![]() |
I guess I need to get busy!!!
...Wow! Its only been about 4 hours since my last post in this thread, and
already I have nine e-mails expressing interest in the belt and harness kit or mod I talked about. I am saving all the addresses so I can contact all the interested parties, please keep them coming. Thanks for your responses. Allan...:D:D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What I have in mind will have them doing double duty if you will, without effecting their original design in any way. I will post something soon with more information. Thanks, Allan..:D |
In the RV7 vs RV9 debate, have you considered the RV14? It perhaps gives you the best of both worlds?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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!
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thank, Allan..:D |
Edited
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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?
|
Quote:
I'm not sure when or why it was changed to 75 pounds. Scott? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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
|
So...are you 6 and 7 guys saying the 9 wing is NOT more efficient up high?
|
Quote:
N-91AN, Look at my flights in track logs. It is vary rare to see speeds less than 200mph once in level cruise at any altitude. Up high is a bit better with far less fuel consumption. Thanls, Allan |
I'm not asking what the 9 guys are saying. I'm asking what the 6 and 7 guys are saying. Are they calling BS on Vans 9 assertions?
|
Quote:
In the second place, who cares? Build and fly what you want - those other people don't pay your bills and you don't have to care what they think. |
I'm in the market for a side by side so yeah I have a personal interest. I'd really like to know what the true performance comparisons look like. On here, to listen to the 6/7 guys there is zero or negative advantage to 9 efficiency. So...are they really pedaling that or is it just my toy is the best thing ever bs?
|
Quote:
Down low and don't care about the fuel flow, sure it'll go 170 knots - but there's precious little of that type of flying in my typical missions. I'll boom up above 10,000' just to go 50 miles in the cool smooth air up there, because it's so easy to get there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As posted much earlier in the thread, this is video from my RV-6A doing what others claimed a short wing RV couldn't do. 164 KTAS on 5.8GPH at 15,500MSL / 16880 density altitude. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_Xduuc1QU |
So Vans did not create a superior high altitude cruising plane?
|
For my point of view. In practice I fly my 7 with a friend in his 9. The difference in our real world is not that great.
My take. If you want to turn it upside down it?s a 7 you need. If you don?t then a 9 is probably best. Obviously it has to be a vp taildragger with a tip up. Cos everyone KNOWS that?s the best combo. 😊😊😊. Seriously, build what you want. If you build it light without loads of aerial and keep it clean and straight well maintained then you will love it. |
Mark,
THIS POST quoting figures from Vans for the 14, 9 and 7 may be useful. (Note that apparently experience has shown better figures for the 14). I built the 9 rather than the 7 for the better short field performance needed on my somewhat marginal airstrip. Fin 9A |
That link sounds like the last word.
|
Quote:
Maybe that will be her plane to visit the kids 1274nm away and I'll buy a 3 for myself. :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM. |