Mild aerobatics in the 9A?

[aelkins]

I had been looking at 6As for a while but, I recently got an opportunity on a 2005 9A w/160HP at a fair price. I was just curious if you guys with flying 9As felt comfortable performing mild aerobatics with yours?. Mainly mild rolls and loops. The 9A seems to be a better practical plane for my flying but, I really want to perform some occasional rolls...
I have another thread pertaining to this but, wanted to direct this question to actual 9A owners.
Thanks a lot for your opinions and feedback..

 

[Mike_ExpressCT]

There's been many talks of this subject, and the answer from everyone is...

Don't Do Aerobatics in a -9A!!!!


They're not designed with aerobatic g limits in mind. It should be noted in the operating procedures of the airplane that aerobatics are prohibited.

 

[Brian130]

gone fishing

Mike - He already got the correct answer; he's looking for someone to tell him it's ok to do acro in a 9A.

 

[daverv9]

I have seen a 9 do a mild roll

 

[daverv9]

Although I have seen it doesnt mean it should be done. The plane was not designed for this. To be responsible, aerobatics should be left for the planes that were designed to be aerobatic.

 

[Stephen Lindberg]

I saw a guy roll a Cessna 170B at a fly-in. Made an unforgetable sound when he hit the ground 75 yards away. Van says no acro in the 9 and I believe him.

 

[Dgamble]

Go for the 6A

I had been looking at 6As for a while but, I recently got an opportunity on a 2005 9A w/160HP at a fair price. I was just curious if you guys with flying 9As felt comfortable performing mild aerobatics with yours?. Mainly mild rolls and loops. The 9A seems to be a better practical plane for my flying but, I really want to perform some occasional rolls...
I have another thread pertaining to this but, wanted to direct this question to actual 9A owners.
Thanks a lot for your opinions and feedback..

Having gone through this myself a couple years ago, I decided to just keep looking for a 6 or 6A. I ended up with a 6 because they were generally cheaper. Either way, In my opinion you're going to get more airplane for the money since there are far more of them on the market, and if you're confident enough in your flying skills to be considering aerobatics you'll have no trouble flying a 6A on any trip you would have made in the 9A. You'll have more confidence in the airframe because you'll know it's designed to take the load of aerobatics, whether you ever do them or not. That's the way I looked at it.

 

[aelkins]

Good Feedback

Point is well taken.
You CAN do aerobatics in a 9A.
(but it increases the odds of being listed as a casualty in the NTSB)

I'll take your advice and let the others push that 'G' envelope.
I'll keep searching for the 6(A) that follows me home.

Thanks...

 

[Norman CYYJ]

All most planes can roll, if done properly. Even the 737 has been rolled. But screw up and your in trouble.

If you are looking for a good used RV-6/A make sure that it is a light one or you won't be able to take an instructor with you and some gas. The acro weight is 1375lbs.

Be save and have fun.

 

[thallock]

Although I have seen it doesnt mean it should be done. The plane was not designed for this. To be responsible, aerobatics should be left for the planes that were designed to be aerobatic.

So, Dave, I guess you're saying I was irresponsible when I took that 2 hour aerobaticas intro in the 152 aerobat? The only difference between a 152 and a 152 aerobat is that the aerobat has quick release pins for the door, so you can get out if the tail falls off.

Cheers,
Tracy.

 

[Brian130]

The only difference between a 152 and a 152 aerobat is that the aerobat has quick release pins for the door, so you can get out if the tail falls off.

You might want to check your facts on that one. There are other, much more important changes, as well. That not withstanding, if you think flying acro in a 9A is the same as in an Aerobat, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Dgamble]

SThe only difference between a 152 and a 152 aerobat is that the aerobat has quick release pins for the door, so you can get out if the tail falls off.

Well, that and the certification. Sure, it's only a piece of paper, but....

Update:

A semi-aerobatic trainer version of the 150 exists. While its structure is stronger than the standard model in a number of ways, these are not apparent from the outside. The only obvious external sign, apart from the paint scheme, is a quick-release mechanism for the door hinge pins.

http://flightopedia.com/cessna-150.htm

 

[thallock]

Well, all I know is that instructor said the plane was the same as a normal 152, only with quick release. I was surprised that it was not stressed to 6g, and he said it wasn't. During the two hours, we never exceed 2.5g.

As far as comparing this to an RV, I agree. It would be hard to exceed 130K in the 152, going straight down, so I know this would probably be the difference between being safe in the 152 and being at risk in the RV-9.

Also, I never suggested that anyone should do aerobatics in an RV-9, just that some aircraft used to do aerobatics were never "designed" to do them. That does not make them unsafe for limited aerobatics.

