VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Not Just Another 7 vs 9 Thread (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=157062)

PerfTech 01-31-2018 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 (Post 1236312)
In my case both instances were with a 4 point harness. That is just one of the reasons I am a big advocate of 5 point harnesses in RV's

Adding the 5th point and adjusting its belt properly pretty much eliminates any vertical movement, so short of doing neg. G aerobatics, I don't see why anyone would need to add modifications to the belt system.

BTW, no one should be doing neg G without a secondary belt anyway.

....The -4 Gs we did wasn't by choice, and even with the 5 point a regulation size man will still hit his head in a hard downdraft at speed. I tried it with the lap belt so tight it was extremely uncomfortable (Couldn't fly like that) and you can still hit the canopy. I will show this in a video demonstration shortly.
Thank, Allan..:D

rvbuilder2002 01-31-2018 06:57 PM

Edited
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 (Post 1236312)
In my case both instances were with a 4 point harness. That is just one of the reasons I am a big advocate of 5 point harnesses in RV's

Adding the 5th point and adjusting its belt properly pretty much eliminates any vertical movement, so short of doing neg. G aerobatics, I don't see why anyone would need to add modifications to the belt system.

BTW, no one should be doing neg G aerobaticswithout a secondary belt anyway.

Edited above for clarity. I misassumed that what I meant was obvious.

Steve Melton 01-31-2018 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Meyer (Post 1236310)
I certainly understand that. I am trying to decide between the 7,9, and 14. I am leaning towards the 14, but as of yet, still undecided. It is a large commitment of time and money and I would like to be confident in my decision. And also my wife says I suffer from analysis paralysis, and yep, I believe she is right!

you are doing the right thing to take some time to settle on the model. whatever the choice, if you make the right decision it will keep you happy for the long run.

N941WR 01-31-2018 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Meyer (Post 1236279)
In the RV7 vs RV9 debate, have you considered the RV14? It perhaps gives you the best of both worlds?

The good thing is you can't go wrong with either of the three.

Building the -7 and -9 are pretty much the same. The -9 has a few more rivets to drive simply because it has a longer wing, which may add about an hour additional to the total build time. Other than that, the effort is the same.

The quality of the -14 kit is just stunning. So many more of the parts are pre-made. Go look at the difference in build time in hours and years between the 7/9 and the 14. It is definitely in favor of the -14.

Whichever you select, you will be convinced it is the best of the litter.

StuBob 02-10-2018 11:26 AM

Staring at the numbers, it's hard to tell what really matters. For instance, baggage. Van's lists the RV9 baggage capacity at 75# and the RV7 at 100#. How can that be, if they have the same fuselage? Perhaps it's a cg thing, assuming a smaller engine in the -9?

N941WR 02-10-2018 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1238500)
Staring at the numbers, it's hard to tell what really matters. For instance, baggage. Van's lists the RV9 baggage capacity at 75# and the RV7 at 100#. How can that be, if they have the same fuselage? Perhaps it's a cg thing, assuming a smaller engine in the -9?

That's been a point of contention for so time. My builder manual lists 100 lbs and my CG allows for it.

I'm not sure when or why it was changed to 75 pounds. Scott?

RVbySDI 02-10-2018 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1238500)
Staring at the numbers, it's hard to tell what really matters. For instance, baggage. Van's lists the RV9 baggage capacity at 75# and the RV7 at 100#. How can that be, if they have the same fuselage? Perhaps it's a cg thing, assuming a smaller engine in the -9?

100# baggage limit in my RV9A with 1800# gross. CG within Van's specified limits. No realistic way to exceed the CG fore or aft.

bruceh 02-10-2018 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVbySDI (Post 1238562)
100# baggage limit in my RV9A with 1800# gross. CG within Van's specified limits. No realistic way to exceed the CG fore or aft.

Same here. Even after painting, which moved the CG aft more, I can't get out of CG range unless the pilot (me) weighs about 40 pounds and I'm on empty fuel load (with full 100 pounds of baggage).

alpinelakespilot2000 02-10-2018 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuBob (Post 1238500)
Staring at the numbers, it's hard to tell what really matters. For instance, baggage. Van's lists the RV9 baggage capacity at 75# and the RV7 at 100#. How can that be, if they have the same fuselage? Perhaps it's a cg thing, assuming a smaller engine in the -9?

It is simply a c.g. thing. Been confirmed through vans multiple times and has been documented in archives here on VAF. My cg with 0320 Catto prop and 4# crush late allows 100# in all configurations.

Doug Eves 02-14-2018 10:06 PM

I learned about the unsuspecting violent turbulence while flying my solo cross country in a 172 earning my PPL long ago. Beautiful day , nice and smooth ,then almost got my neck broke. Luckily stayed conscious or I wouldn't be here. Going to put 5 point in my 6 when I pull it down to put my autopilot in. Should have done that long ago. OH , almost forgot....I would just buy a really clean 6. (with a 7 cowl) Wouldn't trade mine for any of them


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM.