N

Nick172

Member
I am trying to decide between a Zodiac XL and Vans 7a or 9a. I am having a hard time comparing cost to build between these models. I keep getting mixed information from my research. I am hoping some of you can shed some light on this, especially the people who may have owned/built a Zodiac and Vans.
If I was to build the Zodiac, I would use the Jabiru 3300 and not certain for the vans, but it would be a Lycoming of mid HP rating for the model.
My mission:
I want a low wing, side-by-side with good view all metal plane.
Decent fuel economy and able to use auto fuel (8gph at cruise would be too much).
Decent cruise speed (140-160mph).
Decent payload. (myself ? 220lbs., another smaller person and actually be able to take a few pounds of luggage).
Inexpensive to maintain.
Good cockpit space.
Want to fly around and have fun and generally stay within 80mi or so. Maybe cruise to the beach a few times a year (about 250mi round trip).
From what I can tell any of the planes mentioned should handle the mission. The Vans will burn a little more fuel, but would cruise faster, will cost more to build and take longer to build. Is this true? I would use standard kits from either company.
I have also heard that if I add all the extras I need to get with the Zodiac, it will cost about the same? For example, I would have to buy wheel fairings for the Zodiac, but the Vans kit comes with them.
Please help.
I apologize if I posted this in the incorrect forum.
Thank you,
 
Mission statement sounds exactly like a 9a with a Lyc O320- the 9 is slightly more efficient than a 7 with smaller motors.
 
My opinion only so YMMV.

I have a friend building 3 Zodiacs right now from scratch. I am building a 9A.

You have mentioned the majority of the differences. Some other ideas are:

The issue of LSA registration. The Zodiac can be registered LSA but the RV's you mentioned cannot (although there has been a thread here discussing how there have been some RV9's registered as LSA).

Performance wise the RV will outperform the Zodiac. Is that important to you?

They will both be good airplanes for your defined mission. Thus, it will become an issue of cost you are willing to lay out (both in time and money) and your own ideas of what an airplane should do for you personally.

Good Luck with the decision.
 
Learn everything you can about the Zodiac before building. I know of two, and have heard discussions of another two that have had the wings fold up in level flight. One of them happened at Oakdale, CA and had the flight instructor of one of my friends aboard. It was level about 1000 agl and near the airport when the wings gave up. I don't know what the findings were in the investigation, so you might want to do some research. Another one I saw on the news and happened in Northern California when a retired couple took off and were climbing out when their wings folded up and over the canopy. I think this happened around Easter a year or so ago because the couple was going to visit family when the failure occurred. Again, I don't know the cause so you might want to research these accidents. I think the second one happened near Redding if memory serves me correctly. Some locals were talking about the breed and I heard them talking about two back east somewhere also, but again your guess is as good as mine as to where. I'm not trying to steer you away from building one, but definetely learn what caused these so you don't repeat the error if it turns out to the fault of the builders.

9A vs. 7A... Good luck deciding. This is one of the most debated topics on the VAF forums, with maybe the canopy choice or taildragger vs. nosewheel edging it out. They are both nice airplanes.

Best,
 
Welcome!!!!!!

Nick, first off, welcome to VAF.

Second, sounds like you have already made 90% of your decision, just by coming here.

I would suggest you do a few things.

1. Get a ride in both.
2. Look at resale value.
3. Consider support groups---VAF for one----
4. Compare % of kits started, that actually get in the air.

By the way, just so you will be warned, that first ride in a RV is very often quite expensive-------:D, and worth every penny.
 
Thank you all for the replies. I have looked at the wing folding issue and read the statement from Zodiac about it and am very comfortable about the safety. From what you all say the 9a as far as Vans go is the best choice. I am leaning towards Vans if it costs about the same as the Zodiac, but if it is a good bit difference in cost dollar wise, much less time to build and easier to build, then I may go with the Zodiac. And I?m not talking about 1g less and 50-100 hours of later less, but a noticeably amount.
LSA doesn?t matter much to me, except the fact it is light will not need as much HP to cruise. On another note on this, can I get a repairman certification on any Experimental or just on the LSA Experimental?
I have contacted Zodiac owners in my area and will find some Vans owner to see if I can get any rides.
Again thank you all for the information posted so far.
 
Repairman certification

"Can I get a repairman certification on any Experimental or just on the LSA Experimental?"

You can get a repairman cert for either. More importantly you can get a repairman's cert only for the airplane you build.
 
Welcome, Nick.