Tracy.

 

[alpinelakespilot2000]

As far as comparing this to an RV, I agree. It would be hard to exceed 130K in the 152, going straight down, so I know this would probably be the difference between being safe in the 152 and being at risk in the RV-9.
.

This was precisely the point Gus showed to me on my demo flight in the -9A. Even with power off, the second the nose drops below the horizon, speed builds up VERY rapidly with the clean airframe. Of course, aerobatics are perfectly acceptable in the -9/9A if you are REALLY good and stay within the load limits. If you make a mistake, though, and let the speed start to build up, you're going to have a problem.

 

[Mel]

Not sure about the 152/152 Aerobat, but the 150 Aerobat had a stronger tail than the regualr 150.

 

[RVbySDI]

Well, all I know is that instructor said the plane was the same as a normal 152, only with quick release. I was surprised that it was not stressed to 6g, and he said it wasn't. During the two hours, we never exceed 2.5g.

I am interested everytime I read about how god like our old instructors are/were. Because he/she was a teacher showing us the necessities required to allow us to stay in control of a mechanical device such as these airplanes does not make them omnipotent. Just because a CFI told me so is not a good enough reason for me. For all of you CFI's out there please take no offense at my statements but I do not believe that having a CFI certificate makes anyone all knowing.

Also, I never suggested that anyone should do aerobatics in an RV-9, just that some aircraft used to do aerobatics were never "designed" to do them. That does not make them unsafe for limited aerobatics.

I would have to disagree with this one. If an aircraft were not "designed" for aerobatics that usually means that the types, strengths, thicknesses, quantity of, quality of materials and the "beefiness" of the structure were not "designed" into the aircraft in order to withstand high G forces. Therefore, if an aircraft were not "designed" for aerobatics I would have to believe that it would be "unsafe" for any aerobatics. No matter what anyone else tells me I will trust the designer on these matters far more than I would anyone else trying to tell me something contrary to his statements about his design.

 

[Brian130]

Well, all I know is that instructor said the plane was the same as a normal 152, only with quick release. I was surprised that it was not stressed to 6g, and he said it wasn't. During the two hours, we never exceed 2.5g.

Also, I never suggested that anyone should do aerobatics in an RV-9, just that some aircraft used to do aerobatics were never "designed" to do them. That does not make them unsafe for limited aerobatics.

Unfortunately, CFIs are fallible just like the rest of us. The difference is that we often take their word at face value whereas we trust but verify from other sources.

The A152 was designed for aerobatics, and the type certification is very clear on the entry parameters and those maneuevers that may be performed. I cannot find a source document to verify this, but the upgrades included thicker skins, more rivets, and larger wing struts (I've heard the same as on the 172 or 180).

The A152 was in fact stressed to +6/-3, limited to +3.5 with flaps extended. The 150/152 models are limited to chandelles, lazy 8s, steep turns, spins, and stalls. The A150/A152 models are limited to the same as above, plus barrel rolls, snap rolls, loops, vertical reversements, aileron rolls, immelmans, and cuban 8s. Neither can do whip stalls.

The TCDS Number 3A19, Rev 44

At least we agree that the 9(A) is not designed for aerobatics.

 

[frankh]

I have a friend who....

Yes really it did happen to a friend...not me..

Described his first roll in his RV6a...He rolled inverted and split S'd out of it...Of course he did check he was well below manouvering speed didn'nt he?...Nope.....He pegged the ASI on the downline!

As others have said...slippery airframe can get you into trouble even on the acro models.....Now I used to roll my Old Zodiac all the time and that certainly wasn't rated for it...But nor would it hit VNE straight down either.

RV's will in a heartbeat, so once again if you NEVER screw up it will be fine in the 9A....Trouble is I screw up about 3 times in any one day...

Frank

 

[ddurakovich]

Whose definition of aerobatic?

I know I'm picking nits here, but there are times when absolutes don't seem to fit.

The only place I've ever found in the regulations that defines 'aerobatic flight is as follows:

? 91.303 Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight?
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. ​

Does that mean stalls are prohibited in a -9A?

Many of the 35 - 60 year old 'spam cans' were allowed spins, but were only certificated to Utility category at +4.4 G's.

Hoover did his routine in that Shrike Commander that most wouldn't try in a Pitts. Granted, his skill level was a little better than most , but still.....

Legally, you should not exceed the design limitations of the airframe, or the skill level of the pilot. Either one will kill you.

In my mind, however, there are no design load limitations published for the -9A, which makes it hard to determine what you shouldn't do.

Again, does this mean that you shouldn't do stalls in your -9A?

