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

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