Flying By the Numbers

[Larry]

Does anyone have, by the numbers, how to take off and how to land the RV-9A?. I am getting ready for first flight and would like to know what a good conservative takeoff and landing procedure should be for the 9A. I recently flew a 9A from the right seat and was told to fly it different than a 150/172. Especially the landing. I am used to little or no power all the way to landing, however, I was told to carry no power into over the numbers and than just apply power to stop sink rate just at the flare. I know there are many ways to land and take off but whats the best for a newbe. I will not do first flight, my test pilot will be Greg Nelson who has a Rocket and plenty of hours as a AF test pilot. Transition training is planned but I would like to know the numbers now in case I get a chance to fly a 9A again.

 

[flyeyes]

I was told to carry no power into over the numbers and than just apply power to stop sink rate just at the flare. I know there are many ways to land and take off but whats the best for a newbe

Hi Larry.

I'm not an instructor, and I have never landed a -9, but IMHO a power off approach with a planned shot of power in the flare is poor technique.

As a newbie, it's easier to learn it right from the beginning, rather than fix it later.

Most airplanes, especially ones that are highly wing-loaded and/or have constant speed props, are easier to land if you carry a touch of power all the way into the flare and gradually reduce power to idle as you flare. It allows a flatter approach and makes timing of the flare less critical for a smooth touchdown. It also greatly increases your runway requirements, although for RVs that's really not an issue at most airports.

Most people approach and land multi-engine planes with some power, and a lot of people land heavier singles (e.g. bonanzas) this way. It's easier when transitioning to a new type, and easier to make a smooth touchdown.

This is a reasonable approach to transitioning into an RV with a CS prop, as long as you have plenty of runway and avoid getting sloppy and touching down too fast. As you gain experience in the airplane however, I would make most approaches power off.

You can add power if you misjudge, but hopefully these corrections will be infrequent and small. You shouldn't add power on every landing, as that keeps you from learning how to fly and land properly.

In RVs with a FP prop, carrying power on the approach can make the airplane very difficult to land, as they don't slow down easily. Carrying 5-10 knots too much approach speed and a touch of power might make the difference between a good landing and a forced go-around, even on a reasonable length runway.

Good transition training should make all this a non-event, but I would get at least one more (CFI) opinion on the use of power in the flare.

HTH

James Freeman

 

[mdredmond]

I'm not an instructor, and I have never landed a -9, but IMHO a power off approach with a planned shot of power in the flare is poor technique

How so? I always did that in 152s. A tiny shot of power at the end can make for a realllly nice landing. Not your cup of tea maybe, but hardly 'poor technique'.

Now - planning on an excessive sink rate and recovering in the end would be poor technique... So if that's what you're getting at then I take it all back

 

[N916K]

, I was told to carry no power into over the numbers and than just apply power to stop sink rate just at the flare.

Now be fare and tell the whole story, Larry. I said I use no power at all at lower density altitudes but at the higher density altitudes, (it was over 6000 feet density altitude when we were flying) that I used a little power to arrest the higher sink in the thinner air. You can land at high density altitudes without any power but you would have to be going a little fast to keep the sink rate down. I think you'll find that you will end up flying something very close to my numbers for the approach, anything faster and you will be landing long every time.

Final approach: 60-65 knots
over the numbers: 55 knots
start flare <50 knots

 

[Bryan Wood]

By the numbers

Larry, I'll try but you don't give enough information about your plane. I'll tell you the procedures taught to me by Van's factory instructor Mike Seager in the factory 9A. This will assume a constant speed prop. Maybe somebody else can chime in for fixed pitch.

First remember the number 80! 80mph is everything to you in this plane!!!!!
Above all else protect the nose wheel and do every landing as you would a soft field landing, and also do every take off as a soft field departure. The nose gear is the weak link and you need to respect it and it will serve you well for many years, but land nose first one time and you can kiss your airplane goodbye. If you bounce and there is a chance of coming down hard go around, and do this every time! Forget about messing with the flaps when intiating a go around if you have an 0-320 because it is so over powered for the airframe. Just slam the throttle forward and go. Once you have started climbing you can worry about the flaps.