First, yes you can get the repairman certificate. Did that on my 9A.

Time, I think the Zodiac would be less to build. How much, I don't know. Money wise it isn't THAT much different! For many people, the cost of the kit is about 1/3 of the total build cost. Engine/prop is about 1/3 and avionics/paint/interior the remainder. I would think that some building the Zodiac would cut costs on the panel--you could do that on a 9 or 7.

With my 9A I can cruise at 140-150 mph on around 5 gph. I have the 160hp Lyc. I think you will find it to be more economical than the 150hp, but not wanting to start some kind of war here, I won't claim that! All engines are about the same, just the top end performance differs.

Now, you have stuck $40-80K in either of these birds. Which costs the most to insure, maintain and hangar? Probably exactly the same. Come resale time, who wins? Van's by more than enough to make up for any price difference up front, at least IMHO. And all the while you will be flying one of the finest flying machines on the planet. Nothing against Zodiac as it is a nice bird, but there is really no comparison. I wouldn't DARE ask a Zodiac owner if he would like to trade!

Do get those comparison rides. Try to get to handle the controls. It could be an expensive ride!

Bob Kelly
 
Hi Nick....

......since you said that 8GPH is too much, I can assure you that if you only need to cruise at 140-160, the RV will burn substantially less than that at those speeds. Another gent on here has a -9 with a 135 HP and cruises in excess of 160 MPH and those engines are quite a bit cheaper as well,

Regards....and welcome,
 
Nick,

If I may suggest that you really should go fly both airplanes before making a decision, and go take a look at both airplanes under construction. This is not just a $$$ based decision! At 140mph you will be burning around 5gph in a 9A with an O-320, but you will be able to go 180+mph when you need to.

My view is that a 9A (or 7A if you decide to go that way) is a more versatile airplane than a Zenith. Maintenance will not be a factor on a 9A (and I guess it won't on a Zenith either). Once you have worked out the bugs from building it will be as reliable as a store bought.

Pete
 
I know a couple of Zodiak owners who were recently lamenting the fact that the resale value has gone down recently because of the aforementioned accidents. The two mentioned, and I believe at least another one on the way to Sun n Fun this year.

In spite of what the factory is saying, there seems to be a bit of nervousness in the building/buying community.....

You haven't mentioned the RV-12.... Should benchmark well against the Zodiak overall, without the storm clouds hanging over it.
 
A friend built a Zodiac XL at the same time I was building my 9A. My 9A has a mid time engine but an IFR panel. His plane ended up costing more and he spent just as much or more time building it. We then flew in each other's airplanes. We flew in mine first and a few seconds after take off I heard an 'Uh Oh' come from him. After flying in mine he didn't want me to fly his. I finally did and was very disappointed in it. The balance between pitch and roll control was awful. I'm sure you could get use to flying the Zodiac, but why fly something you have to get use to?

Cam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason I didn't mention the 12, is because it is not available yet and there is only one flying at this time. It does look like a good option though.
So from what I can tell so far is the price will be about the same to build the 9a even though it looks like on the web site that the Zodiac would be much cheaper. This is the type of information I was looking for.

Anyone have good options as to what engine to use on the 9a? I know about the O-320. Are any of the Lycoming clones any good? From searching the net they appear to be about the same price, so why wouldn't I use a Lycoming (or did I just not look in the right spot)?
 
Nick,
I can't comment on the Zodiac since I don't know about them, but you really should try to get a flight in both candidates. Call your nearest EAA chapter. Also check with the forums for local fliers/owners. Also, check out both vendors and talk and see as many examples at OSH.
Regarding your Lycoming engines, the clones are a little cheaper by a few thousand when i priced them. Usually will have a few minor enhancements.
 
Nick:
The first 9A that Van's built had a 118 HP engine. I believe their original thought was to offer a "trainer" that far exceeded the performance of a C150. You can look at Van's web site for performance numbers on this aircraft. Also, a more recent addition to the "9" fleet is a conventional gear 9 built by Bill Repucci. Bill is running an O290 (135HP?) and is getting speeds north of 160MPH. You can see detailed information about this aircraft on his site:
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
 
