VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-9/9A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-14-2006, 05:32 PM
attackpilot attackpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saxapahaw, NC
Posts: 74
Default Some Questions for RV-9/9A Builders

I would like to ask all the RV-9/9A builders out there a few questions as I contemplate building one myself.

1. What made you choose the -9A/9 over the -7 or other model Vans. I had always figured that I would want to build a RV-7 but I am not sure that I would be into the aerobatic thing enough to build a plane around those attributes. Plus, I like the idea of going almost as fast on less horsepower.

2. I have read from -7 builders, that they get tail heavy rather easy unless they put constant speed propellers and as much of the weight forward as possible. Does the -9A have the same issue?

3. Is the wing on the ?9A attached to the fuselage in essentially the same manner as the
-7?

4. For those that are engine knowledgeable, if I go with the -9A, I plan on using a Lycoming O-290 because they are so cheap and they produce enough power to give it decent cruise performance. So are there any major short-comings to the O-290? Also, is it possible to use a constant speed propeller with it?

5. What is the major short-coming of the model?

Thanks for all help in advance!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-14-2006, 06:25 PM
donahuedc donahuedc is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: east tennessee
Posts: 46
Default

Well, I can't answer a lot of your questions, but I know that there are many here who can. We will start on the 9a tail at alexander tech center on monday, so I am just getting started on this.
I originally thought I'd build the 7a also. But I'm not really interested in aerobatics either. If I do decide I want to learn them I have friends with aerobatic airplanes that I could fly. But I haven't done it yet, so honestly I have to say I must not be that interested.
There is a nearby 8a builder whose plane is for sale. He wants to build a 9a for he and his wife to travel in. This got me to thinking about the 9a as a real alternative.
Then I went to the rv fly-in in richmond Ky. in february. I talked to several rv builders, but one in particular who flew his 9a in. He had also built and flown a 6/6a. I asked him why the 9a. He said that it was the best one Van had designed. I don't know if this is true, but this made me give it more serious consideration. Then reading and honestly thinking about the kind of flying I do and want to do lead to the 9a.
After ordering the kit, I've read on this site that the 7 series will sell for more if we ever want to sell it. So this may be a consideration for you. I didn't know this at the time, so I'm not sure if it would have changed my mind to a 7a.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-14-2006, 07:08 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
Default

Boy, did you ever open a can of worms. Since you did, I'll give you my $.02 worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attackpilot
1. What made you choose the -9A/9 over the -7 or other model Vans. I had always figured that I would want to build a RV-7 but I am not sure that I would be into the aerobatic thing enough to build a plane around those attributes. Plus, I like the idea of going almost as fast on less horsepower.
I enjoy acro but don't live for it. My wife thought she would like to learn to fly. And... we like to do a lot of backpacking and thought the lower speeds might be better on some out of the way strip we MIGHT visit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attackpilot
2. I have read from -7 builders, that they get tail heavy rather easy unless they put constant speed propellers and as much of the weight forward as possible. Does the -9A have the same issue?
I have played around with a W&B Excel sheet I have with real numbers from a -9 w/ O-320 & CS Prop. I've moved the CG fwd and aft 2" and can still over load the plane before getting out of CG. So, with my (il) logic, the -9's don't seem to have the same problems as the -7's. Partly because as Van told us at SnF, the engine mount for the -9 is slightly longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attackpilot
3. Is the wing on the –9A attached to the fuselage in essentially the same manner as the -7?
Yes, but they are not interchangeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attackpilot
4. For those that are engine knowledgeable, if I go with the -9A, I plan on using a Lycoming O-290 because they are so cheap and they produce enough power to give it decent cruise performance. So are there any major short-comings to the O-290? Also, is it possible to use a constant speed propeller with it?
You will hear a lot of BS about 290 parts being hard to find and if you find them they are over priced. Not true. I've been looking for a few select parts for my O-290-D2 and have found more parts than I need. Granted, they won't be new but they will be servicable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attackpilot
5. What is the major short-coming of the model?
Dan posted that they have less fuel than the -7, thus they needed more tankage. (or something like that) The range on a -9A w/ the O-290 is listed at 735 sm @ 75% power while cruising @ 173 mph. Not too bad.

The -7A w/ an O-320 @ 75% power while cruising @ 189 mph is 825 sm.

Either one is a lot of seat time.

My choice was simple, O-290-D2, -9 w/ tip-up. It will be a good weekend flier and will allow me to take some longer trips every now and then.

The truth is you can't go wrong with either plane. Unless of course you don't build yours exactly like I'm building mine!
Good luck with your decision.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html

Last edited by N941WR : 08-19-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-14-2006, 07:42 PM
Greg Dillon Greg Dillon is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upland,California
Posts: 80
Cool The Wing's the Thing

IMHO the wing design is what makes (or breaks) the decision to build the 9 vs. 7. Fuselage is practically identical except for wing attach point locations. The 9 has a longer wingspan but shorter chord and as such is limited to lower G maneuvers than short wing RVs-BUT the power off glide descent rate is what got my attention--500-600 FPM in the 9 vs. upwards of 800-900 FPM in the short wing RVs. If you want to 'yank and bank' build a 7 or 8. If you want something a little mellower but will still cover some ground at 160 kts without going inverted then a 9 will suit your needs. (although some 9 pilots have been known to switch sky and ground positions) Really you can't go wrong with any RV-just define your mission and build accordingly! Greg RV9A N4603X (res) (EFI)0-320-H2AD w/Ford Motorsports roller rockers, finishing.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-14-2006, 08:16 PM
robert ruggles robert ruggles is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 74
Default RV9A or 7A

Read Kitplanes May issue and you wiil find your answer.
Robert Ruggles
Surprise Az.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-14-2006, 10:14 PM
rv9builder rv9builder is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 873
Default

I agree with Greg . . . The wing is the thing! I've heard many times it's the plane of choice when Van's factory pilots go on long cross country flights.

