Soliciting comments on applicability of RV-9A for a flying club

I'm in a flying club and we are doing research for our next aircraft purchase.

Most people in the club do not favor experimentals.

I'm a big advocate of the Vans series after doing research for the last few years, but I have never flown one (working on that in separate thread).

My research has concluded that the RV9A meets the general requirements we have and exceeds the requirements in several areas (mainly performance).

We would look to buy a high quality example with a lycoming engine, preferably quick-build and/or by an experienced builder.

For those that have built or fly RV9's, would you recommend it for a 50 person + flying club whose other planes are piper archer types? (based on flying qualities)? Is it too sporty for a GA crowd?

Any other general thoughts?

Applicability for new pilots / student pilots?
Maintenance concerns in a club environment?
Anything else come to mind?

Are you even allowed to own an experimental for club rental purposes? I would check on that first. I could've sworn some chunk of Part 91 excludes E/AB planes from being a part of a rental-type flight club. If not that, then group insurance restrictions might get in the way.

I could be completely off-base, but those restrictions seem stuck in my head.

you could have a RV in a club environment...IF you are all equal share owners. No renting involved, just each person using the plane and putting money in the pot for maintenance and fuel.

BUT the kicker is insurance. the Club (75members) with 5 planes looked into it and the insurance was a deal breaker for anything over 5 or 6 shareholders.

Hi, thanks for the comments.

Our club does not work on a rental, it works on an ownership basis..ie.. we would all own (for example) 1/50th of the RV9. By our logic that makes this legal.

Insurance is OK with a high quality RV9a (tricycle gear) as Vans have a well proven safety record and the company is stable. They have essentially bought in at a conceptually level. Our insurance rates are very high anyway (talking over 5K per year per plane), and that would be figured in the overall cost equation. We've been told it's doable to this point.

We have not spotted anything in the regulations that bars clubs from experimentals as long as the club members follow the general experimental rules. Members should be able to receive instruction in the aircraft as it is "their" aircraft.

Anyone with different info please pass it along as that would be a fatal flaw in our [potential] plan

suitability?

I bought my -9a because it felt more like a cherokee than the -6a I tried.
after about 75 hours on it, I like it much more, but I am even hesitant to consider a partner; it's not a spam can, and not sure how it would fare with the typical abuse of a 'club' plane.
Ok, maybe only the 6 guys that are checked out, and on the insurance would use it, but are they going to treat it like their own? perhaps.

I could suggest;
- putting on larger tires, 'cause guys are going to taxi off the asphalt onto grass and hit a few gopher holes.
- ensure the nosegear has the latest mods to preclude problems there.
- recurrent checkrides to ensure everyone is playing nice.

might not hurt to see who wants to form a group to build a -14a.......i think it would be as good, or better, club plane.

Thanks Flyboy,

The "toughness" of the plane is something we don't fully understand yet.

The Club environment exposes planes to more flying time and a variety of pilots and all the perils that go with it. Do others think think long term durability under club conditions could be an issue?

We would likely have a special "club checkout" for the aircraft including ground and air instruction. We have standard currency requirements that exceed the FAA requirements, so that would be nothing new.

I like the idea of the 14 but it's not for us right now as the market for built examples isn't here yet. Many people in our club have other aircraft or have left to join smaller clubs, but my focus for now is towards our larger flying club.

Does anyone else but me feel that this would be a nice attraction to prospective members (attract more membership?)

bikesandcars said:

I'm in a flying club and we are doing research for our next aircraft purchase.

Most people in the club do not favor experimentals.

I'm a big advocate of the Vans series after doing research for the last few years, but I have never flown one (working on that in separate thread).

My research has concluded that the RV9A meets the general requirements we have and exceeds the requirements in several areas (mainly performance).

We would look to buy a high quality example with a lycoming engine, preferably quick-build and/or by an experienced builder.

For those that have built or fly RV9's, would you recommend it for a 50 person + flying club whose other planes are piper archer types? (based on flying qualities)? Is it too sporty for a GA crowd?

Any other general thoughts?

