What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Some Questions for RV-9/9A Builders

attackpilot

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

attackpilot said:
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.

attackpilot said:
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.

attackpilot said:
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.

attackpilot said:
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.

attackpilot said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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) :eek: 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.
 
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
 
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,
 
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 .
 
Where is this magically "Aerobatic" line?

rv9builder said:
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, 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:
The -9 is a good airplane for the everyday pilot, the reason I picked the -7 was based a couple things not mentioned here:

1. The -7 is faster than the -9 on the same engine. Given that I'm looking for a primarily cross-country machine, the speed and increased range is worth it to me. As a bonus, I can also install an 200HP engine and go even faster on more fuel, or throttle back and go the same speed on even less.

2. The tankage is bigger, leading to more range, I've even considered increasing the size of the tanks one more bulkheads worth, we'll see.

3. Resale value is higher on the -7 for a very similar initial investment.

And now the downsides:

1. While being faster, the -7 is also less stable. For crosscountries this may be OK, but for IFR (which I will be doing as well) as good 2-axis autopilot will be a must. This also leads into glide ratio being smaller, currency on power off approaches is a must.

2. More fuel = more weight and more money.

3. I've heard the -9 is a little easier to build.
 
osxuser said:
3. I've heard the -9 is a little easier to build.
Not true. I'm helping/watching a friend build a -7A and they are exactly the same. Except maybe the -9 has more rivets in the wings. In fact, I would say the ailerons and flaps of the -7 are easier to build because you don't have to mess with those darn wedges.

Truth is, there is very little difference between the two.
 
N941WR said:
Not true. I'm helping/watching a friend build a -7A and they are exactly the same.

Bill, don't forget all the time wasted by RV7 builders asking you why you're building a 9 instead of a 7. :D
 
I heard the straight HS made it a bit easier, didn't even consider the wings...

In truth, I understand the -9 builders (although 9A is pushing it a bit), but I don't think it's the right airplane for me right now. I almost did go that route, but flying in Dan's -7 convinced me for sure I made the right choice.
 
osxuser said:
but I don't think it's the right airplane for me right now.
That about sums it up for everyone. Pick the plane that is right for you and you will be happy with it.

BTW, there is no real difference in the HS, other than the shape.
 
Thanks Everyone

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think the 9A is right for me, I was mainly wanting to dispell any lingering doubt to myself about that choice. I sure wish there was someone with a flying -9/9A around central Texas that could give me a ride. :D

Also, has anyone ever used an Aeromatic propeller on a RV before? I have searched the threads without result. It seems like it might would be a good fit since it had been used on Swifts. Any thoughts?
 
osxuser said:
3. Resale value is higher on the -7 for a very similar initial investment.
.

Do you know something I don't? :) I've seen VERY few RV9/9As for sale--certainly not enough to get a feel for pricing. Perhaps that so few have ever even been put up for sale says something? :cool:

In any case, I suspect the engine and avionics are going to be the most relevant factor in the prices, not the model.
 
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
Do you know something I don't? :) I've seen VERY few RV9/9As for sale--certainly not enough to get a feel for pricing. Perhaps that so few have ever even been put up for sale says something? :cool:

In any case, I suspect the engine and avionics are going to be the most relevant factor in the prices, not the model.

This one is interesting to me also. If history is any guide look at the prices of the 6 / 6A's as they get older... Seems to me that the 6 & 7's will flood the market over time (or have already) driving prices lower in the end. As of now there are not many 9's turning over hands...

Of course it's a very fickle thing to be building for "resale" value. How about building the plane you will love and fly for a good long time! For me, 450hrs and counting!
 
I saw a 9A sell two years ago for $75,000 with no paint and no radios. I'm hoping the resale value will be somewhere near the same as a 160 HP fixed pitch 7A.

I chose the 9A because I have a grass strip with only 1200 feet. I do have a good approach. The slow speed handling and low stall speed made the decision for me. My wife and I are planning some three day weekend trips to the gulf and lots of other 3-5 hour trips to see the country and since I puke when exposed to aerobatics it was a no brainer. :D

After building now for two years off and on I am still very happy with my decision.
 
robert ruggles said:
Read Kitplanes May issue and you wiil find your answer.
Robert Ruggles
Surprise Az.
Haven't seen it - what is the answer according to Kitplanes?
For myself, all I've ever flown are 150's, 172's, Cherokee's, Champs and various sailplanes. And nothing in the last 20 years... Low time (200 hours), no constant speed props, no glass or GPS.
Something basic with "trainer" like qualities sounds like just the ticket for me. Two things that really sold me: 1)lower stall speeds - bigger comfort factor for me if I go taildragger and 2) max O-320 engine. For some reason the biggest engine you can hang is usually the default engine, and I'm no different. If I built a -7 I would practically feel obligated to hang 200 horses (with C/S prop), when all I "need" is 160.
 
