Looking to jump in feet first - but don't want to land on my arse

I am looking to start a homebuilt project in 2004. My new career keeps me at
home with much free time during the day, and a two-car garage at my
disposal.

I have researched many different companies and aircraft
(http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/kits-acftdesc.html) and have pretty much made
up my mind to go with an RV-9A.

My dilemma is that I know next to nothing about homebuilding and aircraft
engines. It seems that to start building an aircraft, that you need to know
which engine (not an auto conversion) and which instruments will go into the
aircraft before starting (leaning towards the BMA EFIS/One). Is there any
literature that would make the process of choosing go any easier? I have
read almost everything I can and everyone seems to have an opinion. I am
looking for factual information to help me make the correct choices. My
first (correct?) choice was to look for a plane which suited the type of
flying that I would be doing and that I felt that I could complete.

This will be a large investment for me and I really don't want to end up as
many homebuilt projects seem to...18,000 pieces of an airplane jammed into
the corner of a garage, gathering dust, so any help is greatly appreciated.


--
////
(ó ò)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:23:06 -0600, "BoscoBob"
wrote:

:I am looking to start a homebuilt project in 2004. My new career keeps me at
:home with much free time during the day, and a two-car garage at my
:disposal.
:
:I have researched many different companies and aircraft
http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/kits-acftdesc.html) and have pretty much made
:up my mind to go with an RV-9A.
:
:My dilemma is that I know next to nothing about homebuilding and aircraft
:engines. It seems that to start building an aircraft, that you need to know
:which engine (not an auto conversion) and which instruments will go into the
:aircraft before starting (leaning towards the BMA EFIS/One). Is there any
:literature that would make the process of choosing go any easier? I have
:read almost everything I can and everyone seems to have an opinion. I am
:looking for factual information to help me make the correct choices. My
:first (correct?) choice was to look for a plane which suited the type of
:flying that I would be doing and that I felt that I could complete.

You've done VERY well so far. You can't go wrong with the RV. But
you're not correct about needing to decide on engine and instruments
now.

As long as you're sticking with the Lycoming (a good choice, certainly
the lowest risk way to go) the only decision is O-235 or O-320. They
go on the same engine mount and cowl. Virtually the entire engine
installation will be the same, except for the prop. You can decide
between the two when you get the airframe done, or any time between
now and then.

As for avionics - put them off until the VERY last minute. 10 years
ago GPS barely existed. Since then Terra and Trimble, Magellan have
gone, Garmin has become the top dog, color moving map IFR coms are
commonplace. There will be a LOT of changes in the next 3 years. The
best box you can buy today will be marginally obsolete by then -
useful, but not what you'd really want to buy.

The best advice I can give is buy every fast build option you can,
then enjoy the process of building.

richard riley wrote:

You've done VERY well so far. You can't go wrong with the RV. But
you're not correct about needing to decide on engine and instruments
now.

As long as you're sticking with the Lycoming (a good choice, certainly
the lowest risk way to go) the only decision is O-235 or O-320. They
go on the same engine mount and cowl. Virtually the entire engine
installation will be the same, except for the prop.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not exactly.
There are CONICAL and DYNAFOCAL #1 & #2 engine considerations.
Each style requires its own particular engine mount.
The dynafocal wide deck Lycoming is the latest way to go.
Check with Van, google.com, etcetera for more details.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:38:51 -0600, RR Urban wrote:

:
:
:richard riley wrote:
:
:You've done VERY well so far. You can't go wrong with the RV. But
:you're not correct about needing to decide on engine and instruments
:now.
:
:As long as you're sticking with the Lycoming (a good choice, certainly
:the lowest risk way to go) the only decision is O-235 or O-320. They
:go on the same engine mount and cowl. Virtually the entire engine
:installation will be the same, except for the prop.
:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
:Not exactly.
:There are CONICAL and DYNAFOCAL #1 & #2 engine considerations.
:Each style requires its own particular engine mount.
:The dynafocal wide deck Lycoming is the latest way to go.
:Check with Van, google.com, etcetera for more details.

Of course Bob is correct. There are conical mount 235's, but they're
all pretty old now, and not many of them around. The 320 Dynafocal
II's were off a Piper twin, and are also pretty rare, (a long prop
extension and a heavy prop put the engine CG way out toward the prop,
so the dynafocal angle changed) but I happen to know of a zero timed
one with 10:1 pistons for sale.