Now for the technique per the factory. On the take off roll hold back pressure as you apply throttle. As soon as the nosewheel becomes light release pressure after the nose is just off of the ground and try to hold it about 3 inches off and let the speed build and the plane will fly itself off. What ever you do, "Do not hold forward stick and try to hold the nose down on your take off roll." Your steepest climbs with serious intent on leaving in a hurry will be around 80 mph. On the first flight my plane climbed out at 1800fpm at 100mph indicated on a hot afternoon in August. Slow the prop down to 2500 and leave the throttle full open for extra richness as you break in your engine on the intitial climbouts. (Leave the wheel pants off so you don't go super fast during your first 10 hours or so when running higher power settings to break in your engine. (If you have a constant speed prop you will likely seldom need flaps to take off. If you do they are so draggy that once airborne they actually hurt the climb rate. Clean it up and go)

Landing... Pull the manifold pressure back to around 17 inches prior to entering the 45 with the prop at around 2300. This will slow you down enough to kind of fit into the pattern if there are any other airplanes there. your speed will be around 135mph indicated with this power setting. As you turn downwind pull the manifold pressure to 15" and this will slow you down to around 120mph indicated by the numbers. At this point you will pull the throttle all the way back to idle and shove the prop forward and you might hear some popping as the airplane backfires a bit. Hold back pressure to hold altitude as the speed bleeds off to get you down to 90mph indicated so you can start to lower the flaps. As the flaps go down the trim goes out fast and you'll have to be on it. Trim for 80mph. Mike teaches to go full flaps from the start and trim for 80 and then turning base and flying at 80mph, then final at 80 mph. With the constant speed you will quit looking at the manifold pressure and go to the tach as soon as you pull the throttle back at the numbers prior to turning base. From here in the 9A flys at around 1500rpm with the MT prop, and mine with a Hartzell will require around 1700rpm. Of course you can fly tighter patterns, but the luxary of not following the guy that tours the entire county when setting up to land is not always available. Hold 80mph and 1500rpm plus or minus until you have the runway made at which time you chop the throttle and glide down holding the nose off and landing on the mains. With the 9a and the speed you will carry by flying the approach at 80mph you can hold the elevator up and hold the nosewheel off until about 25mph or so. The goal is to bleed off all of your flying speed and setting the nosewheel down just before you lose elevator authority. Taxi with back pressure and try to keep the nose light always.

The above doesn't account for your checklists, just the basic procedure to keep you safe with the nose gear that our planes have. Over time you can shave some speed off of the final approach speed, but Mike is emphatic about flying the airplane this way. It has served me well and I still do every landing the same with the exception of the final approach speed. I now vary it according to weight and have slowed it down a tad.

Be safe and good luck,

 

[flyeyes]

I always did that in 152s. A tiny shot of power at the end can make for a realllly nice landing. Not your cup of tea maybe, but hardly 'poor technique'.

No slight intended, but I'll stand by that one. I haven't flown a 152 since Jimmy Carter was in the white house (it was a shiny new one) but I've got a fair amount of time in 150s. We actually have one in the family that I fly fairly often.

Other than "behind the power curve" short field and soft field work I probably haven't landed the 150 in years with power.

I probably fly a closer in pattern and steeper final than a lot of people, but my goal is to be able to make the runway from anywhere in the pattern. One of my primary instructors used to actually turn off the mags and pocket the keys on the downwind (this was a loong time ago and I was training out of a 5000' uncontrolled runway). If I flew tight patterns this really wasn't all that hard although it took me a couple of times to realize it.

