What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

My First RV! Also my first aircraft.

vansorbust

vansorbust

Member
Hi everyone!

I’m Drew, I’m new to the RV community as far as being active in forums goes, but have followed for the better part of a year and a half. A little about me - I’m 23, and have completed my ppl. I’m looking to own an aircraft that isn’t just affordable but also something that I have put more then just money into. I have mechanical experience (automotive and motorcycles) from simple maintenance to full engine rebuilds and bodywork. I’m looking at 3 different models currently (yes I know very indecisive). Each have there place in a hangar for me, but with no real world experience of flying one I’m not sure which would be the best pick for me. My “mission” is to have something that is fun for short leisure flights for myself or introducing others to the hobby, as well as something that can do light cross country 2-3 times a year. I’d like to be able to do 400 mile stints without having to watch fuel levels, and something that can hold baggage for 3, sometimes my partner gets a little over zealous.


As far as the models I have considered are as follows -
RV-9A
RV12iS
RV14

I know these are all different in one way or another, but what I like about Vans is that with enough time and though you can make it truly your own, I have a round about set plan for each individually, obviously nothing concrete but a sort of guideline. I’m only going to list the negatives of each model in my opinion as the amount of positives are almost endless to me.


RV-9A - The RV9 seemed to be the obvious choice at first, with the more efficient tuned wing design and larger weight capacity then the 12 but lower cost then the 14, this seems to be the right plane at first, but after some more digging I’m not completely sold on it over the latter, the main issue I have is the fuel capacity, while I know that it should be able to do 400 miles no problem I’d ideally like to not run full tanks and still be comfortable with range. My other issue is that I’m heavily leaning towards a Rotax unit, I understand there are more complexities with them, but from what I’ve gathered there aren’t any glaring issues, other then Lockwoods FWF kit costing roughly $121,000 per reaching out to them earlier this month.


RV-12iS - The 12iS brings out the inner child in me. Sleek, light, nimble, and smooth are what made me fall in love with aviation at first. But my worry is that the powerplant, while being a Rotax which I’m already leaning towards, is great for the planes intended use, but limited on cross country flights due to cruising speeds. Furthermore the weight constraints for baggage and overall comfortability are a big concern from an outside perspective. I know this seems picky as it’s intended for ELSA use, but there isn’t a exact model that slots right into my ideal wants and needs.


RV-14A - My previous concerns for comfort, weight allowance, and cross country flights are gone with this model. My concerns for the 14 are A - Affordability/Cost of Ownership, and B - Difficulty using engines that aren’t factory backed. As far as the money concern, I’d love to have a 14, but the kit is a fair bit more then the 9 or 12, and the factory backed IO-390 is a considerable amount more then a factory 916iS or even a Edge Performance 918is. This leads me to my next issue which is I love the idea of having the lower consumption rate and power capabilities of the Rotax units. But as seen by the cost of doing the 916 in a 9, I’m sure it won’t be cheap or easy to do something similar in a 14.



Again, I’m in the planning phase of this whole thing, and really am not landed on any of the three models. I’m completely open to any suggestions and information even if there is a suggestion of a different model, anything that can open my eyes!
 
It sounds like you are doing some detailed thinking, which is good, but I find it a bit of conflicted logic to be listing affordability as a negative for the RV-14 while comparing it to an RV-9 with a $120,000 engine installation🙄

By the way, the engine size versus fuel economy metric that is common with ground. Vehicles doesn’t entirely factor the same with airplanes.

Two identical airplanes, other than one having a 150 hp Lycoming and the other having a 200 hp Lycoming, we’ll have nearly identical fuel flows when flown side-by-side with the higher horsepower airplane throttled back to match the speed of the lower horsepower one. In some instances, the bigger engine airplane may even have slightly better fuel economy because they are traditionally fuel injected, and if that system has been optimized, it can even be doing better than the smaller engine. This makes the only real downside to the larger engine, being its impact on useful load of the aircraft since it is heavier.
 
Last edited:
Define your mission a little more.
Are you looking to build or buy?
Budget?
Acrobatic?
I wouldn't eliminate the 7A from the list.
 
If you plan to build, it's going to take several years to get a RV9 or 14 in the air. If you're hard over on a Rotax, then the RV12 seems like a logical choice.

If you're open to buying a used plane, you might consider an RV6. The price point is often lower than a 9 and certainly lower than a 14.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
It sounds like you are doing some detailed thinking, which is good, but I find it a bit of conflicted logic to be listing affordability as a negative for the RV-14 while comparing it to an RV-9 with a $120,000 engine installation🙄

By the way, the engine size versus fuel economy metric that is common with ground. Vehicles doesn’t entirely factor the same with airplanes.

