I did some searching and found info on RV-7 vs RV-6 visibility, but what about RV-9 vs RV-7? I'm interested not only in taxi visibility over the front, but ground visibility in-flight over the front and back of the wings. I know they have very different wings, so how does that affect differences in visibility, if any?
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Visibility comparisons RV-9 vs RV-7
- Thread starter diamond
- Start date
Like Bill, I have flown both of them (7 & 9A, anyway.) In flight, no difference. It could be argued that the tip-up has better visibility than the slider (have never flown a tip-up,) but there is no difference noticeable 7 to 9, or 7A to 9A. I suppose the 9 wing offers a little better visibility over the leading edge, but I never noticed it. Over the nose on the ground, Bill knows better than I.
Bob
Bob
Casey Stewart
Well Known Member
Simple solution...
Go fast!!!!!!!
Anything that was out of your view a second ago is suddenly... Visible
Go fast!!!!!!!
Anything that was out of your view a second ago is suddenly... Visible
jjconstant
Well Known Member
When a friend with a 9A offered me a ride, I immediately noticed that the view down was better in his 9A than my 7A. He flies from the right seat so the difference was very apparent. It's not a huge different, but enough to notice right off the bat.
The geometry of the 9 leading edge to seat location is such that you are closer to the leading edge of a 9 vs. a 7. Maybe another 10 degrees more down angle...
Jeremy Constant
RV7A just out of 1rst annual
The geometry of the 9 leading edge to seat location is such that you are closer to the leading edge of a 9 vs. a 7. Maybe another 10 degrees more down angle...
Jeremy Constant
RV7A just out of 1rst annual
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
skinny wing
Yup, the wing is 'skinnier' so it blocks a little bit less view of the ground near the cabin....and more out at the tip of course. ( higher aspect ratio)
Seems any time you want to take a pic or longer look at something below, you'll bank and circle the spot anyway, so the difference is likely moot.
(plus in a -7 you can circle at over 60 degrees of bank if you really want!...okay, or upside down!)
Yup, the wing is 'skinnier' so it blocks a little bit less view of the ground near the cabin....and more out at the tip of course. ( higher aspect ratio)
Seems any time you want to take a pic or longer look at something below, you'll bank and circle the spot anyway, so the difference is likely moot.
(plus in a -7 you can circle at over 60 degrees of bank if you really want!...okay, or upside down!)
N941WR
Legacy Member
Ummm, why can't you do a 60 degree bank in a -9 or a 172?...(plus in a -7 you can circle at over 60 degrees of bank if you really want!...okay, or upside down!)
As for the upside down thing, I will remain quiet as that horse has been beaten into the ground, most recently on the "Roll an RV-10" thread.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
you can bank on it...just not over 60
Well Bill, being a -9a driver, I am just being cognizant of the limits of our aircraft.....and further, the legal part; I'm pretty sure here north of 49...the regs says something like;
aerobatic manoeuvre
(1) A manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60?, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying.
...although it is one of those grey areas where you can find regs and inspectors who think its 45, or 75, or you need a chute, or etc.etc. - and sometimes it's quoted with a pitch angle, sometimes not.
the inconsistency is Pretty dang annoying really.
Well Bill, being a -9a driver, I am just being cognizant of the limits of our aircraft.....and further, the legal part; I'm pretty sure here north of 49...the regs says something like;
aerobatic manoeuvre
(1) A manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60?, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying.
...although it is one of those grey areas where you can find regs and inspectors who think its 45, or 75, or you need a chute, or etc.etc. - and sometimes it's quoted with a pitch angle, sometimes not.
the inconsistency is Pretty dang annoying really.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Is the issue the aircraft's limits or the limits of the regulations?
The -9 can carve a turn steaper than 60* easy enough and there is no regulation that prohibs acro in a -9. In fact, my FSDO changed my Op Limits to include when they realized that it was "prohbited" in the first limits. The guy said, "Oh, those RV's are all capable of acro, let me change this line so you can do whatever you want." I just kept my mouth shut and the FAA now allows me to do whatever I want in my -9. Of course, I limited the testing in that area but I could, if I wanted to.
Interestingly enough, with my new Op Limits for the new engine, I was prohibited from acro in my five hour phase I but it was put back in for my new Phase II.
So, it looks like I have an Acro -9, if I elect to put it back into Phase I, do some acro, and sign it back into Phase II.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating anyone perform acro in the RV-9(A), so don't jump on me.
