What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Looking for RV-9A advice

AHaury

AHaury

Active Member
A friend took me up in his RV-6A last year and I fell for it hard. The wife has given the green light and I've been looking at 6A's, 7A's and recently broadened to a 9A's. I've located a 9A for sale that I'm looking at close to home and my trouble, is I don't know what I don't know.

I'm planning all the usual pre-buy inspections, looking at the logs for maintenance and damage history, etc. If you have any suggestions on what I should be concerned with or asking about from the owner, I'm all ears so feel free to reply.

Thanks in advance.
 
Tech Counselor

You might consider utilizing a Tech Counselor from your local EAA Chapter. Usually for the cost of lunch you can get a very good set of experienced eyes to look at it. These people have fielded many of the questions you may not know to ask.

If you ever plan to try aerobatics...the 9/A is a no go.

Good luck and post pics if/when you purchase it.
 
The nine is the only RV without a Vans designed wing.

Its wing was designed by John Ronz of canard fame. It provides excellent flying qualities, it has a lower stall speed, glides forever and a favorite cross country airplane (quote from a Vans employee a few years ago regarding who gets to fly what to air shows).

I've had one ride in a nine - its was a pleasure like all RV's. Not quite as nimble on the stick as the others but a pure pleasure.
 
Keep 'em coming

Thanks for those replies. I'm definitely not an aerobatic trained or inclined flyer and my missions will likely be my wife and I seeing the country and making visits to family and friends. We have plenty in a 6-7 hour radius so I'm looking for that cross-country capable platform first, but something still easy and economical to calmly putter around the local patch in also.
 
AHaury said:
Thanks for those replies. I'm definitely not an aerobatic trained or inclined flyer and my missions will likely be my wife and I seeing the country and making visits to family and friends. We have plenty in a 6-7 hour radius so I'm looking for that cross-country capable platform first, but something still easy and economical to calmly putter around the local patch in also.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the -9 might be for you. However, if you were really impressed with the light roll force and response of aileron control at cruise speed in the -6, don't expect the same thing in the -9. Obviously, fly one and try it out.
 
I think you will find the 9/9A to be the most economical plane in the line to operate, except perhaps for the 3 or 12, both with different missions. I love my 9A and wouldn't trade it for anything, except perhaps someday a 12, if the medicals ever get questionable. The tradeoffs are right there in the specs; slightly lower top end for lower landing speed, etc. You just have to forget about aerobatics...

The biggest thing I would consider is, does the panel meet your needs? If for some reason you would not be happy without, say, an autopilot, keep that firmly in mind when you buy. It is harder to install later. Upgrades are always possible, but can be difficult and expensive. This goes for anything you look at, not just the 9. Get a good inspection, negotiate a good price. You will be happy with any of them.

A note to David--I believe Van's did design the wing for the 9, just not the airfoil. Roncz did that. I don't believe Van's designed any of the airfoils used on any of their aircraft but used off-the-shelf standard airfoils. You can correct me if I have that wrong. Not sure on the 10 and 12.

Bob
 
You have an easy decision

Aerobatics: Other than 9, 9A
Non-Aerobatics: 9, 9A exclusive....Unless you need 4 seats.
 
RV-9A

The RV-9A does have a Roncz designed airfoil and I believe the RV-10 does too.
The RV-3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 all have NACA 23000 series, I believe the 23013.5 (13.5% thick).
Note sure about the RV-12
 
Last edited:
AHaury said:
I've located a 9A for sale that I'm looking at close to home and my trouble, is I don't know what I don't know.
Click to expand...

My advice is don't be in too much of a rush. While you are in the process of looking for an airplane you will learn a great deal, ask many questions and talk to many people. You will will learn about people, planes, and yourself. Once you buy a plane you'll learn a lot more as well.

My search took about 9 months. Like you, I was looking at all the side by side models (except the 12). I only ended up with a 6 because I found that one first. I fell in love a dozen times, and was disappointed more than once. I came very close to buying one plane, but stopped when the inspector I had lined up asked me why I was buying a plane with W and X, when I needed Y and wanted Z? It was great plane that sold soon after, but it wasn't right for me.

The suggestion of a tech counselor is a great one. Early in my search I met with a local A&P that hold sold his RV-6, but the new owners had not picked it up yet. He was great. He spent at least an hour with me just talking about things he thought were important about build quality, options, engines, age, etc., using his plane as an example. He started me on the path of really seeing where I needed to learn more, and not just look at pretty paint, shiny spinner or a cool EFIS.

I ultimately had some trusted resources that I could check in with and ask questions of. You've started on a good path here, and there are always lots of people ready to provide opinions.
 