 

[RVbySDI]

Again, does this mean that you shouldn't do stalls in your -9A?

I understand where you are coming from on this issue but, the inability of the FAA to adequately define what aerobatics means not withstanding, I do not believe that, given those FAA definitions and the stall characteristics of the RV9/A (or any airplane for that matter), a stall manuever would push the aircraft toward the G load limits of the airframe. I believe the true killer when flying aerobatics in a non aerobatic designed airplane is the issue of pushing the airframe beyond its G loading design limits and not whether it would perform a specific manuever or not.

 

[pierre smith]

Most are aerobatic...

It depends who's flying whether or not you can do aerobatics in almost any airplane.

Bob Hoover rolls and loops the Aero Comander...not designed for aerobatics.

Lears, Citations and Cessna 210 's have been rolled, some looped.....not designed for aerobatics.

Cessna Agwagons and Agtrucks have been looped and rolled by me and my former boss...not designed for aerobatics.

Just because an airplane is "not designed for aerobatics" doesn't mean it cannot do aerobatics. A Cessna 210 is a great IFR platform and was designed for high speed cruising, but since it has ailerons and a decent roll rate, it can do nice barrel rolls as my boss did.

An RV9 has a pretty decent roll rate, so.......... It has a 4.4g design and a well executed loop seldom pulls more than 3 Gs. Rolls exert little more than 1 G and some twist imposed on the wing due to the deflected aileron, but not any more than going into a turn.

The placarded prohibition against aerobatics has behind it a possible poor/no spin recovery flaw or some other quirk. Does the RV 9 manual say "Aerobatics prohibited?"

Regards,
_

 

[jcoloccia]

The FAA, in general, has been very reasonable in their definition of "aerobatic" maneuvers and though not strictly codified, they've issued guidance that make it clear that by "aerobatic", when it comes to airways at any rate, they mean "boring holes in the sky so nobody can figure out where you'll be next". Stalls and other training manuevers are not abrubt and unpredictable like, say, hammerheads. Geez...they're just trying to keep yahoos from slamming into other aircraft or things on the ground. By and large, it's all just common sense.

I don't know of anything that says you can't do aerobatics in a "normal" category aircraft although I'll admit I don't have the FAR/AIM memorized. The POH is responsible for providing guidance on which manuevers can and can't be performed. For example, the Warrior II can be flown in the Utility category, but spins are still prohibitted.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that if you haven't done enough akro to have flubbed a simple loop or roll and had to recover 4+g's (nobody's perfect), you probably haven't done enough to be contemplating akro in a "normal" category aircraft. If you HAVE, then you probably know better.

Somewhere in the middle are the folks who think they're got it figured out and will never get bitten again.

Just my $.03.

Fly safe.

 

[ddurakovich]

By and large, it's all just common sense.

That, I believe, summed up my position EXACTLY

 

[alpinelakespilot2000]

The only place I've ever found in the regulations that defines 'aerobatic flight is as follows:

? 91.303 Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight?
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. ​

Does that mean stalls are prohibited in a -9A?

OK, this is going to show how rusty I am on the regs., but don't the FAR's indicate that aerobatics are considered anything that includes bank angles in excess of 60 degrees and pitch in excess of 45 degrees? Perhaps I remember seeing this where it discusses when parachutes must be worn? I don't have my FAR/AIM handy to look it up though... just thought I'd throw it out to see if anyone can confirm it easily.

 

[Brian130]

OK, this is going to show how rusty I am on the regs., but don't the FAR's indicate that aerobatics are considered anything that includes bank angles in excess of 60 degrees and pitch in excess of 45 degrees? Perhaps I remember seeing this where it discusses when parachutes must be worn? I don't have my FAR/AIM handy to look it up though... just thought I'd throw it out to see if anyone can confirm it easily.

That describes when you have to wear a chute, but doesn't mention acrobatics or aerobatics.
http://risingup.com/fars/info/part91-307-FAR.shtml

 

[thallock]

Ok, I stand corrected. The aerobat is beefier that a normal 150. I'll never listen to those lying flight instructors again. And, I guess it's a good thing I'm building an RV-7A, cause I really do want to do simple rolls and loops (really don't like spins). I feel sorry for youse guys stuck with a 9.


Tracy.

 

[hevansrv7a]

So, Dave, I guess you're saying I was irresponsible when I took that 2 hour aerobaticas intro in the 152 aerobat? The only difference between a 152 and a 152 aerobat is that the aerobat has quick release pins for the door, so you can get out if the tail falls off.

Cheers,
Tracy.

Sorry, I don't think that is exactly true. I think the Aerobat is stronger.

