Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
9 Aeros?
- Thread starter savas
- Start date
I don't know what the regs state in other countries, but here, the legal definition of "aerobatics" is vague and could mean just about anything, including a steep turn if you want to apply the regs verbatim. You don't have to be upside down, or +/- 30 degrees of pitch, or +60 degrees of bank to meet the legal definition of "aerobatics" (in the States at least). It's all interpretation. Of course, most people associate "aerobatics" with loops, rolls, and spins. All aerobatics is basically infinitely complex variations on these three maneuvers. The RV-9 is not approved for spins. So that leaves loops and rolls. Even though loops and rolls aren't mentioned in the FAA's definition of aerobatics, these will be considered "aerobatics" 100% of the time by anyone in a position to take action against you. What other types of "aerobatic" maneuvers are you wondering about?
Last edited:
Aerobatics
Aerobatics is the practice of flying maneuvers involving aircraft attitudes that are not used in normal flight.
There thats a simple definition to work to....... if you want to do aeros buy a 3,4,6,7,8 then there is no issue!!
My 9 though is a great tourer!!
Aerobatics is the practice of flying maneuvers involving aircraft attitudes that are not used in normal flight.
There thats a simple definition to work to....... if you want to do aeros buy a 3,4,6,7,8 then there is no issue!!
My 9 though is a great tourer!!
Sure it can. You can safely loop or roll just about any airplane. You just have less strength margin and less margin for screwups compared to airplanes designed for aerobatic stress. Capable and suitable are two different things though.
And I sure wouldn't want to learn aeros in an airplane with less margin - if someone wants to do aerobatics in a 9/9A they had better already be an expert in them to be able to keep them gentle and stay well within the structural limits. The 9 frame is simply not built for aeros.
"Expert" depends on your frame of reference I guess. It actually takes very little skill and minimal training to reach the point of consistently and safely doing sloppy loops and rolls well within even the Utility G-limits in an RV. But it does take some very basic introductory aerobatic training and practice. The RV-9 is not a suitable airplane for this type of training, self-taught or otherwise. The FAA has already set the paradigm for type-certificated airplanes being stressed to +6/-3G to be approved for aerobatic maneuvers. EAB aircraft don't fall under these requirements, but it would be irresponsible and unprofessional of Vans Aircraft to allow aerobatics in a design that the FAA would not allow aerobatics to be performed in if it was otherwise type-certificated. Aerobatics in aircraft not designed for it is a slippery slope in a lot of ways. You need to know what you're doing to peform safe aeroatics in any airplane, regardless of its load limits. You don't need to be Bob Hoover, but you do need to be competent enough. The problem is, many pilots don't know how incompetent they are, so they shouldn't be encouraged to do aerobatics in non-aero stressed airplanes. It's one of those, "if you have to ask..." sort of things.
Last edited:
Jamie Aust
Well Known Member
FlyingArcher
Well Known Member
Made wing overs in factory -9A
During my demo flight at Oshkosh 2009 in the factory -9A, the pilot demonstrated the plane handling qualities by making a couple of wing overs, stating that these maneuvers were not considered aerobatic.
They were quite impressive to me anyway
and I loved it.
During my demo flight at Oshkosh 2009 in the factory -9A, the pilot demonstrated the plane handling qualities by making a couple of wing overs, stating that these maneuvers were not considered aerobatic.
They were quite impressive to me anyway
and I loved it.
"91.303 Aerobatic Flight.
For the purpose of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."
This statement should be in the operating limitations for all US RV-9 aircraft.
For US aerobatic category an aircraft must be stressed for +6/-4 Gs.
The RV-9, -10, and -12 are not designed to these limits.
For the purpose of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."
This statement should be in the operating limitations for all US RV-9 aircraft.
For US aerobatic category an aircraft must be stressed for +6/-4 Gs.
The RV-9, -10, and -12 are not designed to these limits.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Thanks all
Well I have a pretty good idea now, particularly if head office demos wing overs , I'm looking at purchasing a 9, I don't think I will have stomach for very basic stuff, but it's good to now.
If ever I decide, we have some top aero guys here, that I will go and seek assistance from, the likes of Nigel Hopkins, Larry Beamish and others
Well I have a pretty good idea now, particularly if head office demos wing overs , I'm looking at purchasing a 9, I don't think I will have stomach for very basic stuff, but it's good to now.
If ever I decide, we have some top aero guys here, that I will go and seek assistance from, the likes of Nigel Hopkins, Larry Beamish and others
May I respectfully suggest that, the skills of any aeros instructors notwithstanding, if you wish to do aerobatics then build an aircraft designed for them!
A loop typically takes 3-4g so there is little margin for error. More importantly, you may be tempted to try an aileron or barrel roll. Even though these are low-g manoeuvres they can go horribly wrong if you don't get the nose high enough in the first half - that's when the 6g may be required.