Applicability for new pilots / student pilots?
Maintenance concerns in a club environment?
Anything else come to mind?

Click to expand...

Even though I would love to see your club exposed to the RV series of aircraft, I am hesitant about recommending a RV-9A, or any RV, for your large club. My concerns are based on the different mindset of a club member vs an owner/builder in regards to how the RV will be viewed and treated.

An RV is not built as "heavily" as a C172 or Warrior. The lighter construction is certainly adequate for its intended use as a owner-maintained sport aircraft and contributes to the wonderful RV flying qualities. We RVers consider our planes to be our babies and as a general rule we offer them immediate and obsessive care and feeding as soon as it becomes necessary. We also know their idiosyncrasies and limitations and have learned how to work around them. This allows a "light" design to meet our performance expectations and still be durable for satisfactory service in the field.

Will all your club members have the same approach toward an RV-9A considering they have zero experience with the unique qualities and needs of experimental aircraft? Will they have the same protective instincts of a builder/owner and lovingly treat the RV-9A as "their baby"? If so then the RV-9A will survive the club environment just fine. But I suspect not all of your members, even if qualified to fly the plane, will possess that degree of concern for the RV's well being. It will only take one pilot dropping the plane from 20' to put the RV-9 out of commission. An Archer can survive this kind of mistreatment, but an RV can't. An uninformed passenger can stand on the flap of an Archer with no serious consequences, but do this with an RV-9A and your club will have a grounded aircraft while a new flap is built. Slam the door of an Archer in an clumsy manner and all is ok, but close the canopy of an RV-9A the wrong way and serious damage can be the result.

These are not faults of the RV-9A, just characteristics of an aircraft designed for light duty and careful treatment. I fear your club planes don't receive quite this degree of care while being flown by all your 50 members. Would you trust your club with driving a custom show car instead of their daily drivers?

Good luck on your continued research. I would love to see your members being able to enjoy an RV, but at the same time don't wish to have them turned against experimental aviation by the selection of an aircraft that may not best suit the club's needs. Clubs are a tough environment for aircraft, much more demanding than single owner service.

Hey there-

I completed my 9A 4/2009 and now have just about 400 hrs in it.
It is a WONDERFUL cross country aircraft, great performance, and sips fuel.
I'm not sure, however, that it would be a good "club" aircraft. I have been a member of flying clubs and I must say that my experience in clubs has always revealed a few "bad apples" who just do not understand how to treat an aircraft. The 9A is certainly NOT a "delicate" machine but it does need to be treated with respect and care.
My biggest concern about using a 9A for a club aircraft would be twofold:

1. Due to its light weight it is NOT an aircraft to be flown in "borderline" weather conditions, i.e., on very windy days (although it handles well in crosswinds) or in the vicinity of heavy rain/thunderstorms. I would be concerned that come of the club members might not be as conservative as others when it comes to weather decisions. In rough weather a heavier aircraft would be desirable.

2. Landing the 9A with its "vulnerable" nose gear must done correctly. It is NOT hard to land one but attention must be paid to avoiding ANY stress on the nose gear. Typically, flying club members just don't seem to pay attention to that kind of detail in my experience since the aircraft does not belong to them. I would also be wary of allowing flying club members to land on grass strips. This certainly can be done in a 9A (I have done it many times) but, again, attention must be paid to the landing technique. This would be my biggest concern about the actual flying of the aircraft. If you do go ahead with the decsion to purchase a 9A I would echo the comments made above about installing the brace for the nose gear leg.

Thanks for the honest and well written answers. I don't know that this closes the door on the aircraft but I will certainly pass these concerns along.

Unfortunately we are quite limited given the state of GA at the moment. I'll share our thought process.

Our membership's desires for lower costs and our actual flying habits have leaned us towards a 2-place efficient aircraft, as flying a 4-person Archer around solo or with one other passenger burning 10 gph is not optimal in this high fuel cost environment.

