A

aelkins

Active Member
Let's pretend that you had been been looking around for a nice 6A.
Then a nice 9A became available for an agreeable price.

9A with a 0320 D1A 160hp Lycoming
Very low time plane with basic avionics.

So, what are the pros/cons of the 9A compared to the 6A?
I reviewed the performance stats, and if both has 160HP engines, there doesn't appear to be that much speed gap. (well, a few knots)
For those that fly 9As, do you find that the 9A handle aerobatics less responsive? (refering to the Van's website comments)

Mind you, not looking to start a debate.. just positive feedback on a possible purchasing decision.
As always, THANKS for your experienced feedback.
 
Here's a good thread to check out about 7 vs 9.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=7039&page=1&pp=10

It comes down to the type of flying you think you'll do. The 9A's mission is X/C flying- economics, safety, control feel, low end handling, are all optimized for this. Its not designed to be as good at the fun factor, but it is still and RV and a blast to fly. Conversely, the 6 wasn't desgned to be as good at the X/C factor as the 9, but it still does it well -- its just not as optimized for it.
 
OneTwoSierra said:
Here's a good thread to check out about 7 vs 9.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=7039&page=1&pp=10

It comes down to the type of flying you think you'll do. The 9A's mission is X/C flying- economics, safety, control feel, low end handling, are all optimized for this. Its not designed to be as good at the fun factor, but it is still and RV and a blast to fly. Conversely, the 6 wasn't desgned to be as good at the X/C factor as the 9, but it still does it well -- its just not as optimized for it.
Click to expand...

The RV-6 was designed as a side by side traveling machine that can do areobatics while the RV-9 was designed as a low power trainer that grew a larger engine capability (probably to increase sales). It is an airplane with some range and speed and thus is a good cross country airplane but it is not as fast as an RV-6/6A. I'm not sure why Van orphaned the "6" which is by far the most popular airplane he designed but I suspect it was a broad base growth business decision. I flew Jim Younkin's RV-9A and my RV-6A. My opinion is that the RV-9A flies more like a certified airplane than the "6" but it is slower. The RV-6 was harder to build and it is possible that the average build quality of the "for sale" RV-9 population is better than the "for sale" RV-6 population. If speed is not everything for you then you probably will never regret buying an RV-9/9A.
 
Aerobatics

It depends who's flying whether or not you can do aerobatics in almost any airplane.

Bob Hoover rolls and loops the Aero Comander...not designed for aerobatics.

Lears, Citations and Cessna 210 's have been rolled, some looped.....not designed for aerobatics.

Cessna Agwagons and Agtrucks have been looped and rolled by me and my former boss...not designed for aerobatics.

Just because an airplane is "not designed for aerobatics" doesn't mean it cannot do aerobatics. A Cessna 210 is a great IFR platform and was designed for high speed cruising, but since it has ailerons and a decent roll rate, it can do nice barrel rolls as my boss did.

An RV9 has a pretty decent roll rate, so.......... :D

The placarded prohibition against aerobatics has behind it a possible poor/no spin recovery flaw or some other quirk. Does the RV 9 manual say "Aerobatics prohibited?"
 
The longer wing and larger horizontal tail of the -9 is not stressed for aerobatic "g" loading.

Bob, the main reason Van dropped the -6 is; He already had a pre-punched wing kit (RV-8) and a pre-punched fuselage kit (RV-9). By combining these 2 into the RV-7, he no longer had to produce the -6 kit.
 
Having flown both the 6 and 9 a fair bit, I'd say that if I was going to buy a flying RV with a 160HP engine in it, I would get a 9 if I could find one. If I wanted more horses and speed, I would go with a 6 (buy) or 7/8 (build). They are all good airplanes though!

My opinion only, take it for what it's worth...

mcb
 
Bob Axsom said:
The RV-6 was designed as a side by side traveling machine that can do areobatics while the RV-9 was designed as a low power trainer...
Click to expand...

Bob, I respect your work on your RV and love for and contribution to the sport, but you're just wrong. According to Van's...

"The RV-9/9A is designed to be an easy-to-fly, economical, versatile sportplane. That?s not too surprising, since all previous Van?s airplanes, including the the RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, and RV-8 are versatile, economical sportplanes, too.
...
We have noticed that blazing speed and ?wring-it-out? aerobatics are not primary interests for many pilots. Their day-to-day flying consists of local trips and short cross-countries, with only occasional long flights. The RV-9/9A was designed to do its best in this environment.
..."
 
safety and the 9(A)

Here's something I've considered (and please correct me if I'm in error)
Seems like there's 2 opposing safety issues at hand.
Yes, the 9(A) can be landed more easily - and perhaps more crucially, more slowly. Obviously I would prefer to be in the 9 for any "unscheduled" landing in a field somewhere. On the other hand, one thing that I find a little unsettling about the 9(A) is the big spread between the V(NE) and the V(A).
There's a lengthy discussion about this in PDF format somewhere. The jist of it is that you need to be careful about what you do in the 9(A) cause if your really screamin' you could overstress this airplane quite a bit more easily than you could, say, my Archer. In contrast, You'd have to work a whole lot harder to break a 6(A).

Discuss.....

S_tones
 
That's a good point, the two airplanes definitely are built around different piloting styles. The 6 is meant to take acro and hence is built stronger, with a correspondingly lower chance of exceeding limitations unintentionally. The 9 is meant for guys like me who have no intention of doing acro and just want a sweet XC ride. I think it boils down to the pilot knowing his limitations and those of the aircraft, more than anything else.

In trying to engineer an idiot-proof aircraft, all you'll do is engineer a bigger idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.