I'm flying both an RV and 601XL

I built a 7A, and I'm instructing the owner of a 601XL with a 100 hp Rotax engine. Others have addressed building, cost and performance, I'll talk about handling.
Bottom line, I like the handling of the RV better. I haven't flown a 9, but everyone I know who has says it's quite similar to the 7, just a bit less sensitive. Pitch and roll sensitivity are well balanced- you don't move the stick much in any direction :cool:
The 601XL is very sensitive in pitch and less sensitive in roll compared to the RV. The one I'm flying has the center "Y" yoke, and both the owner (he bought it) and I would prefer individual sticks. Nothing you wouldn't get used to, just different, and very noticeable if you fly both. The 601 is much lighter than the RV - it's a true LSA, and the useful load is less, if that is an issue. It cruises at about 90 kts (105 mph) and burns about 5 gph. It does climb very well.
Regarding safety: Due to the accidents already mentioned, the wing structure has been independently analysed, and the result was positive safety margins for Normal category operations (4Gs with a 1.5 safety factor) at max LSA weight - 1320 lbs. Needless to say, if I didn't think it was safe, I wouldn't be flying in it.
I'll join the choir - fly both before you decide.
Good luck!
 
I probably have no room to voice an opinion on this thread as I have done ZERO research on the Zodiacs... But I will make one important point... Building Network. You probably have more RV builders in your area than you think. And this place... VAF. I can ask a question here at 2am, and get an answer within the hour 90% of the time. Its an invaluable tool. And if you ever want to sell anything... just put it in the classifieds section, go take a bathroom break, and come back and it will be sold!
 
Nick172 said:
I am leaning towards Vans if it costs about the same as the Zodiac, but if it is a good bit difference in cost dollar wise, much less time to build and easier to build, then I may go with the Zodiac.
Click to expand...

No offense, but this is a foolish way to decide on what airplane to build. If it costs $90K to build both and one is worth $70K when you are done and the other is worth $100K which one is a better deal? No one will ever pay you $100K for a Zodiac. I've sold a 9a for $120K.

Don't be penny wise, and pound foolish. The only plane to build is an RV.
 
Last edited:
I've built a Zodiak and a few RVs...

I also have inspected quite a few of each. Although the Zodiac is a nice aircraft, it does not compare to an RV. Call me and let's talk.
972-784-7544
 
I guess as far as the cost goes. I just wanted make sure that the Vans was about the same total price, for example, the Zodiac site has the prices listed that are much less than the Vans, but from what other people of said, that if you add the things Vans comes with and what you will have to purchase extra with the Zodiac, they will be about the same price. I just don't want get the Vans and also have to buy a bunch of other things like my original example have of having to purchase wheel fairing with the Zodiac. I cannot afford a 90G plane no matter what it is worth to sell afterwards. And that is why I am coming here, because if I cannot afford it, I do not want to waste time thinking about a Vans. I do like the Cirrus sr22 turbo, but...
I did do a good search and about every model of Vans sells for much more than the Zodiac. It seems like you could actually make a profit off of a Vans.
Thank you all for the help, I am signing up with the local EAA chapter and yes, you are correct, there are many Van builders around and will try to get a ride in one soon.
P.S. You guys and gals do reply back to these threads quickly.
 
RV-9 with either an Injected, balenced 320 (LOP fuel burn is excellent) or an O-290 (CHEAP, decent performer, hard to find parts...)

Tailwheel if so inclined (A little less drag :D)
 
One of the things that I like about the Van's aircraft is that it is about the only kit plane that you can build and get your investment back. All others it appears that you will end up losing money.
 
IF build time is one of your prime considerations...

...and IF you really are going to do most of your flying within 80 miles of your home base...

...then I would strongly recommend having another look at the RV-12.

Granted, there are very few out there, but I don't think that should be cause for concern. Of all the kit manufacturers, Van would be the one I'd trust most to produce the airplane he says he's going to produce. The early returns from the folks who've started building the first production kits seem to be extremely positive. I think I recall lots of praise for the plans and how well the kit goes together.

Even on the longer trips to the beach, the -12 wouldn't be a slouch. A lot of folks seem to read "LSA" and think "slow". But that's just because we're judging that in relation to non-LSA homebuilts. A Skyhawk is having a good day if it does better than 120 kts consistently, and many people take them on longer trips without second thoughts.
 
My 2 cents

Before I acquired my kit I too looked at building a Zodiac. I wanted to go the Corvair engine route. The Zenith factory is closer to my home. After comparing all the component kits and what the firewall forward stuff would cost plus avionics I figured the cost would be close but the RV maybe being a bit more. Even though we gripe about the plans from time to time I still feel that the RV is the better build. I believe the Zodiac has some pre-punched components but it is not as complete as the RV kit which are prepunched with ribs and skins and that makes the RV kit come together nicely. If I had to measure and drill everything like the early RV kits I wouldn't be doing this. There still is some fabricating, measuring and drilling but that what gets you within the 51% rule.