Our options are a smaller certified, a light sport, or experimental.
smaller certified choices are tough:
Diamond da20: nice but hard to find and mixed feelings about composites. Very high on the list though.
cessna 150/2 small for our members
Warrior 140: not as efficient and hard to find a nice example

I'm afraid light sports will have all of the same negatives as an RV (light construction) with none of the positives except low fuel burn. Bringing light sport pilots into the club may be an advantage.

experimentals: Vans is really our only considered manufacturer due to the sheer number of safe aircraft flying, the support of the factory and the performance of the aircraft.

other suggestions welcome too thanks again for the interest, I'm sure this same discussion is going on in flying clubs across the U.S.

We have 2

Hi Here in Chile we have 2 RV9A and the results was excellent it was powered by two tomahawk lycomings and in 3 years they reach 1000 hours each, there were the most demanded airplane here, we have 40 others, i would rercomend a little big engine because if you get two people the plane go back and hit the tail, BTW in these engine the 9a get 135Knots of cruise!!! i would recomend a base o-320 and antisplat reinforsment in the nose gear, with these engines we dont have any problems but with a bigger i think could be.

All in All excelent plane, but if we have now to decide a new i will bet the 14A

Regards

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

a rose-tinted view

bikesandcars said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

In my opinion...yes. You have admirable intentions, but I think your enthusiasm for adding the -9A to your club is affecting your objectivity.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

What Sam said!

You asked for opinions. You got opinions. The opinions are legitimate, most based upon first hand experience with the airplane in question. The key to the decision is not one based upon the increased performance of an experimental aircraft such as the 9A. No, the key to the decision is based upon the limited performance of an experimental in the areas of its greatest weakness(es). Those with experience have spelled out what that greatest weakness is for the 9A.

If you respect those individuals you requested information from you will take head to the warnings and include them in your analysis. Of course you are not mandated to do so. But then again, if you only wanted positive comments, why would you ask for experienced individuals to give their honest opinions?

Oh yes, and my opinion, I love my 9A. I fly it off of grass every single flight. It performs spectacularly in pretty much every regime. Search for threads where I have posted about the 9A performance and you will see how much I appreciate its capabilities. I even talk about how it can and does land on grass very efficiently contrary to many beliefs. Given that, I am still one that will be jumping on the "negative bandwagon" in terms of this plane being a good candidate for a large club. It is a thoroughbred (as are all RV's) that must be handled with appropriate a plum. Something I would be very suspect could happen with a 50+ club.

I agree with the post that a more appropriate experimental aircraft to consider is the Glastar. Its speed and handling performance are not far off from an RV. Its weight carrying capacity exceeds the RV and its off field back country performance is far superior to the 9A. All characteristics that give it an advantage over the RV. And yes, this coming from one who loves his 9A.

bikesandcars said:

Are my rose colored glasses to rosey?

Click to expand...

Generally, the average flying time per pilot per year in large groups tends to be quite small. What is the average for your group?

In my flying group the average flight time per pilot per year is only 13 hours with 2 aircraft...that's an average flight time per pilot per plane of only 6.5 hours. And that's the AVERAGE. Many pilots, usually the older members who are retired and with less disposable income, fly much less than that. Some would be lucky to log an hour or two per year on any one of the aircraft. If your group has remotely similar figures then you can also expect that some members will be flying that RV9A for only an hour or two per year. That's hardly the currency needed for a relatively high performance sports aircraft with fragile landing gear.

In our group we have a Piper Archer and a Cessna 182. We consider the 182 to be a "high performance" aircraft. As such we require anybody who has not flown the 182 for 12 weeks to have a check flight with an instructor. However even this has proven to be inadequate and not long back a group member who was logging only about 6 hours a year in total porpoised the 182 and collapsed the nose gear resulting in very major damage and a large insurance claim. This forced up our insurance premiums which everyone now has to cop. It also took one of our aircraft off-line for a very extended period which pleased no-one. Considering that the 182 is built like a brick outhouse I don't fancy your chances with an RV9A.

The upside of large flying groups is that the fixed overheads can be amortised over many members resulting in relatively low hourly flying rates. The downside is that large flying groups need aircraft that are very robust, have relatively low performance, and are easy to fly, in order to accommodate the very lowest common denominator in currency and flying skills. The larger the group, the lower that lowest common denominator will be, and therefore a prudent group with an eye to longevity will choose their aircraft accordingly.

