What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Need your advice, RV-9 vs RV-12

JMFord

I'm New Here
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Training

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:)
 
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
I’m considering a visit to the factory in Oregon. Does Van’s have all the models available to compare?
 
I was at the factory last week and they had all the models there and anyone could sit in anything.

I sat in the 14 and drooled. The tour guide said the difference in price between a comparably equipped 7 and a 14 is only $10,000. The engine is a minimal difference in price and it's really the price of the kit itself because they use the same prop.
 
another factor would be the aesthetic factor in which the -12 lags far behind (ok, this is a very personal opinion :D)
 
I?m considering a visit to the factory in Oregon. Does Van?s have all the models available to compare?

Maybe, sometimes they?re out flying to shows, etc.

I suppose you could call ahead to verify that the kits you?re interested in aren?t scheduled to be out flying.
 
I was at the factory last week and they had all the models there and anyone could sit in anything.

I sat in the 14 and drooled. The tour guide said the difference in price between a comparably equipped 7 and a 14 is only $10,000. The engine is a minimal difference in price and it's really the price of the kit itself because they use the same prop.
They can use the same prop, but they don't have to. There are lots of 9s flying behind fixed props. I don't believe a fixed prop option exists for the 14.
 
The almost 14 mod solves any leg/headroom problems. I am 6'4" and fit comfortably in my 6A

I have done this in my 9a, along with the rudder pedals moved forward a bit from "Plans". Both fairly easy mods, and I suspect anybody under 6' at this point will not be able to touch the pedals. Being I am 6'4" I don't really care though.

I have sat in other 9's that after 15 min I wanted out as it was uncomfortable. So don't make a judgement on any of the models based on sitting in just 1 example.
 
Built both and now a 7A that has the same fuselage as the 9. If you want to fly quickly build the 12. Very well engineered and it goes together fast. It does not have the performance but is just as much fun to fly. Much more room and easier access as well as superior visibility. Everything happens a little slower in the 12 so I think it is a better trainer.

If you want more baggage capability, more fuel capacity, more performance and to go faster then the 9 is your choice but it will take a lot more time and skill during construction and you end up with a more cramped cabin with erect seating, a closer panel and less shoulder room and visibility. Vans really needs to update all the older kits to the level of the 12 and 14 for new builders.
 
The landing gear on the -9(A) is not suitable for a primary trainer. While a great plane, it won't hold up to the abuse given out by new students.

The -12 has been updated to better handle students.

I would argue it is not slow as it will run circles around a 172. It has more room and better visibility than a -9(A).

For primary instruction, you might be better off with a 172.

Also, the -12 is much lighter on the controls than a -9(A), which one s much lighter than a 172.

I wouldn't shy away from a CS prop for a primary student, they will learn it quickly enough.
 
Last edited:
The landing gear on the -9(A) is not suitable for a primary trainer. While a great plane, it won't hold up to the abuse given out by new students.

This is probably true of any non-trainer aircraft, including possibly the -12. The data is not in on the new nose gear for the 9A but I suspect it's at least as sturdy as the -12 gear.

I would argue it is not slow as it will run circles around a 172. It has more room and better visibility than a -9(A).

A more current 172 (180hp) cruises at ~120kts, which is roughly what you'll see a -12 cruising at. My old beater 172E (145hp) cruises at 95kts, so it definitely beats that but if we are talking $ for $ you are looking at a much more current 172 with a bigger engine. Of course fuel burn is a different issue there...

According to the diagrams, the -12 is about 1.5" wider at the shoulders than the -9/7(A), but a 1" shorter cabin lengthwise. 5 cu.ft. of baggage room in the -12 vs 12 cu.ft. in the -9/7.


For primary instruction, you might be better off with a 172.

Agreed, this is what we did as well. The wife is learning on a 172 while I fly the -9A. She has very much noticed how much slower the 172 is :) Plan is to sell the 172 as soon as she is done.

Also consider a 150 as a trainer. Cheaper, less fuel, lower insurance. You're not going to be taking the 172 on trips anyways so don't pay for the extra seats.
 
I?m 6 foot tall as well. What was tight in the 9? Room around the panel, head hitting the canopy, etc?

I'm 6'3 and there is plenty of room in my 9A. Having said that you can be shoulder to shoulder with a larger passenger however I installed the almost 14 kit and have the passenger seat reclined to the 14 position which negates the shoulder to shoulder scenario.
 
Ok, I'm biased... but, I very much enjoy my RV12isH. I can fly 3 hours at 118-120KTAS with me and another 6'2" 200 pounder and bags with over an hour reserve. It's fun and easy to fly and it took me right at 700 hours to build (with some modifications).

If you're looking for a low cost trainer, the 12 is a great choice. It's also good for cross-country flying if you're used to taking your time and enjoying the scenery along with the way with the 12's excellent visibility, downward as well.

