![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
WHAT? 2 Sierra Bravo cancel your order IMMEDIATELY! You don't even know what you got yourself into :D 9A is big and slow get the 8 forget the 7. |
Quote:
|
Let's see a show of hands...how many experienced RV pilots fly there plane 5 hours non-stop and land with legal reserves?
longest time in the seat was 3.5hrs is enough for me, 650miles, still had 11gals on board. I've only flown mine 6.5hrs in one day, OSH-8U8, 975nm with headwinds and one stop. From a safety standpoint, I would think a trip that length would be a major mental & physical drain for most pilots. I built a 7, but could have easily been happy with a 9. My daughter is starting flight lessons so a 9a would have been perfect. Also, the only time I run 75% or above is racing or testing. other times I'm at 6-7gph puttin' around the valley. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Choice is yours.
I went through the same decision process 4 years ago. Didnt even have my ppl when for the first year or two of building. The slower land, better glide and arguably better cross country platform sold me. I went 9a, have loved every single hour would not change a thing. I like all rvs, but a side by side is way better with a child or wife in my opinino. A tip up is just awesome for views in flight and you just will be amazed at how easy and fun flying in one is. Build what you want, enjoy the stuffin out of it.
After any rv flight a cessna trip is just painful. :D Enjoy the build. |
Lightin' The Fuse
Why oh why do some 9 apologists try to make the 7 equal to the 9 IF.... This usually is manifested in speeds. The two airframes are different and Van's design intents are different.
No way does a 9 equal a 7 in top end. The 7 carries more fuel, has greater range - which can often be useful for tankering for price/availability. Cheek/bladder endurance are not the only metric. The 7 airframe is stronger. Aerobatic abilities aside, Van's limits 9 baggage to 75 pounds, 100 in the 7. That's a very useful difference. The 9 can fly slower than the 7. It's an efficient climber with a tad higher spec'd service ceiling (take a deeper breath before crossing 14,500). The handling is more docile. They are different. A lot of the number differences are not great percentage-wise, but they exist. You pays your money and takes your choice. Yet they're both delightful in their own way. John Siebold |
Quote:
|
Of course I am not trying to stir the pot but going on the best figures I can find it appears that a 9A may cruise slightly faster than a similarly equipped 7A.
Vans figures compare the 7A with a Hartzell C/S prop and the 9A with a FP prop. CAFE figures for the 160 hp factory 9A with a MT C/S prop show about 192 mph TAS at 8,500 ft DA with the engine at 2,605 rpm and 23.7". Vans gives 189/190 mph TAS for a 160 hp 7A at 8,000 ft and 75%. So maybe the 9A is faster at 75%??? Also factor in that the MT is considered slower than the Hartzell so the 9A with a Hartzell may be even faster again. This is borne out by my 9A with a Hartzell which does 194 mph TAS at 8,500 DA WOT and 2,700 rpm (4 leg GPS spread sheet method). Much is made of the fact that the 7A with 180 hp can cruise faster than a 9A with 160 hp. Using the CAFE figures above for the 160 hp 9A and Vans figures for the 180 hp 7A at 75% the difference is about 5 or 6 mph (or about 3 or 4 mph using my figures). So lets be generous and say maybe 5 mph faster for almost an extra gal/hr. :eek: Fin 9A |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:58 PM. |