In my early years with the group I too pushed for a higher performance aircraft. In hindsight and with greater knowledge I now realise that I was motivated by my own desires rather than the greater good of the group.

RVbySDI said:

What Sam said!

You asked for opinions. You got opinions. The opinions are legitimate, most based upon first hand experience with the airplane in question. The key to the decision is not one based upon the increased performance of an experimental aircraft such as the 9A. No, the key to the decision is based upon the limited performance of an experimental in the areas of its greatest weakness(es). Those with experience have spelled out what that greatest weakness is for the 9A.

If you respect those individuals you requested information from you will take head to the warnings and include them in your analysis. Of course you are not mandated to do so. But then again, if you only wanted positive comments, why would you ask for experienced individuals to give their honest opinions?

Oh yes, and my opinion, I love my 9A. I fly it off of grass every single flight. It performs spectacularly in pretty much every regime. Search for threads where I have posted about the 9A performance and you will see how much I appreciate its capabilities. I even talk about how it can and does land on grass very efficiently contrary to many beliefs. Given that, I am still one that will be jumping on the "negative bandwagon" in terms of this plane being a good candidate for a large club. It is a thoroughbred (as are all RV's) that must be handled with appropriate a plum. Something I would be very suspect could happen with a 50+ club.

I agree with the post that a more appropriate experimental aircraft to consider is the Glastar. Its speed and handling performance are not far off from an RV. Its weight carrying capacity exceeds the RV and its off field back country performance is far superior to the 9A. All characteristics that give it an advantage over the RV. And yes, this coming from one who loves his 9A.

Click to expand...

Please don't take my previous post personally (everyone) and relax a bit.

I was simply re-stating my observations and opinion. I definately did not say I was going to ignore people and I wasn't throwing mud on anyone.

I respect that people say it's a bad plane for a club, but the only concrete reason I've heard mechanically is the landing gear, which even then has a more sturdy upgrade available.

You folks have made your own assumptions about training, currency, insurance, and other items which I welcome opinions on and consider, but do not wish to debate in detail.

I'd like to hear more about the particulars of the technical suitability of the aircraft for a club, but also welcome these other outside opinions

Also, thanks to those for suggesting others, we will add the liberty and grumman to our list of others, and do a little research on the glastar.

Captain Avgas said:

The upside of large flying groups is that the fixed overheads can be amortised over many members resulting in relatively low hourly flying rates. The downside is that large flying groups need aircraft that are very robust, have relatively low performance, and are easy to fly, in order to accommodate the very lowest common denominator in currency and flying skills. The larger the group, the lower that lowest common denominator will be, and therefore a prudent group with an eye to longevity will choose their aircraft accordingly.

In my early years with the group I too pushed for a higher performance aircraft. In hindsight and with greater knowledge I now realise that I was motivated by my own desires rather than the greater good of the group.

Click to expand...

Well said and that is where I am, what I have experienced, and where we are likely headed. I'm just exploring the boundaries. As time moves forward and new planes are introduced and evolve there's no harm in seeing what's out there and debating the issues.

Our club has a history of people flirting with high performance, complex, twins, etc and sometimes they bought the plane with mixed results, most times they didn't and were glad. Sometimes there was a little "personal" interest involved, you can't avoid that entirely, but in the end we always gravitate towards big safe airplanes.

Our club fights a bigger problem now... declining membership. The big sturdy planes no longer provide as much flying value as when gas was $2.00 a gallon. Between the regulations and the fuel flying is pricing itself out of new pilots.

So if we can't change the cost of fuel or maintenance, and we are already advertising, what can we do to attract new pilots or retain other ones? Answer : have aircraft that provide more value or people have more of a desire to fly

If your group leaves its aircraft permanently tied down out in the weather you might also like to consider whether an RV is really suitable for that. Many of them are intrinsically "leaky" and that is one reason why you will find that most RV owners go to considerable expense and effort to hangar their aircraft. There's no fun in getting a wet bum every time you sit in the seat or having water pour down into the avionics when you open the canopy. The typical vans fuel caps are also susceptible to leakage when left out in the rain. Just another thought.