Now there are options that you still need to consider on a 9A build and they are: steps - passenger brakes - aileron trim - tip vs slider : these will slightly affect the kit cost.

Now for the light sport side. From my limited exposure to RV kits I wouldn't hesitate ordering a RV-12 kit and that well may be my next build (a fair percentage of RV builders don't stop at one). My older brother has been riding passenger in a Cessna 150 of late (his first year going up in a GA airplane) and I'm leaning on him to maybe purchase a RV-12 kit and get his light sport license.

The bottom line is to just call Mel and find out what he has to say. I haven't met him yet but find a lot of wisdom in what he has to say and offer. He's on my list as a straight shooter.
 
I built a Zodiac and an RV 7

Ok my zodiac was the 601 HDS..which does have a slower wing...My biggest beef with the Zenair was the performance claims verses reality....The claims were a complete work of fiction!..The HDS claimed a cruise speed of 140mph on 80HP...Nonsense...More like 125mph top speed with over 100HP.

Secondly ease of build...Back then the HDS was clained to have many prepunched holes..Well put it this way..The holes that were pre-punched I wished they wer'nt!

I know time may have moved on but there was not one single jig I needed to build the RV....The Zodiace needs a flat table..In other words you drill most of those holes by yourself.

Unless Zenair has invested in true CNC punches like Van's has then the ease of build won't even be close.

I would be very suspicious of the zodiacs performance claims.

As others have said, resale value?....Basically there is a very good reason the VAns are the bast selling kits in the world.

By far the best choice is to biuld a 9a with one of the cheaper and smaller motors with a fixed pitch prop.

And all the Lycomings will be perfectly happy on autofuel..

Frank
601 HDS 400 hours
RV7a 310 hours...And a LOT more distance..:)
 
Fearless said:
The bottom line is to just call Mel and find out what he has to say. I haven't met him yet but find a lot of wisdom in what he has to say and offer. He's on my list as a straight shooter.
Click to expand...

I agree with Fearless on this matter, Mel always seems to know what he's talking about, and if he doesn't he doesn't talk. Great source of information.
 
Repucci, White Pages and Mel

terrykohler said:
Nick:
The first 9A that Van's built had a 118 HP engine. I believe their original thought was to offer a "trainer" that far exceeded the performance of a C150. You can look at Van's web site for performance numbers on this aircraft. Also, a more recent addition to the "9" fleet is a conventional gear 9 built by Bill Repucci. Bill is running an O290 (135HP?) and is getting speeds north of 160MPH. You can see detailed information about this aircraft on his site:
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Click to expand...

Nick, Terry's suggestions above should be seriously considered. Van's web site lists four engine choices for the RV-9A, the Lycoming O-235 (118 hp), O-290(135 hp), O-320 (150hp) and O-320(160 hp). Just because most folks choose the higher hp doesn't mean you have to. He's right in saying the prototype RV-9A flew very well on the 118 hp Lycoming. I don't know if there are any performance numbers as in gph versus cruising speed for that RV available, but my memory says it was quite impressive. I have several hours in an RV-9A, and many more in a 172, and all I can say is the RV-9A is a solid, responsive, predictable airplane.

You should contact Bill Repucci, who bases his RV-9 with the O-290 on the east side of Charlotte, about 100 nm from you.

Also, a quick check of Doug's White Pages directory indicates there are over 40 RV builder/flyers in North Carolina, and at least three in Cary, NC. (Note to Bill Repucci: Your info doesn't show up in the White Pages; it's free and it might help folks like Nick to meet some nice RV folks!)

Also, the suggestion to contact Mel is a good one. Mel is definitely a straight shooter. We are fortunate to have him online with us.

Good luck in your decision...and let us know.

Don
 
I may have misread, but I think you were looking for 140-160mph cruise. This would negate the idea of a Light Sport aircraft as they are prohibited from going that fast.

You also haven't said whether you plan to buy a new or used engine. A consideration if buying new is that the 360's are about the same price as a 320, yet tend to get a bit more in resale and can be flown just as economically as a 290. Given those considerations, there really is no downside to the larger engine (and you can never have too MUCH power!) - you can simply dial it back to save $$$. I would recommend the larger engine if cost is approximately the same.

Good luck!

[edit]Whups - that won't wash for the 9! Forgot that they don't recommend more than a 320. You might call them, though, if you plan on using a low-compression 360 it might be ok. That would let you run autogas with no problems, and only be 10 hp more than a 320.
 
