The 9 is attractive, but I'm still dumbfounded that it only has a 36 gal capacity. Imagine my excitement when I find the Hotel Whiskey extended tanks. Then I ran the numbers:

empty weight 1050 (middle of average according to Van's site)
fuel weight 216 = 1266
A/C weight 48 = 1314 (Not negotiable according to the treasury)
HW ER Tanks 10 = 1324
ER fuel weight 60 = 1384
pilot weight 200 = 1584
co-pilot weight 150 = 1734

This leaves 16 pounds for bags ......... not good

When I run the same numbers for the 7 I get:

empty weight 1100 (middle of average according to Van's site)
fuel weight 252 = 1362
A/C weight 48 = 1410 (Not negotiable according to the treasury)
HW ER Tanks not needed
ER fuel weight not installed
pilot weight 200 = 1610
co-pilot weight 150 = 1760

40 pounds of bags.

You can't have it all. I know that. I could have the ER tanks installed and if they are unfilled I've added 60 pounds that I could carry (76 total for baggage).

Overall I'm just suprised that the 9 only has a 36 gallon capacity. I get that it's a cross counry maching for many reasons, but that is not one. Using 8GPH I'm getting 3.5 hrs aloft with a 1hr saftey buffer.
 
Your AC is basically 50Lbs ?baggage? that you carry with you at all times. As for endurance, 3.5 hours is about as long as I want to sit in the confines of my plane at one time. Even at that, with 1 fuel stop, I can be MORE than halfway across our country. I know the 7 has a little more fuel but realistically their numbers are not too far off with the smaller engine. 80k for an IFR machine is probably possible but unlikely in my opinion. That said, they are wonderful machines. As said many times before, build light.

Best of luck.
 
Fuel Capacity, Gross Wt. etc.

You might check out the RV-8, unless you have to have the side by side. It is much easier to enter and exit due to the canopy side rails and the roll over bar, and the 41 gallons fuel capacity will satisfy most everyone. It is a nice stable IFR platform and has 2 baggage bins. I installed an Lyc. 0-360 with hot tips and a Hartzell blended airfoil prop and got 183 knots @ 6000' with 75% power.

Mike Hepperlen
RV-4 & RV-8
 
I extended my RV-9A tanks 3.5 gallons each side for another hour of cruise flight just in case I ever need it. The modification didn?t add much weight since I just extended it a bay. The HW extended tanks add weight out into the wing tips, something I did not want.
 
I extended my RV-9A tanks 3.5 gallons each side for another hour of cruise flight just in case I ever need it. The modification didn?t add much weight since I just extended it a bay. The HW extended tanks add weight out into the wing tips, something I did not want.
I?ve been watching your updates on that. Your experience with the bad quality of quick build has me thinking of doing slow build wings and quick build fuselage.
Most of the trips I want to do regularly are 4 and 4.5 away in an RV. So 7 gallons would go a long way. Did you just swap the outer tank rib with another non tank rib to extend the tank or did you purchase other ribs through van?s?
 
I have no major complaints with the QB quality of my -10...

I think most builders are PO'd when they find mistakes on QB kits. "I paid so I wouldn't have to fix stuff." But the reality is that if the guys in the factory do make mistakes despite all of the advantages they have (tooling, experience, oversight, etc), a guy building an airplane in his basement is likely to make even more (and probably worse) mistakes.

Obviously, there are exceptions.
 
I?ve been watching your updates on that. Your experience with the bad quality of quick build has me thinking of doing slow build wings and quick build fuselage.
Most of the trips I want to do regularly are 4 and 4.5 away in an RV. So 7 gallons would go a long way. Did you just swap the outer tank rib with another non tank rib to extend the tank or did you purchase other ribs through van?s?

Have you checked out the Pat Tuckey tanks? That's my plan. Mike Stewart also did something similar http://mstewart.net/super8/ertanks/Index.htm

I agree that 3.5-4 hours is usually enough time. However, there are times where I would really like 1-2 more hours to avoid a stop.
 
RV9 36 Gal Fuel Capacity

We have the IO-320 engine with GAMI injectors and run it lean of peak during cruise. 36.0 gallon fuel capacity.

