Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Why a 9?
- Thread starter Av8torTom
- Start date
7AlphaMike
I'm New Here
?9?
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.
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.
N941WR
Legacy Member
FYI - 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.
As for why a -9, it is a great plane, as are the other RV's, slow speed, fast speed, good useful load, strong, easy to build, etc. Bad back can't take the acro, so why build a plane that will only hurt me more.
As for why a TW vs. NW -9, different question. I had my TW endorsement so why not? I think TW's look better. I wanted to visit friends with grass strips and not worry about NW problems. They are ever so slightly faster. They can take a smaller engine and still go faster than my old T-Craft.
The question is kind of like asking, why buy a Toyota vs. Nissan vs. Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge. Even the worst car or truck you buy today is light-years ahead of anything you could have bought 10 to 20 years ago.
Jeff R
Well Known Member
Why a 9 compared to something else?
Compared to a 7, I am a low time pilot who has never flown a complex airplane (idefined as CS prop in this case) and who doesn't have an overwhelming desire to do acro. I liked the slower landing speeds (more survivable in the event of an off airport landing) compared to the 7. It has more speed and climb performance than anything I have ever flown so the better high speed performance of the -7 series was not a major consideration.
As for easy to build, well, I think it is not significantly different from a 7, so if you are comparing the 7 to a 9, that is not a factor.
Compared to an 8? I wanted side by side. You give up some speed, but you don't have to compromise on your instrument panel and you have more room if you typically fly alone.
Compared to a 10? Couldn't get insurance without a bunch more hours! Much more expensive to build and operate, and I would rarely fly with more than a single passenger.
Compared to a 12? The 12 wasn't out when I made my selection. But, even if it were, I wanted better performance.
Compared to a non-RV? The RVs have about the best builders support network out there. You can ask a question and might literally have an anwer in minutes.
Compared to a 7, I am a low time pilot who has never flown a complex airplane (idefined as CS prop in this case) and who doesn't have an overwhelming desire to do acro. I liked the slower landing speeds (more survivable in the event of an off airport landing) compared to the 7. It has more speed and climb performance than anything I have ever flown so the better high speed performance of the -7 series was not a major consideration.
As for easy to build, well, I think it is not significantly different from a 7, so if you are comparing the 7 to a 9, that is not a factor.
Compared to an 8? I wanted side by side. You give up some speed, but you don't have to compromise on your instrument panel and you have more room if you typically fly alone.
Compared to a 10? Couldn't get insurance without a bunch more hours! Much more expensive to build and operate, and I would rarely fly with more than a single passenger.
Compared to a 12? The 12 wasn't out when I made my selection. But, even if it were, I wanted better performance.
Compared to a non-RV? The RVs have about the best builders support network out there. You can ask a question and might literally have an anwer in minutes.
drycreek
Active Member
I decided on the -9 because the slow speed handling appealed to me. I also don't have any plans for doing acro. I went with the TW because I will be flying off of grass. Plus, the RV-9 has to be the best looking RV. 
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,
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,
N941WR
Legacy Member
The -10 airfoil seems to be a bit different than the others. Based on this from Van's site:
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:
Not that it really matters, both the -9 and the -10 fly great with their wings.
apkp777
Well Known Member
I agree with all of the reason's listed for choosing the -9. I am not "in to" aerobatics (maybe someday), I really wanted a well handling cross country machine that I could use to get my kids their private. I also wanted a plane that could operate out of short, unimproved grass strips. I wanted something economical and with good performance. The -9 was a good choice for me.
I think a fair question is, "why did you build a -7 instead of a -9?" I am surprised more people don't choose the -9. Especially the tail wheel -9. I think it is an amazing airplane.
I think a fair question is, "why did you build a -7 instead of a -9?" I am surprised more people don't choose the -9. Especially the tail wheel -9. I think it is an amazing airplane.
vlittle
Well Known Member
I'm going to be a contrarian here.
I love my 9a. When I built it, I had visions of long cross-countries over the mountains, and it's perfect for that.
It has the low-speed handling and glide ration that makes it easy to fly.
What I discovered, however, is that when I became part of the RV community, most of the others were 7's or 8's (both tail and nose dragger). Quickly, I discovered formation flying and most of my hours are in formation now.
Sooo, I kinda wish I had built a 7 or 7A to fit in speed-wise (landing is the issue) with the other RVs.
So now I'm building a Rocket!
V
I love my 9a. When I built it, I had visions of long cross-countries over the mountains, and it's perfect for that.
It has the low-speed handling and glide ration that makes it easy to fly.
What I discovered, however, is that when I became part of the RV community, most of the others were 7's or 8's (both tail and nose dragger). Quickly, I discovered formation flying and most of my hours are in formation now.
Sooo, I kinda wish I had built a 7 or 7A to fit in speed-wise (landing is the issue) with the other RVs.
So now I'm building a Rocket!