My thoughts.

I was also wondering the same thing.. I went out to Van's Tuesday and flew the RV9A. I have to say I was Very impressed. The control forces were like a prudential commercial, "Like a Rock". We played with stalls, and the RV9A stalls nicer then my Cherokee. But I got home and started thinking. The reason I want a plane is for Cross Country flying. So the extra Fuel of the RV-7A was a plus. The other aspect of flying an Acrobatic rated plane is its harder to break. The envelope is a bit bigger and if you find yourself in a real bad situation the extra confidence that the wings are not going to fold underneath you is a plus. HOWEVER. I am thinking that if I am being ****** enough to be at Max Cruise in Heavy Turbulance I have other problems I need to address. As far as distance and speed are concerned, the nice man at Vans pulled the power pack to %35 and we were still cruising much faster then my Piper at full power (with the associated better fuel burn). He said we were around 4GPH at 130knotts. I just dumped several grand on my tools. Next month I will be ordering my "Piece of Tail."

Building an RV-9A is going to be fun!
 
If your looking for a ride in a RV9/A come on up to TEX RV fly-in at Midway airport (KJWY) near Waxahachee. Somebody will give you a ride (Clay??) Check the 20th of May in Calender on the left side of Doug's main page
 
Choosing which RV to build...

One thing is for sure, there are many opinions about which RV to build, then which canopy configuration, engine, avionics, etc. This can go on and on since the available hardware to put into the air frame changes each year.

When I was building my RV-9A slider, the Lightspeed Plasma III ignition was the big thing that year, now it is P-MAGs for solid state ignition performance with easy installation, etc.

If you are still making decisions, you can learn plenty on my site about the choices made in my project and by other builders. I met ONE pilot at Oshkosh on two different visits there. He had a different RV-9A at the second event. You can see both his airplanes on my web page about choosing Tip-up vs. Slider canopies. He had an upside down, off-airport night landing with the first RV-9A tip up, so he built a new RV-9A slider to replace it.

http://www.n2prise.org/TipSlide.htm

Look over as much of the site as you please, I have plenty of bandwidth per month, and plenty of pages about building and flying my RV-9A slider with the Meske tip/slide easy baggage access modification.

Weight and balance issues: I have the ECI Titan 160 HP O-320 with the Hartzell constant speed prop recommended and sold by Van's. My airplane came out about 100 pounds over Van's RV-9's, but it still flies great and I have not had any CG calculations out of limits. The worst case occurs with full load and minimum fuel.

As far as long range on the 36 gallons of gas goes, flying up high (6 GPH) with favorable tailwinds will keep you up there longer than your bladder can stand it (5 hours). On my trip to LOE5, I left the Fort Worth area with Doug Reeves and his friends as tail-end Charlie since I had the lowest horsepower (and heaviest load) chasing their RV-6's, -7's, and -8's with 180/200 HP engines. With the more efficient wing, I climbed higher and took advantage of the better tail winds to stay closer to them. They flew around 8000 MSL and I got up in the 10000-12000 MSL flight levels. I had the smoother ride. I got to the fuel stop about 10 minutes behind them, which meant I did not have to wait in line too long to top of my tanks.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A N2PZ, 171.7 flying hours since June 9, 2005
www.n2prise.org
 
n2prise said:
Weight and balance issues: I have the ECI Titan 160 HP O-320 with the Hartzell constant speed prop recommended and sold by Van's. My airplane came out about 100 pounds over Van's RV-9's, but it still flies great and I have not had any CG calculations out of limits. The worst case occurs with full load and minimum fuel.


I was reading your post and saw the difference between your numbers and mine and the weight jumped out at me. My airplane has an 0-320 D1A and a Hartzell C/S like yours and my empy weight is 1092lbs. I'm now starting to wonder if one of us used scales that are not accurate when doing the intitial weighing of our airplanes. I did weigh mine and then put the scales back into the storage cases before I realized that I had left the slider canopy open. Doh... Out came the scales to get real numbers for each wheel with the canopy closed. While the overall weight didn't change (of course) the weight of the nosewheel went up with the canopy closed. When running CG calculations the only way my airplane seems to go out of limits is with 5 gallons or less of fuel, no baggage and a single pilot weighing less than 104lbs. There is literally no other scenario that I have found by playing with the numbers that will take it out of CG as long as within the gross weight or something close. With this engine and prop setup the CG for the airplane empty is at 76.75 inches, arm for the fuel is also 76.75 which makes fuel burn almost a none variable. It does change slightly when doing the calculations, but for the most part it is very minor.

After reading your numbers I'll be re-weighing mine the next time I get access to different scales.

Regards,
Bryan
 
Back
Top