Decisions... Decisions

Hello all, I'm now going through the painful process that all of you have already gone through -- picking a kit.

I hope, over the next few weeks, I can get some more information from here that will help me make a final decision.

I read on Van's website that the RV-9 isn't recommended for aerobatics. The wing loading is as good or better a lot of certified aircraft.

I don't plan on taking up a career in aerobatics, but does anyone know if the RV9 can perform the occassional snap roll, loop, or spin?

The RV-9 was designed to operate safely in, what in the "certified" class of aircraft, would be called "utility". If you're thinking of doing airbatics on a regular basis, than choose anything else in Van's line (except the RV-10, of course).

The closest you'll get to the RV-9, but designed to handle basic airbatics, would be the RV7 in that it is side by side seating like the -9 but designed to accept higher G loads.
A telling "stat" that should tell you the difference between the -9 and the -7 is Van's published Maneuvering Speed (max. speed at which full and abrupt controls can be applied). He shows that speed to be 142mph for the RV-7 and 118mph for the RV-9. The published maneuvering speed is something that I'd want to pay close attention to if thinking about airbatics.

Because the -9's cruise speed can reach within 20mph of the -7's cruise speed (Van's published figures), and because the two aircraft look alike, it's easy to think that they actually are alike. But they are not, and their mission differences are reflected in the design parameters of the aircraft.

Vern
RV7-A

Go for the 7

Ditto... if you think you might want to do a roll go for the 7.
They are all great airplanes
Kirk RV-8

Agreed. But, ever see that old footage of the 707 doing a barrel roll? Although a buddy of mine rolled his Pacer without spilling a drop of coffee (maintaining +1g throughout the manuver) it still scares me to do stuff like that in a utility class airplane.

Steve
90979

Yeah, but did you see the footage of a guy that snapped the outboard wing sections off of a Partenavia twin by trying to do an airshow act like Bob Hoover's Shrike routine? Even worse, his lady was doing the announcing at the time. Like that line in Top Gun-"That was some of the best flying I've seen. Right up to the part where you got killed." Analyze what your typical "mission" will be (or is now) and choose the airplane accordingly. We all want one of each RV don't we really? Good Luck.

Crusie speeds, RV7 vs. 9

Van's published figures show that on the same horsepower, a RV-9 is 4-5mph slower than a RV-7. You can make a brick go fast if you attach a large enough engine to it. Effective, but not satisfying.

Flight qualities other than aerobatics

I've flown in a 4,6,and a 9. The thing that popped out to me was that they DON"T fly the same. The 4 and 6 are very light on the controls and highly responsive, not difficult to fly just responsive. The 9 has a very solid feel but doesn't have quite the responsiveness or roll rate. I was starting to regret building a 9 until I got a chance to fly one. I really like the solid feel of the 9. I'm a low time pilot and I like to fly in the mountains so I thought the 9 was the thing for me, I still believe that.

So Fred if you can get a ride in both a 7 and a 9 before you decide, you may find that there is more to a plane then a few speed specs.

Good luck

Lots of Good Advice

Thanks for all the input. I'm pretty clear on my mission -- cross country, and lots of it, plus one-hour, here and there, on good days when I'm on my way home from a sad, demented, and boring day at the office.

I'm also a low-time pilot and a good solid feel, easy landing characteristics are essential. Also, I hope that, one day, my daugther will learn to fly on this same plane. Right now she's keen as mustard, but let's see what happens in five years.

I'm not thinking of taking up a career in aerobatics, but early on, I took an emergency manoeuvre training course that taught recovery from unusual attitudes. -- A class that (IMHO) should be de rigeur for all PPL's -- and I learned not to fear the stall and the spin.

Now, I can't actually practice EMT manoeuvres in rented Pipers, because it is prohibited and I don't trust the ancient airframes, and I was just wondering if, every so often, you could do a chandelle, or a lazy-8, a 90-degree turn or (god forbid, a two-turn spin) in my new RV-9.

The general consensus seems to be "NO". Am I interpreting the data correctly?

Spinning the -9

Funny thing, but I do plan on spin testing my -9, unless Van's recommends not doing that.

It is my understanding that the -9 can be spun safely. Any comments on that?