Two identical airplanes, other than one having a 150 hp Lycoming and the other having a 200 hp Lycoming, we’ll have nearly identical fuel flows when flown side-by-side with the higher horsepower airplane throttled back to match the speed of the lower horsepower one. In some instances, the bigger engine airplane may even have slightly better fuel economy because they are traditionally fuel injected, and if that system has been optimized, it can even be doing better than the smaller engine. This makes the only real downside to the larger engine, being its impact on useful load of the aircraft since it is heavier.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, and trust me the RV-9 with the Lockwood aero kit is just as big of a gripe for me as the 14, I don't understand how $60k or so is comprised of cowling, prop, a yaw stabilizer, and mount. I even asked Lockwood if they would be able to sell just the mount even if it was something like $10-15k, while that is expensive I can comfortably make the cowling and order a prop for it. I guess my main issue is that it's been done with what realistically is my favorite of the three on paper but has been priced to where it is an unreasonable option without doing all of the work yourself to make something similar.

Thank you though for the insight on engine efficiency not being a 1-1 comparison between each model, I was looking at the problem from the auto side of things of bigger motor = more fuel. I would love to see someone come out with a turbo kit for a Lyc that allows it to utilize lower rpm while keeping the same power range.
 
wirejock said:
Define your mission a little more.
Are you looking to build or buy?
Budget?
Acrobatic?
I wouldn't eliminate the 7A from the list.
Click to expand...
My main use case for any aircraft would be pleasure/leisure. The longest flight I plan on taking is roughly to Austin to visit family. That is the main concern for something that is comfortable and not stressed to do those longer trips. From pervious flights with friends, I would plan stops roughly every 400 or so miles, but I don't want to be worried about watching fuel gauges just to keep weights down. My current budget figure is around 200 +/-15k for the build itself. I'm not too worried about acro at the moment as I haven't done any training in acro and don't want to make a compromise on something when I myself am not ready for that style of flying. So far all of my hours are logged in a Cessna trainer and my friends SR22. So nimble isn't at the top of my list.
 
Desert Rat said:
If you plan to build, it's going to take several years to get a RV9 or 14 in the air. If you're hard over on a Rotax, then the RV12 seems like a logical choice.

If you're open to buying a used plane, you might consider an RV6. The price point is often lower than a 9 and certainly lower than a 14.
Click to expand...
I'm okay with the timeframe, luckily my schedule allows me to work on the project more then most. I am definitely wanting to build the aircraft as there are certain things I'd like to do that I haven't seen done so far. As far as the RV-12, I'd love to do utilize Rotax's mounting similarity between the 912 and 915 to get some extra performance out of the aircraft. Mostly the idea of utilizing less power - burning less fuel. My concern with the 12 is room and comfort.
 
vansorbust said:
RV-9A - The RV9 seemed to be the obvious choice at first, with the more efficient tuned wing design and larger weight capacity then the 12 but lower cost then the 14, this seems to be the right plane at first, but after some more digging I’m not completely sold on it over the latter, the main issue I have is the fuel capacity, while I know that it should be able to do 400 miles no problem I’d ideally like to not run full tanks and still be comfortable with range.
Click to expand...
I think you might be making a "main issue" where there isn't one. You are correct that the 9A will do 400 miles no problem. If that's the longest leg you plan on flying, what is the concern, given the range of the 9A (double that)? You mentioned not wanting to worry about fuel guages just to keep weight down. While it's going to depend on the specific aircraft build, it's not uncommon at all for 9's to be able to handle full tanks, two average size people, and up to 100 lbs of baggage (depending on the CG of the specific plane of course). My point is simply that I wouldn't discount that model if that's truly your main issue, because realistically, it's not much of an issue.
 
skelrad said:
I think you might be making a "main issue" where there isn't one. You are correct that the 9A will do 400 miles no problem. If that's the longest leg you plan on flying, what is the concern, given the range of the 9A (double that)? You mentioned not wanting to worry about fuel guages just to keep weight down. While it's going to depend on the specific aircraft build, it's not uncommon at all for 9's to be able to handle full tanks, two average size people, and up to 100 lbs of baggage (depending on the CG of the specific plane of course). My point is simply that I wouldn't discount that model if that's truly your main issue, because realistically, it's not much of an issue.
Click to expand...
That's fair, I'm only in the planning/learning phase so far, I don't know anyone personally with an RV so my experience is limited to research and forums. The 9 is my ideal pick to be honest, the concern I had with range is running a 3/4 fill at the start of each leg, I don't know where that would put me in the fuel gauge towards the end of the leg.
 