Our RV-9 engine data down load for a trip climbing to 10,000 cruise altitude from our home airport at 1100' elevation is as follows:

Time and fuel burn beginning at engine start, including taxi, climb, and cruise (148kts TAS), for the first hour the fuel burn was 6.0 gal. There after, fuel burn was 6.3 gph at 148kts TAS. An additional 3.0 hours of cruise will still leave you with 10 gallons of reserve fuel.

The TAS on our RV9 will increase to about 153kts, burning 6.7 gph at 9000'-12000'.

That amount of fuel endurance will give most bladders a challenge.
 
A couple of things to consider... A/C is heavy and takes a lot of power for something you're only using at low altitude. I've traveled with Dad in his RV-6 in the middle of summer and he lives near Atlanta; travel seems best accomplished by leaving as early in the morning as you feel comfortable doing, and climbing to altitude where it's much cooler. When you need to stop for gas, come down, get it over with, and climb back to cool air. There might be a bit of discomfort that way, till you get to altitude but the air vents deliver plenty of air. I know coming back from Oshkosh I got cold and wished for a sweatshirt. Mom and Dad make lots of trips in that airplane all year with no AC. The high UV-tint canopy and a good sunshade or two will help as well.

Besides, you probably don't want to fly in the hottest part of the day anyway--it's bumpy and a popular time for thunderstorms.

The -9 should theoretically climb a little faster than a -7, cruise a little higher, and/or burn a bit less fuel for the same speed. Theoretically. Consider what a realistic fuel burn number might be compared to your fuel load. Things like balanced fuel injection (mechanical or electronic) and electronic ignition can give you better efficiency, as can good drag-reduction work.

Ask yourself how much you really need/want the extra gas for--after all, your bladder is only so big, and a lot of people really want to get out and stretch after a while. Are you just looking for IFR reserves? Planning to make looooong nonstop flights? Or are you just looking to "tanker" fuel? (the last is the main reason why I added capacity--I plan to run mogas most of the time and wanted to be able to fly out and back within the southeast, without refueling).

Other options for more gas are closing out your wingtips (on a short-wing you get about 9gal/side, not sure what it'll get you on a -9 but it's a bit less IIRC) or making another tank out of your outboard leading edge (AKA the "Tuckey tanks" mentioned; it got me about 13/side on my -7 and I could have gone higher). There are pros and cons to both approaches; both are probably lighter than the HW tanks but are more work to install. I'll just leave the grenade about relieving bending moments, gross weight increases, etc. right here and walk out ;)
 
How do the endurance numbers look at 65%ish power, higher altitude and LOP?

The last 10-15 knts are rarely worth the extra fuel burn in my opinion. I cringe a bit inside when I have to cruise at 2500? because of high winds above and GPH goes over 8. I average in the mid to upper 7 GPH and upper 150?s-lower160?s TAS in my fixed pitched O-360 in my 7 by utilizing altitude and LOP. I?ve done several 4.5 hour legs landing with 2 hours of fuel on board, a 9 should do slightly better.
 
Check the numbers closely.

Looking at your numbers you are comparing 42 gals of fuel on the RV-7 vs. 46 gals on the -9 with ER tanks. If you only put 6 gals in the ER tanks, then you will have the same 42 gals as in the -7. This, by my calculations gives you 40 lbs of baggage; same as the RV-7.

This would seem to be an advantage of being able to add an extra 4 gals of fuel when you don't need all that baggage.
 
Last edited:
You could also increase the gross weight of your plane. If I understand right, the Vans numbers are suggestions and the builder can set and flight test the gross. Since the added weight is in the wings, it does not add any addition load to the load bearing components.
 
I would suggest that since 99.999% of RV9's are built with stock tanks, they are probably very much adequate.

I don't know of any 9's that have AC either. Nature provide free AC in the form and altitude which is very easy to accomplish in an RV.
 
Our before takeoff checklist includes "Climb and maintain 72 degrees." Stock tanks and a slightly portly RV9A and we've been just fine with our tip-up in Texas heat for over a decade.
 
