Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
My point...perhaps not clear..is that if you want a great cross country plane then optimally a dual axis autopilot is highly desirable.
Agree completely, whichever plane you have chosen.
My point...perhaps not clear..is that if you want a great cross country plane then optimally a dual axis autopilot is highly desirable.
I knew there was a good defence for all the weight my plane gained in the paint boothAs to stability, remember......................my RV6A is heavy, and your 9A is light and agile. You've probably heard that heavier wing loadings ride better in turbulence. Therefor----------I win!
L.Adamson --- RV6A, and it's agile too...
Kent,
I'm an early builder on the nine and remember when Van published numbers claiming 189mph for the 9A with 160 hp. The CAFE report confirms those numbers also. I never got an explanation for the decrease, but it happened around the time the 7 came out. If you can find any of the old articles you can see for yourself.
(Question: Why 9s gross weight vary from 1600-1750?)
7 has more gross weight (50-200lbs) that allows more useful weight with similar configurations. (Question: Why 9s gross weight vary from 1600-1750?)
7 has more fuel capacity (6 gallons) and has more range because of that, useful in long X-C.
7 has more baggage allowance by 25lbs (CG permitted of course)
From Vans website for RV7 160hp and RV9 160hp both at Gross:
RV7 Speed at 75% 8000ft 191 mph RV7 better by 3 mph
RV9 Speed at 75% 8000ft 188 mph
RV7 Range at 75% 8000ft 835 sm RV7 better by 125 sm
RV9 Range at 75% 8000ft 710 sm
RV7 Rate of climb 1400 fmp
RV9 Rate of climb 1400 fmp
RV7 Ceiling 18,500 ft
RV9 Ceiling 19,000 ft RV9 better by 500 ft
RV7 Stall Speed 58 mph
RV9 Stall Speed 50 mph RV9 better by 8 mph
RV7 Takeoff distance 650 ft
RV9 Takeoff distance 475 ft RV9 better by 175 ft
RV7 Landing distance 500 ft
RV9 Landing distance 450 ft RV9 better by 50 ft
Which one is better... It just depends on what data you want to look at.
I decided on the RV9, because I had no interest in aerobatics. I wanted the most efficient platform for flying cross country and the most stable platform.
I fly mostly by myself or with one other person. I also don't think that I could stay in my plane for more then 710 miles, so the smaller fuel tanks are of no problem.
Yes you can up the power in the RV7 and fly even faster, but the cost goes up in not only building, but in operating cost.
I would be happy flying either plane, but I am 7.5% happier with the RV9A.
Yes, but the 7 was designed to accomodate 180hp which makes it a completely different animal.
Hi,
I'm new, thanks for having me here.
Since i'm digging into the subject heavely I come up with this question, maybe it's better i build a RV9 instead of an RV7 ?? What do you think ?
I love tailwheel planes and it is a must for me as an RV to have it as a taildragger.
Thanks.
Which begs the question, why are there so few RV-9 taildraggers?
That may be the reason why. Funny how Van's compaired the -9A to a C152 and next thing you know, the -9(A) is considered a trainer. I'm still trying to figure that one out.... I kind of think of the 9 as a trainer. It has less G ratings. That's why I didn't concider it.
and IMHO the tail draggers look better than the A's.
Kind of like this...IMO, a lot of RVA's still look better on the ground! They just look more substantial.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Only if they're painted.............and airborne!
IMO, a lot of RVA's still look better on the ground! They just look more substantial.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
I've never flown an RV yet, but I am on the finishing kit of my -6A and I do think they look better than the tail draggers.
The way I heard it on the -7 vs. -9 thing was this: The RV-7/7A is like the -9/9A, but for men.
I've never flown an RV yet, but I am on the finishing kit of my -6A and I do think they look better than the tail draggers.
The way I heard it on the -7 vs. -9 thing was this: The RV-7/7A is like the -9/9A, but for men.
Funny I was always told you needed one of these
to fly a -6A/-7A/-9A and the -3/-4/-6/-7/-9 are for men.
That's a good question. The RV-9 is one of the easiest tail draggers I have ever flown and IMHO the tail draggers look better than the A's.
It is lighter than the A's and because of the low landing speeds, crosswinds are a non-issue...
This is certainly true and can be an asset. It can also cause rudder, skid or other damage if not done just right.The "A" model will land slightly slower because it can attain a higher angle of attack...
Kind of like this
compared to this
I have flown a friend's Mono Wheel Europa, does that count?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.
We count different, you and me. It looks like four wheels to me.I have flown a friend's Mono Wheel Europa...
...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?...
Of course NONE of this stuff is significant enough to override the fact that you should build and fly what YOU want.
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.
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.
Andrew,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.
After yesterday's flight to Aircraft Spruce, there was exactly 350.0 hours on the Hobbs. So I spent this morning changing the oil and retorquing the prop bolts. Something I do every 50 hrs.
As I reflect on the past 350hrs, I can remember many different flying situations and adventures. We have been to the Bahamas, Key West, PA, MD, AL, NC, and all over GA and FL. Lately, I have been teaching my kids, 13 and 15, basic flying skills. There are so many other adventures in the future including OSH 2009.
I can honestly say that in all that time flying "Catalina", I never, ever regretted my decision to build a -9. I still love everything about the plane. She can be as tame or exciting as this nearly 44 year-old wants her to be.
Bruce,Steve,
I have an Ed Sterba wood prop 70x79. I have never had an issue with the prop bolts becoming too loose or tight due to shrinkage/expansion of the wood. I cut the safety wire, back off the bolts, retorque, and resafety as a matter of routine every 50 hours.
As I wrote before - absolutely no regrets with any of my decisions regarding my -9's equipment. Don't want to add anything or take anything away.
I did some checking on my prop, Hartzell, and I was told, once on, no more work. 3000tbo, I love this prop. I think I have to grease it once a year. No biggy.
1. When Bill R. says his RV9 was so close to the RV6 his did his transition training in, I still find it puzzling why Vans went to the trouble of developing the RV9 when its performance and handling is so close to the RV6 which in turn is reported to be very close to the RV7.
Andrew,1. When Bill R. says his RV9 was so close to the RV6 his did his transition training in, I still find it puzzling why Vans went to the trouble of developing the RV9 when its performance and handling is so close to the RV6 which in turn is reported to be very close to the RV7.
...
Cheers,
Andrew.