If you carry a little extra speed into the flare, you can land smoothly every time. If you need power to make it smooth, you are either too slow (well back on the power curve), or not timing the flare right. Try carrying a couple of extra knots without power and I think it will be just as nice.

One thing I have seen a lot is that people are sometimes reluctant to get the nose down far enough in draggy airplanes to maintain a good approach speed without power. They will get the nose down as much as they are comfortable with, and maintain airspeed and glideslope with power. If you approach this way, you may not have the energy for a leisurely flare and smooth touchdown. This technique works well (and may be necessary) for a maximum performance short-field approach, but if the engine burps while you're still over the trees, you're going to wind up like Charlie Brown's kite

James

 

[N916K]

speed and FP props, not always a good thing

First remember the number 80! 80mph is everything to you in this plane!!!!!

Bryan

I've also found 80mph to be a very important number in the 9A with a FP prop. If you are above that speed, you will just keep on flying. Especially if trying to land without flaps, you will burn up alot of real estate waiting for it to stop flying.

My 9A is an o320 with a FP Sensenich, same as Larry's.

I also get all the flaps in once I'm within flap speed, 78 knots. With the flaps all the way out I can drop the speed down below 70 knots and still keep going down. I then trim for 65 knots on a glide slope that will take me to where I want to land. Maybe a small correction in power to take care of any headwind or tailwind but for the most part it's power off during base and final. If the air is nice and thick no power is required because with the FP prop it will glide on and on. When the density altitude gets high the sink rate will increase quite quickly as the speed drops so a small touch of power will get the sink rate down to the greaser level (I don't support the idea that just because you walk away from it, it's a good landing).

As far as soft field take offs and landings. In 225 hours of flying my 9 that's all I've ever done. That nose is off the ground shortly after power is applied then I set it down when the ASI drops out.

I did my transition training with Sam Benjamin in Michigan. He also had a FP prop in his plane.

 

[N916K]

If you carry a little extra speed into the flare, you can land smoothly every time. If you need power to make it smooth, you are either too slow (well back on the power curve), or not timing the flare right. Try carrying a couple of extra knots without power and I think it will be just as nice.

A couple extra knots in the 9 can make the difference between landing safely and running off the end of a short runway. When I first started flying my 9 I flew in and out of a 2000 foot grass strip that was surrounded my trees and ditches. Coming in just a little fast was grounds for a go around. It wasn't acceptable to carry extra speed and land several hundred feet down the runway.

One more thing James, applying a little power right before the flare to arrest the sink rate in a high density altitude landing is NOT flying behind the power curve, it's making a good landing. And yes my instructor pulled the keys on downwind also, only difference was I was always under the hood when he did it.

There are a lot of ways to fly an airplane safely but trying to use the techniques of a Cessna 150 exclusively may get you in a little trouble if you are not in a 150.

I'm not a CFI, just one person with an airplane. I try very hard to fly my plane well, but in the end you should go out and get some real training and come up with a flying technique that works for you and the airports you fly into.

 

[vlittle]

9A landing

Interesting posts, and good information folks.

I've been running tests on approach/landing speeds with my 9A using both AoA and airspeeds.

The best landings will occur at the speeds discussed (70 KIAS approach/65 over the fence). Plan this for your first flight and you will be surprised how gentle the touchdown is. It will also be easy to hold the nosewheel off the ground during rollout because of the elevator authority you have after touchdown. I've rolled 3000' after touchdown with my nose wheel off the ground using a touch of power.

Short field approaches are a different matter in the 9A. I have made approaches at 50 knots flying AoA, and the sink rate is surprising. You have to be on the throttle, or you will get a firm plant/bounce, and their is little energy to use for flare, and minimal elevator authority to keep the nose wheel up.

In fact, I've used this technique to lose altitude quickly. My home airport (CZBB) requires a minimum altitude until clear of an abutting control zone, then a drop down for approach to runway 25. In a fixed pitch RV, this is a challenge, because they don't like to slowdown/comedown.