Andrew, welcome aboard the good ship VAF :D

As previously said, first thing is to define your mission.

Also getting rides in as many of the various RVs as possible is very helpful.

Good luck, good to have you here.
 
If I were you, I would find a good RV6 or 6A that is already flying. They seem to be priced in the $65 to $120K price range. That is much less than you can build one today for. They will do 23 or more statute miles per gallon, and range with reserve is well past 400 miles. With an o-320 they will cruise at 160 knots/185 MPH.
 
vansorbust said:
I understand what you mean, and trust me the RV-9 with the Lockwood aero kit is just as big of a gripe for me as the 14, I don't understand how $60k or so is comprised of cowling, prop, a yaw stabilizer, and mount. I even asked Lockwood if they would be able to sell just the mount even if it was something like $10-15k, while that is expensive I can comfortably make the cowling and order a prop for it. I guess my main issue is that it's been done with what realistically is my favorite of the three on paper but has been priced to where it is an unreasonable option without doing all of the work yourself to make something similar.

Thank you though for the insight on engine efficiency not being a 1-1 comparison between each model, I was looking at the problem from the auto side of things of bigger motor = more fuel. I would love to see someone come out with a turbo kit for a Lyc that allows it to utilize lower rpm while keeping the same power range.
Click to expand...
Yeah, about that cowl on the Lockwood conversion … it is way more than just a “wrapper” for the engine compartment, it is a highly engineered, very complex part of the cooling system with mounts and ducts built in for the various radiators required for the Rotax. Having looked closely at it, and seen the actual versions to get though to where they were satisfied (with the cooling and performance), it would be practically impossible to duplicate and get their overall performance and reliability. I agree that it’s not a cheap package at all - but they did a tremendous amount of engineering to develop the package, and are trying to amortize that cost….

That said, its a great package for someone doing lots of long cross-country flying - that doesn’t sound like your mission.
 
I think you will probably outgrow an RV-12 in time, especially for cross-county flying. We started our RV-9A build in 2000 and were flying in 2004, and we have been flying her regularly ever since. In my option, it's definitely not a "trainer", and you still need to have respect for the RV-9/9A -- just like any other RV. During local economy cruise flights, we can pull the power back to achieve 135 knots true at 5 to 6 gph with a fixed pitch prop, 160 hp Lycoming O-320-D2A engine. On our many longer cross-country flights, we see 160 knots true burning 8 gph. And, with it's highly efficient 28-foot Roncz airfoil, the RV-9/9A has no trouble climbing nor getting over the mountains. The RV-9/9A is highly stable and feels more like a larger aircraft in its handling, while still remaining responsive in pitch and roll. With it's differential Frise ailerons and large rudder, there's very little adverse yaw, which we really like. With its longer span Flower flaps, constant cord horizontal stabilizer and demonstrated low stall speed (43 knots), an RV-9/9A can be landed just about anywhere you want. My wife and I (both pilots) have been flying the one we built for over 21-years now, and we still find the RV-9A a truly remarkable flying machine! (y):cool:(y)
 
Last edited:
Nobody has really touched on the "first aircraft" experience. Realize that there is far more to owning your own aircraft than acquisition cost. Make sure that you understand ALL of the ongoing expenses. Some of these include hangar, insurance, registration, taxes, data base subscriptions, fuel, oil, brakes, tires, tubes, engine reserves, avionics reserves, etc. They all add up and there is nothing worse than having a beautiful aircraft that you can't afford to fly.

Also know that your significant other needs to be on board; especially when building. Building an airplane is an expensive, time consuming mistress...

Three facts:

It will cost more than you think.

It will take longer to build than you think.

IF you finish, it will be worth it.
 
rocketman1988 said:
Nobody has really touched on the "first aircraft" experience. Realize that there is far more to owning your own aircraft than acquisition cost. Make sure that you understand ALL of the ongoing expenses. Some of these include hangar, insurance, registration, taxes, data base subscriptions, fuel, oil, brakes, tires, tubes, engine reserves, avionics reserves, etc. They all add up and there is nothing worse than having a beautiful aircraft that you can't afford to fly.

Also know that your significant other needs to be on board; especially when building. Building an airplane is an expensive, time consuming mistress...

