N35 Bonanza to an RV-7 or RV-9

gjs525 · #1 01-21-2007, 07:42 PM

Over the last 15 + years I have been flying an N35 Bonanza - it is a nice airplane, but it is 46 years old - and after spending most of 2 days watching a group of RVs practicing formation flying at SQI prior to OSH this year, ---

Do any of you have any flight experience in a Bonanza, and if so, give me your "unbiased" flight comparison. I am not interested in aerobatics, most of my flying is weekend pleasure flights, business flights of 200 miles or less, and about 2 - 3 flights per year to Colorado to see our daughter. I prefer the cabin set up of the 7 or 9 - what sort of realistic cruise speeds could I expect with a 9 / 160hp / cs prop??

thanks in advance - this is a great site -

Gary Schopp
N35 Bonanza N1388Z

Geico266 · #2 01-21-2007, 07:51 PM

Don't give it another though. Your transition time should be 1-2 hours at best. The RV's are easy to fly, very responsive at low speeds with great rudder command at all speeds. They offer great sport performance that will leave you breathless compared to the Bonanza.

John Clark · #3 01-21-2007, 09:49 PM

I can address this, sort of. My last airplane was a B55 Baron. A typical Beechcraft, well built, great to fly, and very expensive to own. You have experienced the plus side of the RV, performance and fun. Compared to the Bonanza, you are giving away two seats, some bagage room, expensive annuals, and a bunch of fuel burn.

The speed and range issues vary according to type, engine, prop, and (dare I say it) build quality. If it helps, several months ago on a trip to Phoenix, I passed an A36 in level flight. ATC gave me the traffic, I kept him in sight and drove past slowly. Very satisfying!

John Clark
RV8 N18U
KSBA

alpinelakespilot2000 · #4 01-21-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjs525

what sort of realistic cruise speeds could I expect with a 9 / 160hp / cs prop??

Check the specs on Van's website. Van's has a reputation for completely honest numbers. Their 9A is a 160hp/cs. Good luck.

terrykohler · #5 01-22-2007, 06:43 AM

Gary:
I fly an O320-D1A powered 9A with FP prop. My Bonanza experience is limited to about 500 hours in an an A36 going back about 15 years ago. Some numbers to compare:
Cruise (TAS @ 8,000, 2450 RPM, GW 1800) - 155 kts.
Climb (Std temp/press., best rate) - 1450 fpm
Stall (landing config.) - 44 kts.

You'll find the RVs similar to the Bonanza in terms of planning letdowns and entry into traffic area - they don't bleed speed as quickly as say a C210, where you can add gear at 165 and approach flaps at 155. You can improve this situation by going with a CS prop, which will add about 55 pounds to the AC as well as maintenance and annual considerations.

Interestingly, of all the RVs, the 9A has handling characteristics most similar to a Bonanza. From my point of view, if you're not interested in acro, the 9 offers a roll rate which is about half that of an 8 and about 30% less than a 6 or 7. Might be important if you're looking to maximize stability for instrument flight. You can see extensive comparative test data on the RVs by going to:
www.cafefoundation.org
You'll have to page thru their menus to find the reports, but they're worth a read.
Hope this helps.
Terry

Gary Bricker · #6 01-22-2007, 07:56 AM

I have a 64 Deb( 250 HP) and just finished a 7A, IO360-180Hp/cs. The 7A is lots more fun to fly. I have not taken a trip in it. Just local. It comes off the runway lot's faster and climb is no comparison. I flew both yesterday and the 7 had a slight chop and the Deb was smooth. The controls are very light on the 7 and the deb is like a truck. If you want to carry lots and drive a big caddy then the deb what you want. If you want fun and speed the 7 is the way to go. I drive a F350 dually and a corvette. I fly the same. (ha)

Yukon · #7 01-22-2007, 08:21 AM

I have flown the Bonanza and Debonair and enjoyed them very much. Not much comparison though to RV's.

I chose the Rv-9 because I, like you, have given up aerobatics, and, if the engine quits, or I run a tank dry on final, it glides.................................
Like the Debonair, when the prop goes flat following an engine failure, the 6,7 and 8 drop like anvils, because of their high wing loading, and the drag of the flat pitched windmilling propeller. True, engine failures are rare, but after 18,000 hrs, I don't want to push my luck.

The RV-9 glides so well, especially when a fixed pitch prop is installed, it is actually hard to get it to slow down in the pattern. Yet it will do 190!

Go to Van's, look at the factory and get a ride in both with a factory pilot. They will help you decide. If you like to build things, you will love this kit. If you don't, buy one complete from someone who does. Lot's of good ones for sale. (Some junk too, so be careful!).

RV-9 QB

dan · #8 01-22-2007, 01:53 PM

A couple of weeks ago a friend and I were flying home when out of nowhere we got hit with a -3.5G gust load. That's negative 3.5G. Glad I had a nice, beefy -7!

n5lp · #9 01-22-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukon

...the 6,7 and 8 drop like anvils, because of their high wing loading, and the drag of the flat pitched windmilling propeller...

Well, the 6, 7 and 8 do not glide very well, but the wingloading at about 14.5 lbs/sq. foot, for the 6 is very similar to the 14.1 of the 9 and not far from the 12 or so of a modern high performance glider, which incidently carries a bunch of water ballast to get the wing loading up that high. If higher wingloading caused reduced glide, I doubt gliders would have to be weighed daily, at contests, to keep people from cheating by using a higher than legal wing loading.

Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere?

jantar · #10 01-22-2007, 05:01 PM

Dan, could you describe how it felt? I have a lot of time in gliders and while soaring in mountains I get a lot of big ?kicks?, but I never had a G-meter in any of the gliders I flew to quantify the load. I just rated them by the pain when hitting canopy with my head.