On approach, I pull back to about 50-55 knots (flaps deployed) and 'parachute' the airplane down using AoA. Once on the glideslope, I then push the nose down and resume a normal approach. Caveat: don't stall the airplane! Please note: slipping an RV-9A is difficult at high airspeeds unless you have Schwarzennegger legs.

In summary, the 9A is happiest with the recommended speeds on approach/landing. Short field approaches are best practiced when you are very comfortable with the characteristics of you own aircraft.

Good luck
Vern Little

 

[R.P.Ping]

Lots of advice and variations...

I?m a little confused here. What does density altitude have to do with approach and landing speeds? Indicated airspeed is what you use. As altitude and density altitude increase indicated airspeed drops in relation to true airspeed. I don?t understand having to approach faster or add power in the flare due to density altitude, (you already are going faster in relation to the ground).

I fly a -9 with the wheel in the back and a C/S prop and I find it amazing at the approach speeds that are discussed by tricycle gear 9s. I fly my approaches at 56kts, full flaps, and 8 to 10 inches MAP (just about closed throttle). I flair and full stall land at land 35 to 43kts, depending on weight. I never, and I repeat never, add power in the flair. If I did I would never get on the ground. I?m wondering if the tricycle gear guys are really setting down at a full stall or just greasing it on with a little power and holding the nose off. I wish someone could give some good numbers ao a full stall landing in a 9A. (or I guess that's not done?)
Vern... Flying your AOA at 50kts is by far the slowest I have ever heard of.
Sounds like fun and proof that 56kts is very doable. When I am light and want a short landing I am down to 52 on short final.

My advice to Larry is to get some training before you fly. I flew with Mike Seager in Scappoose OR and highly recommend mike!

Roger Ping
-9

 

[Build9A]

70mph approach

I've also been reading the responses on this thread and have a slightly different experience than several of the posts regarding power.

I have a 9A with a 0-320 fixed pitch sensenich prop. I fly approaches at 70mph 1/2 or full flaps, very low rpm or idle (<1000rpm). If I add power, the thing resists landing. I have found a big difference in landing distance between 80mph and 70mph approaches. 80mph uses way too much runway for my tastes, 70mph is just right.

Maybe different planes with different engines/prop combinations behave differently. I am certainly not being critical of previous posts, just reporting my experience with my plane/engine/prop combination. I have not noticed the sink rates described here and the airplane is easy to land with no power; after touchdown keep the nosewheel up until it won't stay up. Gusting conditions, I add gust factor to approach. The only times that I have had to add power on final is when I have extended the downwind leg too far.

I flew a 150 for about 600 hrs. and the only real difference in landing the 9A is getting it slowed down to pattern speed. Once you get the pattern speed transition figured out, the landing is a piece of cake. jack

 

[N916K]

I've also been reading the responses on this thread and have a slightly different experience than several of the posts regarding power.

I have a 9A with a 0-320 fixed pitch sensenich prop. I fly approaches at 70mph 1/2 or full flaps, very low rpm or idle (<1000rpm). If I add power, the thing resists landing. I have found a big difference in landing distance between 80mph and 70mph approaches. 80mph uses way too much runway for my tastes, 70mph is just right.

Jack, you just explained the exact same landing and said it was somehow different. When I first flew my 9A it was in Michigan in the winter. The plane would just keep on flying if you put any power in before landing. When I made my first trip back to West Texas I was caught off guard at the MUCH higher sink rate at teh same approach speeds. I went from a density altitude of sea level to about 8000-10000 feet. It became a totally different airplane.

Gainesville Florida is at about 150 feet, I'm not sure if you've taken your plane to a hot and high location yet, but I think you'll be surprised when you do.

 

[Larry]

Lots of input guys, thanks. Not sure what I am going to do, but as I said intially I am not going to be the first to fly the plane. I want to try different technques (during transistion) to find whats best and I am most confortable with. Also, I will do it in the left seat. Thanks Cam for the intro, you got me thinking about how things can change with density altitude.