 

[bsacks05]

"I feel sorry for youse guys stuck with a 9."

I feel sorry for youse guys still building!!

 

[Harvey L. Sorensen]

aerobat

I have been told that a aerobat has heaver skin.
N51HS flying

 

[OneTwoSierra]

There are a lot pilots out there showing off their 6's to their buddies by performing aerobatics who would swear that noone should do aerobatics in a 9 -- while at the same time they're rolling around the sky at a 4.4G normal catgory weight. Unless the pilot and passenger are both 12 years old there's no way two people in a 6 are in the aerobatic category.

The hipocracy surrounding this subject is limitless.

And how many rolls have been offered to passengers not wearing parachutes?

I hope these people who chimed in first on this thread, none of which have or are bulding a 9, get some actual experience with a 9 some day.

 

[n2prise]

Sum it up?

This thread really grew fast! Lots of statements both ways. I for one, did not like doing the spin recovery in a 152 when I was a student pilot in 1992.

As for the RV-9A I have been flying since June 9, 2005 - - it is a going places machine. The Hobbs has over 209 hours on it. The stalls are a non-event. No loops, no rolls, no interest in aerobatics. I did the 60-degree banked turns in my phase 1 testing, same as I did in a 172 the last time I had my BFR in a spam can. My most recent BFR was in Van's RV-6A (N666RV) with Mike Seager in the right seat. That was also when I did my transition training to fly RV-*A series airplanes (June 1 & 2, 2005).

As for Bob Hoover and the AeroCommander Shrike, when he finished his routine with both engines off from way up there, he always did three loops (very lazy), three rolls (also lazy), and did a dead-stick spot landing at show center. When a guy like that survives WW2 combat, does the stuff he did at Edwards AFB after the war with Chuck Yeager, and as an aging air show pilot, makes the maneuvers look easy - - it is obvious he understands the physics (G-loads) of safe flight.

Nuff said......fly safe!

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A #90622 Slow-build N2PZ
www.n2prise.org

 

[chuck]

There are a lot pilots out there showing off their 6's to their buddies by performing aerobatics who would swear that noone should do aerobatics in a 9 -- while at the same time they're rolling around the sky at a 4.4G normal catgory weight. Unless the pilot and passenger are both 12 years old there's no way two people in a 6 are in the aerobatic category.

A 1000lb RV4 with two 175lb adults comes in at 1350 which is the aerobatic gross for a 4. According to information posted on this site referenced back to Van's engineering, fuel is not to be included when calculating the aerobatic gross.

See here:
http://tinyurl.com/ubeoh

 

[kevinh]

According to information posted on this site referenced back to Van's engineering, fuel is not to be included when calculating the aerobatic gross.

See here:
http://tinyurl.com/ubeoh

Yes. When I read this thread I sent an email to support@vans to confirm. And Van himself wrote back to say, yes - the fuel in the wing tanks doesn't count against the aerobatic gross weight - because it is so close to the center of lift. Of course, lighter is better, but worth considering if you are thinking about a six.

 

[RV9798]

So

Every plane has a mission:

A 9 is for crosscountry. If you want to do acro.....don't build a 9. If you know what you are doing (Acro) you can do in any plane. Just don't blame the designer if it goes wrong.

Fly safe

 

[rvator9a]

I'm always amused when this subject comes up on the posts. It is very easy to figure the replies by which plane the responders are building. If they happen to be building a 7 they will tell you that as soon as you bank past 60 degrees your 9 wings will fall right off. If they happen to be building a 9 then they want to know if Van meant only straight and level when he said no acro. I think any pilot that is contemplating acro in any plane should be more concerned with the level of skill and experience they posess before trying unusual attitudes in any aircraft. As Bob Hoover has demonstrated acro is possible in almost any aircraft, but as many crumpled planes have shown, a stout design is no defense against a lack of training

 

[N941WR]

An RV9 has a pretty decent roll rate, so.......... It has a 4.4g design and a well executed loop seldom pulls more than 3 Gs. Rolls exert little more than 1 G and some twist imposed on the wing due to the deflected aileron, but not any more than going into a turn.

The placarded prohibition against aerobatics has behind it a possible poor/no spin recovery flaw or some other quirk. Does the RV 9 manual say "Aerobatics prohibited?"

Regards,
_

Pierre,

The -9 manual does state "Aerobatics prohibited" or some such. It also states "No spins". However, I spoke to Mike Seager at SnF and asked him about spins since I intend to spin mine during phase 1 and he said it spins very nice. (I might even roll it but we will see.)

