What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Second first flight

N916K

N916K

Well Known Member
I made my second first flight in my RV9 yesturday. On March 5, 2005 I flew it as an RV9A then yesturday, 240 flight hours later, flew it as an RV9.

If anyone is on the fence about a 9A vs a 9, let me push you off the fence. The 9 is way easier to land than a Piper Cub, especially after getting some training from Mike Seager.
 
Cool!
How hard was the conversion ... or did you just take off the nosewheel and put a bunch of lead in the tail :D ?

T.
 
Cam,

That is the type of stuff I like to hear.

With luck my -9 will be ready to fly in the spring. Started on the baffling today.
 
Way to go Cam!

Piece o' cake, huh. Add another -9 the registry. That's cool that you made the conversion. It is probably more fun to fly now. I just went over my 40hrs today and gave my daughter, son, and good friend Dave their first rides in my RV. Greased 3 wheel landings in the process.

Congrats,
 
Congrats

I've been wondering what ever happened with your conversion. Glad to hear it worked out.
Since you are flying the same plane converted to a tail dragger you will have to let us know if you have gained a couple of knots.
Give us another post after a few more hours of flying with an update of your overall opinion.

Welcome to the very small 9 "club".
 
TShort said:
Cool!
How hard was the conversion ... or did you just take off the nosewheel and put a bunch of lead in the tail :D ?

T.
Click to expand...

The conversion wasn't too bad. The biggest problem I had was the first engine mount that Vans sent me was drilled wrong. Of course we found that out after the engine was installed. That mount took 4 months to get. The second mount arrived rather quick. I believe there is a guy out there that was about to get a finish kit and their mount was taken out and shipped to me. Thanks who ever you are.

I haven't got the gear leg fairing on so I don't have any speed numbers, but I'll post them when I have the plane all back together.

Right now I'm just trying to keep landings to the same number of approaches.
 
Cam,

One other thought for you.

What's the difference in empty weight between the two gear configurations?
 
N941WR said:
What's the difference in empty weight between the two gear configurations?
Click to expand...

I used two different scales so the numbers don't really compare that well, but I figure I lost about 20 pounds with the conversion. The CG went back right at 1 inch to 80 inches.
 
N916K said:
I used two different scales so the numbers don't really compare that well, but I figure I lost about 20 pounds with the conversion. The CG went back right at 1 inch to 80 inches.
Click to expand...
This makes me wonder how my -9 tip-up will come out with the lighter engine and Catto prop.

With putting moving the main gear forward of the CG, I would have thought the CG would have moved forward, not back, even with the tail wheel way back there.

I'm still hoping for 1040 empty (or less).
 
N941WR said:
This makes me wonder how my -9 tip-up will come out with the lighter engine and Catto prop.

With putting moving the main gear forward of the CG, I would have thought the CG would have moved forward, not back, even with the tail wheel way back there.

I'm still hoping for 1040 empty (or less).
Click to expand...

I'm less than 1040 with everything but the paint. You should be well under that. I believe that Stan's RV-9 with an O235 was like 960 or something close to that. I would assume that the o290 would be somewhere between the o235 and the o320.

The engine mount for the o290 is furthor forward, right? If so, I wouldn't think you would have a CG problem.
 
Cam,

That is all good news.

You are correct, the O-290 uses the O-235 engine mount and cowl. This mount is a full 12" from the firewall to the face of the conical mounts.

You are correct on the engine weight of the O-290. It is supposed to be 265 lbs, which is around 20 lighter than the O-320. (Please correct me, if I'm wrong.)

960 lbs for an O-235 powered -9?! That's outstanding!

Maybe I should lower my goals. ;)
 
RV-9 to RV-9A conversion...

Just to set things straight, the first conversion on an RV-9 was going the other way. Van's prototype RV-9 was made into an RV-9A.

As for my choice to build an RV-9A, I like the visibility during ground operations for sure. There is also no concern about ground loops. But the biggest deal is the ability to maintain the CG in the safe range with a heavy load. I was able to show weight & balance to the DAR that my RV-9A could be loaded to 2000 pounds with the CG range within limits. I flew to Oshkosh this year at that gross weight.

I also remember a world traveler talking about flying his RV-6A to Europe from Texas. He got the airplane loaded for the trip and started to get in by putting his foot on the step - - then the tail hit the ground on the ramp. He reloaded his airplane to correct the CG, then departed for his trip.

A group of RV's from the Huntsville, Alabama area took a trip out west a few years ago and one of the tail-dragger pilots reported an aft CG concern with handling during the flight. Let's face it, you overload a tail-dragger, the tail has no place to go to warn you before the wheels leave the ground. http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/west_trip.html

Are you wondering why I would want to have a 2,000-pound gross weight on my RV-9A? I have a Hartzell constant-speed prop up front, plus some extra weight for a stereo system, ILS, etc. It all adds up to an empty weight of 1,184 pounds. That's about 100 pounds over what Van's considers typical. With my 230 pounds in the left seat, full fuel, and another big guy like me in there, that leaves about 100 pounds of baggage to get the gross weight closing in on 2,000 pounds. I also placarded a second set of V-speeds for max gross weight operations and they are also published in the aircraft manual.

And of course, the canopy is a slider with the Meske tip-up baggage access modification. How else could I load that thing so full for Oshkosh camping?!

So, for you tail-dragger enthusiasts - - GO FOR IT! As for me, I am an older, conservative, non-aerobatic pilot, and like the lower insurance premiums that come with my nose wheel. It was just one more reason I chose the RV-9A.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A N2PZ "Enterprise"
Hobbs = 210.2 hours since June 2005
www.n2prise.org
 
n2prise said:
Van's prototype RV-9 was made into an RV-9A.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the RV6 that was used to make the prototype RV9A? I believe that plane was converted several times over. The first RV9 built from kit parts is Vans daily flyier, that one wasn't converted.


[/QUOTE=n2prise]
Let's face it, you overload a tail-dragger, the tail has no place to go to warn you before the wheels leave the ground. [/QUOTE]

I sure hope you are kidding. If you are truely using this method to determine CG, maybe you should get some scales. The difference in CG between the A and TW 9 is very small. One doesn't carry any more baggage than the other before exceeding CG limits.

Jerry, don't get me wrong. I really liked my 9A, it was a great plane with wonderful ground handling. I converted mine for personal reasons and I hold nothing against nosewheel RV's.
 
N916K said:
Are you talking about the RV6 that was used to make the prototype RV9A? I believe that plane was converted several times over. The first RV9 built from kit parts is Vans daily flyier, that one wasn't converted.
Click to expand...
Cam,

Van's first -9 was a tri-gear O-235 powered ship. This was when they were all just called RV-9's. Then they came out with the TW version, and the -9A and the -9 designation showed up.

The original -9A was lost in a weather related accident on the way to SnF a few years back.

Van's realizing there was a very small market for -9's, converted theirs to a -9A.

That's the story as I understand it but I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top