Even so, all the possible engine mounts are going to attach to the
same places on the firewall. So go ahead and build, the worst thing
that could happen is that you have to trade in an engine mount for a
slightly different one. And given the sheer quantity that Van sells,
I'd think trades like that would be pretty easy.

Like Bob, I'd assume a newer, wide deck 320 as the way to go. You'll
never regret a 35% increase in horsepower - there is no such thing as
too much horsepower.

But seriously, hold off on the avionics. I happen to be a UPSAT (now
GarminAT) dealer, loosing my dealership because of the sale. For the
next week or so I can get you some really, really good prices on
CNX80's and stuff. But don't buy from me now, it would just sit and
get obsolete on the shelf.

richard riley wrote in message . ..
Of course Bob is correct. There are conical mount 235's, but they're
all pretty old now, and not many of them around.

Lycoming still builds the O-235 K and L series engines, and
they use the conical mounts. Our 1996 Citabria has an O-235K2C.

Dan

"BoscoBob" wrote in message
...
I am looking to start a homebuilt project in 2004. My new career keeps me
at
home with much free time during the day, and a two-car garage at my
disposal.

I have researched many different companies and aircraft
(http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/kits-acftdesc.html) and have pretty much
made
up my mind to go with an RV-9A.

Good idea. Those O-320's Urbie and Rickie are talking about, you know,
with the dynafocal mounts --- the dynafocals are supposed to absorb more
vibration than the old conical mounts do. The Lord mounts suck up more
vibes too. You might look into the O-360 Lycoming for this airplane too.
The XP-360 is a lotta bang for the buck. It's not certified but it comes
from a rock-solid background with good reputation.

You might look into the O-360 Lycoming for this airplane too.
The XP-360 is a lotta bang for the buck.

If it were me (and it almost was), I'd do the O-320. You don't have
enough tanks on the -9 to properly feed a -360, and you don't need the
extra weight. Plus, the -9 has enough wing that you don't need a ton of
power to drag it into the air.

Ed Wischmeyer

Ed that is probably silliest thing I have ever seen you write.

Jerry

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
You might look into the O-360 Lycoming for this airplane too.
The XP-360 is a lotta bang for the buck.


If it were me (and it almost was), I'd do the O-320. You don't have
enough tanks on the -9 to properly feed a -360, and you don't need the
extra weight. Plus, the -9 has enough wing that you don't need a ton of
power to drag it into the air.

Ed Wischmeyer

You might look into the O-360 Lycoming for this airplane too.
The XP-360 is a lotta bang for the buck.


If it were me (and it almost was), I'd do the O-320. You don't have
enough tanks on the -9 to properly feed a -360, and you don't need the
extra weight. Plus, the -9 has enough wing that you don't need a ton of
power to drag it into the air.

Ed Wischmeyer

Ed that is probably silliest thing I have ever seen you write.

Jerry
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why do you say this, Jerry?
I think Ed is on extremely safe and sane ground.

Next thing you know, someone is going to defend morphing
the RV-4 series into Harmon Rockets and its hotrod clones.

Van as a most successful designer could offer a version.
Anyone ever stop to think of all the *PRACTICAL* reasons
why he does not?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

RR Urban wrote:
You might look into the O-360 Lycoming for this airplane too.
The XP-360 is a lotta bang for the buck.


If it were me (and it almost was), I'd do the O-320. You don't have
enough tanks on the -9 to properly feed a -360, and you don't need the
extra weight. Plus, the -9 has enough wing that you don't need a ton of
power to drag it into the air.

Ed Wischmeyer


Ed that is probably silliest thing I have ever seen you write.

Jerry

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why do you say this, Jerry?
I think Ed is on extremely safe and sane ground.

Next thing you know, someone is going to defend morphing
the RV-4 series into Harmon Rockets and its hotrod clones.

Van as a most successful designer could offer a version.
Anyone ever stop to think of all the *PRACTICAL* reasons
why he does not?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

The -9 holds 36 gal of fuel. My 180hp RV-6 hold 37 gal of fuel
so don't tell me that there are not enough tanks on the -9 to feed
a O-360. There are two -9As close to me, one has an O-360 and the
other one has an IO-360 and they both are fantastic flying airplanes.
As far as him designing a hotrod it is just a matter of evolution,
kind of like when he built and was flying his RV-3 his thoughts were why
would anyone ever need a two place RV-. Then it was why would anyone ever want
a SBS seating arrangement. Then it was why would anyone need electric flaps.
Then why would anyone need a constant speed prop. I think you can start to get
the picture.

Jerry