I'm not really sure why you would want to consider it in an aircraft that is neither designed or certified for aerobatics..........
A loop typically takes 3-4g so there is little margin for error. More importantly, you may be tempted to try an aileron or barrel roll. Even though these are low-g manoeuvres they can go horribly wrong if you don't get the nose high enough in the first half - that's when the 6g may be required.
I'm not really sure why you would want to consider it in an aircraft that is neither designed or certified for aerobatics..........
[email protected]
Well Known Member
Build a -7...
If you have the slightest hint that you might be interested in doing aerobatics just build a -7 instead of the -9... you will never regret it.
If you have the slightest hint that you might be interested in doing aerobatics just build a -7 instead of the -9... you will never regret it.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
A loop, wing over and roll, if properly executed, all fall within the design loads of any properly built RV-9. This is a fact. It is also a fact that "aerobatic" aircraft are designed to withstand higher design loads than the RV-9. What this higher strength buys you is a bigger margin in case you screw up. If you execute a loop, wing over, or roll properly, then the higher strength is a moot point. This is exactly how you see Hoover and Younkin get away with these maneuvers in "non aerobatic category" corporate twins... They don't make mistakes.
The real question is: Do you know what you're doing, and can you correct a mid-maneuver mistake before the slippery little -9 gets away from you?
You're not going to find that answer on the Internet.
The real question is: Do you know what you're doing, and can you correct a mid-maneuver mistake before the slippery little -9 gets away from you?
You're not going to find that answer on the Internet.
Last edited:
Is the only difference between the 9 and 7 the wings? I haven't noticed any other changes while building my 9a, but I don't have the manual for the 7. The fuselage appears to be the same, empennage the same, larger engine allowed on the 7, but what else?
Could a person build 9 wings and 7 wings and have two planes?
Could a person build 9 wings and 7 wings and have two planes?
No, the horizontal tail is quite different!
DaleB
Well Known Member
I struggled with this for a while. I was leaning toward the 9 since I want to do a lot of x/c flying, but really liked the idea of having the higher margin of strength not only for possible aerobatics, but just a little extra comfort in turbulence, etc. I know, no way turbulence is going to hit 4-5G, but still...
Then a partially built, complete 7A kit came up for sale at a price I simply couldn't pass up, and the decision was made (along with the tip-up/slider and nose/tail wheel decisions). In the end, I could name a thing or two that a 7 could do that a 9 could not, but I couldn't come up with a single thing a 9 could do that a 7 could not. Both are so far ahead of anything I've flown so far, or am likely to ever be able to afford, that it would be impossible to go wrong.
Then a partially built, complete 7A kit came up for sale at a price I simply couldn't pass up, and the decision was made (along with the tip-up/slider and nose/tail wheel decisions). In the end, I could name a thing or two that a 7 could do that a 9 could not, but I couldn't come up with a single thing a 9 could do that a 7 could not. Both are so far ahead of anything I've flown so far, or am likely to ever be able to afford, that it would be impossible to go wrong.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Yep
Good move, Dale. We flew our -6A for 5 years, and also IFR. That's a job but it can be done, until we added an autopilot (TruTrak ADI II), that significantly eased the IFR workload...plus we could do an occasional roll or Immelman
The -9 is much more docile, with smaller ailerons and larger flaps for that really low 49 MPH stall speed and it's much easier to hand-fly IFR.
Best,
Good move, Dale. We flew our -6A for 5 years, and also IFR. That's a job but it can be done, until we added an autopilot (TruTrak ADI II), that significantly eased the IFR workload...plus we could do an occasional roll or Immelman
The -9 is much more docile, with smaller ailerons and larger flaps for that really low 49 MPH stall speed and it's much easier to hand-fly IFR.
Best,
N355DW
Well Known Member
I was ferrying a Pitts to the factory in Afton about fifteen years ago, and was downwind of a rather large mountain near Rock Springs I believe. It was severe clear, and I was suddenly hit with severe turbulence (momentarily out of control). After I flew out of it I looked at the G-meter, it read +3.5, and -1.5 - not over normal category limits, but near enough! I was glad I was in a Pitts!
Having flown in both the -7 and the -9, I can say that you really won't notice a difference in the two after the first few minutes. They're both great airplanes. The control response in the -9 is a little less sprightly, but not really that much, and you'll calibrate to it very quickly.
If you've got the mindset that you may want to try aerobatics someday, you'd be crazy to buy/build a -9. You limit yourself unnecessarily for very little benefit.
If you're certain that you would never, ever want to fly aerobatics, then the -9 is an excellent airplane for cross-country flying.
If you've got the mindset that you may want to try aerobatics someday, you'd be crazy to buy/build a -9. You limit yourself unnecessarily for very little benefit.
If you're certain that you would never, ever want to fly aerobatics, then the -9 is an excellent airplane for cross-country flying.