The -9 can carve a turn steaper than 60* easy enough and there is no regulation that prohibs acro in a -9. In fact, my FSDO changed my Op Limits to include when they realized that it was "prohbited" in the first limits. The guy said, "Oh, those RV's are all capable of acro, let me change this line so you can do whatever you want." I just kept my mouth shut and the FAA now allows me to do whatever I want in my -9. Of course, I limited the testing in that area but I could, if I wanted to.
Interestingly enough, with my new Op Limits for the new engine, I was prohibited from acro in my five hour phase I but it was put back in for my new Phase II.
So, it looks like I have an Acro -9, if I elect to put it back into Phase I, do some acro, and sign it back into Phase II.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating anyone perform acro in the RV-9(A), so don't jump on me.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
what's in a name?
Seriously Bill, this is drifting the thread a lot.....
..since you asked a question, I thought it polite to answer.
U.S. and Canadian regs are different, so let's take that into consideration.
You can probably do more than me, from that viewpoint.
It's hard to find the diefinite regs...they are poorly written, with a lot of grey, which is bad, to say the least. ( especially when it comes to amateur-built.)
Our regs say that if I bank 61 degrees, I am performing an aerobatic maneuver. If this happens to be in an aircraft where the designer has said somewhere, "not ..........for aerobatics" then I am in violation, and I'm not gonna risk my insurance and an enforcement action, because it would be very difficult to fight, even if I were flying a +/- 10g homebuilt Pitts.
No doubt the -9 aircraft can do certain maneuvers;
whether it is permitted, recommended, endorsed, or legal are questions beyond my scope to define further.
appreciate the chance to explore this.
Seriously Bill, this is drifting the thread a lot.....
..since you asked a question, I thought it polite to answer.
U.S. and Canadian regs are different, so let's take that into consideration.
You can probably do more than me, from that viewpoint.
It's hard to find the diefinite regs...they are poorly written, with a lot of grey, which is bad, to say the least. ( especially when it comes to amateur-built.)
Our regs say that if I bank 61 degrees, I am performing an aerobatic maneuver. If this happens to be in an aircraft where the designer has said somewhere, "not ..........for aerobatics" then I am in violation, and I'm not gonna risk my insurance and an enforcement action, because it would be very difficult to fight, even if I were flying a +/- 10g homebuilt Pitts.
No doubt the -9 aircraft can do certain maneuvers;
whether it is permitted, recommended, endorsed, or legal are questions beyond my scope to define further.
appreciate the chance to explore this.
kentb
Well Known Member
Hummmm....
When I got my demo ride from Vans, I wasn't sure if I wanted to build a 9 or a 6 (7 was not out yet). I was taken from a ride in the 9A demo plane. We went up to 5000 ft and I flew around for a while. It was time to head back, so I turned the stick over to my pilot. As we turned back to Aurora, I asked how steep a bank could the 9 do. In response my pilot took the plane into a 90 degree bank to the left for 1/2 a turn and then rolled right into another 90 degree bank. We never had more then 1.5 Gs as he let the plane drop in altitude as we did this maneuver.
I won't say the pilots name in case this is considered acrobatic, it definitely was exciting and I decided that I didn't need anymore thrills that we had just had.
I have done banks in excess of 60 degrees by myself and I just watch the G meter and don't go over 2 Gs.
Kent
When I got my demo ride from Vans, I wasn't sure if I wanted to build a 9 or a 6 (7 was not out yet). I was taken from a ride in the 9A demo plane. We went up to 5000 ft and I flew around for a while. It was time to head back, so I turned the stick over to my pilot. As we turned back to Aurora, I asked how steep a bank could the 9 do. In response my pilot took the plane into a 90 degree bank to the left for 1/2 a turn and then rolled right into another 90 degree bank. We never had more then 1.5 Gs as he let the plane drop in altitude as we did this maneuver.
I won't say the pilots name in case this is considered acrobatic, it definitely was exciting and I decided that I didn't need anymore thrills that we had just had.
I have done banks in excess of 60 degrees by myself and I just watch the G meter and don't go over 2 Gs.
Kent
apkp777
Well Known Member
Hi Kent,
My Van's demo pilot had me do the same. He told me to "put it on it's edge". Frankly, the -9 is as "aerobatic" as I want.
Back on subject though, I have flown both the -9 and the -7 and I doubt the visibility is too much different between them. The builder has the ability to compensate for their size with the seat cushions. The wings are about the same.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I agree 100%. In the US, it is based on the builder, not the designer. Thus, with the OP limits in hand, I'm free to go pull the wings off, if I want.
That's exactly how I feel. In fact, I would fair to guess that most -6's & -7's never see any acro at all and as word continues to get out regarding how nice the -9 flies, it would not surprise me if they eventually outsell the -7.