There's one other interesting thing about the 9/9A. As gas prices continue to rise, it wouldn't surprise me if the O-235 option becomes more popular. 165 mph cruise with a 118 hp engine sounds pretty good.

As others have mentioned, the only downside is that it isn't aerobatic, but that wasn't an issue for me.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-14-2006, 10:46 PM
txaviator's Avatar
txaviator txaviator is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, TX (DFW)
Posts: 1,164
Default The -9

I surely don't want to start a small online 'war' about which model of RV's is the best one to choose. However, I will tell you all something that I know for a fact....

Even though I live in Dallas/Fort Worth, I am in Oregon about once per month (or at least every 5-weeks) on business. I have been to the Van's factory 3-times now, and on two of those occasions? The -9 (taildragger) was not there. Like someone else mentioned, apparently the -9 is Van's personal choice. On two of the three trips when it wasn't there, I was told "Van flew it home last night and hasn't come in yet today".

ANY RV is great in my opinion, but the -9 was my choice. I am not into aerobatics, I like the slower handling charecteristics, and I like the nice and respectable speeds you can achieve by building light, clean, and per the plans. Even with something smaller than the a-typical 0-320.

Take care,
__________________
Gary Robertson
Arlington, TX

RV-12 Built / Sold / Flying
Currently Flying: Cessna Skyhawk 172
Rebuilding a true barn find J-3 Cub
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-14-2006, 11:04 PM
Robert M's Avatar
Robert M Robert M is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 659
Default Which one - RV-7 or -9

For months I flip-flopped between the -7 and -9. I have finally convinced me to go with the -9. I will start construction on it in October in Griffin G.A. provided our Union doesn't go on strike in May - bad times ahead.

In any case, I'm not an aerobatic pilot and have no illusions about being one either - so I reasoned that out of the picture. The difference in speed of the two aircraft is negligible given the same engine. The fuselage is vertually the same for both aircraft. The difference (as mentioned a few times before) is the wing and that allows the RV-9/A to have a slower stall speed and still maintain incredible cruise speeds and I like that a lot.

Bottom line - be true to you! Think about the style of flying that you are going to be doing and build the plane that suits you and your flying .
__________________
"Pilots: Looking down on people since 1903"
(author unknown)
RV-9, N556RM, O-320, Dual PMags, Catto 3 blade.
FLYING since 2018
Mosquito XEL ready for flight
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-15-2006, 01:02 AM
N916K's Avatar
N916K N916K is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tehachapi, CA
Posts: 538
Default Where is this magically "Aerobatic" line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv9builder
As others have mentioned, the only downside is that it isn't aerobatic, but that wasn't an issue for me.
People talk about a plane being aerobatic or not aerobatic. Things aren't really that cut and dry when talking about what a plane can and can't do. Many people say they want a 7 so they can fly "aerobatics". What are they really flying? I'm sure a few people are going out they and pushing their planes around, but the majority of the people aren't. Are people flying "aerobatics" in their 7 that the 4.4g limit of the 9 would hold them back? I don't think so. If you wanted to go out and really push a plane around I don't think you would be building an RV anyways. I think the most the average RV pilot is doing is rolls and loops and maybe some spins. That can be done safely in just about any airplane.

Now I'm not trying to start a 7 vs 9 debate. But, if you think the 9 fits your mission better than the 7, but you think you may want to do a roll or two while out flying don't let that stop you from getting the plane you want. In the end any plane that starts with RV is a great flying airplane. So just order something and start building.
__________________
Cam
Santa Ana, CA
RV-9 at KFUL
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-15-2006, 08:59 AM
OneTwoSierra OneTwoSierra is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 141
Default

Cam, makes a good point. The 9 will roll, and a 4.4 G limit is a freaking lot of G's. Try pulling sustained 3 gs and you'll know what I mean.

There is one thing people don't talk a lot about when discussing the 9, but it is mentioned in this thread - that is low speed handling - not just low stall speed.

At Va and lower, the controls are extremely light and and the plane is very agile - an incredibly fun plan to fly around pulling 2 Gs all day. This is as aerobatic as most want to get. I can make 90 degree banks and pull 2 - 2.5 Gs all day and its a blast (not holding constant altitude of course).

At 70 knots or so (this is what most 9 pilots fly in the pattern even though its a little high) the plane feels the same as flying at Va.

Drop below 70 knots, say 65 knots, and this is where the plane is different than the 7. The controls get lighter still. This is really the speed to fly in the pattern (1.4 X stall), but I think the feel is just not as crisp as at 70 knots and that's why most fly at 70. The distinguishing difference though is that below about 70 in a 7 feels much more 'mushy' from my experience.

Now we don't routinely fly around at this speed do we? Yes we do. Its called Landing. And that's why I think people say the 9 is easier to land - because the plane is crisper right up to stall. The slower stall helps, but not as much as the controllability.

This wing creates a lower power off descent as already mentioned --a key distinction. And it also produces a lot of lift which really makes the 9 climb. At 160 HP, it outclimbs other higher powered aircraft. When doing touch and goes, as soon as I'm about 200 feet off the ground I pull the power way back. It will still be at TPA before I'm downwind, and it keeps the engine cool.

Last edited by OneTwoSierra : 04-15-2006 at 09:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:03 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.