[wolfpack21643]

I was about to order a RV 8 tail and get started back in Feb. (bought the pre view plans) But I took my 5 year old daughter for her first airplane ride in March and she loved it so much that now Im thinking a side by side configuration may be better for the two of us (mom is not much of a factor cause she gets air sick even on severe smooth days).

I am thinking that if my daughter wants to learn later on then the 9A will proably be her best bet. I fly for a living and got the aerobatics thing out of my blood along time ago when I flew a Stearman for a living (sight seeing rides) so the acro thing is a non-issue. I have ordered a set of preview plans for a 9A and I am about to order the tail and tools once I make my mind up for good.

I really like the 8 but I dont think it would be fair to my daughter and since this is a large outlay of family money the faimly must be thought of as a whole. I like the 7 but most of our flying will be local with some longer cross countrys mixed in. I think the 9 fits me better due to its cheaper cost to operate and slightly better x-country preformance. But reading all the 7 vs 9 threads on here I keep seeing one of the reasons for going with the 7 is the extra strength in case of extreme turbulance.

My question is, has a RV 9 ever had a wing failure period? If not then why do guys keep harping on the extra strength thing. There should be enough 9 flight hours out there now that if it was going to happen it would have by now.

 

[Mel]

The -9 is a perfectly safe airplane and plenty strong. No reason at all to avoid it unless you want aerobatics.
The "extra" strength of the -7 is for aerobatics only.

 

[Av8torTom]

Same as me

You're considering the 9 for all the same reasons that I chose it. My wife and kids will enjoy the side-by-side seating much better, as will I. Nothing like watching the look on your kid's face when you hand them the controls. Also, with the slotted flaps and slower stall speed I think it makes a better training platform. When I visited Vans, I mentioned the greater strength of the aerobatic variants, and Ken said "the 9 is built in the utility category, and we've never had one fall apart"

 

[docskj]

I finished my 9A two years ago and have about 180 hours on it so far. I debated for quite a while also. Aerobatics were not a issue for me either. I ended up picking the 9 due to its slower stall speed and it being a better IFR platform. I wanted a cross country machine that was comfortable and quick. The 9A fits the bill perfectly. I think you would be happy with either plane but the 9 seems custom made for my purposes. Although I did not pick it for economy, I do appreciate the low fuel burn-- 8 gph at a TAS of 151 kts. I have a carbureted 320 with a CS prop.

I have a lot of experience with tandom seating- my other plane is a Husky. My passengers (kids or wife) really prefer the side by side seating and long trips are much more enjoyable for both of us. Tandom seating is more fun when you are solo.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Van's aircraft. I do believe your decision is all about really knowing your mission.

Steve Johnson
9A
Abilene, Texas

 

[krw5927]

Would you be comfortable putting your family in a utility-category or (gasp!) standard-category Cessna?

 

[MauiLvrs]

I finished my 9A two years ago and have about 180 hours on it so far. I debated for quite a while also. Aerobatics were not a issue for me either. I ended up picking the 9 due to its slower stall speed and it being a better IFR platform. I wanted a cross country machine that was comfortable and quick. The 9A fits the bill perfectly.

Us too.....

 

[longranger]

Would you be comfortable putting your family in a utility-category or (gasp!) standard-category Cessna?

I do it every week or two. 36 states, one province, and one territory. Alaska, Florida, Delaware, and California pretty much define the corners of my range (so far...) I have been at it for 30 years... in a 1955 airplane. Never heard of a wing unexpectedly coming off of a 170, either. Biggest drawback? Kinda slow, but good safe fun nonetheless.

PS: I guess "slow" depends on the mission. When my two daughters were still at home we got the long distance award for flying to a 170 convention in Florida from California. It took us 2.5 days to get there, 3.5 to get home. We had a ball! How long would it take to deliver an 8 AND an 11 year old 1900 nm and return in one RV-9? For a true "family" airplane I'd put my 170 up against any RV other than a -10 any day.

 

[ArVeeNiner]

Ken said "the 9 is built in the utility category, and we've never had one fall apart"

I used to think the 9 was in the Utility category too until I read this:

http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Which says this on the last page:

"In the case of the RV-9A, which is stressed for a Normal Category limit of 3.8 Gs at gross weight, this limit is reached at 180 mph IAS."

This is the only thing official that I have found in writing about the category the 9 is in. Does Van's list the 9 as Utility anywhere in writing?

