No-flap landings in the 9 are a total non-event handling-wise, and the effect on landing distance doesn’t appear to be massive. Obviously with flaps installed it’s better to use them, but I really don’t think they’d be missed all that much if the plane didn’t have them.
I have a CS prop and also have zero problems slowing down in the pattern. Which is good because the flap extension speed on the -9 is relatively low (the airplane’s only real quirk, IMHO, and it’s pretty minor).
Actually, having done a few no-flap landings for practice, I’m beginning to think a 9 with a constant speed prop could do without flaps entirely, like a Cessna 120.
Come to think of it, that might be a good idea!
I can’t tell you how long I’ve been looking for an answer on this, including calling and emailing Vans. I’ve been specifically asking for VFE on the initial flap settings. Every time “we only publish full flap speed limit and you should use that for all flaps”. This has become more of an issue now that I’m training for IFR. Difficult in the 9 to lose speed an altitude without any flaps in, and I really don’t like flying slow early in an approach.From the Van’s construction manual.
So for the -9/9As, the flap limit speeds are 100 MPH/87 Kts up to 15 degrees, and 90 MPH/78 Kts to full flaps (32 degrees).
In my experience the only way to slow the 9 down is to pitch up slightly, once I see less than 100kts, I will just touch some flaps in which starts the slowing down process even further where I can put more flaps in.
Do you recommend programming the flap position toggle to momentary/push and hold for movement? Mine is currently programmed for a flap 1,2,3 position. Recently I’ve noticed that the positions cycle just fine on the ground, but I have to hold the switch down after selecting flaps 3 position to reach full flaps while in flight. Hoping it’s not a sign that the flap motors are on the way out.
I had this problem with my original flap motor from PH aviation (Never used the ones from Vans).
Why oh why?
I’m assuming the flap area on the 9 is quite a bit larger than that of the shorter-winged aerobatic variants, which is likely the reason for the lower full flap Vfe. What I couldn’t understand is why they wouldn’t openly publish Vfe for different, common flap angles. Descending and bleeding speed down to 78 knots takes an awful long time in my plane (IO-320 fixed pitch prop). By the time that happens I have to dump full flaps. Hard to fly a “stabilized approach” at a reasonable speed when you don’t have the ability to step the flaps in gradually. A nightmare for an RV pilot has to be a Cessna calling you during an approach asking you to speed up!
I’m beginning to think reprogramming my flap switch as a momentary switch without preset flap positions would give me more control to ease them in as you described. Being able to put in a touch of flaps at 100kts would be a huge help.
With a constant speed prop, I've found that throttling back to 15 inches with prop set at 2300 RPM as I enter downwind will have me at 80 knots by the time I turn base. If I'm high as I'm approaching the pattern, I will throttle back sooner and point the nose down a bit to get to pattern altitude. As I pitch back up when I get there, the speed fall off rapidly to 80 knots. On most runways, I use flaps more for pitching me forward enough to see better over the nose.
I have 250 hours in the 9A. it doesnt get easier.
From the Van’s construction manual.
So for the -9/9As, the flap limit speeds are 100 MPH/87 Kts up to 15 degrees, and 90 MPH/78 Kts to full flaps (32 degrees).
You’re welcome. It is disconcerting that Van’s Support seems to be unaware of what some of the Limit Speeds of their airplanes are or what they publish in their construction manuals. I wonder if it is because of the outflow of experienced Van’s employees, many of whom derived those numbers and wrote the manuals.
That seems to be the case. Multiple people there at Van’s went by the figures posted on the website for full flaps and stated that if that’s what the engineers said to stick to it and that they’re unable to make any other recommendations. I get it from a liability standpoint, but doesn’t really jive with the experimental spirit especially when the engineers have, in fact, provided more information and they’re simply unaware of it.