Three facts:

It will cost more than you think.

It will take longer to build than you think.

IF you finish, it will be worth it.
Click to expand...
Yes to all three!
 
Having your own aircraft, whether you built it or not, is a major step, and a MASSIVE one at the age of 23. Also I applaud you having a budget of $200k at that age, I had the budget for a paper airplane at that point. What will you do when your $200k airplane suffers a catastrophic engine issue and you are stuck with a $50k out of pocket for a replacement engine? Events like this are rare, but do happen!

I would hazard to say that most RV's are not built by those in the early 20's. You may well have the experience and talent to build one, but are you willing to make the sacrifices to do so, much less have time to fly it? I think you are suffering from "analysis paralysis" and the "planning fallacy" when your focus really should be on piloting.

Any of the RV's is a big step up from a certified aircraft in terms of flying enjoyment.
 
mic2377 said:
Having your own aircraft, whether you built it or not, is a major step, and a MASSIVE one at the age of 23. Also I applaud you having a budget of $200k at that age, I had the budget for a paper airplane at that point. What will you do when your $200k airplane suffers a catastrophic engine issue and you are stuck with a $50k out of pocket for a replacement engine? Events like this are rare, but do happen!

I would hazard to say that most RV's are not built by those in the early 20's. You may well have the experience and talent to build one, but are you willing to make the sacrifices to do so, much less have time to fly it? I think you are suffering from "analysis paralysis" and the "planning fallacy" when your focus really should be on piloting.

Any of the RV's is a big step up from a certified aircraft in terms of flying enjoyment.
Click to expand...
By the same measure -- don't wait too long to start building your "dream flying machine" because "life" tends to "get in the way" for many folks! I'm happy that I didn't wait until after retirement to start building because I had much more energy and ambition 25 -years ago when we started building our RV-9A. And, we owned many other type certified airplanes before that too, but we just got sick and tired of the "certified airplane world". But, without that strong desire and dream, it will never happen!
 
Last edited:
RV-9erA said:
By the same measure -- don't wait too long to start building your "dream flying machine" because "life" tends to "get in the way" for many folks! I'm happy that I didn't wait until after retirement to start building because I had much more energy and ambition 25 -years ago when we started building our RV-9A. And, we owned many other type certified airplanes before that too, but we just got sick and tired of the "certified airplane world". But, without that strong desire and dream, it will never happen!
Click to expand...
True but it is necessary to go into a project of this scope with your eyes open; sometimes that takes a bit of the shine off of the dream...
 
BobTurner said:
As Mike suggested, you need to bum a few rides in RVs. The -9 and, especially, the -14, will climb (even at gross weight) like nothing you have so far experienced. That may help shape your thinking.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping to do that soon, I've been looking into some upcoming air shows and am planning on going just to get some time around them, if I can make my way into some seat time that would be great!
 
RV-9erA said:
I think you will probably outgrow an RV-12 in time, especially for cross-county flying. We started our RV-9A build in 2000 and were flying in 2004, and we have been flying her regularly ever since. In my option, it's definably not a "trainer", and you still need to have respect for the RV-9/9A -- just like any other RV. During local economy cruise flights, we can pull the power back to achieve 135 knots true at 5 to 6 gph with a fixed pitch prop, 160 hp Lycoming O-320-D2A engine. On our many longer cross-country flights, we see 160 knots true burning 8 gph. And, with it's highly efficient 28-foot Roncz airfoil, the RV-9/9A has no trouble climbing nor getting over the mountains. The RV-9/9A is highly stable and feels more like a larger aircraft in its handling, while still remaining responsive in pitch and roll. With it's differential Frise ailerons and large rudder, there's very little adverse yaw, which we really like. With its longer span Flower flaps, constant cord horizontal stabilizer and demonstrated low stall speed (43 knots), an RV-9/9A can be landed just about anywhere you want. My wife and I (both pilots) have been flying the one we built for over 21-years now, and we still find the RV-9A a truly remarkable flying machine! (y):cool:(y)
Click to expand...
Thank you for the insight!! The 9A is what I'm leaning towards overall, to be fair the whole process is going to be a large learning experience for me, but that's what draws me to it!
 
I think the 9A with the 320 Lycoming. Pick it up on the used market. Get a prebuy from someone that knows these planes.

