I'm a 6/7 driver...

...and I see an RV-9a that looks nice. Pls share with me the thought process that
attracted you to the -9. I understand the lower stall speed which would be nice and been told the -9 is a great CC machine, but so was the -6a I built... I could easily enough extend the range by slowing down 10 kts or so... Also loved the feeling of security the 6g wing gave...

Not trying to start anything, just curious...

My RV-9A flies fast and slow, high and low. Not interested in doing aerobatics. Great economical cross country machine. I can get 148-150 knots TAS on 6 gallons per hour up at 10,000'. It lifts off the runway at 65 knots and I can easily land it with a stable 60 knot approach. I've had it as high as 16,700'. Its wing has an airfoil designed by John Roncz, which makes all of this performance possible. That wing really wants to fly!

I'm with Bruce on this one. I've got a little over 200 hours on my 9A and I'm still learning its capabilities. I can fly formation with it, I can travel with it, but I can't do aerobatics. I still don't have the gear intersection fairings on but here is a picture of a recent trip to Montana at 17,500'...

I have another picture with a 225 knot ground speed but that was down hill.

bruceh said:

My RV-9A flies fast and slow, high and low. Not interested in doing aerobatics. Great economical cross country machine. I can get 148-150 knots TAS on 6 gallons per hour up at 10,000'. It lifts off the runway at 65 knots and I can easily land it with a stable 60 knot approach. I've had it as high as 16,700'. Its wing has an airfoil designed by John Roncz, which makes all of this performance possible. That wing really wants to fly!

Click to expand...

These are figures that are well within the 6A capability.

Jerry Cochran said:

...and I see an RV-9a that looks nice. Pls share with me the thought process that
attracted you to the -9.

Click to expand...

I have a bad back and can't deal with much over 3 to 4 G's before getting out of the plane is an issue.

Jerry Cochran said:

I understand the lower stall speed which would be nice and been told the -9 is a great CC machine, but so was the -6a I built... I could easily enough extend the range by slowing down 10 kts or so...

Click to expand...

With the -9, you don't have to give up any speed over the -6 or -7 to get the lower stall speed. In the event of an engine out landing, that lower stall speed could be a life saver.

Jerry Cochran said:

Also loved the feeling of security the 6g wing gave...

Click to expand...

Funny thing, I don't hear about the wings on the -9 falling off. In fact, I read about more -6 & -7 G overloads than the -9 and I know a number of -9's that are doing things Van's would not recommend.

For me, it was simply a replacement for my '41 Tcraft and I wasn't looking for an acro bird. When Van's came out with the -9A, I promised myself I would build one with an O-235, if they came out with a tailwheel version. They did and I did; well, I used an O-290, which was later replaced with an O-360. So, it is a little bit better than my old Tcraft.

Maybe Vic will chime in, he recently flew a -9A for the first time and was simply stunned.

While the -9 is a bit sluggish in roll when compared to the short wing RV's, it feels better balanced.

The -9's wing is just amazing! How about 174 mph / 151 knots True while burning 5.5 GPH? The plane was still climbing strong when I leveled out and was trimmed nose down at this altitude.

N941WR said:

Funny thing, I don't hear about the wings on the -9 falling off. In fact, I read about more -6 & -7 G overloads than the -9 and I know a number of -9's that are doing things Van's would not recommend.

Click to expand...

Your statement would seem to imply that the -9 wing is stronger than the -6 or -7 wings are. Is that correct?

The -9's wing is just amazing! How about 174 knots True while burning 5.5 GPH? The plane was still climbing strong when I leveled out and was trimmed nose down at this altitude.

Click to expand...

Your image shows a true airspeed of 174 miles per hour, not knots. 174MPH is about 151KTS. Still not bad for 5.5 GPH.

Jerry, what attracted me to the -9 was lower stall, stable IFR platform, and a good deal. The longer wing isn't going to be as fast as the -6/-7 but the lower stall is the price paid.

In a year, I'll let you know if I'm happy with the -9 compared to the -6a I had. We'll see.
Cj

Jerry Cochran said:

...and I see an RV-9a that looks nice. Pls share with me the thought process that
attracted you to the -9. I understand the lower stall speed which would be nice and been told the -9 is a great CC machine, but so was the -6a I built... I could easily enough extend the range by slowing down 10 kts or so... Also loved the feeling of security the 6g wing gave...

Not trying to start anything, just curious...

Click to expand...

NO!

ChiefPilot said:

Your statement would seem to imply that the -9 wing is stronger than the -6 or -7 wings are. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

The RV-9 wing is NOT stronger than the -6 or -7, and not intended to be. But it IS sufficiently strong for non-aerobatic category.

ChiefPilot said:

Your statement would seem to imply that the -9 wing is stronger than the -6 or -7 wings are. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

No implication intended. I'm simply stating that the -9 wing is more than strong enough for its stated purpose. (As Mel mentioned above.)

ChiefPilot said:

Your image shows a true airspeed of 174 miles per hour, not knots. 174MPH is about 151KTS. Still not bad for 5.5 GPH.

Click to expand...

Correct, I had images in both mph and kts. I'll correct it.

The funny thing was that I wasn't at WOT because it ran smoother Lop with it pulled back a little bit. WOT and rich of peak is faster than what is displayed but at the cost of a higher fuel burn.

All of the above, and less twitchy - feels a bit more stable than the 6 & 7 I have flown. I would guess that there is not a real good argument to be made to change planes for performance reasons only.

Greg

My performance numbers are just like the others posted. I have to pinch myself everytime I look at total cost and average GPH in my year-end totals. Amazing performance.
The big difference for me between the 7 and 9 is control effort. The 9 is just as responsive in terms of stick movement for a given attitude change .... it just takes more effort on the stick. And yes, the greater wing span makes for a lower roll rate.