I think my longest leg was from Evanston, WY to Ramona, CA. Still landed with more than an hour (6+ gallons) of fuel. I'm more than ready to stop at around 3 hours just to stretch the legs and drain the bladder. If I had the extra fuel, I most likely wouldn't be using it very often (maybe once or twice a year). Coming back from parts east or north in the summer means flying over the Sonora or Mojave Deserts and stopping for fuel in say Mesquite, NV or Thermal, CA would be uncomfortable when the heat is in triple digits. As for the non-negotiable A/C, I live in SoCal and it can be very hot here in most months. Yes, it would be nice to have while on the ground, but once you are flying above 5000' (maybe 5 minutes of flying) you'll be comfortable. I can't comment on humidity, since that is not an issue in my locale. I've flown out of Mesa, AZ when it was 119F! That was uncomfortable, and it didn't cool down much even above 8000'.
I did up my Gross Weight to 1800 pounds and the airplane flys fine and is still well within CG limits with 100 pounds of baggage. Empty weight on my airplane is 1101 pounds. Flying the RV-9A when it is light, versus at gross weight is quite different. Like driving a truck vs. a little sports car. Keep it light!
 
Have you checked out the Pat Tuckey tanks? That's my plan. Mike Stewart also did something similar http://mstewart.net/super8/ertanks/Index.htm

I agree that 3.5-4 hours is usually enough time. However, there are times where I would really like 1-2 more hours to avoid a stop.
This was a fun read thanks!
We have the IO-320 engine with GAMI injectors and run it lean of peak during cruise. 36.0 gallon fuel capacity.

Our RV-9 engine data down load for a trip climbing to 10,000 cruise altitude from our home airport at 1100' elevation is as follows:

Time and fuel burn beginning at engine start, including taxi, climb, and cruise (148kts TAS), for the first hour the fuel burn was 6.0 gal. There after, fuel burn was 6.3 gph at 148kts TAS. An additional 3.0 hours of cruise will still leave you with 10 gallons of reserve fuel.

The TAS on our RV9 will increase to about 153kts, burning 6.7 gph at 9000'-12000'.

That amount of fuel endurance will give most bladders a challenge.
Interesting. Thanks for this. I?ll dig further into IO-320 numbers
Looking at your numbers you are comparing 42 gals of fuel on the RV-7 vs. 46 gals on the -9 with ER tanks. If you only put 6 gals in the ER tanks, then you will have the same 42 gals as in the -7. This, by my calculations gives you 40 lbs of baggage; same as the RV-7.

This would seem to be an advantage of being able to add an extra 4 gals of fuel when you don't need all that baggage.
Mel, That looks correct. This or just extending the tank by a rib might be the ticket. I might be reaching out to you at some point since you are in the DFW area.
Our before takeoff checklist includes "Climb and maintain 72 degrees." Stock tanks and a slightly portly RV9A and we've been just fine with our tip-up in Texas heat for over a decade.
You guys are making interesting arguments. Ones that have been made between my wife and I. A/C discussions and negotiations are going to take place again.

Thanks a whole bunch everyone!
 
I have no major complaints with the QB quality of my -10...

I have no complaints with the quality of my QB in general either, just the fuel tanks. And you don?t know you have a QC issue in the fuel tanks until you do. Once I opened my QB tanks up, it was obvious there would be leakage issues down the road had I not done so.
 
I?ve been watching your updates on that. Your experience with the bad quality of quick build has me thinking of doing slow build wings and quick build fuselage.
Most of the trips I want to do regularly are 4 and 4.5 away in an RV. So 7 gallons would go a long way. Did you just swap the outer tank rib with another non tank rib to extend the tank or did you purchase other ribs through van?s?

It was not an EZ modification to do on tanks already fabricated. I would not recommend it unless it was a new wing build. I cut off most of the outboard bay and spliced on a new partial tank skin and baffle with an additional rib. Not for the faint of heart, but I am glad I opened up the QB tanks .
 
Mel, That looks correct. This or just extending the tank by a rib might be the ticket. I might be reaching out to you at some point since you are in the DFW area.
You guys are making interesting arguments. Ones that have been made between my wife and I. A/C discussions and negotiations are going to take place again.
Thanks a whole bunch everyone!

No Problem. Between the knee replacement and prostrate surgery, I've been pretty much stuck in the house since last Halloween. Just now starting back to work. Feel free to come out for a visit. I can show you lots of stuff.

