I have an RV9 with an IO 320 that has 1700 hrs. It has good compression. I'm looking at replacing it with the Lockwood Rotax 916 conversion. I know it doesn't make a ton of sense dollar-wise, but I'm trying to justify it at least partially in my mind. I live in Utah and fly from an airport that is at 4500 ft. In the summer DA can be in the 7000's easy. Part of my decision will come down to what my IO 320 is worth. Does anyone have an idea or know where I could get a good idea of the market value? I'd love to hear other thoughts, also.
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!
RV 916 conversion, worth it?
- Thread starter Coryb
- Start date
I flew an AirCam for 100+ hours with Rotax engines and upgraded my RV-9A from fixed pitch to constant speed, so I've got a bit of relevant experience.
For me, the big problem with the Rotax was finding unleaded gas. This meant more frequent oil changes and carrying fuel additive. And, at your elevation, you'll need to be aware of vapor pressure. Rotax parts were expensive, and back then, nobody knew how to work on them.
On th Lycoming-powered RV-9A, flying from sea level, the constant speed prop meant going from 130-ish HP on takeoff to the full 160 HP, and that was spectacular. It also meant that I had more drag on descent and landing.
So... my choice would be to convert to a constant speed prop if you haven't already do so, and stick with the Lycoming. Granted the Rotax conversion has a constant speed prop and is, in concept, way cool.
Best part is that no matter what you choose, you'll still have an RV-9A -- my favorite of the two seat RVs.
For me, the big problem with the Rotax was finding unleaded gas. This meant more frequent oil changes and carrying fuel additive. And, at your elevation, you'll need to be aware of vapor pressure. Rotax parts were expensive, and back then, nobody knew how to work on them.
On th Lycoming-powered RV-9A, flying from sea level, the constant speed prop meant going from 130-ish HP on takeoff to the full 160 HP, and that was spectacular. It also meant that I had more drag on descent and landing.
So... my choice would be to convert to a constant speed prop if you haven't already do so, and stick with the Lycoming. Granted the Rotax conversion has a constant speed prop and is, in concept, way cool.
Best part is that no matter what you choose, you'll still have an RV-9A -- my favorite of the two seat RVs.
sansoneservices
Well Known Member
Personally I would keep the Lycoming if it's running well but your question of value has many variables.
Can a buyer see it running?
Are the engine logs complete?
Is a pre-buy inspection allowed?
I would want to sell it for more than just core value. You could search classified here
Can a buyer see it running?
Are the engine logs complete?
Is a pre-buy inspection allowed?
I would want to sell it for more than just core value. You could search classified here
I took the Rainbow Aviation LSRI course in early March and the instructor was Clyde Poser. He owns a RV 7a with a Lycoming and is a mechanic for Rotax. He's very knowledgeable and I'm sure wouldn't mind giving you educated opinion, [email protected]. I'm sure the Lockwood conversion would be fun to fly behind but even if you got a good price for your IO-320, the $100K FWF package price for the Lockwood conversion would probably mean losing money on your plane if/when you decided to sell.
Keep flying the lycoming till it starts to show signs otherwise. Overhaul it later with some port and polish to boost the hp up to 160.
sansoneservices
Well Known Member
I agree with ed above, cs prop would be all you need. That Rotax is just Way to expensive
Consider the IO360 and CS prop combination - I have 2040 hours on mine and absolutely love it, the extra 20hp really wakes up the airplane on takeoff and climbout. You'll add a slight bit of weight for the parallel valve, the angle-valve is just too much. I chose a carbon-fiber prop (Whirlwind) to offset some of the weight add on the nose, and located all my remote-mount hardware that possibly could move farther back in the tail to offset the balance.
I am attracted to the 916 conversion, but can't justify the price against the performance gain for me. I'm already burning 93E10 fuel everyday with the SDS system.
I am attracted to the 916 conversion, but can't justify the price against the performance gain for me. I'm already burning 93E10 fuel everyday with the SDS system.
I have an IO-370 on my 9 and had high oil temps in the summer. Switched to a 13 row oil cooler mounted on the FW, solved the problem...another option.
Same, I have to run the 13-row with my IO360.
New since overall on Trade a plane going rate is -30,000, and a lot being offered.