N941WR said:
Nope, the -10 has a modified 23000 series airfoil.
Click to expand...

The differences between the -6, -7, & -9 are slight. Keep your eye out for a good one and grab it before someone else does.

Truth is, if you have never flown an RV before, the -9 will seem very quick on the controls, the short wing RV's a little more so.
 
I think you're right. I've been shopping for some months (seems longer...) and so far found something wrong with everything I've looked at. Most don't make it past my panel wants. I get an up-close look tomorrow so we'll see then. Most of my flying has been in the typical rental fleet of 172's, and in the past year more in a 182RG so I don't expect that a -9 will seem too sluggish.
 
I just want to add that a 9 is still VERY much a sport airplane. Compared to 3-8 it is not _as_ sporty but compared to anything certified it is very sporty. It is still totally a 2 finger to fly airplane that requires very little control input to make it do something.

To put it another way I'm sure a 3 driver would call it a little sluggish but a Cessna driver would say "Wow!"

Perhaps i'm not picky enough but I couldn't tell a whole lot of difference in cruise between my former 9A and a 7 that I flew of someones.

Scott
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My 2 cents - I've owned 5 RV's (6a,7a,9a(2),10). They all fly remarkably well. Other than the usual things when checking out a potential buy, I'd do 2 things: bring along an experienced RV builder to check out the build quality, and make sure you fly the airplane. An out-of-rig airplane or vibration issues can be tough fixes. If $ is a serious consideration, good 6a's can be had for less money. I'm biased, but it's hard to beat a 9. Steve
 
Niner

I gotta say, you guys have shared some good advice with our potential 9A flier, and I have little to add.
I sold my 9A last year, and building a 9 this time. I bought a 172 to fly in the meantime. It's like going from a BMW right into a school bus. Man, do I miss that plane.
All I can say is this... For me at least, I think it is just the most pleasurable flying experience ever, and even if money were no object, it would always be my first choice. I don't do aerobatics, so I chose the -9. Stick forces a tad heavier, and a little better low speed handling. Not really all that much different than a 6 or 7 on a cross country flight. Easy to land if you aren't too fast. It'll float for a mile if you are. You can still snap it around and have a lot of fun with it..It's a sport plane!
Just one point. The lighter the plane is, the more fun it is to fly. You will understand what I am telling you the first time you solo it with half fuel aboard. Pay attention to the empty weight! That said, it is still an awesome aircraft at gross.
Regards,
Chris
 
A little different spin on the subject, since the author of the thread, mentioned the 6 model.

I have quite a number of hours in two 9A models. I prefer my 6A, because it's lighter on the controls, climbs faster, can fly faster, but still sip fuel at the same low rate..................when the throttle is pulled back. I suppose it just comes down to the feel of it all, as when manuvering. As mentioned by others, cross country flying feels much the same, whether it's a 6,7, or 9. The 9 does have a 10 mph advantage for landing.........as in slower. But with a C/S prop, it won't float much either.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Thank you all

Thank you all for all the comments. It is very much appreciated and reinforcing for a 1st time buyer.

I got a chance to see the plane in person today and it didn't disappoint. The owner/builder seems to have been meticulous. His hanger was cleaner than our kitchen, and the plane seem very well built and cared for. Unfortunately we were not able to fly it because of field conditions. It's at a private grass strip and with the wet weather over the past weeks it was too soggy. If we can dry out in the next few days and I get to fly it that may be the clincher.

I know this will likely start a debate... he built it with a Subaru H6 engine. We talked through how it operates and through some of his decisions on it. I know what the Van's recommendations are but I also there are many flying in RV's now. I'm not sure that is a show-stopper.
 
AHaury said:
I know this will likely start a debate... he built it with a Subaru H6 engine. We talked through how it operates and through some of his decisions on it. I know what the Van's recommendations are but I also there are many flying in RV's now. I'm not sure that is a show-stopper.
Click to expand...

Run!

(other words here)
 
Burying the lead

AHaury said:
...he built it with a Subaru H6 engine. We talked through how it operates and through some of his decisions on it. I know what the Van's recommendations are but I also there are many flying in RV's now. I'm not sure that is a show-stopper.
Click to expand...

Some people make alternative engines work but the fact that this airplane has one is a far bigger deal than what particular RV model it is. If one is going to have an alternative engine on an RV I personally think the RV-9/9A is the most suitable candidate though.

Engines that are not designed for aircraft tend to take much more tinkering with and updating of components though. Are you that kind of person?
 
Yep...RUN!

