If you don't plan on "wringing it out" the 9 is a great choice. The low end performance is great without sacrificing too much, speed-wise, over the other RV's. The wing is great, the 9 and 10 style wing, outperforms the conventional RV wing hands down. HP being equal of course.
The -9 and -10 do not share the same airfoil. The -10 uses a 23000 series airfoil, same as other RV's, except for the -9, which has a one-off Roncz airfoil.
With a custom-designed airfoil section, we hope to achieve a somewhat wider range of laminar flow than with the NACA 230 airfoils we have been using.
The -10 airfoil seems to be a bit different than the others. Based on this from Van's site:...While the -9 and -10 don't share the same airfoil I don't think the -10 uses the 230 series airfoil. From Van's site about the -10,
Based on that, I'm not sure if they are saying "slightly different than the Roncz or 230 series. For some reason, Van's has not been forthcoming with the -10's airfoil.Van's said:... Two-seat RVs (the RV-9/9A excepted) use the proven NACA 230 series airfoil. These are turbulent flow airfoils with very low pitching moments. They do not require perfectly smooth surfaces to achieve good performance, so they remain almost unaffected by bugs and rain. The low pitching moment allows cruise trim drag to be kept to a minimum. The RV-9/9A uses a new Roncz airfoil design with a slightly longer wing span, shorter chord and slotted flaps for better low speed performance. The RV-10 uses a similar wing, but with a slightly different airfoil.
Mike,
Can you point me to plans for the long range RV9 tanks?
Thanks,
Tom
I know this goes against the grain but I like to fly & going a little slower gives me more time in the plane.
Besides, its just plain relaxing and saves fuel.
While that's very true, I'll quote here a good friend of mine with a Bonanza who runs max power everywhere he goes - "I didn't buy a fast airplane to go slow."
The -10 airfoil seems to be a bit different than the others. ......
Based on that, I'm not sure if they are saying "slightly different than the Roncz or 230 series. For some reason, Van's has not been forthcoming with the -10's airfoil.
Not that it really matters, both the -9 and the -10 fly great with their wings.
Van's actually has quite a bit of info on the RV-10 wing along with their decision process: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int1.htm
Bob
...The most notable difference that I've seen, is the landing speed. The 9 is around 10 mph lower. However, my 6A is about 20 mph faster. I can also climb faster in the 8000 - 10000' levels, but we haven't compared up around 12000' to see if the 9's airfoil actually has an advantage.
...
As to fuel usage, my 180 throttled back, can match the 9's numbers. With a constant speed prop acting as a "brake" in the landing sequence, the 9 will fall through the flare just as easy as the 6............if you don't watch those airspeeds ! It's no longer a "floater" with a C/S.... and you can come down & slow down fast if desired. Other than that, the 9's just look a lot larger, even though it's just more wing and a higher tail. Fuse is close to the same, space wise.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Yes, but Larry have you flown a -9 with the 180 hp engine or the -6 with a 160 hp engine? Saying your 180 hp CS prop equipped -6A is 20 mph faster than a -9A (160 hp FP?) is an apples to watermelon comparison.
...........Like a famous person around here once said "build the plane you want not what others want"
Me too!Bill, I eagerly await............your review of your upgraded 9. I do believe you'll like all that power!!!
L.Adamson --- RV6A
It was very simple for me:
I have no interest in acro,
I only needed two seats,
I wanted a metal airplane,
and I wanted it to be a popular kit, so I could get help when needed...