Mel
972-784-7544
 
We've done a number of long trips in our 9, including to the Arctic ocean this summer (lots of space between airports) and never worried too much about the fuel capacity. Flying at 8-12k, 165 mph cruise we burn about 7.2 gph with an IO360. That translates to easily 4.5 hours plus a half hour reserve, or 4 hours plus an hour reserve. That can be extended by going a bit slower and/or higher altitude. Not too many places where you would come close to running out of fuel before wanting or needing to stop.
 
You could also increase the gross weight of your plane. If I understand right, the Vans numbers are suggestions and the builder can set and flight test the gross. Since the added weight is in the wings, it does not add any addition load to the load bearing components.

Both are common misconceptions but both are untrue.

The published gross weights for all the RV models are the weights used to do all of the structural load calculations, design engineering, and static load tests.
Any deviation higher, though legal here in the U.S., is definitely upping the level of experimental of their aircraft.

It is correct that additional fuel weight added to the wings does not add additional bending load at the wing attach points (it can actually reduce it depending on the circumstances) but depending on where it is added, it will add additional load elsewhere.

For the purpose of simplification, lets say that we were able to add additional fuel to an RV-9A and all of the additional fuel was distributed span wise along the original standard fuel tank. When flying with full fuel the additional fuel weight when pulling G's may actually be reducing the bending load on the wing attach point beyond what it was without the additional fuel (the additional fuel would be inducing a downward load counteracting the additional upward bending load of the wing trying to carry the additional weight).

The problem is that the additional weight is being carried by the entire wing, not just the inboard portion where the fuel tank is. So the portion of the wing outboard of the fuel tank has some level of additional load but the additional mass of the fuel is not there to counteract the additional bending moment, so there is a increase in bending moment, with a specific concentration just outboard of the fuel tank.

This is why additional fuel is sometimes added to aircraft with tip tanks. The mas of the fuel is then keeping the bending moment along the span of the entire wing mostly unchanged.

This would imply that it is a simple thing to add more fuel capacity to any airplane as long as you use tip tanks. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Mass added way out at the end of the wing will have a high polar moment of inertia because of the long arm length relative to the center of gravity. The can have a major influence on flight / handling characteristics. The most serious one being spin recover.... worse case being it no longer having any, if the tip tanks are full of fuel.
 
I might get flamed for this. Flame suit on. My RV9a weighs in at a portly 1197 pounds with zero fuel. I have the stock 36 gallon tanks and glassed in wingtip tanks that give me an additional 9 gallons per side for a total of 54 gallons. The original builder flight tested it with an 1850 pound gross weight. We fly it at that weight all the time. Just the other day we flew with my wife, me, 35 pounds of baggage, and 44 gallons of fuel. 1840 pounds total. The plane has been flown like this as for over 1100 hours. Front gear is a concern as we are right below max weight on it. I baby it on take off and landing. Overall the plane performs great. IO-360, fixed pitch 3 blade catto, and we use 7.2gph at 9500 hitting 150 knots true. The 9 is a great cross country platform. I am just starting up my IFR but will let you know how it goes with that as well!
 
If you're looking for an IFR RV under $80K, you'll need to be buying a used one that has old-school IFR hardware in it.

Was going to comment on the gross weight but Scott did it quite eloquently above.
 
I modified my wing tanks to be full-span on the leading edge forward of the spar with two tanks each side, total of 67 gallons, a-la "Tuckey Tanks". I use them in a partial-to-full state perhaps 12 times per year - and mostly to give me the ability to get somewhere and land with full mains, then return without having to buy fuel. Only 4-5 times per year do I actually make a non-stop that requires the extra fuel, and I fly a LOT of long cross country trips. It's going to be a rather slim percentage of pilots, and a rather slim percentage of that pilots trips, that actually need additional fuel beyond what the standard 9A wing provides.

My nonstop long trips are between 6 and 8 hours so far - well beyond what most people want to spend confined in the cockpit without stretching their legs. This is not something you are going to do often, and I do not encourage builders to make that modification. Those of us that do it have our reasons, and we do it because of them - but it's certainly not "normal" or even necessarily desirable for the main market of 9A pilots.