Last edited:
Well, I talked to Mel. Very nice person and gave me some great information. Looks like the 9a is best for me.
As far as the engines goes I will wait to decide. Probably a 320. Not sure on new/used/clone.
Again, thank you all for the great information. I have joined local EAA and will contact some local builders.
 
Weight Scenarios

Take a look at Dan Checkoway's site:

http://www.rvproject.com/wab/

Good information for planning engine choices based on your mission and expected load.

You'll get a lot of "Arh Arh Arh MORE POWER" input on this site. I think before too long we'll have folks equipping their RV-9s with IO-720s and JATO hardpoints just in case. I'd suggest getting a ride with an existing owner.

Another vote here for Mel as the voice of reason, too.
 
A local guy looked into the wing folding issue and found not 2, but 4 or 5 accidents, one or more of which happened in Canada, I believe which may be why you only found 2. He didn't like how the factory treated the issue and sold his project. Compare how Zenith treated the question vs. Van's when one of their demonstrators had a wing fold. Van had an outside engineer check the design and tested the wing very thoroughly. I don't know what Zenith did, but compare the attitudes.
 
I think (me thinking? Bad...) that the 120Kt limitation for LSA aircraft in LEVEL CRUISE flight would be about 138mph, which would make a O290 powered RV-9 with 8.00x6 wheels probably a good canadate :).

Just pointing out that 120KT's for LSA is 138mph, right about the low end of the OP target speed range.
 
Ch601XL wing. OPINION, OPINION, OPINION!

I've looked at the 601XL wing and have come to my own conclusion. Keep in mind, this is OPINION.
It looks to me as though when Zenair added flaps to the 601, they didn't change the rear spar in any way. It is my humble opinion that use of the flaps over-stresses the rear spar and causes failure. This airplane really doesn't need flaps. My recommendation to anyone building a 601XL is that they either restrict the flaps to about 20 degrees max or not use them at all.
Again, I am not an aeronautical engine and this is strictly my opinion and is worth exactly what you payed for it!
 
Last edited:
9's are great... RV-12 considerations...

I am planning on my first build... hoping to be able to pull the trigger soon! I looked at the 601XL initially, and quite seriously... but after seeing, sitting, and flying... hmmm... not quite so interested. Not bad mind you... but did not meet my expectations. I love the RV-9... but need something a "tad" bigger (can't afford the time/cost of an RV-10 - and the Sportsman 2+2 while perfect size for me, is also a bit costly and requires playing with 'glass).

So, for now... I decided to build a fun little flyer. My requirements were in this order: build time, cost, performance. So I am tentatively locked in on the RV-12. Not being retired, build time is a HUGE factor for me... and if you saw how quick the 12's are going together with the pulled rivets vs. the whole driven rivet experience... you'd understand. If build time is important... more so than performance... you might give it a look... especially if you are in slow build price range vs. buying a quick-build. If build time is not an issue, or you can pony up the added pesos for the quick-build... go for the -9.

As someone else has noted... I'm not getting 120 kts. out of the 172's I fly... and definitely not the 152's. So... LSA speeds are OK for my current use.

That'll hold me over until someone designs my O-360 powered "2+2" sized Tiger improvement.

DJ
 
I should add

A couple of things in favour of the 601.....I.e the cabin is 1 inch wider at the shoulder I believe, and the Y mounted center stick is easy to fly..In fact the stick between the legs was a little more awkward after 400 hours in the Zodiac.

But the RV is still far and away a better airplane and MUCH easier to build...This was based on building an HDS, not an XL though.

Oh yes and the HDS spins much better than the 7a!

Frank
 
I faced the same decision as the original author of this thread: "Zodiac XL or RV...?". I personally flew both (in my case an RV6) , and I purchased the Zodiac XL.

A couple of points are worth making here:

1) Most people that I talked to said the RV would be the better plane than the XL. In hindsight, I doubt that any of those folks had actually flown either aircraft - I suspect they were just repeating what they in turn had heard from others or "thought to be true". It's really best to go and fly them both and find out for yourself and ignore the opinions of others who simply do not have factual data.

2) In all fairness, is also possible that the particular RV I flew was a "dog". In the years since then I have had the opportunity to fly additional Zodiac XL's, and all have performed well. I have not flown another RV.

