|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-31-2018, 06:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Redlands, Ca.
Posts: 1,458
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
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.. 
__________________
Allan Nimmo
AntiSplatAero.com
Innovative Aircraft Safety
Products, Tools & ServicesInfo@AntiSplatAero.com Southern California (KREI)
RV-9A / Edge-540 
(909) 824-1020
|

01-31-2018, 06:57 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Edited
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
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.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.
Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
|

01-31-2018, 07:07 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,791
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Meyer
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.
__________________
Steve Melton
Cincinnati, OH
RV-9A, Tip-up, Superior O-320, roller lifters, 160HP, WW 200RV, dual impulse slick mags, oil pressure = 65 psi, EGT = 1300F, flight hours = 800+ for all
Simplicity is the art in design.
My Artwork is freely given and published and cannot be patented.
www.rvplasticparts.com
|

01-31-2018, 09:08 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Meyer
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.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

02-10-2018, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 254
|
|
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?
__________________
Stu F.
RV8
|

02-10-2018, 11:52 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob
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?
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

02-10-2018, 05:30 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob
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.
|

02-10-2018, 07:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ramona, CA
Posts: 2,370
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVbySDI
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).
|

02-10-2018, 08:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,646
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob
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.
__________________
Steve M.
Ellensburg WA
RV-9 Flying, 0-320, Catto
Donation reminder: Jan. 2021
|

02-14-2018, 10:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brigden Ontario Canada
Posts: 72
|
|
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
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 AM.
|