V
apkp777
Well Known Member
Here is my reasoning when it came to speed. Yes the -9 is slow by comparison to other models. But had I gone with a -7 with an objective for speed, I would have also needed a o-360, but if you are going with a 360 you might as well have a IO-360, since speed becomes as an objective more is always best so the 360 being really not all that fast, you need to add a CS prop and then realizing that the 360 is still a dog compared to the 390, upgrade to that as well. Pretty soon I would have build Stephan Christopher's plane and my $65k -9 would have cost me $95.
For me I just had to "fold" and stick with a basic -9. Maybe Stephan will sell me his -7 when he's bored flying at 215mph and upgrades to a Rocket.
For me I just had to "fold" and stick with a basic -9. Maybe Stephan will sell me his -7 when he's bored flying at 215mph and upgrades to a Rocket.
mculver
Well Known Member
After looking at both a -7 and -9, I decided on the 9 because:
- It appears to be more efficient above 10,000 ft. I want a long-range cross-country machine (planning to add extended-range tanks), so this was important for me.
- At 8,000 ft the -9 appears to match the -7 on one engine size smaller. Not certain that I actually believe this; however that is what Van's website seems to indicate.
- It appears to be more efficient above 10,000 ft. I want a long-range cross-country machine (planning to add extended-range tanks), so this was important for me.
- At 8,000 ft the -9 appears to match the -7 on one engine size smaller. Not certain that I actually believe this; however that is what Van's website seems to indicate.
mculver
Well Known Member
There are any number of posts on this topic -- for example:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=12883
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63644
And specific details on this in a RV-8: http://napwars.com/RV-8HTML/Fuel.htm. You should be able to adapt to a RV-9 easily.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=12883
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63644
And specific details on this in a RV-8: http://napwars.com/RV-8HTML/Fuel.htm. You should be able to adapt to a RV-9 easily.
need for speed...
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.
My newly flying -9A won't keep up with the "hot rods" but I love it!
Throttling back to about 2100 RPM at 11,500', I'm getting about 135 MPH @ 4.4 GPH. Don't have the wheel pants on yet.
Not interested in flying formation or "keeping up with my RV buddies"
Like a famous person around here once said "build the plane you want not what others want"
Dave
-9A flying
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.
My newly flying -9A won't keep up with the "hot rods" but I love it!
Throttling back to about 2100 RPM at 11,500', I'm getting about 135 MPH @ 4.4 GPH. Don't have the wheel pants on yet.
Not interested in flying formation or "keeping up with my RV buddies"
Like a famous person around here once said "build the plane you want not what others want"
Dave
-9A flying
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."
apkp777
Well Known Member
You can also say "I didn't build a slow plane to go fast!"
sbarger24
Well Known Member
Low Time Pilot RV-7A
I just finished a RV-7A and its been a blast to fly. I'm a low time pilot and made a point to get some transition training actually 11 hours worth, 6 hours in a RV-9A and 5 hours in a RV-6A.
The RV-9 is a nice airplane, and so is the RV-7A. To be honest they fly about the same granted this is coming from a low time pilot. The RV-7A lands just a little faster and maybe doesn't float quite as much, but very little difference from my prospective. The RV-9A sounds like it may be a little better cross country machine at high altitude, but again small difference. The RV-7A allows you to do some aerobatics, which for me is something I wanted to do down the road and was important to me. I guess long story short build the plane that fits you, but you won't be disapointed either way!
I just finished a RV-7A and its been a blast to fly. I'm a low time pilot and made a point to get some transition training actually 11 hours worth, 6 hours in a RV-9A and 5 hours in a RV-6A.
The RV-9 is a nice airplane, and so is the RV-7A. To be honest they fly about the same granted this is coming from a low time pilot. The RV-7A lands just a little faster and maybe doesn't float quite as much, but very little difference from my prospective. The RV-9A sounds like it may be a little better cross country machine at high altitude, but again small difference. The RV-7A allows you to do some aerobatics, which for me is something I wanted to do down the road and was important to me. I guess long story short build the plane that fits you, but you won't be disapointed either way!
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.
As for 9A vs. 9, I chose 9A since I think modern airplane designs look better with a nosewheel, although I think the classic tube & fabric, high-wing designs look better with a tailwheel.
Happy Building to All!
John
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.
As for 9A vs. 9, I chose 9A since I think modern airplane designs look better with a nosewheel, although I think the classic tube & fabric, high-wing designs look better with a tailwheel.
Happy Building to All!
John
if you ask Mr Smith about the wing he'll probably tell you as much as you want to know....
Jack Beck
Active Member
We love our -9A because it does so very well what we built it to do...travel. In the last two months we have made two long-distance flights, Wisconsin to South Dakota and Wisconsin to North Carolina. Amazing that even without the acro capability we turned 14 hour drives into 4 hour flights. Kept it simple in design, day/night VFR, Catto 3-bladed prop on an AeroSport O-320, living the high life 147 kts TAS at 7.2 gallons per hour with speed improvements still in the works. I am teaching in Israel for the next three weeks but dreaming of the trips sure to come when I get home.
