regrets?

Anybody ever else go through phases where they dream of aerobatics and wish they'd chosen a -7 vs a -9?
I'm building a -9A and am having one of those days.
On the other hand, I also like the centerline seating of an -8... maybe for my second RV
Here's another question... how many ordinary folks are there out there who own and operate more than one RV ??

No regrets......

I have a 9 and I am happy 98% of the time. Of course there are days where I would love to do some acro with it, but can't or shouldn't. Each plane has a mission and I am contend with the choice I made. It is a great economical Cross Country flying machine. Great and easy landing characteristics. Easy to fly and very stable IFR platform. Next model will reflect the next phase of our lives.....maybe Rocket ?

prkaye said:

Here's another question... how many ordinary folks are there out there who own and operate more than one RV ??

Click to expand...

Well, Louise and I are finding that having an -8 and a -6 between the two of us, it makes for interesting choices. Since Louise is a pilot, I find it difficult to "relegate" her to the back seat of the -8 with very little chance to participate in the flight. However, the -8 is much better equipped (right now) for instrument flight and long cross-countires... In the -6, we could pretty much trade off flying since both have access to everything, but in the -8, whoever is in the front is flying, and whoever is in back is the passenger...

But Acro is much more fighter-pilot-like in the -8

Decisions, decision....it's not a question of "Honey, do you want to go flying with me?", but rather "Your plane or Mine?!"

Paul

For now

Ironflight said:

Decisions, decision....it's not a question of "Honey, do you want to go flying with me?", but rather "Your plane or Mine?!"

Paul

Click to expand...

.........and pretty soon, "Louise, would you like front or back?"

Happy 4th,
Pierre

I'm building a 7 and do dream about a 8.

Phil:
As suggested earlier, the 9 will make a very stable instrument platform, if you ultimately plan on continuing you training. The roll rate of the 9 is about half that of an 8 (see www.cafefoundation.org). If you search the threads for "autopilots" you'll see a number of posts suggesting that you need an autopilot to fly an RV in IMC. Quite the opposite with the 9, where you'll probably find yourself hand-flying most of the time, with little worry of stability, even when you're reading a chart or plates. In approach mode, the speed necessary to allow flap extension will keep things happening very slowly. Precision approaches are a breeze with a 9. If your future plans involve stress free serious travel, you've make a great choice. Build on.
Terry
RV9A
N323TP

Love My 9

I think about it from time to time, but no real regrets. Ask any of these guys and they'll tell you they are right side up most of the time going somewhere.
Besides, I can see myself building a second RV in a couple of years anyway, if I miss acro too much.

You'll also come to appreciate the shallow glide angle of the 9 if your motor quits. A great safety feature. Lot's of time to figure out you are on an empty tank and fix it!

prkaye said:

Anybody ever else go through phases where they dream of aerobatics and wish they'd chosen a -7 vs a -9?
I'm building a -9A and am having one of those days.
On the other hand, I also like the centerline seating of an -8... maybe for my second RV

Here's another question... how many ordinary folks are there out there who own and operate more than one RV ??

Click to expand...

I've built/flown a few RV's and currently fly an RV7 and an RV10. Both have different missions. That said, as sweet as the 10 is for cross country flying I love the manueverability of the 7 AND the acro. A 9 would never work for me or my passengers . The long legged RV4 is still my favorite of all the RV's....that's why I'm poundin' away on the F1 project . If anyone is looking for a nice (inexpensive) little RV7 I'll be passing mine on when the F1 is finished.

And YES....I'm extemely 'ordinary' .

http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html

Frustrated

Terry,

Thanks for the encouragement. I was actually thinking about a Sonex after totally messing up the practice kit this morning. Man can I mess up driving / bucking rivets!

Keith

Here's an idea Paul...

Ironflight said:

Well, Louise and I are finding that having an -8 and a -6 between the two of us, it makes for interesting choices. Since Louise is a pilot, I find it difficult to "relegate" her to the back seat of the -8 with very little chance to participate in the flight. However, the -8 is much better equipped (right now) for instrument flight and long cross-countires... In the -6, we could pretty much trade off flying since both have access to everything, but in the -8, whoever is in the front is flying, and whoever is in back is the passenger...

But Acro is much more fighter-pilot-like in the -8

Decisions, decision....it's not a question of "Honey, do you want to go flying with me?", but rather "Your plane or Mine?!"

Paul

Click to expand...

Paul -

Take a look at this. Maybe it will give you some ideas about a modification you might want to consider:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=284

--Ralph

Keith:
If you're using an air rivet gun rather than a squeezer, try setting your regulator pressure to around 40. Also, for the 1/8 in rivets (4s), I'd suggest a heavier bucking bar, as the tool kit bars tend to be on the light side. You can go with a tungsten bar (expensive) or just a little more mass with steel. Should give you a much better set.
Terry

Yukon said:

IAsk any of these guys and they'll tell you they are right side up most of the time going somewhere.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely true, but I think more of it depends on who you fly with. The -9 drivers around here (SoCal) fly alone most of the time. The -4/6/7/8 guys fly in formation and do tail chases all the time. It's a whole different outlook on flying.