As Scott pointed out, there are valid engineering considerations that have to be taken into account with such a mod. One of the big ones is bending moment of the wings during ground ops - you greatly increase the bending moment at the wing-fuse joint with more fuel outboard, and taxi/takeoff should be conducted quite gingerly to avoid stressing that area. Landings with fuel in the outboards should be considered verboten, and on my airplane incur a spar inspection prior to further flight if that occurs, just for that reason. The airplane is not designed or intended to take loads higher than full main tanks during normal landing ops. You can't guarantee that you'll make a squeaker of a soft landing on the days when you land with fuel in the outboards, it just doesn't work out like that. I never load more fuel in my outboards than I am planning to burn before my first stop - and even then I've had to divert for weather twice, once landing with fuel in the outboards (and inspecting the spar before leaving again) and once spending an extra hour burning off fuel before landing back home again. Being in a scenario where you CAN'T land is almost as bad as being in a scenario where you MUST land, and requires additional flight planning and thought.

Weight and balance is also an obvious one to consider - that fuel is forward of the center of lift, and you may be forced to carry weight in the baggage compartment to offset it, especially if flying solo. The nosegear (old school standard) from Vans on the 9A also has a total weight limit of 325 pounds, which is not difficult at all to encroach upon with more than standard fuel in the wing leading edge. This can also require baggage compartment weight or even tailcone ballast to shift the CG, but also raises total weight and can easily exceed max gross weight.

Short version is you're painting yourself into a corner by doing this - your reasons for doing it should be very good, your planning and engineering and testing should be better, and you must be able to accept more "experimental" in your experimental aircraft.
 
It was not an EZ modification to do on tanks already fabricated. I would not recommend it unless it was a new wing build. I cut off most of the outboard bay and spliced on a new partial tank skin and baffle with an additional rib. Not for the faint of heart, but I am glad I opened up the QB tanks .

It would be a slow build

We've done a number of long trips in our 9, including to the Arctic ocean this summer (lots of space between airports) and never worried too much about the fuel capacity. Flying at 8-12k, 165 mph cruise we burn about 7.2 gph with an IO360. That translates to easily 4.5 hours plus a half hour reserve, or 4 hours plus an hour reserve. That can be extended by going a bit slower and/or higher altitude. Not too many places where you would come close to running out of fuel before wanting or needing to stop.

Interesting. I was seeing so many 8.5 to 9 gph burns.

I might get flamed for this. Flame suit on. My RV9a weighs in at a portly 1197 pounds with zero fuel. I have the stock 36 gallon tanks and glassed in wingtip tanks that give me an additional 9 gallons per side for a total of 54 gallons. The original builder flight tested it with an 1850 pound gross weight. We fly it at that weight all the time. Just the other day we flew with my wife, me, 35 pounds of baggage, and 44 gallons of fuel. 1840 pounds total. The plane has been flown like this as for over 1100 hours. Front gear is a concern as we are right below max weight on it. I baby it on take off and landing. Overall the plane performs great. IO-360, fixed pitch 3 blade catto, and we use 7.2gph at 9500 hitting 150 knots true. The 9 is a great cross country platform. I am just starting up my IFR but will let you know how it goes with that as well!

Very interesting. Thanks for this.

If you're looking for an IFR RV under $80K, you'll need to be buying a used one that has old-school IFR hardware in it.

Was going to comment on the gross weight but Scott did it quite eloquently above.

I modified my wing tanks to be full-span on the leading edge forward of the spar with two tanks each side, total of 67 gallons, a-la "Tuckey Tanks". I use them in a partial-to-full state perhaps 12 times per year - and mostly to give me the ability to get somewhere and land with full mains, then return without having to buy fuel. Only 4-5 times per year do I actually make a non-stop that requires the extra fuel, and I fly a LOT of long cross country trips. It's going to be a rather slim percentage of pilots, and a rather slim percentage of that pilots trips, that actually need additional fuel beyond what the standard 9A wing provides.

My nonstop long trips are between 6 and 8 hours so far - well beyond what most people want to spend confined in the cockpit without stretching their legs. This is not something you are going to do often, and I do not encourage builders to make that modification. Those of us that do it have our reasons, and we do it because of them - but it's certainly not "normal" or even necessarily desirable for the main market of 9A pilots.