Bill

Learning recovery from unusual attitudes (like the upside down variety) is undoubtledly good training to have, and it is equally important to have recurrent training. That said, for myself, I am not picking a plane based on whether I can regularly practice these unusual maneuvers. When I need to, I'll just rent some time in an aerobatic aircraft. Doing so is no different from what I had to do when I was flying a C-182. Sure, if you accidently get upside down in a -9 (stuck in wake turbulence, etc.) you don't have to worry about the wings falling off but, at the same time (just like in the 182), you don't want to be regularly exposing your -9 wing to those kind of loads.

My take is this (and I went through the same decision-making process): if you want to do regular aerobatics of any variety, get a 7. If you won't be doing regular aerobatics, get a -9 and rent a plane when you get the urge to go inverted or need recurrent training in emergency aerobatics.

Much more important for me was the lower stall speed translates to an exponential (logarithmic?) increase in your ability to survive impact. Further, the power-off sink rate is much less (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard 500fpm) for the 9 and about 1000-1500fpm for the -6/7/8. Consequently, with the 9 you've got a lot more time to consider your options and find a good landing site.

Anyway, just my thoughts...your mileage will probably vary.

Good luck.

Steve

I find the poweroff glide rate to be about 700fpm with the engine at idle (with a FP sensenich) and just above 500fpm with the prop stopped. (which by the way is great fun!)

Also, about unusual attitudes. During my test phase I did full stall testing including accelerate stalls at 4g's etc. All was fine and just as you would expect. Then I did spin recoginition... Stall with a bit of rudder and as it breaks and starts to turn, recover before developing a spin. All fine so far. Then I did cross controlled stalls. Like the classic adding top rudder on your base to final turn while going too slow... BAM I was inverted. With just the slightest burble of the stall it snaps to the outside inverted and you get to roll through to right side up. Now that gets your attention. Glad I was at 6000ft at the time.

N941WR said:

Funny thing, but I do plan on spin testing my -9, unless Van's recommends not doing that.

It is my understanding that the -9 can be spun safely. Any comments on that?

Bill

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the -9 as I'm still a wanna-be, but I do have a little formal spin training in gliders and also in jets. The issue with spinning then 9 would not be the spin itself (provided the engine continues to run). Spins are inherently low G and low airspeed maneuvers compared to say a spiral dive. The problem would be that any mess-up in the recovery can require a very high G loading or a very fast acceleration and loss of altitude. i.e. if you don't max perform the aircraft as soon as the stall is broken, you're going to be going very fast, nose low, or you'll over-G the airframe out of sheer panic. If you do actually go spin your aircraft, make sure you "pull to the tickle" throughout the recovery and keep the aircraft right on the edge of stall until you get the nose back to the horizon to minimize the altitude lost and airspeed gained. Fly safe.

Spin recovery

Brian,

I agree with you 100%. Having done more spins than I can count in a number of different planes, the pull out has to be initiated quickly and w/o overloading the airframe. I would imagine that the RV?s pick up speed VERY quickly when pointed down. (It has been over 10 years since I last flew a friend?s RV-4.)

Still, there is a BIG difference between spinning a plane and looping and rolling it, IMHO.

Bill

To further expand on Fred's comments....

I am also a low-time pilot. I was going to place my order for my RV-7 empennage a few weeks ago, and then I learned that I would be fortunate enough to visit the Van's factory in early February (business trip to a customer within 20-miles of the Van's facility). So I decided to place my order for the empennage in person, and also go for a test flight if possible.

Well, it seems the decision to wait on ordering has had its ups and downs. I now sit here looking at a shop full of cool specialty tools, without a project in hand yet. In the meantime, I surf the various web sites regarding all things 'RV'. When going through the Van's site for probably the 1,000th time, I started to read a little more about the -9. I want a taildragger, so the -9 is what I would consider if I got anything other than the -7.

As I read through the various information, I started to wonder about my low-time status, and was wondering if the -7 was a little too 'hot' for a low time pilot, in terms of handling and not necessarily the engine types. I am not interested in aerobatics at this time. I just want to build a relatively fast plane that I can safely fly, do some cross-country, and again, just remain as safe as possible. It keeps occuring to me that the -9 may be the way to go? I know the debates could rage on for hours, but I like both planes! So, here is the question of the day: For those of you who have flown the 7 and the 9, (or studied the spec's as I have too), which would you recommend for a low-time pilot?

