What's new
Van's Air Force

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

long time listener, first time caller

Desert Rat

Well Known Member
Good morning everyone. I'v been researching RV's for a while and google always keeps bringing me back here, so I thought I might as well register.

I've wanted to build an RV for years, and it seems like for me, the timing isn't going to get any better; I'm 51 years old, semi-retired, and most importantly, a kid just left for college, thus freeing up valuable garage space.

My default position was to build an RV7/7A, but a week or so ago, I discovered a partially completed empennage and wing kit for an RV9 that a guy is selling about 1/2 hour from my house.

Empennage built, wings at probably around 80%, big price break over new, no wait time, no shipping, no sales tax....you get the idea.

Everybody says that the 9 is a better x/c platform, because of it's slower roll rate. I've never flown either one, but I've got over 2,000 hours of flight time, with a bit of it in some pretty fast prop twins, and I've found that with practice, I've always been able to make peace with an airplane, no matter how twitchy it might or might not be, so I don't know if that's really a consideration.

Is there anyone in or around Wichita KS or Scottsdale AZ who would be willing to offer up a ride in an RV7/a or an RV9/a? I'm happy to cover expenses, up to and including the $100 hamburger for a chance to get a little stick time in your airplane, and talk about your experience.

Also, just a tack on question here; Everybody says that if you build a straight airplane, Vans numbers are spot on, but are the ones on the performance page of his website IAS or TAS?

In other words, If I built an RV9A with a 160 hp and a fixed pitch prop, at 8,000 DA and max gross weight will I really get a 75% cruise at somewhere in the ballpark or 186 mph? This seems high to me, so I'm wondering if maybe that's a TAS number.

Thanks in advance for your help everybody, I look forward to diving in, one way or the other :)

Terry Shortt
Wichita KS/Scottsdale AZ
A&P, MEI, CFII and janitor.
 
If you don't plan to go upside down the 9 is a great plane and one I am building myself.

I have not found the RV twitchy but more responsive, unlike say a Cherokee that will then feel lazy. The stick and your mind will become one, and you will forget and not notice how much it moves, and realize it just became an extension of your mind instead.

Big thing to look for on partially built kits is quality of work. If that is up to par it can surely be a great way to save some time and save a few pennies.
 
In other words, If I built an RV9A with a 160 hp and a fixed pitch prop, at 8,000 DA and max gross weight will I really get a 75% cruise at somewhere in the ballpark or 186 mph? This seems high to me, so I'm wondering if maybe that's a TAS number.

Thanks in advance for your help everybody, I look forward to diving in, one way or the other :)

Terry Shortt
Wichita KS/Scottsdale AZ
A&P, MEI, CFII and janitor.

There is a very nice spreadsheet to calculate True AirSpeed from gps ground speed. Look for gps-pec.xls.

RV9A 160hp Whirlwind CS:

Point 5 Vwind Wind dir Vtrue 1/24/2018 South of Chandler, AZ
Vg Track (kts) (deg) (kts) 100-120 ROP 8,000ft PA
161 180 13.2 108 165.6 9.7 gal/hr
153 90 13.1 109 165.5 2500rpm
169 1 13.1 108 165.6
178 271 13.1 108 165.5
ave 13.1 108.3 165.5
std dev 0.0
The formatting may be hard to read but it is 165.5 kts at 9.7 gal/hr. I generally run LOP and use 150 kts at 7.0 gal/hr for planning.
 
Welcome aboard - and I believe the performance numbers on Van’s spec sheets are TAS.
 
Terry, with your flight hours, any of the RVs will work for you. It all depends on the mission. I built a 9A intending to use it for long cross countries, but most of my flights ended up being local or formation flights.

I don't find the RVs comfortable for long flight for a man my size, but that was before the 14 was introduced.

The 9A was an incredibly easy airplane to land. I flew with an RCAF Snowbird in my right seat and he said my landings were the best he has ever experienced! It was the airplane, not me! The fellow I sold it to landed the same way the first try.

In formation with short wing RVs the 9A fit right in except for slowing/descending after the overhead break. Full forward slips were required not to overrun the aircraft in front of me. We all had fixed pitch props, so it was just the airframe difference. A lot of fun actually. The team had RVs-6, 7, 8, 4, an HR-II and a Globe Swift.

