What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Help with a comparison to flying the RV-9A

tbranton

Member
Good evening everyone,

My pilot wife Kathy and I may have found an absolutely beautiful RV-9A. We have previously owned a Diamond DA-40 and a Grumman Tiger. If any of the pilots on the board have flown both the RV-9A and the Diamond and/or the Grumman we would appreciate your thoughts on how similar or differently they fly. This is our first adventure with the RV aircraft. We want this to be our "keeper airplane".

Thanks to everyone,

Tom and Kathy Branton
 
words???? comparison??? we're Gobsmacked (don't you love those Brit words)

you don't need words,...

you need A RIDE!!!

certainly, where you are, you can find someone to give you a ride,... guess the owner of the 9A you are considering is not able to at this time

Ok,... we'll admit.... haven't flown the others,... but for the 9,.. you can pretty much go with Van's published performance numbers,.. and you can find some threads on maintenance costs

Hope you sort through your questions and become a proud new owner of a 9

p.s welcome to the forum
 
While I was slowly building my 9A io-320, I purchased a Grumman Yankee with a 150hp o-320 because of its characteristics. Ground handling is similar since they both rely on differential braking, but the 9A flies 30kts faster and lands 7kts slower. You will love the 9A.
 
Yep! I have, and my -9a is not for sale for anything less than $160K! More similar to the DA-40 than the Grumman. But way better than both by far.
 
Last edited:
Bump to top ....all kidding aside.... how about some words,...

need to help an undecided, new person to the forum, to sort through the 9A
 
Consider posted advice

Mr. Branton:

While the advice posted to date may appear flip, it's not; to my mind, the posters have provided sage advice:

1. Find an amenable owner and fly in a 9a.

2. The performance specs posted on Vans homepage http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv9.htm are accurate, within stated limitations.

Kudos to you for looking for someone to help with a pre-buy inspection. One discussion topic with the inspector would be your maintenance resources, and your druthers.

Very good luck to you
 
Thanks and I did not take any of the responses as being flip. Gosh, I have learned that often the most direct and simple response is the most informative. I appreciate all the responses and learned from every one. It's a tough question I asked and even though I am still a low time pilot I appreciate it's hard to describe how planes differ in their flight characteristics. Right now I am trying to learn as much as I can about the RV-9A to make a good purchase decision. Long, short, or the great American novel, all comments are appreciated.

Kindest regards,

Tom
 
Tom,

I have about 130 hours in my 9A and I still get a grin every time I take off. I probably have approaching 500 hours in a Cherokee 140 and bits and pieces of time varying from an hour to 40 or 50 hours in a variety of aircraft from C-172's, a couple of RV-6s, to a Pitts, and nothing is anywhere near as enjoyable as the 9. It is well balanced in all three axis, it does what you tell, and so far it has never surprised me. Stalls are docile, straight forward affairs, and don't tell anyone, but landing the 9A is a piece of cake - just learn the attitude and speed necessary to set it down on the mains, and you'll be making great landings.

In all seriousness, find someone to take you up in a 9A and you'll be sold just on the handling. When you find out how economical it is to fly you'll be laughing after you fill your tanks. It's cheaper by about 2 to 2.5 gph than the Cherokee 140 and 35-40 knots faster. So far I have not been able to burn as much fuel as the 140 doing 100-105 knots. It is a real pleasure to fly and the reason I think you're seeing so few comments is because there is no comparison.

If you find yourself in Richmond, VA, i'd be delighted to take you up for an hour on me and even more if you wanted to help out at the fuel pump. The 7 is a bit faster, the 8 is sexier, the 10 holds more people and the 3 and the 4 are sportier, but if you're looking for a XC plane that's fast, economical, and just plain fun to fly, the 9 is in a league of its own. I'm dead serious - if you want to see how much fun the 9 is and how well it handles, I'll be glad to give you all the time you need to make up your mind.
 
I have something over 300 hours in my 9A, and time in about 30 other makes/models. As for as economy, it came in second. A sailplane beats it. Speed? Faster than the retracts I have flown. Handling is just right, don't know how else to put it. I have about 30 hours in an RV-12, and it is about the same, but the 9A rides a little better. The 12 is a little cheaper to fly, also, so maybe the 9A is third on hourly costs, but still second on XC.

Get a ride in one and you will be hooked. I'd bet on it.

Bob
 
Transition

Tom, My first plane, with a grand total of 65 hours in my logbook was a Tiger. Great plane, fast, and great handling, 200 hours later time for an RV. This was the easiest transition I can imagine. The constant speed prop was the biggest change, and that was mastered in no time. I did get a 7A, but I have time in 9As and the 9A is slightly closer to the Tiger. If you have Tiger time your only question will be "why didn't I do this sooner!!". Enjoy the grin.
 
Transition

I've about 690 hrs- most in cherokee180, but about 40 in a tiger, now I have 32 hrs in my RV9A. Chartis insurance considered 40hrs in the tiger time-in-type and required no transition training. After flying the 9A for 32 hrs so far I now know why- It's very docile.
 
I have owned a Tiger

and loved the airplane ----at the time (1978) it was about as close to a sports car (compared to Cessna/Cherokee) as you could get. I have flown a DA-40 a bit, when I lived in Albuquerque -- and the DA-20. I am flying a -6A now.

In my opinion, the -9A is a "funner" airplane than the Diamond or the Tiger -- no comparison in handling and overall performance. However, you are giving up a couple of seats and some baggage room. Every airplane is a compromise, of some kind.
 
9A ... The alternative love-of-my-life?

