|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-29-2012, 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mahomet, Illinois
Posts: 2,195
|
|
Back to the "economy thing" for a moment ...
If economy is truly high on your list, it would be hard to beat a Nine with an IO-320. Running LOP, RV-9/9As regularly see 150 kts on less than 6.0 gph. That Roncz airfoil loves 8000MSL and up.
__________________
Terry Ruprecht
RV-9A Tip-up; IO-320 D2A
S. James cowl/plenum
(Dues paid thru Nov '18)
|

10-29-2012, 10:42 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,151
|
|
Out of the box here
Hi,
Start with RV3  don't jump direct to 9 it will leave you forever poor right after first flight. Doesn't matter how cheap you built it. Start with RV3 then up to 14 but don't start with 9 
|

10-29-2012, 10:50 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 617
|
|
Consider buying?
You guys have a Cardinal right now, and enjoy flying. Are you sure you want to build? Building is FUN and cheaper than therapy or having an affair (That is what I tell my wife) so I'm building because I love to build.
It's a buyers market right now, and there are some very high quality planes out there.
AND, since I'm building a 9A, and really happy with my decision, I won't give advice about what model to get.
Dkb
__________________
--------------------------------------------------
David Boeshaar
RV-9A - N18TD (reserved) - Fuselage.
"My greatest fear: What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?"
TDAircraft.com
-July-
--------------------------------------------------
|

10-29-2012, 01:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
If you are thinking of keeping the Cardinal (with fixed costs of insurance, hangar, taxes) then I suspect the $$$ will favor selling it and building a -10, unless you have a partnership deal or something like that. Keeping a seldom flown aircraft is usually expensive, if you look at the real costs.
I am not tall, and debated the 7 vs 10 (no 14 when I was buying) choice too, as my son was approaching the age where he would be out of the house. I went with the 10, and am happy. I am surprised by how often we have passengers with us.
As to the 9 vs 14, it's a personal choice. 14 has more room, will go faster (and speed always costs gas, but if you slow down to -9 speeds you should get close to the -09s fuel burn). But the 14 is more expensive, no question.
|

10-29-2012, 02:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
|
|
Decisions - make a list of the different models and see what you didn't cross off when you get to the bottom.
If you want aerobatics, well, the RV-9 isn't aerobatic.
If you want to keep fuel burn as low or lower than the Cardinal, then the RV-14 and -10, with their larger engines, won't do.
If you need more than two seats, the RV-10 is the only plane in the lineup that has them.
If you don't care about aerobatics and two seats will do, the RV-9 and -12 will be more fuel efficient than the RV-7, -8 or -14.
If you want rapid construction and can accept a lot of pre-engineered choices already made for you, the RV-10, -12 and -14 are the Van's planes of choice.
If you are primarily interested in a project for the project's sake, the early RVs are the ones to get, with few pre-punched parts and sketchy plans. I think that's the RV-3, -4 and maybe the -6, except I think the RV-6 might now have a lot of pre-punched parts, not sure about that.
If you want side by side seating, that eliminates the RV-3, -4 and -8.
Simple, isn't it?
Dave
RV-3B, just finished the rudder
|

10-29-2012, 02:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: 07TS
Posts: 472
|
|
Thanks everyone, a lot of really good comments, and gives me a lot to thing about.
I own 1/2 of the Cardinal, and the plan is to keep it at least until I build an RV, possibly beyond. If I kept it beyond that I'd likely consider adding an extra partner (with my current partners blessing of course) to help keep the fixed costs down.
I really liked the 10, but I don't think it offers enough over what I have in the Cardinal to justify building it.
Based on my thoughts and everyone's comments, I really think it comes down to either the 9 or the 14, and I'm leaning more towards the 9. I need to sit down and do an in depth pro/con list for both models, but I think the lower cost to build and operate is probably going to tip things in favor of the 9.
Now, hopefully I can get some work done on my toolbox this evening and make sure this is something I really want to do  .
-Dan
|

10-29-2012, 03:07 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Liberty Twp, OH
Posts: 641
|
|
Not to add another option to consider in the fold, but you could build a -9a for the insane fuel efficiency, and add Alan's almost-a-14 seat mod.
http://antisplataero.com/Products.html
__________________
Scott Balmos - RV-9A N112SB
Cincinnati, OH, KHAO
|

10-29-2012, 03:28 PM
|
 |
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbalmos
|
While I think that Allan's mod is an interesting way to make the existing two-seater's more comfortable for tall folks, I don't think that it addresses what I found to be the greatest comfort factor in the larger RV-14 - the increased WIDTH of the seating area. Not having to scrunch or stagger your shoulders is what really makes the -14 nicer IMHO. I think of Allan's mod as a "Tall man" option (similar, in concept, to the tall man option you can buy from the factory for the -8...it creates a longer cockpit).
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
|

10-29-2012, 03:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
"If you want to keep fuel burn as low or lower than the Cardinal, then the RV-14 and -10, with their larger engines, won't do."
This isn't necessarily true. If you run the -10 hard the fuel burn rate is higher than the Cardinal.
But: I can slow to 160 KTAS @ 10 gal/hr - similar fuel burn rate to the Cardinal but still faster. Slow to Cardinal speeds and my fuel burn rate is better.
|

10-29-2012, 04:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
|
|
Just keep in mind as you weigh your options, how you fly and use your airplane today may, and probably will, change.
You may end up chasing the $100 hamburger more, fly short legs to the local EAA chapter meeting, visit close buddies, take in the scenery, fly solo a lot more....
What used to be transportation may become a true pastime, in addition to basic fast transportation.
I know of at least one very nice, very capable RV for sale on this site that is no longer happy with their choice as they can not keep up with the activities of their friends. Solution, sell it and "upgrade".
I never had any idea I would enjoy aerobatics, or formation flying, but that world opened up to me through my association with new friends as a result of owning an RV that was capable of those activities.
So, as an example only, if you end up with a RV-9 or 10, find yourself chasing your new found buddies around in their 4's, 8's, or whatever, you may end up with RV envy. I am sure there are scenerios where the reverse is true, but I have a harder time visualizing that because of how I fly and use my airplane. Individual results will, and do, vary, so this is not a dig against the 9 or the 10. They do things the other's don't too.
You just don't know how your world of flying might change with an RV.
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.
RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:20 AM.
|