Kept it simple in design, day/night VFR, Catto 3-bladed prop on an AeroSport O-320, living the high life 147 kts TAS at 7.2 gallons per hour with speed improvements still in the works. I am teaching in Israel for the next three weeks but dreaming of the trips sure to come when I get home.
Last edited:
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
Bob
N941WR
Legacy Member
Yep, but not a word regarding which airfoil was used.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
A comparison
Some real life observations between different models...
I have a 6A & fly often with a 9A. I've also got quite a few hours in this 9A, as well as another 9A. My 6 is powered with a 180 Lyc, and the 9 is an 0320. Both have constant speed props.
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.
The "feel" on the 6's stick is a bit more sensitive. Makes it more of a sportier feel, which I actually prefer. I've often made the comment, that if you were blind folded, it would be hard to tell which plane you're in on a cross country flight. Both can be exceptionally smooth, and BOTH get tossed around in turbulence.
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
Some real life observations between different models...
I have a 6A & fly often with a 9A. I've also got quite a few hours in this 9A, as well as another 9A. My 6 is powered with a 180 Lyc, and the 9 is an 0320. Both have constant speed props.
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.
The "feel" on the 6's stick is a bit more sensitive. Makes it more of a sportier feel, which I actually prefer. I've often made the comment, that if you were blind folded, it would be hard to tell which plane you're in on a cross country flight. Both can be exceptionally smooth, and BOTH get tossed around in turbulence.
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
N941WR
Legacy Member
...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 !
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.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Bill, I eagerly await............your review of your upgraded 9. I do believe you'll like all that power!!!
L.Adamson --- RV6A
hydroguy2
Well Known Member
...........Like a famous person around here once said "build the plane you want not what others want"
Yep, I was going to build a 9a, because I was worried about my low time skills. But deep down I want a -7. A good friend told me, "if you can't land a taildragger 7 properly then you probably won't be able to land a nosedragger 9a properly either."....So build what you want to see when you roll out of the hangar.
Yep, I made the right choice....for me.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Me too!Bill, I eagerly await............your review of your upgraded 9. I do believe you'll like all that power!!!
L.Adamson --- RV6A
She is ready to move back to the airport but I will have to delay until all the stares align. I thought this Saturday was going to be the day but that is not going to happen.
Still, I will have a FP, so any comparison to your -6A isn?t going to work.
N491RW when am I going to see you fly your 9 in a race?
Looking forward to seeing you fly your rebuilt and re-engined RV-9 in a SARL race but I guess that is going to be a while.
Whoever said the C/S prop is faster than the right fixed pitch prop is just wrong. Even an expert propeller engineer at Hartzell has confided that. C/S is the best compromise all around prop but not optimum for top speed.
Bob Axsom
Looking forward to seeing you fly your rebuilt and re-engined RV-9 in a SARL race but I guess that is going to be a while.
Whoever said the C/S prop is faster than the right fixed pitch prop is just wrong. Even an expert propeller engineer at Hartzell has confided that. C/S is the best compromise all around prop but not optimum for top speed.
Bob Axsom
KRviator
Well Known Member
Why a -9?
Because I'm a low time pilot, who has no interest in aerobatics, who would like to actually see the F/A in flight, and we envisage spending a lot of time at relatively high altitude as to get anywhere in Australia you have to fly for a long time.
Having said that, the -9 can also do the 300kph, 500' AGL flying we want to just have fun.
The -9A seems the best compromise, in keeping with Vans' philosophy, it's the best "overall" aircraft.
Because I'm a low time pilot, who has no interest in aerobatics, who would like to actually see the F/A in flight, and we envisage spending a lot of time at relatively high altitude as to get anywhere in Australia you have to fly for a long time.
Having said that, the -9 can also do the 300kph, 500' AGL flying we want to just have fun.
The -9A seems the best compromise, in keeping with Vans' philosophy, it's the best "overall" aircraft.
How to decide
I am new here and looking into building. I am interested in the -9 but have looked in the classifieds and see there are a lot of stuff for sale for the -7s. Im thinkin I could save money on the build if I go with the -7 versus the -9. I would mainly use the plane for a commuter. The occasional cross country and of course the hamburger runs. I guess what I am asking is there actually a wrong choice?
I am new here and looking into building. I am interested in the -9 but have looked in the classifieds and see there are a lot of stuff for sale for the -7s. Im thinkin I could save money on the build if I go with the -7 versus the -9. I would mainly use the plane for a commuter. The occasional cross country and of course the hamburger runs. I guess what I am asking is there actually a wrong choice?
IowaRV9Dreamer
Well Known Member
Hi J.D. and welcome. The -9 and the -7 share the same fuselage, so most "stuff" that works in a -7 will work in a -9. The differences are the wing (-9 is longer, more slender) and tail (-9 is larger). Try to fly them both and then decide. Good luck!
delusional
Well Known Member
What he said. Plus, misssion is econimical (you know, relatively), short-haul personal transportation in the 200-300nm range, so anything north of 140 kias is just dandy.