As Scott pointed out, there are valid engineering considerations that have to be taken into account with such a mod. One of the big ones is bending moment of the wings during ground ops - you greatly increase the bending moment at the wing-fuse joint with more fuel outboard, and taxi/takeoff should be conducted quite gingerly to avoid stressing that area. Landings with fuel in the outboards should be considered verboten, and on my airplane incur a spar inspection prior to further flight if that occurs, just for that reason. The airplane is not designed or intended to take loads higher than full main tanks during normal landing ops. You can't guarantee that you'll make a squeaker of a soft landing on the days when you land with fuel in the outboards, it just doesn't work out like that. I never load more fuel in my outboards than I am planning to burn before my first stop - and even then I've had to divert for weather twice, once landing with fuel in the outboards (and inspecting the spar before leaving again) and once spending an extra hour burning off fuel before landing back home again. Being in a scenario where you CAN'T land is almost as bad as being in a scenario where you MUST land, and requires additional flight planning and thought.

Weight and balance is also an obvious one to consider - that fuel is forward of the center of lift, and you may be forced to carry weight in the baggage compartment to offset it, especially if flying solo. The nosegear (old school standard) from Vans on the 9A also has a total weight limit of 325 pounds, which is not difficult at all to encroach upon with more than standard fuel in the wing leading edge. This can also require baggage compartment weight or even tailcone ballast to shift the CG, but also raises total weight and can easily exceed max gross weight.

Short version is you're painting yourself into a corner by doing this - your reasons for doing it should be very good, your planning and engineering and testing should be better, and you must be able to accept more "experimental" in your experimental aircraft.

air guy I actually read your entire post on this modification. Very cool. While I have no problem sitting in one place for over 8 hrs on a regular basis, I do see that a whole bunch of thought is going to have to be put into this! Thanks
 
Both are common misconceptions but both are untrue.

The published gross weights for all the RV models are the weights used to do all of the structural load calculations, design engineering, and static load tests.
Any deviation higher, though legal here in the U.S., is definitely upping the level of experimental of their aircraft.

It is correct that additional fuel weight added to the wings does not add additional bending load at the wing attach points (it can actually reduce it depending on the circumstances) but depending on where it is added, it will add additional load elsewhere.

For the purpose of simplification, lets say that we were able to add additional fuel to an RV-9A and all of the additional fuel was distributed span wise along the original standard fuel tank. When flying with full fuel the additional fuel weight when pulling G's may actually be reducing the bending load on the wing attach point beyond what it was without the additional fuel (the additional fuel would be inducing a downward load counteracting the additional upward bending load of the wing trying to carry the additional weight).

The problem is that the additional weight is being carried by the entire wing, not just the inboard portion where the fuel tank is. So the portion of the wing outboard of the fuel tank has some level of additional load but the additional mass of the fuel is not there to counteract the additional bending moment, so there is a increase in bending moment, with a specific concentration just outboard of the fuel tank.

This is why additional fuel is sometimes added to aircraft with tip tanks. The mas of the fuel is then keeping the bending moment along the span of the entire wing mostly unchanged.

This would imply that it is a simple thing to add more fuel capacity to any airplane as long as you use tip tanks. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Mass added way out at the end of the wing will have a high polar moment of inertia because of the long arm length relative to the center of gravity. The can have a major influence on flight / handling characteristics. The most serious one being spin recover.... worse case being it no longer having any, if the tip tanks are full of fuel.
I wanted to reply and thank you for this write up specifically. It made me realise that I have a bunch of work to do if I'm going to do this safely. Thank you for your time and knowledge.
 
If you're looking for an IFR RV under $80K, you'll need to be buying a used one that has old-school IFR hardware in it.

Was going to comment on the gross weight but Scott did it quite eloquently above.

Oh great ......... what am I missing now! 35 for a slow build RV9 (includes lights servo's ect.) 25 for engine and prop. 20 for avionics.

I left out 10 to 20 for paint because I may do it myself. I have painted vehicles and while it's not the same, I am willing to learn and put the time into it.
 
Oh great ......... what am I missing now! 35 for a slow build RV9 (includes lights servo's ect.) 25 for engine and prop. 20 for avionics.

$25K will get you a used engine and prop. Also-opinions will vary-but if you are really concerned about range/endurance a fuel injected engine can easily be tuned for lean of peak operation-extending range. But they are more expensive.
20K will get you minimal ifr avionics. Most ifr pilots will demand redundant backups, increasing the cost significantly.
 