There's a lot of water under this bridge and friends of mine with Subies sitting on the hangar floor for 1/3rd the original price, now that they've installed Lycs......still no takers.

Best,
 
Weight ?

Four cylinder Subaru EJ25 engined RVs often come in with an empty weight approaching 1150 lbs (you do need a real muffler) and the H6 is heavier so this may be an issue - specially the weight on the front gear leg. If it is more than 300 lbs at empty it would be of concern.

There are still a few determined Subaru fans but as Pierre points out not enough to make anything saleable. If you really wanted to go this way you would have to be prepared to learn a lot about what has worked and what has not in the alternative engine world.

The Safety Organisation in Aus has just included a carb icing chart/briefing with their Flight Safety Magazine and it is quite enough to make you want to avoid anything with a carburettor, Lycoming or otherwise.

Good hunting.

Rupert

RV-9A, SOHC EJ25, NSI/WHIRLWIND PSRU/PROP
 
clarkefarm said:
The Safety Organisation in Aus has just included a carb icing chart/briefing with their Flight Safety Magazine and it is quite enough to make you want to avoid anything with a carburettor, Lycoming or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then tell the safety organization to re-think....

I live in this cold high altitude mountain area............and carbs have survived for many decades. They are simple, they work.

L.Adamson --- RV6A/ 180HP Lyc/ CS prop/ carb
 
Carb Icing

You are right. Paradoxically carb icing is not much of a problem in very cold or dry air.

The worrying thing is that in the wrong conditions carb icing can happen at any power setting.

The CASA chart is a really neat little card guide to carburettor icing probability, requiring only temperature and dew point (or relative humidity) inputs. Maybe someone who is more computer literate than me can post it.

Regards.

Rupert
 
I'll take the risk (very slight) of carb ice, over the risk (very real) of a auto conversion going kaput in flight.

Back on topic, you'll love an RV9(A). Amazing airplane and a pure joy to fly. The best airplane I have ever flown!.
 
Thanks all for contributions to the debate and the thought process. I've (perhaps wrongly) been less engaged in the thoughts of weight or whether to carburate or not. This particular airplane has one already with 175 hrs on it so my questions are more about what is a worry now. Do they not last? Limit the mission of the plane? Something anyone has learned about them being persnickity or unreliable?
 
You can search the forum and find lots of discussions about the pros and cons of auto engine conversions for aircraft.

For some it's a challenge they love to tackle, others, it's a challenge impossible to overcome. It seems to be dependent, in part, upon the type of person you are.

It's hard to beat the reliability of a Lycoming or their clones. You are looking for an airplane that is a good cross-country plane. The 9A, is the right choice, powered (IMO) by an (i)o-320.
 
AHaury said:
Thanks all for contributions to the debate and the thought process. I've (perhaps wrongly) been less engaged in the thoughts of weight or whether to carburate or not. This particular airplane has one already with 175 hrs on it so my questions are more about what is a worry now. Do they not last? Limit the mission of the plane? Something anyone has learned about them being persnickity or unreliable?
Click to expand...

My RV was inspected at the same time as a friends with a Subie. He spent several years ironing out cooling issues. The six cylinder Subaru has less climb & speed performance than my 180 HP Lycoming. As noted they are heavier. The re-sell $ is terrible. Several owners on this very forum have switched to Lycs. You really need to know what's going on.............to deal with auto conversions. Some like them, but it's seldom a case of just "going flying".

BTW--- As to the carbs & the safety letter, I'm already reading quite a number of postings from pilots who disagree with the thoughts presented.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Thank you

My sincere appreciation to all of those who replied here and sent me private messages. It's been very kind of you all to take the time to offer wise advice and I'll be forever grateful.
 
G's

I don't do aerobatics, so I chose the -9.
Click to expand...

Even if not doing acro, I like the feeling of security that tough little wing on a -6/6a provides. Bouncing around in turbulence up to 2.5 g's leaves one worry free knowing it can take more than twice that.

YMMV
 
Jerry Cochran said:
Even if not doing acro, I like the feeling of security that tough little wing on a -6/6a provides. Bouncing around in turbulence up to 2.5 g's leaves one worry free knowing it can take more than twice that.

YMMV
Click to expand...

Based on that logic, I'm guessing you would never fly in a Cessna or Piper?

Or you had better switch to an RV-7 because they have a stronger wing, as evidenced by their higher acro GW.

Truth is, the -9?s wing is plenty strong.
 
N941WR said:
Or you had better switch to an RV-7 because they have a stronger wing, as evidenced by their higher acro GW.
Click to expand...