I have a 6A, I think they are great, and, relative to other models a good buy. But, I don't think it is a fit for your mission. As soon as you said 'baggage for 3' it was a no go.
 
rec buy the quick build wings and fuselage kits- then you can finish in a 3 year timeframe if you really apply yourself (10-20 hrs a week minimum). otherwise higher chances of failure
 
rocketman1988 said:
Nobody has really touched on the "first aircraft" experience. Realize that there is far more to owning your own aircraft than acquisition cost. Make sure that you understand ALL of the ongoing expenses. Some of these include hangar, insurance, registration, taxes, data base subscriptions, fuel, oil, brakes, tires, tubes, engine reserves, avionics reserves, etc. They all add up and there is nothing worse than having a beautiful aircraft that you can't afford to fly.

Also know that your significant other needs to be on board; especially when building. Building an airplane is an expensive, time consuming mistress...

Three facts:

It will cost more than you think.

It will take longer to build than you think.

IF you finish, it will be worth it.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you mentioned that, one of the main reasons that I'm looking towards the Vans lineup is because they for the most part can be complete for around that 200k price range with a solid avionics and engine choice, the idea of staying around 200k is because I could reasonably obtain a 15-20 year old certified with more modern avionics and not too many hours, but that is going to be pushing on the total budget I have in mind. So far I have looked at SR22s that are similar in age and hours to my previously mentioned friends Cirrus, but again a plane in that range is nearing if not slightly exceeding the budget I have set just on acquisition cost. Luckily the airport near my house is in a smaller area and the private hangars (while older and not heated) only cost 230 a month, as far as the rest of the cost concerns, I haven't factored in insurance to a very specific degree. My basic budget was 5000 a year on insurance, 100 for registration a year, the taxes I will have set aside as if I outright bought a SR22, for fuel I factored roughly 10,000 per year, and as far as general maintenance I also figured 10,000. For anything that may fail or need fixed in the future, I plan on using the left over budget to be put in a separate savings account that I routinely add to, not exactly sure how much that would leave as an initial amount but based on pricing I have seen it should be more then enough to cover anything from a motor to a pitot tube. Thank you for exampling those factors though and making sure that I was aware of them, I greatly appreciate all of the information and advice!!
 
mic2377 said:
Having your own aircraft, whether you built it or not, is a major step, and a MASSIVE one at the age of 23. Also I applaud you having a budget of $200k at that age, I had the budget for a paper airplane at that point. What will you do when your $200k airplane suffers a catastrophic engine issue and you are stuck with a $50k out of pocket for a replacement engine? Events like this are rare, but do happen!

I would hazard to say that most RV's are not built by those in the early 20's. You may well have the experience and talent to build one, but are you willing to make the sacrifices to do so, much less have time to fly it? I think you are suffering from "analysis paralysis" and the "planning fallacy" when your focus really should be on piloting.

Any of the RV's is a big step up from a certified aircraft in terms of flying enjoyment.
Click to expand...
It is a very big step, but I'm not just wanting a Vans so I can fly for cheap, I understand that things can break, and things can go wrong. I feel like that is part of the process even if it's not fun. I still maintain anywhere from 2-6 hours of flight time a week (buddies SR22). I do understand I will lose a lot of free time in this journey but I don't see it as a loss. It's a learning experience and something that I'm driven to do.
 
blaplante said:
I think the 9A with the 320 Lycoming. Pick it up on the used market. Get a prebuy from someone that knows these planes.

I have a 6A, I think they are great, and, relative to other models a good buy. But, I don't think it is a fit for your mission. As soon as you said 'baggage for 3' it was a no go.
Click to expand...
Thank you! The baggage for 3 really is a must lol, sometimes my "check in" gets demoted to a "carry on", I don't mind the idea of a used 9A but for the simple fact of I want to personalize the plane to my liking, I'm not sure if it would be anymore cost effective to buy a complete aircraft just to possibly strip parts of it out. But I appreciate the comment!!
 
cgeyman said:
rec buy the quick build wings and fuselage kits- then you can finish in a 3 year timeframe if you really apply yourself (10-20 hrs a week minimum). otherwise higher chances of failure
Click to expand...
My only issue with QB kits is A the cost, B I've seen recently a number of people having issues with fuel tanks leaking from factory QB.
 
rocketman1988 said:
True but it is necessary to go into a project of this scope with your eyes open; sometimes that takes a bit of the shine off of the dream...
Click to expand...
Yes, but when the "big day" finally arrives, and you take your first test flight and then return to earth safely, that feeling is indescribable! And then after that, you're "shining" for days after -- buying one just ain't the same.