I'm building a9A and am trying to do it as frugally as possible. I've bought some pre owned things here on VAF and that has saved some money. I did the same monetary figuring as you did. I got tired of looking for a good used engine after 1.5 years and bought a new one also from a guy on VAF. It was 6 years old but new. Got a beautiful 3 blade Catto prop here too. My engine/prop was about 28k together with shipping. Saved over 5k with those. I passed up a used engine prop combo for about 15k because i wanted more HP. The deals can be out there if you are patient. I guess my point is that there are ways to save some money doing this, but until you are actually building you have NO idea all the extra stuff you need to buy. There are so many decisions along the way and you may pick the more expensive option. Just go into it knowing that and if you can stick to your 80k number for an ifr then you have done better than most. I don't think everything will be new and the panel won't have the newest tech though. Good luck and for me it's been an awesome adventure!
 
...Most ifr pilots will demand redundant backups, increasing the cost significantly.

You can add safe and reliable IFR backups by including a Dynon PocketPanel and a handheld GPS, of some type. No tie into your Pitot or Static system, do ice isn't an issue.
 
I should clarify that I'm running an IO-360 with fuel injection and I lean fairly aggressively. I actually flight plan for 8 gph but have found that I really use about 7.2 on average.
 
Remember, the 9 is a superb TWO SEAT airplane. You can only squeeze so much out of a turnip.

If you want/need more, you have to go with a bigger airplane.

:cool:
 
I should clarify that I'm running an IO-360 with fuel injection and I lean fairly aggressively. I actually flight plan for 8 gph but have found that I really use about 7.2 on average.

Those numbers are exactly what I see with my O-360.
 
A few data points

empty weight 1050 (middle of average according to Van's site)

I predict you'll find that most used RV-9As are actually a bit heavier than that average.

A/C weight 48 = 1314 (Not negotiable according to the treasury)

Consider negotiations anyway. I fly my -9A primarily in central Virginia, which gets reasonably warm in the summer, and occasionally to Florida etc. My trusty 1979 Warrior desperately needed AC (although good luck on climbout with it on a hot day....) I don't think AC really makes much sense on the -9. I keep the canopy open on the ground, use a sunshade and a hat, and climb to where it's cool. If the treasury is accustomed to a hothouse Cherokee experience, I can tell you that it's WAY better than that.

Ironically, one thing I miss from my Warrior is the foot-roasting cabin heat. :)

pilot weight 200 = 1584

Don't know how tall/thin you are, but I lost 16 pounds after getting my RV, and it's really improved my W&B. :)

Overall I'm just suprised that the 9 only has a 36 gallon capacity. I get that it's a cross counry maching for many reasons, but that is not one. Using 8GPH I'm getting 3.5 hrs aloft with a 1hr saftey buffer.

I run a little over 7 gph and haven't really missed extra fuel. 3.5 hours is a long time in a -9A. Your mileage may vary (literally!).

Finally, 80K for a good IFR -9 seems a bit on the hopeful side to me. You definitely can't have mine for that, and it's not nearly as nice as some of them out there! :)

Obviously I'm biased, but based on a few years' experience, I consider the -9/9A to be an absolutely phenomenal two-person traveling airplane. Fun and (very) easy to fly, incredibly efficient. I think it's Vans' masterpiece, design-wise.

Good luck with the process!
 
Oh great ......... what am I missing now! 35 for a slow build RV9 (includes lights servo's ect.) 25 for engine and prop. 20 for avionics.
A new engine/prop/accessories will run more than $25k. That budget could work for used if you're patient and not too picky.

Same with the avionic budget.If you stay away from anything that says Garmin or Dynon on it and/or buy used stuff and aren't too picky about redundancy, you could probably do an IFR panel for $20k.

If flying IFR behind a Garmin or Dynon panel is the goal, I don't think $20k is going to get it done.
 
Panel/Engine

Excellent article in recent Kitplanes on whether one needs any nav capability beyond a GPS.
I am not a fan of some of the more expensive and complicated EFIS options.
Used Dynon D100 with autopilot, Garmin 430W, Garmin transponder, handheld GPS, Sportys handheld nav/com. Only the Sportys nav com would be new. If you want backup instruments Dynon D2 or D3.
I would have about 10k change from the 20K budget.
Engine: buy a core from someone who will guarantee the crank and case. New Lycoming cylinders, shop carefully for best deals on bearings, etc.
Go to Lycoming school or pay a helper and assemble the engine yourself.
Careful planning and shopping should come in right at 25K.
 