First engine start this Saturday 11:00, hangar 19 TSP.

 

[Bryan Wood]

80mph?

Uncle.. Please make it stop. I agree 80mph is pretty hot on approach for this airplane, but it just seemed that giving advice other than what Mike Seeger teaches would be wrong. Mike is very good in the RV's and has probably more RV time than anybody. If the truth be told my airplane also does better when flown at 70mph on final. During my transition training I asked Mike why the 9A is sold on it's short field capabilities and then during the process of learning to fly it we never do anything like what was demonstrated originally. His suggestion was to fly approaches at 80mph for the first 200 hours and then drop the speed to 75mph for the next 100 hours. At that point he said to drop it in 1 or 2 mph increments until finding the right speed for me. Simply put, Mike sincerely believed that it was giving every advantage to the new pilot in an RV by coming in just a little hot. Don't believe me, go up there for a checkout.

Again, if you do nothing else hold that nose wheel up!!!

Regards,

 

[Build9A]

His suggestion was to fly approaches at 80mph for the first 200 hours and then drop the speed to 75mph for the next 100 hours. At that point he said to drop it in 1 or 2 mph increments until finding the right speed for me. Simply put, Mike sincerely believed that it was giving every advantage to the new pilot in an RV by coming in just a little hot. Don't believe me, go up there for a checkout.

Bryan: The Seager suggestion is good advice. I failed to mention that I too, started at 80mph and like you was a little confused as to why I was using so much runway. I then experimented with lower speeds until I settled on 70mph. I'm looking forward to flying out west at some of the higher elevations and will certainly take care to learn a little more about this airplane (9A) before saying what I would recommend for an approach in different conditions. I have flown mainly the east coastal states and haven't landed at an airport above about 3500ft. Jack

 

[dan]

As a casual observer to this thread I feel the need to pipe up about a couple of things:

1. One guy says 75 MIAS, another guy says 65 MIAS. Who's to say they're not actually flying IDENTICAL airspeeds? Whose airspeed indicator do you trust? Getting advice on airspeeds from a bunch of different people with different gauges and different installations, etc. is like pineapples and tangerines -- even with the same airframe. There is no "cure all" airspeed that works reliably among several planes, let alone varying conditions.

Short field approaches are a different matter in the 9A. I have made approaches at 50 knots flying AoA, and the sink rate is surprising. You have to be on the throttle, or you will get a firm plant/bounce, and their is little energy to use for flare, and minimal elevator authority to keep the nose wheel up.

2. This sounds exactly like a nose-over accident in the making...greaaat...there go our insurance rates...

Here's my 2 cents for the day: Go up in YOUR airplane and practice like crazy. You will get to know your airspeed indicator very well. In my opinion, final approach should be flown at an angle and speed that is as slow and steep as possible while still:
- giving you some margin above stall (subjective...it shrinks with experience)
- allowing you to "make the runway" or a safe landing environment if your engine quits
- leaving you enough energy in the flare so you don't plunk it down and let the nosewheel come slamming down, possibly getting you into the PIO/nose-over scenario

As slow as practical. Whatever that number ends up being -- whether it's 55 or 85, depends on too many factors imho to "prescribe" a specific number in this forum.

 

[n2prise]

Flying with Mike Seager...in the RV-6A.

Most of us who flew transition training with Mike Seager probably flew in N666RV, an RV-6A. I had over five hours (for insurance reasons) with Mike and learned to fly by the numbers just as described on the first page of this thread. The deal about constant speed vs. fixed pitch (cruise) props is also true. Anything above an idle with a FP prop will float you all the way down the runway in an RV-9A. The CS props make good air brakes.

I flew the RV-6A with Mike with 85 to 90 MPH on the approach with a round out over the numbers. After we finished flying the fourth session and put the plane away, he said to me: "Fly your RV-9A at 10 MPH slower than what we did in the RV-6A and you will be fine."