I've flown an RV-7A and it came naturally, with a bit more control sensitivity. My Rocket is sensitive in roll as well, but heavier in pitch. It takes a couple of minutes to adapt to the differences between any of the aircraft.

With your background, I bet you will be building more than one aircraft. You can't go wrong with any of the RVs.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies everybody

.....The formatting may be hard to read but it is 165.5 kts at 9.7 gal/hr. I generally run LOP and use 150 kts at 7.0 gal/hr for planning.

John, thanks for the specifics. If I'm interpreting your numbers correctly, it seems that you were probably indicating about 145 KIAS to get a 165 KTAS in that scenario. Sound about right?

The reason I'm trying to nail this down is that I'd like to know what I'm leaving on the table (with reference to top end KIAS cruise margin before it bumps into Vno) on the 9a versus the 7a.

I'm past the point in my life where upside down and sideways holds much appeal for me, but my longest mission will be about 900 statute miles and I'd like to be able to get there in a reasonable amount of time.
 
The formatting may be hard to read but it is 165.5 kts at 9.7 gal/hr. I generally run LOP and use 150 kts at 7.0 gal/hr for planning.

Same numbers almost exactly for me in my 9A, I flight plan 150 knots and 6.8-7gph cruise in the low to mid teens, running WOTLOP.
 
...The formatting may be hard to read but it is 165.5 kts at 9.7 gal/hr. I generally run LOP and use 150 kts at 7.0 gal/hr for planning.
Pretty much the same numbers for my O-360 powered -9 taildragger. Probably the easiest taildragger I have ever flown.

The numbers Van's publishes are all TAS, as Paul mentioned above, and they are in MPH, not Knots.

How does 159 knots at 5.2 GPH sound?

Here is a link to a thread I started some time back on the high altitude capability of the -9. If traveling is you game, the short wing RV's just can't hang with a -9, especially up high.

The -7 and -9 share pretty much the same fuselage, so the comfort level comes down to how you equip it.

As for the how the -9 flies, it handles better than a Decathlon I used to fly and is a LOT faster. Not as quick in pitch or roll, when compared to a -7 but it's control harmony is better balanced than any of the short wing RV's, yet still lighter on the controls than any GA aircraft you are likely to have flown.
 
I flew to Oshkosh this year next to a RV14 with stock IO-390 and C/S prop. His extra 30 hp were definitely noticeable at 11,500 feet. He flew LOP and I had to fly best power ROP to stay with him.

I also wish I had his larger cabin space. His greater shoulder and leg room along with his larger cargo area (though not any greater cargo weight capacity) certainly made his trip more comfortable. I burned almost two gph more than he did trying to keep in position. His RV14 won a craftsmanship?s award this year and it only took him around fourteen months to build.

His comments at our last chapter meeting were: ?if you can?t build a really good airplane with the 14 kit, you have no business trying to build an airplane.? In other words, the 14 kit is a very good kit. If I had the money I would definitely look at the 14.
 
KIAS

Thanks for the replies everybody

John, thanks for the specifics. If I'm interpreting your numbers correctly, it seems that you were probably indicating about 145 KIAS to get a 165 KTAS in that scenario. Sound about right?

That sounds about right. KIAS is not a data point in the calculation so I don't think of it in cruise. My memory is roughly 135 KIAS LOP and 145 KIAS ROP.
 
You need to be careful of propeller limitations. My RV-9A has a fixed pitch Sensenich with a 2600 RPM limitation, so I can't pull as much power at cruise as I might. However, I set my power to 8 GPH for easy calculations, and get 145 KTAS down low and 155 KTAS at altitude.

I wish I had a constant speed for better climb and for better deceleration in the pattern and on rollout...

In the grander scheme of things, take the -9A for what it is. If you want more speed, buy a faster airplane. Building the world's faster RV-9A is like having the world's biggest miniature horse...

I've got a thread or two on flying the RV-9A IFR and on trips, and those might help your decision making.

There was one fool who put in an oversized engine, lots of add-ons, and tried to sell it for $250K (or maybe it was a broker). Don't be like that...
 