I think there's merit in opting for a two seater for members who just want to get off the ground at the lowest possible cost....I just don't think the RV9A is the right aircraft.

As an aside, I don't think that just having the cheapest hourly rate is the sole key to club success. For instance a few years ago our Archer was the aircraft of preference for most pilots because of its lower hourly rate over the 182. And then we upgraded the 182 to a late model with modern avionics and it instantly became the aircraft of first choice despite its higher hourly rate... and it actually attracted more members. The 182R that we sold was in very good condition and many members were strongly opposed to selling it but in the end everyone loved the fresh leather seats and whizzbang avionics of the new bird.

Thanks again all for the vigorous "debate" and contributions

Our aircraft are hangared. Leaky has me somewhat worried though, can you fly them in rain?

Should we look past the landing gear? Our flying club maybe not, but I hope yes for the purposes of this discussion.

bikesandcars said:

Please don't take my previous post personally (everyone) and relax a bit.

Click to expand...

I for one am not taking your comments personally. It did sound like you were a bit unwilling to accept the answers you were receiving.

bikesandcars said:

I respect that people say it's a bad plane for a club, but the only concrete reason I've heard mechanically is the landing gear, which even then has a more sturdy upgrade available.

Click to expand...

There were other comments about the suitability of other aspects that may require transition training. The transition training is not specific only to the landing gear. There are the power issues, the maneuverability, weight, speeds, etc. that also need to be considered. This is a similar issue associated with the ex Bonanza pilot transitioning to an RV12. There are substantial differences in the manipulation of the aircraft that have to be learned even by a highly experienced pilot.

Ouch!

Captain Avgas said:

Generally, the average flying time per pilot per year in large groups tends to be quite small. What is the average for your group?

In my flying group the average flight time per pilot per year is only 13 hours with 2 aircraft...that's an average flight time per pilot per plane of only 6.5 hours. And that's the AVERAGE. Many pilots, usually the older members who are retired and with less disposable income, fly much less than that. Some would be lucky to log an hour or two per year on any one of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

I put in 23.3 hours on our RV-6A over the last 4 day weekend. You are right of course along with the rest of your observations but the implications of age incompetence are a little put offish.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

I put in 23.3 hours on our RV-6A over the last 4 day weekend. You are right of course along with the rest of your observations but the implications of age incompetence are a little put offish.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

I think his point was that most older pilots fly less, which I believe to be pretty factual, at least it is the case in my airpark. Less time flying = less currency and competence.

RVbySDI said:

I for one am not taking your comments personally. It did sound like you were a bit unwilling to accept the answers you were receiving.

Click to expand...

I suggest re-reading my original post again, if it came across that way I apologize, I was just trying to inject some positive energy.

I felt we were getting caught up in the qualitative type of negative comments. I was of course listening to and respecting the comments. I am pushing for a more complete understanding of the situation based on quantitative facts.

It seemed to me that several of you folks were piling it on for the sake of commenting, kind of a group-think or dogpack mentality going on. Why does everyone automatically think the worst of people or situations?

Flying is hard, if it was easy everyone would do it. Transition training is required for all new aircraft regardless of type unless we get another Archer, which isn't what our club needs. Granted, transition training is easier the more forgiving an aircraft is. Whatever we get, appropriate training will be applied. Instructor currency is definately part of our issue with an experimental (detractor).

I understand that the RV9a is more mellow than RV6,7,8's, but still quite sporty. Since I tend to think positively of fellow aviators, my assumption is that with a little time it would be a welcome change (not a dangerous characteristic). I think I just need to fly one to understand.

Bob Axsom said:

I put in 23.3 hours on our RV-6A over the last 4 day weekend. You are right of course along with the rest of your observations but the implications of age incompetence are a little put offish.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

Bob, how do you get that out of this....."usually the older members who are retired and with less disposable income"

Please don't become your own example...... We all like you here, and don't want you to fade away.........