Flying a Cessna long approach with a power loss in an RV will drop you short. Being a little high on the VASI lights doesn't hurt in an RV due to the sink rate you have heard about already. The RV-9/9A sinks slower than the other models, but it is still sinking faster than a Cessna 172. The 9A will slow down quickly when you round out over the numbers, at least mine does due to the CS prop.

After 171.7 hours on N2PZ, I still find 80 MPH on the approach and chopping the power over the numbers works for me. I have the 160 HP 0-320 with the Hartzell CS prop.

I, too, cannot stress the need for FULL up elevator when you taxi and begin the takeoff roll. As soon as the nose wheel lifts, release enough up elevator to keep the nose on the horizon until the main wheels lift off the runway. Keep it that way until about 300 feet above the runway, then back the power down to 2500 RPM (CS prop) and 25 inches MP. At 500 feet AGL, drop to 2400/24, then 2300/23 at pattern altitude, or less power if desired depending on the engine temp or pattern work, etc. Notice I said nothing about flaps. Use 1/2 flaps on grass fields, then pull them up as you hit 90 MPH and go for it.

After the mains touch down on landing, I keep the full up elevator in place and carry just enough power during the taxi to hold the nose wheel off on longer runways. I landed at KAFW and landed LONG since the runway was 9,600 feet, much longer than Collegedale (3M3) with 4,700 feet, or my grass strip of 2560 feet. I normally use less than 1000 feet of the grass strip. With power lines at the north end, the threshold on the grass is displaced around 350 feet.

ALWAYS taxi at full up elevator on the RV-9A.

Jerry K. Thorne
www.n2prise.org

 

[Mel]

Jerry is the first I've seen to mention using flaps for take-off. I fly out of a 1500' strip in Texas, so I have some short field experience with in RVs (about 15 years worth). I have found that about 15 degrees flap is optimum for take-off. If you have electric flaps, which most later RVs do, just push the stick to one side and lower the flaps to match the "down" aileron. The differential ailerons are designed to give optimum lift with minimum drag on the "down" aileron. Try it, you'll like it.
Mel...DAR

 

[vlittle]

Hey Dan, for the record:

My 50 knot/AoA landing example was a recommondation against it! I don't recommend short field landings unless very skilled, and by carrying excess power. The power is used to keep the nose up at touch down. Tail dragger guys will know what I'm talking about.

By the way, Landing to full stop/exit was 400 feet(solo weight). I touched down just forward of the threshold, so a better pilot may have been able to do this in 360 feet. In keeping with American systems of units this would be about one football field in length (including end zones). For my Brit friends, approach speed was just over 4 x10^6 furlongs/leapyear and landing distance was 0.66 furlongs.

Back to the original question: Land it with about the same technique as a Cherokee, keep the nose off the ground as long as possible, and it will reward you with a gentle touchdown. Slower speeds will need more training/practice to perfect.

The '9A is a pussycat to land with the recommended speeds (70/65 knots). Personally, I would not worry too much, as long as you are very current in a similar aircraft (aka Cherokee), or have had training in another RV-9A. The 9A lands a lot differently than a 6A or 7A, but shares the common requirement of keeping the nose gear off as long as possible.

There are a lot of things to worry about on first flight, and I HIGHLY recommend taking a safety pilot in the right seat. He can take over for you as you are fussing with things (engine monitor for example), and call traffic for you while you are focussed on flying.

A safety pilot is also a calming force. You'll give him an extensive pre-flight briefing on the aircraft, instruments, safety and emergency procedures-- which is good to review for yourself.

I had a minor problem on my first flight, and it was good to relenquish control while I debugged it. After a 45 minute flight, we were more relaxed-- making approach and landing less stressful. My safety pilot also enjoyed it a lot... and he owns an R22, a T-28, a Harvard, and a Citabria.