Just need to figure out which group fits you best. It's not just about your own "acro" but it also has to do with how you envision yourself fitting in (or not).

Yeah, I do acro here and there, but to be honest I'm having more fun with my -7 than should be allowed -- mostly because of the group of guys at Chino who tear it up on a regular basis.

I went back and forth

First it was an -8, then a -7, and finally the -9.

What got me was how I hope to use it. Nora and I like to do a lot of camping so I figured the -9 might be better at getting in and out of short strips with all of our stuff. Which brings me to the use of an O-290.

I started with the idea of building the -9 as a faster T-Craft (which I have owned) and the thought of using an O-235 sounded very good to me. Heck, 150 MPH on 5 GPH is outstanding! Plus, look at the usefull load you get with the smaller engine. The O-290 sort of fell in to my lap and I couldn't turn down a $3,500 0 SMHO engine.

Add to all that Nora's desire to learn to fly. After she masters the TW thing, heck the flying thing, I might just start on a -3 or -8, who knows.

khm said:

I was actually thinking about a Sonex after totally messing up the practice kit this morning. Man can I mess up driving / bucking rivets!

Keith

Click to expand...

You can, and will, master the art of riveting. It takes a little bit of time and you will screw up after even after you think you finally have things figured out, but don't let the fear of riveting stop you. It scared me for a while, and I am having to rebuild some surfaces due to my screw ups, but with anything you try to build, you will have the same types of issues. Just remember, a bunch of housewives in the 1940's learned how to do it!

Pick the plane that will best serve your needs and budget, and then make the plunge.

But, back to your original question, I have no regrets about chosing a -9 over a -7. I wavered a bit reading Dan Checkoway's observations of flying a -9 to his -7, and his saying how his 7 was a lot more responsive, and he does lots of xc flying but.....being a low time former Cessna driver and getting up in years, a nice stable -9 is all that I need.

I have a lady friend

Strictly a friend, here at work, she is single and in the market for a fine gentleman but has never found one that quite measures up.

She indicated she might be interested in learning to fly (I took her flying a few years back and she learns incredibly fast).

Of course I pointed out to her that if she owned an RV she would be almost irresistable!....

AJ, can you hang on for about 4 years?....

Frank 7a

I don't have any regrets, but given that I'm battling this vertigo problem, there is ZERO chance I'm going to use the "7" for any (intentional) aerobatics. I probably should've gone with a "9"

I took a quick flight with a gentleman in his -9A. He had built and flown several high HP aerobatic planes over the years and probably flown most every make and model GA aircraft, but he said he enjoyed the -9A more than any plane he had ever flown. His was set up with 160 HP/ CS. Climb out was simply astounding. Handling was crisp, but rock solid. Very sweet plane. (BTW, he was not trying to sell the -9A.)

No Regrets, BUT!

I've been flying my -6 for a long time and do not regret one minute of it. Having said that, as I get older, I find myself doing less and less acro. If I started building another RV, it would be a -9. I like the low speed characteristics of the -9.

Mel said:

I've been flying my -6 for a long time and do not regret one minute of it. Having said that, as I get older, I find myself doing less and less acro. If I started building another RV, it would be a -9. I like the low speed characteristics of the -9.

Click to expand...

Mel -

How would you 'dress out' the -9 you would build? Engine, prop....

thanks,

John

Initial Impressions From a 9A Novice

I have just flown my 9A for the first time and now have 3 hours. The only other RV I have flown is a 6A from the right seat (no take-offs or landings) so I am no RV guru and can?t make comparisons with other RVs. However I find the 9A is one sweet aircraft.
Initial impressions:
Delightful feel to the controls. When you want to bank the aircraft it just sort of happens with little apparent physical input. Once in the bank it just sits there, ball centre.
Take-off performance with the 0-320 and C/S prop is awesome compared to any other aircraft I have flown. Took a few take-offs before I had the raging monster tamed.
Very solid and stable at low speeds. This is the main reason I decided on the 9A so that I could operate out of my short farm airstrip.
Nicest plane I have ever landed in. I think the C/S prop helps here. I already have my approaches down to 65kts and it is rock solid at this speed and feels like it is on tracks down to the touch down point, a gentle flare and it just sort of lands itself at what feels like a safe slow speed.
I am very happy with my choice of the 9A. It is the low speed handling that has convinced me I made the right choice.

Fin
Australia

Deuskid said:

Mel -

How would you 'dress out' the -9 you would build? Engine, prop....

thanks,

John

Click to expand...

Probably O-320 with Catto prop, Dynon D-180 w/BU ASI and Alt, Dual comms, GPS, transponder, no A/P. Keep it light. Light ones fly sooo much better. Very similar to the way my -6 is now.

Thx

Thanks Mel -



John

Finley Atherton said:

Nicest plane I have ever landed in. I think the C/S prop helps here. I already have my approaches down to 65kts and it is rock solid at this speed and feels like it is on tracks down to the touch down point, a gentle flare and it just sort of lands itself at what feels like a safe slow speed.