Question

The heck with RV's - I just want to know how someone semi-retires at 51!???

Christ, I'm 63 and trying to figure out if I can ever retire...

No really asking for your personal details, just lamenting that I'm not as smart as some people.

Take the first step - and everything else will follow.
 
RV-9 real world numbers

In other words, If I built an RV9A with a 160 hp and a fixed pitch prop, at 8,000 DA and max gross weight will I really get a 75% cruise at somewhere in the ballpark or 186 mph? This seems high to me, so I'm wondering if maybe that's a TAS number.

My lengthy ode on transitioning to an RV-9A is here, for what that's worth:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146300

Updates based on 1.5 years of traveling around in it, here's what I can add:

1. I've got a carbureted O-320, a constant-speed Hartzell, and one PMAG. Last weekend at 10000, WOT (indicating 20.7 inches), 2300 RPM, and close to max gross, I was getting 159 KTAS (183 MPH TAS) at 7.3 gph. I have not yet experimented much with trying to run it lean of peak. These numbers are typical of my performance in the 8000 to 10000 range.

2. The advice here to go high with the 9 is good advice. It seems to really love it at 10,000, and I'd go higher but I need to reduce the drafts and improve the heater performance first. My Number One Passenger is sensitive to cold.

3. Altitude changes happen MUCH faster than in my old Warrior, presumably because the -9 weighs much less and moves much faster. If you're cruising in turbulence, an autopilot with altitude hold is a big (BIG) workload saver.

4. It continues to be a total delight to fly. I love it. A real time machine, and very very efficient. Went from Virginia to Michigan last weekend for a short visit. Would have been quite the slog in the Warrior.

5. Tons of fun comparing the -7 to the -9, but you can't go too far wrong. If you told me I had to trade my -9 in on a comparably equipped 7, I'd stay grinning the whole time.
 
My lengthy ode on transitioning to an RV-9A is here, for what that's worth:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146300

Updates based on 1.5 years of traveling around in it, here's what I can add:

1. I've got a carbureted O-320, a constant-speed Hartzell, and one PMAG. Last weekend at 10000, WOT (indicating 20.7 inches), 2300 RPM, and close to max gross, I was getting 159 KTAS (183 MPH TAS) at 7.3 gph. I have not yet experimented much with trying to run it lean of peak. These numbers are typical of my performance in the 8000 to 10000 range.

Good grief I must have a really slow one....
 
I fly a -7 with an IO-360 matched to a MT CS prop. I love the plane and it's performance but it's a bit short-legged when IMC require an alternate. With your experience and a 900 mile mission you're probably thinking IFR capable.
 
You need to be careful of propeller limitations. My RV-9A has a fixed pitch Sensenich with a 2600 RPM limitation, so I can't pull as much power at cruise as I might. However, I set my power to 8 GPH for easy calculations, and get 145 KTAS down low and 155 KTAS at altitude.

I wish I had a constant speed for better ...
Put a Catto prop on that thing and those restrictions go away, your climb will improve but you still will struggle with the airbrake thing Ed.
 
I fly a -7 with an IO-360 matched to a MT CS prop. I love the plane and it's performance but it's a bit short-legged when IMC require an alternate. With your experience and a 900 mile mission you're probably thinking IFR capable.

As a matter of fact, I am thinking of IFR. The destination is Scottsdale or Tucson AZ, which wouldn't require an alternate 99% of the year. Even so, I realize that 900 miles westbound is pretty iffy depending on prevailing winds. Especially when you consider that the big selling point of the 9 demands that you go high to get the full benefit.

On the return, probably if you went high, either one could do the eastbound leg, but you're more likely to need an IFR alternate.

If nonstop was a deal breaker, I'd feel a lot more comfortable putting extended tanks in a 6g wing and just let the ponies run, rather than preloading the utility category wing of the 9 with an extra 40 lbs or so on the tip. but that mission is only about 6-10 times a year, so I'm probably over thinking it.

This wouldn't even be a question in my mind, but like I mentioned, I ran across a partially completed RV9 wing and empennage kit and all the tooling that goes with it for a substantial savings in both time and dollars.
 
Back
Top