new member

garypace · #1 06-01-2007, 10:18 AM

]hi there, im looking at the rv 9a,7a and the 6a just wounding about the best model would be for cross coutnry , from nova scotia to alberta, i ll be working in grande cache.are there any members that live near there.

DeltaRomeo · #2 06-01-2007, 10:36 AM

Welcome, Gary.

The are all fine cross country machines - the gang at Van's always fight over who gets the 9A, though, for the *real* cross-the-entire-country flights (like to SnF from Oregon). Longer wing makes for smoother ride in the bumps.

b,
d

prkaye · #3 06-01-2007, 11:00 AM

Another Canuck! Welcome to the group. I'm building a -9A precisely for the reason that my primary mission will be x-country. Mainly around Ontario (Ottawa,Toronto, Waterloo) with occassional longer trips to explore. I also like that the -9 is probably the best of them for getting into small fields (there's a very small airport with a grass strip near my family's cottage). I also like the added safety afforded by a longer gliding range... I'm constantly paranoid about engine failures when I fly. Also like the lower landing speed (I'm a low-time pilot, just over 120hrs total).
However, I do admit when hearing about people doing aerobatics, I do sometimes feel a twang of jealousy.

n2prise · #4 06-02-2007, 08:57 AM

Welcome aboard! The RV-9A was my choice for the same reasons you have already discerned. I also talked with the guys at Van's booth during the 2002 AirVenture at Oshkosh. When I heard they all liked to fly the RV-9A on the trips from Oregon to air shows around the country, I was sold, literally.

After flying my RV-9A for two years, I am sure it was the right choice. I am now 60 years YOUNG, and not interested in aerobatics. I do find my cross-country flights easy and fun. I had a one-day round trip flight to Florida on May 12th that had the first really bad weather I have encountered in my travels. Even the airliners had second thoughts about trying to penetrate that line of thunderstorms. I landed about 80 miles south of Atlanta to wait out the weather for 45 minutes. One of the guys at the Thomaston, Georgia airport flew an RV-6A and he was jealous of my fuel burn vs. cruising speeds in the RV-9A. He also could not believe how slow my approach was vs. his RV-6A.

Feel free to check out my web site about building and flying my RV-9A. All my cross-country trips are documented in photos, text, and some videos. The best videos are from my 2006 arrival and departure from AirVenture at Oshkosh.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, Tennessee
RV-9A - - N2PZ
Hobbs = 232.0 hours
www.n2prise.org

RickWoodall · #5 06-02-2007, 09:58 AM

Build the 9a! I am just finishing up my lic and really want to own a plane. I did a pile of research and after looking at the zodiac's tired old cessnas etc, ended up at vans. The 7a was what i really wanted but...being low time, safety comes first and the numbers on the 9a cant be beat. Get it ordered.

frankh · #6 06-02-2007, 10:29 AM

I would have to agree.

MY buddy has a 1600ft strip with BIG trees at each end and a curved approach...It really gets my attention when I land there.

Any more than 75kts on approach and you'll use the whole runway...And I personally do not want to get it slower than 70kts.

The 7 XC is OK but certainly for IFR an autopilot is highly desirable....Its a handful in hard IMC.

But then again, when any of my non flying friends ask "so can you do aerobatics in it"...I can say yes (even though I can only do an aileron roll and a Split S......

..)

9a is an excellent choice

Frank

hevansrv7a · #7 06-02-2007, 10:52 AM

You should search the archives. Many of us have beat this subject up a lot.
There is no right answer and definitely no wrong answer.
That said, I chose the -7A for XC.
1. Van's figures do not show a better MPG for the 9. The reverse, but only slightly.
2. The -7 carries 6 more gallons of fuel. That says longer range to me.
3. The -7 is stronger just in case you hit some really bad bumps.

I have no quarrel with most of what the guys who advocate the -9 say. Yes, longer wings will likely give a smoother ride. I don't believe the MPG stuff. Yes, the -9 lands slower. However, faster is better for crosswinds IMHO. Basic geometry.

Van's figures for the 7 and the 9 A model (160 hp)

Solo, the 9 lands 50' shorter, same takeoff distance.
Gross, the 9 lands 50' shorter, takes off 175' shorter.

At gross the 9 climbs 50 fpm better.
55% cruise the 7 is 3 mph faster
75% cruise the 7 is 4 mph faster

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm