|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

05-30-2009, 07:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
I'd buy that if you fly your RV with a mono wheel main gear and you use a support crew to pick up your outrigger gear after takeoff...ala U2. 
|
I have flown a friend's Mono Wheel Europa, does that count?

__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

05-30-2009, 07:52 PM
|
 |
fugio ergo sum
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Carlsbad, NM
Posts: 1,912
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR
I have flown a friend's Mono Wheel Europa...
|
We count different, you and me. It looks like four wheels to me.
__________________
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
|

05-30-2009, 07:55 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevansrv7a
...But, slower landing speeds better in XW? My math says the opposite. The slower you land, the greater the XW component of the vector solution. Right?...
|
I'm not so sure. You still have to transition through the slow speed range to get to a stop. Thus things can happen faster. At least with the slower speeds there is less chance you will lose control, be it a NW or TW.
Anyway, the -7 vs. -9, NW vs TW is a dumb argument because they are all RV's and you can't really go wrong with an RV, any RV.
The simple answer is, if you want to do acro, build a -7/-7A. If not, the -9/-9A is just as good. In my case, I have a bad back and can't do acro, even 3 G's hurts me, so the choice for the -9 was simple.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Last edited by N941WR : 05-31-2009 at 07:06 AM.
|

05-30-2009, 10:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 80
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
Of course NONE of this stuff is significant enough to override the fact that you should build and fly what YOU want.
|
Mel,
I think, the original poster, one or two others that have posted and certainly myself are asking the questions because we don?t know what to build. Or in my case, what I want to build just isn?t available, so I am faced with a compromise. Relative to the discussion going on here, the RV-7 represents one set of compromises and the RV-9 represents another set of compromises. In my case there isn?t even an RV-9 or ?9A in New Zealand that I can go and fly in (there might be one being built). So the contributions of all the posters are valued however small, ?argumentative? or flippant they are. And it is also providing some pretty good entertainment.
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
It also seems to me that when Vans ?upgraded? from the RV6 to the RV7 the expected powerplant was upsized from an O-320 to an O-360. A lot of things got upsized along with it, the stall speed and weight being foremost in my mind. It has often appeared to me that Vans then invented the RV9 to fill gap left by discontinuing the RV6. I don?t think it actually happened like that, but if the O-320 isn?t the best powerplant for the RV7, the RV9 might be the better aircraft for those of us on O-320 sized budgets.
So, I will read any more comments however small, argumentative, flippant or irrelevant they may be!
Cheers,
Andrew. 
|

05-31-2009, 07:05 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,769
|
|
Andrew,
I certainly didn't mean to be "flippant". When a forum post gets to 9 pages, sometimes the original post gets sort of lost. Bottom line is, if you want to do acro, go with the -7. If not, then the -9 is the way to go. Really, there is not that much difference between the two.
As to your friend, I can't imagine anyone being bored with ANY RV. If he does a lot of acro in his -4, then he may be bored with upright flying. But in that case, he would also be bored with the -4 if he kept it upright.
Another thing to be careful of is things that people on this forum seem to think as "necessary". Everyone wants more horsepower. Some say they "need" the extra hp because they live at the higher elevations. More hp is nice and many people like it, but as "necessary"? Nope! I have flown my RV-6 in and out of Leadville, CO. (highest elevation airport in North America) with a very tired (>2500 hr) 150 hp O-320 and a wood F/P prop, in the summer, at noon, with a density altitude of over 13,500' with absolutely no problems.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Last edited by Mel : 06-01-2009 at 06:57 AM.
|