1772065783209.png 1772065814083.png 1772065857965.png
 
vansorbust said:
Thank you! The baggage for 3 really is a must lol, sometimes my "check in" gets demoted to a "carry on", I don't mind the idea of a used 9A but for the simple fact of I want to personalize the plane to my liking, I'm not sure if it would be anymore cost effective to buy a complete aircraft just to possibly strip parts of it out. But I appreciate the comment!!
Click to expand...
Keep an eye out for partly built projects. If customize to your liking is that whole Rotax thing... don't. If it has to be a Rotax, I recommend looking beyond Van's planes.
 
vansorbust said:
It is a very big step, but I'm not just wanting a Vans so I can fly for cheap, I understand that things can break, and things can go wrong. I feel like that is part of the process even if it's not fun. I still maintain anywhere from 2-6 hours of flight time a week (buddies SR22). I do understand I will lose a lot of free time in this journey but I don't see it as a loss. It's a learning experience and something that I'm driven to do.
Click to expand...
Here's a stat to get you motivated.
Percentage of the US population with an active pilot license. 0.14%-0.2%. 600,000.
Percentage of the aforementioned who have built and flown their own airplane. Actual is unknown but EAA claims 5.5%. 33,000 aircraft in the registry. How many were finished and flown by a licensed pilot is unknown. That's still a pretty small club
Get busy.

Baggage fir 3 depends on CG. No way around it. Three little bags?

The big plus is you can do all your own maintenance. If you build, finish and acquire a Repairman's Certificate, you can also sign off the Condition Inspection although it's always good to have another set of eyes.
 
My .02 cents. I just talked with a guy who just got his AWC after 12 years of building his -7. He is now flying without paint.

I have 25+ years as an aircraft mechanic. The idea of starting with a stack of sheetmetal and installing every rivet, nut, bolt, wire, and switch, isn’t for me. I applaud anyone who has the determination and actually completes a kit from start to finish.

I personally bought a previously flying project with AWC that needed work within my skillset. That being said. I have easily spent 2 years and as much $ as I bought it for. But this is going from day VRF only to full IFR.

Just as a big picture look at a project this size. You might want to keep your options open and an eyeball on the classifieds for a partially built kit. There are people who for whatever reason decided to sell prior to completion.

The price tag on these projects can be quite reasonable and include some of the more expensive bits like an engine.

Now with Mosaic, the repairman's certificate issued to a builder isn’t as big a selling point as it used to be.

If you really want to make your own, you can save some money and get a head start by a year or so, by buying a partially built project.
 
RV-9erA said:
I think you will probably outgrow an RV-12 in time, especially for cross-county flying.
Click to expand...
@vansorbust You mention that your mission is to fly locally for pleasure with the occasional cross country. The -12iS fits this perfectly. Others prefer higher speeds and longer distances for their own long cross country needs but don't be dissuaded from getting the aircraft that fits YOUR mission. You will not find anything that flies as economically (4.0 gallons per hour at 109 kts.) that is as much fun or has the same level of capabilities as the -12iS. The majority of my flying is to destinations 2 hours away and back. However my -12iS has taken me on 800 and 1,000 mile trips, as well. The -12iS is the perfect fit for this mission. If you intend this purchase/build to take you on long trips the majority of the time than I recommend the -9/-9A. It seems to fit the price to performance ratio for cross countries.
 
rockyfatcat said:
My .02 cents. I just talked with a guy who just got his AWC after 12 years of building his -7. He is now flying without paint.

I have 25+ years as an aircraft mechanic. The idea of starting with a stack of sheetmetal and installing every rivet, nut, bolt, wire, and switch, isn’t for me. I applaud anyone who has the determination and actually completes a kit from start to finish.

I personally bought a previously flying project with AWC that needed work within my skillset. That being said. I have easily spent 2 years and as much $ as I bought it for. But this is going from day VRF only to full IFR.

Just as a big picture look at a project this size. You might want to keep your options open and an eyeball on the classifieds for a partially built kit. There are people who for whatever reason decided to sell prior to completion.

The price tag on these projects can be quite reasonable and include some of the more expensive bits like an engine.

Now with Mosaic, the repairman's certificate issued to a builder isn’t as big a selling point as it used to be.

If you really want to make your own, you can save some money and get a head start by a year or so, by buying a partially built project.
Click to expand...
I would love to find a 9A airframe that's completed outside of the finishing kit!
 