It's also perfect daily driver for that 30 minute commute, which I use mine for nearly daily in nearly all conditions (save ice and thunderstorms).

The 9 and 14 are also great choices, just add more money and time. It's almost a sliding scale from the 12-9A-14A.

Have fun with your choice.
 
This is probably true of any non-trainer aircraft, including possibly the -12. The data is not in on the new nose gear for the 9A but I suspect it's at least as sturdy as the -12 gear.
I was thinking more about the mains than the nose gear, but you make a good point. The nose gear is fragile.
The mains won't handle be dropped in.
However, the -12 has been upgraded for the training market and I believe that includes stronger gear.

A more current 172 (180hp) cruises at ~120kts, which is roughly what you'll see a -12 cruising at. My old beater 172E (145hp) cruises at 95kts, so it definitely beats that but if we are talking $ for $ you are looking at a much more current 172 with a bigger engine. Of course fuel burn is a different issue there...
Exactly my point and since the majority of 172's have 160 hp or less, the -12 is much faster than the majority of the fleet.

According to the diagrams, the -12 is about 1.5" wider at the shoulders than the -9/7(A), but a 1" shorter cabin lengthwise. 5 cu.ft. of baggage room in the -12 vs 12 cu.ft. in the -9/7.
Who cares about baggage room in a trainer?

Agreed, this is what we did as well. The wife is learning on a 172 while I fly the -9A. She has very much noticed how much slower the 172 is :) Plan is to sell the 172 as soon as she is done.
That is the best plan!

Also consider a 150 as a trainer. Cheaper, less fuel, lower insurance. You're not going to be taking the 172 on trips anyways so don't pay for the extra seats.[/QUOTE]

Having flown both (900 hours in my -9 and a handful of hours in a friend's -12), I really like the -12! For the OP's mission, if he is going to build, I would recommend the -12 over the -9A.
 
Last edited:
If you are in a financial place where you are buying everything new, build a -14. The cost difference is negligible.

However, if you are like me, scrimping and saving, scouring the internet and local airports for bargains - any Vans aircraft will be awesome. Look for a good quality orphaned kit. I recently saw a -12 on here priced VERY well - half off. Buy the one that offers the best bargain. The people who talk about percentage of the total cost must have far more money available than I do. To me, every thousand dollars adds up. The ?low proportion of total cost? argument is not valid for most of us normal humans. That $2k nose gear is only an extra 3% of the cost of the plane, right? It?s still $2k!!!!

Short of it is that any of these will be WAY better than a 152 - buy the kit that offers the means to meet your mission - my mission was fly an RV without debt and while remaining married!

Remember that almost any plane you buy will be lot more expense than planned. My experience is that often the first or second annual really bites hard. You won?t recoup those costs when selling. I am NOT a fan of short term ownership and moving up. Buy or build what you want now.
 
If you are in a financial place where you are buying everything new, build a -14. The cost difference is negligible.
On a new everything -9 vs a new everything -14, yeah probably not that much difference in cost in the end. On a new everything -12 vs a new everything -14? I don't think I'd call that difference in cost to build negligible. Nor the difference in cost over time for care and feeding.

They're two very different planes for two different missions really so the cost difference is understandable. But I think its safe to say if you're trying to build a -14 on a -12 budget you're going to have to figure out how to make ends meet and if you're trying to build a -12 on a -14 budget you're going to have to figure out what you're going to do with the money you've got left over. ;)
 
+1 for Roberts advice

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.:)

Excellent point about having an easier time getting instruction in the 150-152, maybe even easier/cheaper to insure for instructing than any experimental?

That said, a 12 is a great project to build with the kids and you'll have it done before they've made you a Grandpa!

2-cents,
 
Something else to consider about the 12. If you live in the mountains or fly there, I'd vote for the 9. The higher horsepower can make a big difference.

Our airport is in a small dip @ 6,300 feet; pattern at about 7,500 and density in the summer can be over 10,000 ft. It would be a struggle in any Rotax LSA. Add in turbulence and at best, it can be a rough ride.

If you're down at sea level or close, it's not as much of an issue.

The 12 is a much newer model and therefore an easier build. The plans are much better, there is virtually no deburring (except for skin edges) or up-drilling to a different sized hole (well almost none). It's all matched hole so for the most part you stick the cleco's in and rivet as you go. That's much faster than the 9. The 9 has you cleco, up-drill to the appropriate sized hole, pull it apart, deburr, stick it back together with cleco's and then rivet.

Buy a set of plans on a stick from Van's and sit through both of them.

I do like the fact that the 12 also has everything you need and planned out where and how it's done. The 9 doesn't.

Frankly, I'm hoping that there will be an RV-14 like update to the 9. :)

Bob
 
Back
Top