 

[Vlad]

I was about to order a RV 8 tail and get started back in Feb. (bought the pre view plans) But I took my 5 year old daughter for her first airplane ride in March and she loved it so much that now Im thinking a side by side configuration may be better for the two of us



....

Now imagine your daughter in 10+ years flying airshows with Team RV If I were you I would stick with 8.

 

[wolfpack21643]

Now imagine your daughter in 10+ years flying airshows with Team RV If I were you I would stick with 8.

That thought has crossed my mind. I figure by the time I get the plane done (I am shooting for 5 years) she will be old enough to really want to have some fun (10 years old). She is all about roller coasters already in her young life.

The other nawing thought that runs through my mind is the thought that she will not want to fly in 5 years. My father was a pilot and I flew with him alot up until I was about 10 and then we hit some turbulance one day and I chickened out. I did not have the stones to get back into an airplane until I was around 16. It's funny what scares kids

If the daughter bails out on me later on, then I will fly solo alot more (more 8 freindly). And what ever I build will be a nose gear, just in case she does want to fly.

The kicker is I attend all the Va Tech football games I can each year and that means mild IFR flying on the rare occasion with a buddy to get back home to get back to work. And that makes the 9A look really good. Mabey I could build the 9 then a 3 for messing around

 

[MauiLvrs]

...http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf
Which says this on the last page:
"In the case of the RV-9A, which is stressed for a Normal Category limit of 3.8 Gs at gross weight, this limit is reached at 180 mph IAS."

This is the only thing official that I have found in writing about the category the 9 is in. Does Van's list the 9 as Utility anywhere in writing?

In the construction manual.

The 7&8 many not be in a significantly different design situation where its bottom of their yellow is 193. I'll guess that that is the same Normal Category limit of 3.8 Gs at gross weight.

Remember you don't get Utility or Acrobatic category at full gross wright.

 

[aarvig]

The "is the 9A wing designed strong enough" discussion drives me nuts. The 9A wing is built very strong. Its just not designed for aerobatics thats all. It also has a lower maneuvering speed than a 7A but so what? If you are in turbulence that actually requires you to slow down I guarantee you that you probably would fly slower anyway. If you poll the membership here you will find that not many pilots have ever been in turbulence bad enough to warrant slowing down to maneuvering speed. Not only that, as you are slamming your head on the canopy, banging through turbulent air, the last thing you are going to be thinking is "boy, I sure wish I could squeeze a couple more knots out of this thing." The 9 matches your mission. Don't worry about numbers, buy the plane that matches your mission. I went through the identical mental discussion you have regarding the 9 vs. other vans models. Every time I fly a 9A I am so thankful that I chose to build one.

 

[alpinelakespilot2000]

But reading all the 7 vs 9 threads on here I keep seeing one of the reasons for going with the 7 is the extra strength in case of extreme turbulance.

What's more likely?
A. You will someday fly through turbulence that is sufficient to make a -9 wing fall off but not strong enough to make a -7 wing fall off. Or,
B. You will someday find yourself in an engine-out scenario and would like to be in a plane with a lower sink rate (time), better glide ratio (distance), and slower landing speed (survivability)?
Not saying one plane is safer than the other, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[DanBaier]

Flip a coin?

I went back and forth 9 vs 7? 7 vs 9? "Is that whacko back again with the same questions?..." What to do. I wound up with the 7. Love it and wouldn't change a thing. I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I'd gone 9.

The only significant differences are the HS/Elevator, the wing and the upper limit of recommended engine power.

One is better for aerobatics and the other has a higher aspect ratio and lower stall speed. I will say I really like the handling of the 7 and if you're proficient and current, it's not a problem on instruments.

The difference, flying cross country from New York to North Florida, between a RV7A with 180hp and a RV9A with 160hp works out to be about 15 minutes.

If you could, ride in one of each. Go with what you like. Either way, the airframe is strong - it would be very hard to make a mistake.

Dan

 

[MauiLvrs]

The ...The 9A wing is built very strong. ... The 9 matches your mission. Don't worry about numbers, buy the plane that matches your mission. I went through the identical mental discussion you have regarding the 9 vs. other vans models. Every time I fly a 9A I am so thankful that I chose to build one.

Can't say it much better than that

What's more likely?
A. You will someday fly through turbulence that is sufficient to make a -9 wing fall off but not strong enough to make a -7 wing fall off. Or,
B. You will someday find yourself in an engine-out scenario and would like to be in a plane with a lower sink rate (time), better glide ratio (distance), and slower landing speed?

B! We spend a lot of time over unfriendly territory and that is exactly why we have a 9.