I'm incredibly pleased with all the performance characteristics of the 9A. At the end of the first year of flying the all-in cost (fuel, oil, maintenance, parts, hangar, insurance, etc) was $84/hr. (no engine rebuild contribution) Since much of the the total are fixed costs, more flying would bring the hourly rate down even more. The average fuel consumption over 100 hrs was 6.1gph; that reflects more than normal pattern work and the fact I run LOP in the low 6's on all x-countries. It flies and handles better than anything I've ever flown - cold weather climb rates are >2000fpm at 90kias. My normal cruise is 145ktas at 8000 PA and 6.1 to 6.3gph. Easiest plane to land I've ever flown. The ONLY thing I would wish for would be a little more room ... On long trips it gets pretty tight with two people. But all in all, I couldn't be more pleased.
 
Terry, great numbers, on the IO320 what RPM and what prop are you using?? The lunch offer is still on for Schaumburg Pilot Pete's... still have not been up in a 9... Presently working on my panel. In the plans to have a start on my 9A summer of 2014.. Mark C. 119RV
 
Like Terry stated the 9A is also close to if not the easiest plane I have ever landed. We have a 150hp O-320 9A and our numbers are similar to Terrys at about 145 kts at around 6.5 gph. We have fixed pitch Sensenich metal prop. We climb at over 1000 fpm with 2 onboard. My Lancair also has an O-320 and will cruise at 180 kts on the same fuel burn but is a whole lot harder to land and requires a whole lot more runway.
For the OP, you need a ride. Plenty of good folks likely to offer if you ask. The 9A is a great plane for a new pilot.
 
Last edited:
OK, so no Tiger time but a handful or two of hours in a 150hp Cheetah, and an hour or three bombing around in a friend's 160hp 9A... My comments below apply to the Cheetah, but in almost all matters the Cheetah and Tiger are pretty much the same, save for the Tiger's better speed and better climb rate, thanks to its 180hp engine.

Some impressions of both:
- Grumman is far easier to get into and out of, hands down - the sliding seats and larger canopy opening are chiefly responsible for this difference
- Grumman has far more cargo space and more useful load to carry it
- Grumman gives you 4 seats for those times when you want to take along more than one friend
- Grumman allows you to feel like the cockpit is wider by having your right-seater slide the seat all the way aft, giving you both some extra shoulder room
- Grumman has a more robust nose gear setup
- Grumman is constrained in equipment you can install, and the price of that equipment
- Grumman is slower on equal power and quite a bit slower in the climb
- Grumman has lots of elevator authority which has resulted in PIO landing incidents, often negating the effect of the more robust nose gear
- 9A has a stick, Grumman has a yoke - personal preference rules here
- 9A has similar feel in roll axis but feels lighter in pitch once you get very far out of trim; you wont get a sore arm flaring the 9A
- 9A gives you a greater choice of installed equipment, ranging from avionics to powerplants to props
- 9A is stable enough to be an IFR platform, as is the Grumman
- for IFR work, the fuel range of the 9A may leave you wishing for more if flying in an area where alternates are a fair distance away
- unless you have the "tip up slider" mod, accessing the baggage area (equivalent of Grumman rear seat area) of the 9A is considerably more difficult than the Grumman, particularly for larger objects
- Grumman runs bigger tires - a double-edged sword; more flotation on soft ground, more drag in the air
- Grumman offers a much wider wing-walk surface for those of us with big, clumsy feet
- 9A doesn't have any rudder return springs to break :eek:
- diving under the instrument panel appears to be an equally painful experience in both aircraft
- 9A offers better visibility in all directions
- conversely, the Grumman doesn't require a sunshade in the canopy to keep from toasting ones noggin
- 9A's seem to command a fair price premium over Tigers... one would expect this, given most AA5B's are 35 or more years of age and one can hardly stand up after seeing the price point on the AG5B's
- 9A is physically smaller and easier to ground-handle
- paint stripping on the 9A doesn't require the brand-specific knowledge required of Grumman painters
- the Grumman has, through many years of service, proven itself to be a very robust aircraft; unfortunately those many years of service mean there are some very tired ones out in the market
- the Grumman engine cowl is an absolute dream for routine maintenance, allowing access to all spark plugs etc
- for non-routine maintenance like changing an alternator, having to remove the prop and nosebowl is a real pain in the keester
- the Grumman offers a lot more room behind the engine to access accessories and change oil filters
- the 9A doesn't have a silly "mail slot" aft baggage door, but then again, it also doesn't have an aft baggage compartment or a fold-flat rear seat
- 9A takeoff performance is, by comparison... (well, there really is no comparison)

If I were looking at buying into the airplane market right now, I'd be looking hard at experimentals, if only for the freedom of choice of installed equipment and reduced maintenance/ownership costs they offer. These freedoms must be balanced by a willingness to take on more responsibility for maintenance and systems engineering.

OK, that's about all I can think of for the moment.
 
The Tiger is Good but....

I've got 350-400 hours in the Tiger and love it (my third favorite plane). I love the solid feel of the 5B and the fast aileron response. I only flew with two people and a limited amount of baggage in the plane even on cross-countrys.

Except for the Tiger's rear seat and the fold down feature of the seat I believe the 9 I now own is an all-around easier to fly, more forgiving and a more adaptable airplane. Part of the reason for this is my 9 has an 0-360 and constant speed prop. While this hurts the useful load (if you stay within Van's recommended max gross) these two features make the airplane a dream to fly no matter what the temperature or density altitude. Why someone would put anything less than the 180HP in the 9 is not understandable to me. I understand there are reasons but pull the power back, save fuel and still cruise at a nice TAS.

The only negative I have with the 9 is the low wing loading. It does not handle in-flight turbulence as well as the Tiger and Cheetah did. They are about equal for instrument work.

Hope this helps,
 
Back
Top