DSC00615.jpeg
Whatever you decide to do…do it. Analysis paralysis is the enemy. I started my -3 in my living room when I was 21. I sat in a -3 for 5 minutes and measured my door jamb to make sure I could get it out then bought a kit. There isn’t a wrong answer and you can always sell it/build something else down the road.
 
vansorbust said:
I'm glad you mentioned that, one of the main reasons that I'm looking towards the Vans lineup is because they for the most part can be complete for around that 200k price range with a solid avionics and engine choice, the idea of staying around 200k is because I could reasonably obtain a 15-20 year old certified with more modern avionics and not too many hours, but that is going to be pushing on the total budget I have in mind. So far I have looked at SR22s that are similar in age and hours to my previously mentioned friends Cirrus, but again a plane in that range is nearing if not slightly exceeding the budget I have set just on acquisition cost. Luckily the airport near my house is in a smaller area and the private hangars (while older and not heated) only cost 230 a month, as far as the rest of the cost concerns, I haven't factored in insurance to a very specific degree. My basic budget was 5000 a year on insurance, 100 for registration a year, the taxes I will have set aside as if I outright bought a SR22, for fuel I factored roughly 10,000 per year, and as far as general maintenance I also figured 10,000. For anything that may fail or need fixed in the future, I plan on using the left over budget to be put in a separate savings account that I routinely add to, not exactly sure how much that would leave as an initial amount but based on pricing I have seen it should be more then enough to cover anything from a motor to a pitot tube. Thank you for exampling those factors though and making sure that I was aware of them, I greatly appreciate all of the information and advice!!
Click to expand...

You may need to reevaluate just a bit. You are going to have a hard time building a -14 with solid avionics for 200k unless you are planning on scrounging parts. The other models would not be a problem…
 
There’s no one size fits all in aviation. All the Vans machines have their pluses and minuses, the ‘A’ models have additional minuses as well.
The one thing that’s common across the board is that they are pussycat to fly despite the boogeyman tag that often gets trotted out amongst the pussies😂 The 12 is cute, basic, limited but useable. The 9 is a “Cherokee” type of plane, simple to fly, the 14 was Vans answer to those that like their KFC too much😂😂
 
I was in your shoes a few years ago. Except I was nearing retirement at 58. I bought a 7A kit, then sold it a year later and bought a flying 9A. A perfect machine for a new pilot! Half the cost of the 14. If it wasn’t for my wife insisting our 65lb dog travel with us I’d still have it. 100lbs of luggage is a lot! 35 not so much. Sold the 9 and currently flying a Glastar. But just put a deposit down on a -10 kit. 😏
 
Capt said:
<snip>
The one thing that’s common across the board is that they are pussycat to fly despite the boogeyman tag that often gets trotted out amongst the pussies😂 <snip>
Click to expand...
There's some truth. I was so stressed. All the rhetoric about how sensitive they are to fly and land. Non issue with my transition 7A. What a joke.
Like night and day compared to the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown. At least mine 7A. Instead of yanking one way, adverse yaw, then yanking the other and more adverse yaw and waiting, you basically wear it. Just think left of right and she flows. Landing is so much easier too. Only thing I've noticed is she tends to climb if I don't pay attention.
 
Having similar thoughts as you (OP) for many years, while also building a Murphy Rebel, I was set on an RV-9, but partial to TW since there are lots of grass strips I frequent.
I ended up selling the kit (Rebel) and buying a flying one. Actually have owned 4 and still have another nearly ready to fly that I may end up selling. Building is a much greater commitment than you can imagine. Kids growing up, job relocations, life in general, all contribute to putting a kit on hold.

I felt at the time the the -9 was the best of all worlds to fulfill my mission. Even rode in MacCool's (Thank you sir), and really liked the plane. My only con with it, was being short in stature, I felt like I was sitting in a hole. Granted, easily fixed with added cushions, so basically not a factor. Totally set on either building or buying a flying 9.
Fast forward a couple of years and having sold another plane, I took the wife along to make sure she was going to be content in the 9. Well, she wasn't overly enthusiastic about the overall feel inside. Looked at and sat in an RV-8 and she loved it! Well, I ended up buying an RV-8!! I would definitely recommend you and your partner sit in one for a bit and see if it 'fits' you. Personally, I like to just sit for more than a few minutes. This allows for your body to adjust to any miscomfort or minor things that may be of concern. These things aren't Cirrus level interiors, although they can be made pretty comfy with lots of aviation units spent on it.