Vern

 

[tomcostanza]

To all you experienced RV pilots, from a wannabe RV pilot:

I've been reading this thread with great interest. It has been a long time since I learned to fly, but if memory serves me, a rule of thumb for final approach speed was 30% above stall. For the few planes (aka spam-cans) I've flown, this has served well, and was within a few knots of the factory recommended speed.

Now the highest number I could find for an RV-9 was 50 MPH, and 30% above that would be 65 MPH, yet some of you are suggesting 80 MPH. Does anyone have an aerodynamic explanation for the difference?

Again if memory serves correctly, at the time I was learning to fly, the FAA was recommending power-on approaches (at least for students) to enable a flatter approach. A by-product of this technique was less shock cooling of the engine (yes I know there is debate about that too). Granted, if you lose the engine after you set-up for a power-on approach, you're SOL. I guess you pay your money and you make your choice.

Tom
RV-7A Fuse

 

[Mel]

Tom,
I see that you are building a -7A. The "rule of thumb" of 1.3 stall speed does not apply to RV approaches because even though the stall is in the low 50s, the sink rate starts up dramatically at just below 80. If your glide speed is too slow, the airplane will sink rapidly and you will not have enough energy for the flare. This is not so dramatic in the -9 and -10, but it certainly applies to the aerobatic RVs. One aerodynamic reason for this is that the acro RVs have a somewhat higher span loading than the typical GA airplane.
Mel...DAR

 

[tomcostanza]

Thanks Mel

Thanks Mel. Learning about aviation and aerodynamics is like peeling an onion. And as they say, "It ain't what you don't know that kills you. It's what you think you know that ain't so."

Regards,
Tom

 

[John C]

First flight and several different landing speeds.

Larry, still don't know if you have a FP. I have a O-320 FP. Is your engine broken in. If not, don't run it too much before the first flight. A few minutes at a time is ok. The Lycoming guys I know, and the engine rebuild shop said to keep the rpm maxed out for 45 minutes to an hour. I did two (because it was kind of fun), leave the pants and fairings off, don't climb too high to keep the manifold pressure high, but plan on 3,000 feet above field elevation for safety and keep close to the field.

I hope you will find the -9A very easy to land. My flights were at an airport at 300 msl and it was cool.

FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF FLIGHTS OR MORE (until you know your stall speed) Seeger said slow below 100 mph and drop the flaps for 4 counts, trim, then drop the rest of the flaps. Trim to 80 mph. Do it all early and take your time. Abeam of the numbers, I found I had to pull most or all of the power and the descent was very slow, sometimes about 400 fpm. The rpm was about 1100 to 1150 rpm (my ground idle was 900-950, best I remember, more on that later).

Fly base and final at 80 and slow if you can toward 70 as you approach the end of the runway. Near touchdown, raise the nose so that the top of the panel is on the horizon and let the plane settle. If you seem to be using up a lot of runway, go around, that is perfectly appropriate. The airplane will climb very well with full flaps. Then use a longer downwind and perhaps wider. Mine was so wide and long it was kind of embarrasing but that is what it took.

You need to know if your airspeed is accurate before you start slowing down to find the sweet settings. Just note, my runway was 5,000 feet long. On the first flight, I climbed out starting at eighty, easying up to 100 and I passed the end of the field at about 1,000 feet agl. I thought crap, my altitude is way off. As I turned crosswind and down wind, all nice easy turns, I was passing 2,000 feet agl. I leveled off and speeded up full power. Turned out all was ok with the altitude and airspeed. What a hoot.

My stalls were right on Van's numbers - clean at 55 indicated mph and 49 indicated full flaps. Call it 50 and 1.3 VS is 65. That means you can pull 1.7 Gs at 65 before you stall. But you need to know your stall speed.

Over a number of flights with wide, long patterns, and cousulting with the engine experts, I lowered my ground idle to about 700 -750. That was a big help.