Click to expand...

Finley - thanks so much for posting this. I'm building as fast as I can (having great fun) but I haven't flown in a 9 yet. Posts like this really help.

Can you elaborate on how the CS prop (which one, BTW) helps in landings. Is it the ability to slow down quicker that you think helps? I was planning on staying fixed pitch for reduced cost, weight and maintenance issues, but maybe I should re-think that.

Is 65 kts your "reference" speed on final (like maybe a few hundred feet up) and are you slower over the fence, or is 65 the over-the-fence speed?

Do you think you could/would land at 65 kts with a fixed pitch prop?

I appreciate any info,

dave

Dave,
You can have a fixed pitch set for cruise that will match any C/S prop in performance. However, your takeoff distance will be longer than the C/S. In descent and slowing, moving the C/S to fine pitch gives some braking effect, that's all. You have to look at your needs - if you fly from rare very short strips, the C/S will give you an edge. I fly from airports that have long runways, so taking off in 300 feet instead of 500 feet doesn't matter. For me, the extra $5000 plus maintenance and overhaul costs and weight makes little sense for my mission, especially when someone like Craig Catto can pitch a fixed pitch prop and meet or beat Van's cruise numbers.

IowaRV9Dreamer said:

Finley - thanks so much for posting this. I'm building as fast as I can (having great fun) but I haven't flown in a 9 yet. Posts like this really help.

Can you elaborate on how the CS prop (which one, BTW) helps in landings. Is it the ability to slow down quicker that you think helps? I was planning on staying fixed pitch for reduced cost, weight and maintenance issues, but maybe I should re-think that.

Is 65 kts your "reference" speed on final (like maybe a few hundred feet up) and are you slower over the fence, or is 65 the over-the-fence speed?

Do you think you could/would land at 65 kts with a fixed pitch prop?

I appreciate any info,

dave

Click to expand...

Dave,
As I said in my previous post I am a 9A novice. I have not flown a F/P prop 9A. Everything I have read about the 9 indicates that it can take longer to slow down and can float longer in the flare with a F/P prop. Even though I have a C/S prop (Hartzell) which acts as an air brake in fine pitch, I was expecting to have some initial problems maintaining the correct approach path and slowing the aircraft down in the flare. This has not happened and I put it down to the C/S prop. I think the C/S allows for a steeper approach (if too steep just add power) and helps slow down the aircraft in the flare. An extended flare leaves you more exposed to wind gusts and increases the temptation to prematurely force the aircraft on the runway. No doubt if you had a F/P prop you would get to know your aircraft and with proper attention to speed would be able to land similar to a C/S prop. I just think that the C/S prop gives you more braking and control and can help turn a bad landing into a good one.
Remember I have only just started learning how to fly this aircraft. Initially I used 70kts on both final and over the fence and it landed nicely with minimal float in the flare. Then 70kts on final and 65kts over the fence, flare and float much the same. Same again with 65kts on final and 65kts over the fence. My ASI has been checked for accruacy but be aware that the actual air speed at 65kts indicated in my aircraft may not be the same as 65kts indicated in another 9A.
Can?t see why you would not land at 65kts with a F/P prop. It may require more attention to slow down to, and maintain 65kts than with a C/S. You would be best asking this question to a F/P 9 pilot.
Did another two hours today and am really starting to enjoy this aircraft.
Fin

Finley and Dave,

I have a 9a with an 0360 and a fp Catto 3 blade. It is true that the fp requires more speed control in the pattern as you don't have the benefit of the cs to use as a brake. However, it took very few hours to get used to this (I transitioned from a Mooney 201 that needed the cs to slow to gear speed-then the gear to slow to flap speed) and can now make consistently short and smooth landings. I use 60-65 kts on final (65 if heavy/60 if light) with full flaps and trim all the way nose up. I could have gone with the cs, but like you (and based on prior experience) the small improvement in t/o performance with little to no difference in cruise did not justify the increased wt and maintenance expense for my mission profile.

BTW, the RV9a is probably the second easiest airplane to land (a friends straight tail 172 being the first) that I have flown in my 20 yrs of flight. You will get accustomed to its honest and straightforward characteristics quickly and within a few hrs will wonder why you were concerned.

Cheers,

db

Finley Atherton said:

Dave,
Everything I have read about the 9 indicates that it can take longer to slow down and can float longer in the flare with a F/P prop. Even though I have a C/S prop (Hartzell) which acts as an air brake in fine pitch, I was expecting to have some initial problems maintaining the correct approach path and slowing the aircraft down in the flare. This has not happened and I put it down to the C/S prop. I think the C/S allows for a steeper approach (if too steep just add power) and helps slow down the aircraft in the flare.

Click to expand...

A few years ago, we put a "9" through the wringer with a C/S prop. Steep approaches, as well as landing with the wind................for those "one" direction runways. The plane performed these task's easily, thanks to the C/S prop! As I've flown several RV6A's with C/S and fixed, I much prefer the C/S; but I do live at a higher altitude airport (4600' msl) to start with.

L.Adamson