Only on paper. The 6/6A wing "may" have tested to be far stronger than published data.. :cool:

Never the less, no 6 or 7 wings have seperated yet. edit: no 9's either

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
RV-12 airfoil

videobobk said:
A note to David--I believe Van's did design the wing for the 9, just not the airfoil. Roncz did that. I don't believe Van's designed any of the airfoils used on any of their aircraft but used off-the-shelf standard airfoils. You can correct me if I have that wrong. Not sure on the 10 and 12.

Bob
Click to expand...
Edited quote from the RV-12 plans...

"The RV-12 airfoil is a modified NACA 23014.1. This basic airfoil has been used in airplanes ranging from the Taylorcraft and Helio Courier, to the Turbo Commander and even the Cessna Citation. Others using it include the DC-3, all tapered wing Beechcrafts, and many of the Cessna twins."
 
Well, yes and no.

L.Adamson said:
Only on paper. The 6/6A wing "may" have tested to be far stronger than published data.. :cool:

Never the less, no 6 or 7 wings have seperated yet. edit: no 9's either

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

If you consider an -8 wing the same or very similar to a -7, one has failed on an -8. That particular airplane was also determined to have exceeded 9 G's by a lab that analyzed the remains.

Best,
 
It's not so much the stress on the wing that is the question, rather the tail section supporting the weight and load of the wings.
I'm just saying
 
AHaury said:
Thanks for those replies. I'm definitely not an aerobatic trained or inclined flyer and my missions will likely be my wife and I seeing the country and making visits to family and friends. We have plenty in a 6-7 hour radius so I'm looking for that cross-country capable platform first, but something still easy and economical to calmly putter around the local patch in also.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question right here. I have a friend who is selling his 7A to build a 9A because it is has a more "solid" feel in the air. Essentially, it has lower roll rates than the 7A which make it less of a handful to fly. If you are not planning on acro WHY would you build a plane intended for it? Every time I fly a 9A I am so glad I'm building one. Bottom line, drive each of em'. Be true to your mission...not what your ego wants.:D
 
I loved my -6A.

I built and gave transition training in my -6A for 5 years and did a bunch of acro, which I enjoyed but not the main reason for the airplane.

I also gave transition training in a couple of guys personal RV-9A's and loved every minute of it! I'd definitely consider a -9 if we didn't already have the -10 because the control feel is just so right...wonderful. The -6 was almost 'twitchy'....great for yankin' and bankin' and mild aerobatics but the -9 is hard to beat for a travelling airplane.

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
I also gave transition training in a couple of guys personal RV-9A's and loved every minute of it! I'd definitely consider a -9 if we didn't already have the -10 because the control feel is just so right...wonderful. The -6 was almost 'twitchy'....great for yankin' and bankin' and mild aerobatics but the -9 is hard to beat for a travelling airplane.
Click to expand...

On the other side of the coin, there are a number of us "6" owners around my part of the woods, who much prefer the nimble handling qualities of the "6". I know I certainly do! The "9" has a much better feel to it, that the typical spam can...................but I feel it's much too sedate. As for traveling, I really just don't notice much difference. As I've said before, if you're blind folded, it's hard to tell the difference on cross country flight. This applies to smooth air, as well as turbulence.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Like an arrow...

One other little detail: the 9/9A has a much biger vertical stabylizer/rudder than his older brothers, wich makes it fly straight and stable like an arrow, with almost no adverse yaw. It's a fingertip airplane! :)
 
Last edited:
tech counselor

Once you have narrowed down your search to the plane you want,you should consider engaging a tech counselor who is familiar with the airplane type to do a complete pre-buy inspection. The money is well worth the investment.
 
RV-10 Custom Airfoil

N941WR said:
Nope, the -10 has a modified 23000 series airfoil.
Click to expand...

Nope! Van's site says the RV-10 is a custom airfoil:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int1.htm
For the RV-10 airfoil we have struck a compromise between the thickness needed for spar strength and a reasonable drag coefficient. The dust settled at 16% thick. With a custom-designed airfoil section, we hope to achieve a somewhat wider range of laminar flow than with the NACA 230 airfoils we have been using. We hope this will keep the drag down even with the thicker section. We know that the lift of a 16% thick airfoil is less than that of a thinner section.

Also from this thread post #6:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=54192
 
Thank you

The hunt isn't over just yet, but I do thank the Vans community for such great advice and input.
 
Missing reply

I've received some private email messages, one that someone had an 9A they were thinking of selling, but my replies have come back undeliverable. If you emailed me about possibly selling your plane, and I haven't replied, please reach out again.

Kind regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top