Are RV-9 plans user friendly?

[diamond]

I'm still unsure of whether to build a RV-9 or a RV-12. For those who would say the two planes have different missions, let me cut you off before you throw that cliche at me. Truth is, I'm a two mission guy; one mission suits the 9 and the other suits the 12.

I read all about how user friendly and easy the 12 build is. I'm a reasonably intellegent, mechanically-inclined fella, so I think I could build either one, but for all you 9 builders out there, are the plans such that you are constantly scratching your head wondering what this and that means? Are you constantly either calling Vans or on this forum trying to figure things out? Are many aspects of the build left up to speculation? I'm trying to get an idea of how much frustration is built into the 9 because of lack of completeness of the plans. I'm not talking about the increased difficulty of the actual build (such as riveting) as much as the potential frustration from lack of, or incompleteness of the plans. Any help much appreciated.

 

[Mel]

If you are indeed a reasonably intelligent, mechanically inclined fella, like you say, you should have no difficulty building the RV-9. Many people built RV-3s, 4s, and 6s with much less direction.
Obviously the -9 plans are not as complete and user friendly as the -12 plans, but you should have no problem.

 

[Vlad]

Mark,
Plans are OK but there are so many great websites for RV-9 and 7 (fuse basically the same) and useful info here on VAF that it beats all so called "unfriedliness". Builders document their projects in great details and proudly display it. Big thanks to them. Go for 9, if I can do it anybody can.

 

[apkp777]

Its not simple to build any plane. From what I have seen the 12 would be less complicated but still challenging enough to be satisfying. The 9 is challenging at times, sometimes frustrating. I am told that if you "take your time" its not too difficult. I didn't do that. The 9 is an amazing airplane to fly however. The 12 would be fun also. I really looked at it before I built the 9. The good thing is there is lots of help available. Either way, be sure to involve EAA tech counselors.

 

[pmccoy]

Building the structure of the 9 is well documented in the book and blueprints. If something does not seem right, it isn't. It fits together amazingly well.

With that said, the 9 allows you to make up your own mind on engine, avionics and all other systems. This is where things can be more difficult. It's up to you to figure out how it all goes together. If you buy standard Vans systems, then it may be very similar to building a 12. If you choose to go with an alternative engines, fuel injection, electronic ignition, glass panel, WAAS GPS, etc., etc., then the job of hooking those systems up is not as well documented. You have to figure it all out. I am building a 9A, and I love it! Can't wait to get the build over and take to the skies....

 

[DennisRhodes]

RV9 is an easy build

The 9 plans are easy to work with. All you need to know about the airframe build is in there. As for wiring , engine components, plumbing and etc and other items considered in the finishing process, you will not find a lot in the plans on that nor any other. Not sure how the 12 plans are presented. However, there are many site as well as the VAF site that will support you fully. The 9 is a great flying Van's plane. Go all the way and build it as a taildrager you will be glad you did when you master the technique of that . See the post above here Moontown Flyin picture number 13 of 35. N908DR the blue over grey RV9 has about 150 hours now. There's not a lot of 9s out there and I'm not sure why. I would chose the 9 again over the 12 in my opinion just for the flexibility to build and power as you chose.

 

[Greg Arehart]

I agree, if you have any mechanical inclination, the 9 is easy to build. There are a few quirks in the plans/instructions, but nothing that cannot easily be solved by a quick note on this forum.

greg

 

[SeanB]

Totally doable

I built most of a 10 and found the instructions very clear in their step by step directions. Each section had an exploded view or assembly depicted with its associated narritive. I would imagine the 12 to be similar in this area.

I just started a 7/7A (still making the decision) and the instructions are separate narrative and full size plans with callouts for specific sub-assemblies. This method is not nearly as clear and leaves more room to make a mistake. Just follow the narrative, find that part of construction on the prints...and proceed. You'll soon find that studying ahead of time is a good idea. Most things you do are repeated over and over. It's not a big deal and I'm sure I could have jumped right in and done just fine without previous experience. I believe the 9 will be in this format.

 

[SmittysRV]

The "9" instruction manual and the drawings have to be read and observed together. There are things to do in both. You'll need to read the written instructions, but then go and look at the drawings to see any additional work that needs to be done also. Also, read the entire section of the session you're working on before starting any work. Sometimes (not me of course - a-hem!) you'll perform a certain task in one written instruction and then read later that you don't have to do it now.

If you run into a snag, go the really big source - VansAirForce.net.

 

[terrye]

In my opinion, yes, RV-9 (and -7 and -8) plans are user friendly, but I have the advantage that I design machinery and make drawings in my day job, so reading drawings is second nature to me.
The easiest way to find out is to buy the preview plans (about $50). This includes the building instructions as well as reduced size (but still readable) drawings. In addition to the conventional orthographic projection views (front, left, top, etc.) there are lots of isometric (pictorial) views, many with the skins removed to see the underlying structure. If you don't have any trouble reading the preview plans, then it comes down to which plane suits your mission and how much building time you have. It does look like the -12 is a around an 800-1000 hour build and the -9 is around a 2000-2500 hour build. If this is too much investigate the quick build option.