Thanks in advance. Also, Fred, hopefully you don't mind me getting in on the topic you started? Thanks everyone, please submit your opinions!

Gary, I would say to go with the "mission" and not worry about your personal flight time. No matter which way you choose, there are now several resources where you can get some heavy instruction in-type before you fly your own.
By the time you first get some instruction in an RV, and then carefully(apprehensively?) fly off your first 25 or 40 hours in either the -7 or -9 that you choose, it will by then feel as comfortable to you as your living room couch no matter which.
The only thing I question is your wanting to go with a taildragger. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no absolute advantage in doing so, and as a low time pilot (me too), you might want to check ahead of time with some aviation insurance companies to see what their requirements are for insuring a pilot with a taildragger who has very little TD experience. It might be a shocker to you and cause you to re-evaluate your mission for the aircraft.

I'm not exactly a "high time" pilot either, but my mission is mostly intended to be fast cross country sitting next to, not in front of, my wife. So that, and the fact that I have no tail wheel time, made the choice of the -7A for me really obvious.
What also helped my decision was that even though I have no interest in airbatics (well, maybe an occasional roll to recover a lost pencil from the floor ), I like the idea of the higher G-rating of the -7.

That sort of shows the genious of R.V. in that he didn't design just one or two aircraft, he designed a family of aircraft that are all similar to each other but different in subtle ways.

I know you're looking for opinions from others, but you really need to decide for your own reasons. Or, if you feel lucky, roll a pair of dice until either a 3 or 4 or 7 or 8 or 9 (or 10!) comes up first. Then pick up your phone in one hand and a credit card in the other and get started.

Vern
RV7-A

Spins... Hum?

N941WR said:

Funny thing, but I do plan on spin testing my -9, unless Van's recommends not doing that.

It is my understanding that the -9 can be spun safely. Any comments on that?

Bill

Click to expand...

Well if you ask the factory, they have not spun the 9 demonstrators. They say spins not recomended and suggest only testing entry conditions and then recover. With what they found with the 6 & 7's I think they too are concerned about the recover.

My decision finally became clear!

I mentioned earlier that I was a little concerned that the -7 might be a little too much plane versus the -9, since I am a low-time pilot.

What I keep failing to remember is that this plane, regardless of model, will not be finished overnight. I plan to pay cash as I go, and do one section of the kit at a time (slow-build version). Thus, this will take me a few years, since I will only be able to work on the plane a few nights a week, and then weekends.

By the time I am ready for transition training in my RV, I will no longer be a 'low-time pilot'. By the time I am ready to fly my RV, I will surely have accumulated many more hours....a great deal of these in tail-draggers. So the insurance should no longer be an issue, nor should the transition issues.

Ordering the -7 empennage!

Thanks for all the input from everyone!

Gary,

Don?t worry about the conventional gear vs. the newfangled nose wheel gear, build the airplane you want for the reason you want.

I?m building a -9, not a -9A for my own reasons, which are: (These are all IMHO and I don?t want to start a fight as there is a thread dedicated to this choice.)

1. It is my choice, I chose to build a TD.
2. I think the TD?s look better
3. I keep reading about ND?s flipping over or almost flipping over, counting only the -6 & -6A, I think the occurrence of upside down RV?s is about the same.
4. My wife and I plan on visiting a lot of back country strips with our -9 and the TD just works better for rough strips.
5. As for insurance and required hours, that shouldn?t be an issue as I have 300+ tail wheel hours.
6. The -9 can take smaller engines. I?m installing an O-290 which should yield a 175 mph cruise while burning around 6 to 6.5 gph. Expect total engine cost will be around $7,000.

Now for the big thing that frightens most people. Yes, TD?s take some skill to fly but it is nothing you can?t learn. 10 hours of instruction and you will be landing and taking off like a pro. It doesn?t take a superman to fly a TD, only training and you wouldn?t be flying if you didn?t enjoy the training.

In short, build the plane you like and you will find the training and insurance.

Bill