3) Most people who chose anything other than an RV will then move off to their own builder communities and associated forums. Most people who chose an RV will probably stay on this forum. So the views for or against any particular airframe can be expected to be slanted towards whatever community they are expressed in. If the original poster of this thread posed the same question on a non-RV board, he would likely get some very different answers than what he gets here.

4) I'm just happy that we live in a time and place that we have the opportunity to build our own experimental aircraft, whatever the airframe may be. We are all fortunate that we can do this.

Mel said:
Another factor of the wing design is the rearward angle of the main spar. And with a positive angle of attack, it is even more "out of vertical".
Click to expand...

Actually the main spar carries a slight forward slant, which in a positive angle of attack brings the spar into vertical.

- Patrick
 
pierre smith said:
......since you said that 8GPH is too much, I can assure you that if you only need to cruise at 140-160, the RV will burn substantially less than that at those speeds. Another gent on here has a -9 with a 135 HP and cruises in excess of 160 MPH and those engines are quite a bit cheaper as well,

Regards....and welcome,
Click to expand...
Nick,

Just read this thread today. Guess I missed it last month. I'm the gent with the 135 HP RV-9 and what Pierre said is correct. With the climb prop I have I regularly see 165 MPH cruise and with the light engine I can lift 760 lbs w/o setting my gross weight above Van’s recommended number. There is a local -9A flying with a 108 HP Lycoming O-235 and he cruises it at 150 MPH. Still much better than a Zodiac.

Drop me an email if you have any questions.

All I'll say about the Zodiac Vs. RV question is what a friend said when he made his selection, "There is a reason that there are over 5,000 RV's flying."
 
Last edited:
RV-9A flying for over three years.

Nick,

I have been flying my RV-9A for over three years now and the whole story of my 2000 hours of "slow build" kit assembly in my garage is online at www.n2prise.org for all to see. I chose the ECI clone O-320-D1A Lycoming equivalent. It flies with one Slick Mag, and one Lightspeed Plasma III solid state ignition, which adds about 15% to the fuel economy over two regular mags. I also chose the "Cermanil" nickel-carbide-coated cylinders and never worry about rust inside the engine. I had the engine assembled and tested by Penn Yan Aero and paid them a visit to see engines in for overhaul. The Cermanil cylinders looked great. The rust in a similar cylinder without the coating confirmed I had made the right choice. ECI forges and machines all their own parts. ALL of the parts (except the case) are PMA approved for use on any certified Lycoming. The ECI engine case has extra features like the oil spray nozzles to keep the cam and pistons cooler. Also, the ECI crank shafts have never suffered the recalls of the Lycoming cranks. I toured ECI a few years ago and met skilled machinists who had worked there for as long as 30 years. The company is still family-owned since 1943. Penn Yan Aero is also family-owned since 1945. They were both easy choices.

I went with the 160 HP engine with carburetor and find that I can get off the ground quick with a constant speed prop, and set my power and mixture to cruise at 5.5 to 6 gallons per hour and make 150-160 MPH true air speed depending on altitude flown. The RV-9 Roncz airfoil wing works well up high compared to the aerobatic wings of the the RV-7 and RV-8. IF you take the lower compression pistons for 150 HP, you can use autogas with less worry than if you had a 160 HP set of pistons in the O-320.

The constant speed prop adds weight and cost, but gives the RV-9A a wider operating envelope. Short field is much easier with the CS-prop compared to a fixed-pitch prop. The other nice thing about the pairing of the O-320 with the CS prop, there are no restricted power ranges as with the higher-powered engines. There are a few RV-9's out there with 180 HP O-360 engines, and a few with 168 HP, low-compression O-360's that run autogas.

There are lots of choices, but I agree, in the end, it is your airplane. You can make the educated choices that meet your mission profile. I don't have a problem making a day trip to Florida and back in the same day. I did it twice with the flight story beginning on this web page:

http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a236.htm#May12

I routinely cruise at 160MPH, lean of peak, and get 25 MPG. Your mileage may vary, batteries not included. Either way, it is a lot of fun on long trips, or just crusing the neighborhood near home, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
 
Thank you all for the help and great advise. I really like the look of the XL and liked the feel of the cockpit and very roomy. I would get the XL if I was going for the LSA. Don't kill me about not saying the RV12, just liked the look of the XL compared to the RV12 and there aren't any 12 finished for me to try on.
I went ahead and ordered the emp kit for RV9A and some tools from Avery. I received the emp kit a week ago and just got my from Avery last night. I only had time to cleco and drill the two spars and doubler last night. Will fabricate the angles tonight.
Thank you all again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.