I'm thinking it may have been from past flying experiences. Her favorite was alway a tandem seaplane that I owned. Her next favorite is the Murphy Rebel, I attribute it to overall interior size/room it has. Volumus interior without that shoulder rubbing of most airplanes. Respectible cruise (for a bush type) and having a high winged airplane sure is nice in the heat of summer. 3 bags would barely make a dent in the cargo area. LOL

Only other advice, I would definitely check on insurance before proceeding. VANS aren't too far out of line with certified planes, but other experimentals can be double what a similar certified aircraft is. I had looked at a Lancair that a friend was going to sell for rediculously cheap. He had aged out and could no longer obtain insurance. When I got a quote for insurance, I nearly fainted! If I flew arond 50 hrs a year, insurance alone would have been close to $200/hour! Not a high time pilot by any means with 2K TT and half that is TW and SES.

You state you are mechanical, as am I, having restore motorcycles, cars, planes. The new Mosaic rules allows you authorization to do your own condition inspection on an AB aircraft that you own. Need to take a 16 hour class. You can buy a flying RV-9A and basically do anything you want (as long as you know what you are doing). Owning an AB, you can already do your own work, repairs, modifications, but this now allows you to sign it off. A big win!! Granted, I think this is great for those that know what they are doing, but then there are owners out there that probably can't tell you what a screwdriver is! LOL

Your mention of leaning toward the Rotax. I own a Rotaxed powered RANS S7 on floats. They are great little motors but a different animal than the typical Lycoming/Continental. Nothing bad, just a learning curve. I've put new pistons/cylinders, rebuilt carbs, etc on it. Recently flew another RANS from northern MN all the way to Grants Pass Oregon. Dependable engines but having flown behind old scholl engines for nearly 40 years, that little screaming meme takes a bit to get used to! Sounds like a weedeater going wide open!! ;) The only issue I have with the Rotax, limited places that can help if you have an issue in the middle of nowhere. This is even more of an issue with the newer high tech Rotax engines. Lots of electronics etc on them to diagnos, and without the proper tools and equiptment, you may be stranded for awhile. Not as much of a problem with legacy engines.

One last item in my experience, your $ 200K budget seems doable, but that is todays dollars. New engine, instruments, kit purchase can slowly increase over the years. Engines in particular have increased to insane levels along with the wait time to get one. Case in point, I priced out a Titan 340 a few years ago, it was around mid $30K. That same exact engine today, as I speced it is closer to $50K! Friend just got quoted an IFR panel....$80K and this was going into a Super Cub!!

Good Luck and keep up posted!
 
Last edited:
I'm building an RV-8 and when it was delivered the truck driver said something like "I don't usually deliver these to young guys like you!". I was 39.

I'd also point out that if you want to keep the budget, look for used engines. An engine is easily 55,000, and a prop can easily be another 20,000 brand new, unless you get a bit out of the usual Hartzel/Whirlwind/MT props and into the lesser known brands. Airplane stuff is expensive.
 
How about the 9A listed on this site. Low time and ready to go for a fair price. At least you can experience ownership quicker!

There's even a couple of 12's!!
 
I started my RV-7 when I was 25 (35 now). I didn’t even have my pilots license, although I was a student pilot at the time.

The advice above is solid. It will take longer and cost more than you think, but it’s fun, and very much worth it, especially if you enjoy the building.

If you budget for all the different parts and spread it out over time it’s not too bad, but sounds like you already have your budget.

Regardless of what route you go, you’ll love it. Personally, if I were you, I’d err on the side of the larger plane, you never know what can happen in the time you build. I’d go for the 9a or 14a and not consider the 12 based on your described mission.

There’s a learning curve for flying them, but they’re pretty easy after a few flights. The stall behavior is different from a Cessna for sure, but not terrible. Regardless of the model, they’ll behave the same
 
BoydBirchler said:
If I were you, I would find a good RV6 or 6A that is already flying. They seem to be priced in the $65 to $120K price range. That is much less than you can build one today for. They will do 23 or more statute miles per gallon, and range with reserve is well past 400 miles. With an o-320 they will cruise at 160 knots/185 MPH.
Click to expand...
I have never seen mpg or cruise that high with an o-320, maybe you're thinking rv-9
 
Concerning cross country ability for the RV12, I fly cross country in mine a lot. At 5100 RPM I can go about 3.5 hours with an hour reserve. I know comfortability is subjective, but to me it is very comfortable. I flew a 6.5 hour cross country a few months ago with one stop for fuel and would do it again in a heart beat.
 
Airlines have weight and size limits on luggage. Tell your partner the same. Large and heavy suitcases do not mix well when loading and unloading a RV. Duffles also beat hard suitcases for RV travel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top