Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Does Vans have something up his sleave
- Thread starter gmpaul
- Start date
aeroaddict
Well Known Member
Ha!
For me that is a huge paradigm shift in engine technology and not attractive.
But I still think cars should come with V-8's.
For me that is a huge paradigm shift in engine technology and not attractive.
But I still think cars should come with V-8's.
Skid
Well Known Member
And stick shifts.
Back to the RV-9A with the Rotax…..I hear it now has a 916iS in place of the 915 (just….becasue!), and we covered it pretty extensively in Kitplanes last year:
www.kitplanes.com
Paul
On the Nose! - KITPLANES
Lockwood’s Rotax-powered RV-9A is more than just fancy rhinoplasty.
www.kitplanes.com
Paul
Dr_Dave_MT
Well Known Member
CaptPausert
Well Known Member
I guess my problem with the rotax conversion is that the 916is is $50,000. My A&P friend is helping me rebuild an IO-320 which we are going to be able to rebuild for under $30,000. It would have been under $23,000 except for having to replace the crankshaft that ended up having a crack in the oil hole. Even if i decide to put FlyEFII system 32 on it instead of overhauling the mags and carb it will top out around $33,000. You can buy an superior IO-320 for around $36-37K. The 916IS will burn around 5gph and the IO-320 around 7. call it $4.25 for 91 octane fuel which the IO-320 will burn and you are saving about $8.50 per hour. Even at the more expensive end of the IO-320 that is over 1600 hours to break even and more like 2000 for me and the overhaul cost will be higher. I guess it is really hard to swing that extra cost, and i didn't even factor in modification of the airframe costs, when I am trying to keep my costs down. If they could figure out how to get the 916is under $40000 I think it would a lot more palatable
You’re right that modifying a flying airplane (with a flying engine) makes the costs look pretty excessive. But for a new build where you have to buy a FWF kit, engine, and Prop, the difference between the Lycoming option and the ROTAX is more liek $20-$25K on a $180K-200K aircraft. In terms of absolute dollars, if you’re counting every singel penny, then years - pretty expensive. If looked at as a delta in the percentage of the total aircrft cost, it is not so far out in left field - if you want something unique and that cruises high and fast…..
I’ll say I gave it serious consideration as a new project to replace our RV-6 for cross-countries…then this Rocket fell in my lap, and the shop became occupied….
I am so happy to see people looking for alternatives. It seems hard to compare apples to apples. I love my Lycoming engines but they are expensive and fuel is expensive. I think the Rotax is very different and would hope as production increases cost will improve, at least not go up. The Rotax is more self contained lighter and produces efficient constant power. They are designed to burn unleaded fuel. I am just saying, I worry about the costs rising and am happy to see people exploring options!!! Thank you to the people doing the work it takes.
Full marks to Lockwood for bringing this to fruition, think its a shame VANS themselves didnt develop a Rotax engine nine wing based model with the c of g issues resolved though. The market would be a lot larger for a Vans model than this upgrade I think.
I like the approach used here where the ballistic parachute has been used to help with the reduced engine weight.
Would be like a baby Cirrus if Vans did something like that based on the nine
I like the approach used here where the ballistic parachute has been used to help with the reduced engine weight.
Would be like a baby Cirrus if Vans did something like that based on the nine