05-31-2009, 07:29 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
Mel,
It also seems to me that when Vans ?upgraded? from the RV6 to the RV7 the expected powerplant was upsized from an O-320 to an O-360. A lot of things got upsized along with it, the stall speed and weight being foremost in my mind. It has often appeared to me that Vans then invented the RV9 to fill gap left by discontinuing the RV6. I don?t think it actually happened like that, but if the O-320 isn?t the best powerplant for the RV7, the RV9 might be the better aircraft for those of us on O-320 sized budgets.
|
If you were blindfolded, and flying in a 6,7, or 9 on a cross country flight, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in level flight. The stick sensitivity in my 6 is more than a 9, but not like a Pitt's. And in reality, the 0360 was the most common engine for the 6's (at least around here) And the sevens allow 200 HP.
My 6A with a 0360/CS prop is about 20 mph faster than a 9A with an 0320/CS combo. Yet the 9A can land around 10 mph slower. The 9A gets a little more mileage per gallon, but I don't like slowing to those real efficient speeds.
While some may compare a 9A to a trainer, it's only valid when comparing to other Van's other aircraft. The performance is far more than what you'd get from a Cessna 172, Piper Warrior/Archer, let alone a gutless Cessna 152!
Note: I do live in mountain country, and prefer the more powerful engine and constant speed prop. But as Mel said, a smaller engine and fixed pitch prop will work at Lead Ville, Colorado. It's just because most RV's have a lot more performance to start with.
L.Adamson
|

05-31-2009, 02:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
Mel,
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
It also seems to me that when Vans ?upgraded? from the RV6 to the RV7 the expected powerplant was upsized from an O-320 to an O-360. A lot of things got upsized along with it, the stall speed and weight being foremost in my mind. It has often appeared to me that Vans then invented the RV9 to fill gap left by discontinuing the RV6. I don?t think it actually happened like that, but if the O-320 isn?t the best powerplant for the RV7, the RV9 might be the better aircraft for those of us on O-320 sized budgets.
So, I will read any more comments however small, argumentative, flippant or irrelevant they may be!
Cheers,
Andrew. 
|
As already mentioned, an RV-9 is likely to only be considered boring when compared to other RV's (even then I don't agree, it is a whole lot of fun with a good stiff wind blowing / very STOL).
Couple of other points...
The RV-6 was always approved for the 180 HP O-360
The RV-9 came before the RV-7
The RV-7 did fill the gap of the RV-6 with most of the improvements that 6 builders requested (bigger engine / IO-360 200 HP, higher gross weight, more fuel, etc.) but the #1 reason for the development of the RV-7 was to turn the RV-6 into a pre-punch kit.
I don't consider the O-320 to be a lower budget engine compared to the O-360. Purchase prices for new engines aren't that much difference. Used prices - you can spend more or less for either engine.
An O-360 can be operated for about the same cost as an O-320.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.
Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
|

05-31-2009, 03:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cape Cod MA.
Posts: 236
|
|
If I Knew Then, what I know Now,
that is "Then" being when I was building the 9A, I would have somehow added enough fuel capacity for at least one more hour of flight, THEN the 9A would be Perfect!!
Jack
N99552
180 hp FI
3 blade MT
105 hours
|

05-31-2009, 04:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: spokane, wa
Posts: 805
|
|
do not make the decision based on acro or not. I don't like acro. Doubt I will ever. But I do like quick airleron control, short approach landings, I occationally get zinged for, quote "doing acro in the patter", even though I don't go upside down ever. I just like banking and pulling, fun. The 7 is very fun and responsive, if you like that kind of plane, build the 7. Mine gets a little touching at times on the level flight, I just reach up and hit the AP and continue without worrying about staying level. As far as going slow for land, with full flaps, mine stalls at 47kts, and clean at 55kts. I think that's pretty good. Did I mention I love my 7a, all the plane I've ever wanted. Just need to get the wife in there now. 27hrs and counting.
|

05-31-2009, 06:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
Mel,
I think, the original poster, one or two others that have posted and certainly myself are asking the questions because we don?t know what to build. Or in my case, what I want to build just isn?t available, so I am faced with a compromise...
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
Andrew. 
|
Andrew,
The first -9 I flew was mine but did my transition training in a 180 HP CS prop RV-6 and to tell the truth, there really is very little difference between the two.
After 230 hours in less than 2 years I can understand the booring comment. I have rolled my -9 more times than I can count and would like to do more but will limit it to rolls.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 AM.
|