VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 03-16-2011, 10:28 AM
RV404 RV404 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Default Why the RV-9??

I may be a bit slow but after reading the description of rv34678910......
on the vans web site, I am at a loss.

What is the real difference between a RV-7 and a -9??
I know the 9 isn't aerobatic, but what qualities does it have that make it worth it?

I am just not sure what makes a 2 seat RV any different than the other 2 seat RV.

thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-16-2011, 10:40 AM
Greg Arehart's Avatar
Greg Arehart Greg Arehart is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Delta, CO/Atlin, BC
Posts: 2,391
Default

RV-9 has a longer wing with results in a bit more stability and slower stall speed. Slightly slower than the 7 in cruise, but it cruises more efficiently (and maybe as fast?) at altitude. Interior space is identical. For me the key difference was the lower stall speed and efficient cruise, and I don't do aerobatics.

greg
__________________
Greg Arehart
RV-9B (Big tires) Tipup @AJZ or CYSQ
N 7965A
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-16-2011, 10:47 AM
swixtt swixtt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: CAD
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV404 View Post
I may be a bit slow but after reading the description of rv34678910......
on the vans web site, I am at a loss.

What is the real difference between a RV-7 and a -9??
I know the 9 isn't aerobatic, but what qualities does it have that make it worth it?

I am just not sure what makes a 2 seat RV any different than the other 2 seat RV.

thanks
The 9 really has a completely different wing... different sort of mission in some ways with it as well. the other is a lot of people use the recommended engine for the 9 which is different than the 7. obviously some go with bigger engines, some smaller. were happy with our choice, although i'm still on the fence of where to put the other wheel.
just try to figure out what you want to do with the plane, your budget,etc. and build the one you want. except for the 10, i'd be happy with any of them!
__________________
RV9.... Tail done. Inspection done! Wings pre-cover MDRA inspection done. Closing them up now. Fuse underway.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-16-2011, 10:49 AM
alpinelakespilot2000 alpinelakespilot2000 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,646
Default

Do a search of "RV-7 and RV-9" and you'll have plenty of reading to do. Have fun.
__________________
Steve M.
Ellensburg WA
RV-9 Flying, 0-320, Catto

Donation reminder: Jan. 2021
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-16-2011, 11:34 AM
JDRhodes JDRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Taylorsville, GA
Posts: 748
Default

I have regular access to both types.

The -9 uses a wing with a different airfoil and aspect ratio (length vs chord) than the -7. It also has progressive Fowler flaps (extend down and back like a Cessna vs. plain hinged flaps on the RV-7 and Cherokee.) The -9 also has a different horiz stabilizer and elevator than the -7, larger to work with the bigger flaps.

Our 170HP / FP -7 and 160HP / FP -9 are very similar in a race. The -7 has faster roll rates, which is good for yanking and banking. The -9 is a slightly better cross country cruiser, in my opinion. Roll rates in the -9 are WAY faster than most production a/c, but noticably slower / heavier than the "short wing" RVs.

The -9 sits slightly taller on the gear. Hard to notice unless they are sitting right next to each other.

I think the -9 feels a better at a slightly slower final approach speed. But that may be because I have more time in the -9 and and am a little more comfortable with it.

Fuselages are exactly the same.

Bottom line - If aerobatics are your thing, get a -7. If not, I'd give a slight edge to the -9. You won't be dissapointed either way.
__________________
Jeff Rhodes - Taylorsville, GA
RV-9, 7 - going fast
BC-12D - going slow
jrhodes@v1salesmgt.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Vern's Avatar
Vern Vern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peachtree City, Ga
Posts: 1,040
Default 9 difference

Not as much fuel! Can affect your flight planning.

The 9 flies more like a 10 than the other RV's . It's a better trainer because of more stability.
__________________
Vern Darley
Awarded FAA "The Wright Brothers 'Master Pilot' Award"- for 50 years safe flying

RV-6A N680V / RV-10QB N353RV
Luscombe 8E N2423K 50+years
Hatz Biplane N2423Z soon to be birthed
Falcon RV Squadron Founder
KFFC Hanger D-30
Peachtree City, Ga
770 310-7169
EAA Technical Counselor #5142
EAA Flight Advisor #486336
ATP/CFI/A&P/DAR
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-16-2011, 01:00 PM
bkilby's Avatar
bkilby bkilby is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Newnan, GA
Posts: 317
Default

The 9 is also like a glider with the power at idle.. descends at around 400fpm or better and doesn't want to come down - which is a nice feature to have.. I prefer the responsiveness on the shorter wings of the 6 though
__________________
Brian Kilby
flying RV-6A, previously flying RV-9A
based at KCTJ, Carrollton, GA
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-16-2011, 01:22 PM
JDRhodes JDRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Taylorsville, GA
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern View Post
Not as much fuel! Can affect your flight planning.

The 9 flies more like a 10 than the other RV's . It's a better trainer because of more stability.

True. 36 vs 42 gal. Need to pee vs. HAVE to pee.
__________________
Jeff Rhodes - Taylorsville, GA
RV-9, 7 - going fast
BC-12D - going slow
jrhodes@v1salesmgt.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-16-2011, 02:34 PM
aarvig's Avatar
aarvig aarvig is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KANE, Hugo, Minnesota
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRhodes View Post
True. 36 vs 42 gal. Need to pee vs. HAVE to pee.
HAR HAR HAR!!! Laughed out loud in my office at this one. After 2-3 hours in an RV I am ready to land and get out anyway. Since winning endurance races was not in my mission profile the smaller tanks suit me just fine.
__________________
Aaron Arvig
RV-9A
Empennage Done
Wings-In Progress
N568AK Reserved
SOLD?but I'll be back
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:03 PM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRhodes View Post
True. 36 vs 42 gal. Need to pee vs. HAVE to pee.
I guess if I had 6 more gallons I would be able to travel an additional 50 minutes, or 125 miles, further at the rate of cruise I normally fly. However, I am not sure the additional range would be that much more beneficial given the range I currently have with 36 gallons. I cruise at approximately 150 mph while burning 7.0 gph or less (I will be finding out what the fuel burn is at 9500' soon as we climb to that altitude and cruise to Sun n Fun). Including the increased burn rate during climb out (If it takes 9.5 minutes @ 15 gph to get to a cruise altitude of 9500', I will be burning 2.375.), my range is approximately 5 hours before I completely run the fuel dry.

Now I normally would be able to hold off on peeing that long but I can sure tell you my wife will not be able to do so. We are planning our first long cross-country trip to Sun n Fun in our 9A in less than two weeks. I am only planning for maximum legs of 3 hours. We should be safely within the parameters of both the remaining fuel available and the maximum bladder retention capabilities of machine and humans. It will be our first flight into Sun n Fun. Looking forward to it.

As far as the other characteristics of the 9A, I have flown transition training in an RV6 and briefly been in the back seat of JayBird's RV8. Both of those planes were hotrod screaming machines next to mine. However, the difference between my 9A and any GA airplane in the typical training/rental fleet (Cessna 150/172, Piper Cherokees, etc.) you may have flown, is exponentially greater than you can imagine.

The 9 is only slightly slower than the 7's that I have been around down low and, although I have no first hand experience with it yet, I am told may even exceed the speed of the 7 at higher altitudes. It does have a slower stall speed and handles very nicely at slow speeds. It is an extremely stable airplane. I know there are a lot of people here who love aerobatics but I love the RV9A when I set the GPS course, turn on the TruTrak VSGV autopilot, sit back and just enjoy the scenery pass by. The RV9A is a great airplane for that.

It meets my needs very well. RV GRIN -->
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.