You can add safe and reliable IFR backups by including a Dynon PocketPanel and a handheld GPS, of some type. No tie into your Pitot or Static system, do ice isn't an issue.

Excellent article in recent Kitplanes on whether one needs any nav capability beyond a GPS.
I am not a fan of some of the more expensive and complicated EFIS options.
Used Dynon D100 with autopilot, Garmin 430W, Garmin transponder, handheld GPS, Sportys handheld nav/com. Only the Sportys nav com would be new. If you want backup instruments Dynon D2 or D3.
I would have about 10k change from the 20K budget.
Engine: buy a core from someone who will guarantee the crank and case. New Lycoming cylinders, shop carefully for best deals on bearings, etc.
Go to Lycoming school or pay a helper and assemble the engine yourself.
Careful planning and shopping should come in right at 25K.

Ok so I now have a better idea what my engine options are. And so far everyone has said 20K won?t do it for Garmin or Dynon. So what will? What is the cost of glass IFR with redundancies? I swear I have searched threads and seen that number but maybe that wasn?t the total price.
 
If I were starting from scratch...

...and wanted the best price/performance IFR setup in an RV, I think I would go with:

- a used Garmin 430W (or a used 400W plus a used comm);
- two "mini EFISs" (GRT Mini-AP and Mini-X, two Garmin G5s, etc.);
- the corresponding autopilot (GRT or Garmin);
- a used transponder;
- the cheapest possible ADS-B OUT (tailbeacon?)
- an iPad with Foreflight including georeferenced approach plates
- a cheap ADS-B IN to feed weather and traffic to the iPad (like a roll-your-own Raspberry Pi gadget or a Scout).

I don't know Dynon gadgets but I suspect they could fill the bill as well.

Maybe I'm missing something but all that seems doable in the neighborhood of $20K, and actually provides a ton of functionality and redundancy. You might even have room in the budget for a second (used) comm.

Ok so I now have a better idea what my engine options are. And so far everyone has said 20K won?t do it for Garmin or Dynon. So what will? What is the cost of glass IFR with redundancies? I swear I have searched threads and seen that number but maybe that wasn?t the total price.
 
Avionics

Garmin 400 is pretty rare and you have to be certain that it can be upgraded to WAAS and is still supported by Garmin. 430 is a better deal, you get the com and VHF nav.
The Dynon portable EFIS is just under $900 new. Used for a lot less. A KY 197A comm can be found for around $1200.
Some of the large avionics dealers have excellent prices on quality used equipment.
Nice to see someone hoping to build on a reasonable budget. My non RV cost me less than many are spending on the panel., I built everything except the wheel pants and landing gear.
 
Avionics

KY 97A on this forum for $500. Reason for selling, Guv Mint in Europe requires something better???
Excellent comm radio but not as good as the KY197A.
 
...and wanted the best price/performance IFR setup in an RV, I think I would go with:

- a used Garmin 430W (or a used 400W plus a used comm);
- two "mini EFISs" (GRT Mini-AP and Mini-X, two Garmin G5s, etc.);
- the corresponding autopilot (GRT or Garmin);
- a used transponder;
- the cheapest possible ADS-B OUT (tailbeacon?)
- an iPad with Foreflight including georeferenced approach plates
- a cheap ADS-B IN to feed weather and traffic to the iPad (like a roll-your-own Raspberry Pi gadget or a Scout).

I don't know Dynon gadgets but I suspect they could fill the bill as well.

Maybe I'm missing something but all that seems doable in the neighborhood of $20K, and actually provides a ton of functionality and redundancy. You might even have room in the budget for a second (used) comm.
Excellent this is pointing me in the right direction. Thanks! I already have a stratux. I really enjoyed building that!
 
Also built a Stratux

They're just easy enough to build that someone with no skill (me) can build one, but sufficiently cool that you feel a sense of accomplishment.
:)

Excellent this is pointing me in the right direction. Thanks! I already have a stratux. I really enjoyed building that!
 
Back
Top