helodriver
Member
I am still looking, and personally think a 4 would be a better fit for me. The wife on the other hand would be more comfortable in a 7/9. I was just wondering what drew you to the 9.
Terry
Terry
I decided on the 9 because I wanted a good cross-country plane and don't have much interest in aerobatics. I was able to fly one a couple months ago and the plane is everything I was looking for. Easy to fly, good slow flight handling so it's easy to land, climbs well and blows the doors off the spamcans.
My guess is that you will be happy with any of the planes you are considereing.
As for landing, I actually find 9A more difficult. Primarily due to the fact that it tends to float. I always pull idle abeam the number. If I make a closer pattern, I will have to slip it down. Again, not really a problem. In a 6 or 7, just reduce the throttle the airplane will come down quickly. Of course, it is not a problem landing a 9. Just you have to pay more attention to energy management. On the other hand, if and when engine quits on you, a 9 will glide further and you will have more options to land.
Sure it does - then you can select if you want to land in beans, or in corn77% larger area from which to select forced landing spots. (In the mountains this can matter. Probably doesn't matter in Iowa.)
Floyd,I guess I must be the only guy building a -9 for back country use.
I sold my -6 last year to a friend that had to have it. I fly an 8GCBC with bushwheels and while I love where it can take me, it is just too slow for the frequent cross country trips I make.
The -6 was always on the ragged edge and way behind the power curve getting into places I like to land. I hope that the -9 with its little slower landing speeds combined with a few gear mods, will be a good compromise between the 8GCBC and the -6
Floyd
Terry,
......... Its fast enough for cross country travel but has flying characteristics of a trainer. I don't need the ability to do aerobatics so it fits my mission being a low time pilot.
On another note thank you for defending our freedoms abroad.
Did he say why he would rather have a 7A?...Now the kicker is..................as his comment to this thread was:
"Did you tell them,..... that I'd rather have a 7A?"....
Did he say why he would rather have a 7A?
Of course your 180 HP CS -6A it would out run a 160 HP -9A, same as if he had an O-320 power FP -6A vs. your 180 HP CS -6A. As they say, "there is no replacement for displacement".... My 6A simply outclimbs and outruns both 9A's. He'd just like to be somewhat faster, is all. However, in ecomomy cruise, his 9A does very well. I doubt I can match that.
L.Adamson ---- RV6A/ 0360/ Hartzell CS
Of course your 180 HP CS -6A it would our run a 160 HP -9A, same as if he had an O-320 power FP -6A vs. your 180 HP CS -6A. As they say, "there is no replacement for displacement".
I suspect if your friend had put an O-320 with a FP prop in a -6 or 7 he would have the same issue.
Hahahaha...This guy would NEVER install an FP prop on an RV!
L.Adamson --- RV6A C/S