With no turbulence and no wind down the runway, I will now slow to 70 mph flaps down abeam of the numbers, pull the power. I come down at about 700 fpm, much better. On final, I slow to 60 or 65 and sometime have to add a little power to slow the descent. With a 5-10 mph wind down the runway, I have to carry a little more power. I assume at high density altitudes, I could have to carry more power.

 

[michael2]

Approach Speed

The approach speed of a RV-9 is very critical especially on a short field. Come in over 75MPH and you are going to float half way down the field. I live on a short field with 50' trees at both ends and there have been numerous times I have had to go around. I previously build a Six and flew it for a number of years. With the Six you needed to carry alittle power on approach or it would drop out from under you. The Nine is a super airplane but it does not land like the other RVs. Talk to the other Nine pilots and they all have problems with it floating. It would be nice if there was someway to be able to get 40 degrees of flaps instead of 32. I ask Van about this and he said it was not possible. With 40 degrees of flaps you probably would have a better angle of decent. at 70MPH you are almost flat. The Nine does slip good, either side or foward, but be careful when you do or you will increase your airspeed if you lower the nose very much. My suggestion to you is, find someone with a Nine and go to runway with no obstacles and practice. I had my RV check out with Mike Seager about twelve years ago and I definitely recommend him. Talk to him about the landing characteristics of the Nine. Gerry Chancey, RV-9, N92GC, Cub N88583

 

[n2prise]

Flaps in the pattern...

John,

The four count on the flaps abeam the numbers is correct, but Mike Seager had me turn base leg, then full flaps on the RV-6A during transition training. I find that same flap usage serves me well in the RV-9A. I also tried steep descents to final in the 9A with heavy slips and had only one go-around during early phase one testing. I have not had a go around since then.

Usually when I turn final, if I am just above the VASI lights (white/white), I can hold the 80 MPH with full flaps and the runway is made with the power at idle on my constant speed prop.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A N2PZ
www.n2prise.org

 

[Larry]

JohnC

The engine is a Penn Yam 0 320 with FP prop. Only 1.5 hours on it so far. This weekend I expect to put on another 5 minutes at least (First Engine Start). I am getting to the "Short Strokes" and getting very excited. Another month or so. If anything I now know all the ways a RV-9A can be landed. I will share these inputs with my flight test pilot and get his feeling and than try out some with him. I am probably a little anal about all this (you should see my "First Engine Start" test cards) and it will probably be a lot easier than I thought.

Larry

 

[keen9a]

No such thing

I am probably a little anal about all this

There is no such thing as too anal about first engine runs and first flights. Preparation is everything when it comes to testing.

Thanks for all the good inputs guys. Lots of good info in this thread.

 

[gorbak]

Get Transition Training

I figure if I am spending $$(you fill in the blank) on my plane then I am going to budget $$(again filling in the blank) to get transition training from an expert (fill in Mike Seager's name here).
We spend good money on our airplane. We need to spend a little more for transition training and fly correctly the first time and every time. I suggest getting this information from a CFI, not from a chat area. I flew with Mike Seager. Priceless.

Pat
RV9-A #90013 fiberglass work prep for paint
RV9-A #90203 wiring panel

 

[N916K]

get transition training from an expert (fill in Mike Seager's name here).

We need to spend a little more for transition training and fly correctly the first time and every time. I suggest getting this information from a CFI, not from a chat area. I flew with Mike Seager. Priceless.

Pat

I think you'll find that most people here have gone through transition training. While Mike is a great person to fly with, there are other very qualified people to get transition training from. In the end, Mike is just one man with one view of the world.

I don't think anyone is trying to instruct via the internet. We are just discussing the things that work well for us. After a few hundred hours in the same plane in a short period of time, you do start to get the hang of it.

Not sure if your 9A is flying but I'm sure you will develop a technique that works well for you, your airplane, and the airport you fly out of.

Good luck and have fun.