I find a couple with hours slightly more than yours going for 12-13k.
I find a couple with hours slightly more than yours going for 12-13k.
What about the pennies on the dollar recovery from selling everything else (other than the engine) firewall forward?
What about the lost flying time you will never recover? Time to convert will be a whole flying season.
But if those bucks are burning a hole in your pocket, go for it.
Or he might just like the 916 for qualitative differences that matter to him but not you. Performance, new engine technology, smoothness, fuel options, etc. Maybe even just the challenge of building something new (sound familiar?).
We're talking about flying toy airplanes, it's absurd to boil everything down to dollars and cents. Most of us would not be involved in Experimentals or airplanes at all if it required some financial justification to others. Sometimes people buy stuff because they like it and they can afford, not because 'money burning a hole in a pocket'.
I wish you were closer, I'd be pushing you to go the 916 route and offering to help on the project. I would love to get be hands-on one of these builds and eventually want one myself. The RV-916 is top of the list for me to own/fly, but I went a different direction for the time being based on what I just wanted to build.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
“Worth it” is always a subjective evaluation. There are things in my life that are “worth it” to me, that make no financial sense. Ask my wife! So then (if you want) one looks to the objective, financial assessment. That’s where this particular option tips the scale to a big “NOPE” for me. I couldn’t in any way justify that expense.
I love my RV-9A, and even with an O-320 FP, the performance is fantastic. If flying in the mountains were an everyday occurrence, and my performance parameters were sketchy… I’m afraid that even then, I’d look at adding a CS Prop or HP options including an O-360. Spending tens of thousands of dollars more could buy lots of flight hours.
And back to the subjective side - with my own biases included, I think this thing looks like exactly what it is - a conversion. I am a huge fan of the pure beauty of many aircraft. I like sleek, proportionate and graceful lines. The disproportionate long nose, ugly air intake snout, and oversized tail really ruin the RV9 look for me.
That’s just my opinion. There are many others that like the Turbine Air Tractor look. I don’t have anything against the Rotax. Maybe someday Van’s will clean-sheet design an airplane around the 916.
I love my RV-9A, and even with an O-320 FP, the performance is fantastic. If flying in the mountains were an everyday occurrence, and my performance parameters were sketchy… I’m afraid that even then, I’d look at adding a CS Prop or HP options including an O-360. Spending tens of thousands of dollars more could buy lots of flight hours.
And back to the subjective side - with my own biases included, I think this thing looks like exactly what it is - a conversion. I am a huge fan of the pure beauty of many aircraft. I like sleek, proportionate and graceful lines. The disproportionate long nose, ugly air intake snout, and oversized tail really ruin the RV9 look for me.
That’s just my opinion. There are many others that like the Turbine Air Tractor look. I don’t have anything against the Rotax. Maybe someday Van’s will clean-sheet design an airplane around the 916.
Last edited:
It's really the one big drawback for me too, especially early on when I first saw it. It has kind of grown on me by now. I already built a -12 which is kind of the other ugly duckling of the RV world, so the -916 would go well with it.And back to the subjective side - with my own biases included, I think this thing looks like exactly what it is - a conversion. I am a huge fan of the pure beauty of many aircraft. I like sleek, proportionate and graceful lines. The disproportionate long nose, ugly air intake snout, and oversized tail really ruin the RV9 look for me.
I got to take a flight in the “prototype “ Lockwood conversion at the Petit Jean RV fly-in back in 2024. One thing that quickly brought out the RV Grin was the kick in the backside on takeoff. It jumped off the ground, quickly. Performance is exceptional while being a bit more efficient on fuel than our Lycoming equipped RV9A’s. It’s tough for my old brain to make peace with the noisy gearbox out front on startup. That part is a bit unnerving.
I do agree that the longer nose and dorsal fin look out of place at first glance however that old hound dog can grow on you once he follows you around for a week.
Tough call if I was back to that stage of the build, now.
I do agree that the longer nose and dorsal fin look out of place at first glance however that old hound dog can grow on you once he follows you around for a week.
Tough call if I was back to that stage of the build, now.
Attachments
Last edited:
Not only a great post on the RV-916, but best user name on this forum!
I think that HP and light weight would do great things for an RV-3, especially if the cowling didn't need to be lengthened. (Unlikely).