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Calling all Bob H's and Chuck Y's

As for Bob Hoover and the AeroCommander Shrike, when he finished his routine with both engines off from way up there, he always did three loops (very lazy), three rolls (also lazy), and did a dead-stick spot landing at show center. When a guy like that survives WW2 combat, does the stuff he did at Edwards AFB after the war with Chuck Yeager, and as an aging air show pilot, makes the maneuvers look easy - - it is obvious he understands the physics (G-loads) of safe flight.

Nuff said......fly safe! Jerry K. Thorne

Hey Jerry followed you web site before you flew, I enjoyed it.

To comment, add and elaborated, no one on this list is Bob Hoover or Chuck Yeager and no one ever will be.

FOLLOW THE RULES. The air frame is not stressed for aerobatics. I suspect most of the want to be loop and rollers have little or no experience doing aerobatics of any kind in any plane. I can tell you most can be done at 3g or less. I can tell you even Bob and Chuck can make mistakes and go to 6 gs in a failed maneuver and subsequent recovery. My point is the RV-9A is not rated for 6 g's. However if you are Bob H. or Chuck Y. go for it.

 

[svanarts]

The key phrase here is... "if done properly"

A 1G roll shouldn't stress the airframe...

Everyone, all together...

IF DONE PROPERLY!

In a 9, I'd leave it at that. If you don't know how to roll your plane properly, I'd leave the shiney side up, oily side down.

But that's just me.

 

[sportpilot]

There are 3 kinds of rolls. The barrell roll, the aileron roll, and the snap roll. Loops can result in negative G if not done correctly. Really bad. Spins dont usually result in excessive G, but, the recovery and pull out can tear the wings off a normal catagory airplane if your sloppy.

When you talk aerobatics you have to consider who is doing it and what kind of airplane are you using. The RV9 is not a good candidate for aerobatics even in the hands of a good aerobat. Its already a pretty fast airplane, and when you point the nose at the ground it gets even faster. Going fast in a not-so-strong airplane will tear the wings off. People who do aerobatics in an RV9 are taking a terrible risk. The RV9 has a short stubby wing spar insert not as strong as a full carry through spar.

Last year I met Patty Wagstaff, and Alex Land and watched them do a practise workout just for fun in a brand new Extra 300. As good as they are, They fell out on some of their practise vertical manuvers, and inverted recoveries from any attitude is a requirement if your serious about aerobatics. I asked Patty what airspeed she determines her pullouts on vertical manuvers. She said "Airspeed? I dont have time to watch the airspeed, I watch the ground, when it gets pretty close, I pull out." There is not any airplane built harder than an Extra 300, and even they break on occasion.

Have fun, but please be practical.

 

[Mel]

You didn't mention "slow rolls". These are done around the horizontal axis of the fueslage. None of these, BTW are apropriate in the RV-9/A. It is NOT aerobatic!

 

[sportpilot]

Good point Mel. I sure hope it sinks in with all the RV9 flyers out there.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

What part of this is hard to understand?

None of these, BTW are appropriate in the RV-9/A. It is NOT aerobatic!

What Mel said.

THE RV-9 AIRFRAME IS NOT AS STRONG AS THE OTHER RV AIRFRAMES, which are designed for aerobatics. The RV9 is designed to a lower MAX ALLOWABLE load factor or G factor, and the longer span wing means higher bending moments. Stop the madness.

What part of the RV-9 has LOWER strength structure don't folks understand.

I suspect folks asking if it's OK or those commenting that its COOL, to do aerobatics carefully, have never done ANY aerobatics.

ANY AEROBATIC MANUVER (even flown by a Pro acro pilot) CAN DEGRADE AND RESULT IN UNEXPECTED HIGHER G's and possible OVERLOAD OF THE AIRFRAME.

Remember the factory RV-8 wing that failed killing two men?

STUFF DOES AND CAN COME OFF RV's, BIG PEICES, THINGS YOU NEED LIKE WINGS, IF YOU EXCEED LIMITATIONS OF THE AIRFRAME. Aerobatics in a RV9 puts you closer to important parts of the airframe failing.

OK, Please if you want to be top gun acro pilot in a two abreast seating RV, build a RV-6(A) or RV-7(A).

 

[JimLogajan]

Spins in the RV-9/9A vs Cirrus Aircraft

THE RV-9 AIRFRAME IS NOT AS STRONG AS THE OTHER RV AIRFRAMES, which are designed for aerobatics. The RV9 is designed to a lower MAX ALLOWABLE load factor or G factor, and the longer span wing means higher bending moments. Stop the madness.

What part of the RV-9 has LOWER strength structure don't folks understand.

This brings up a question I've sometimes wondered: why hasn't Van's Aircraft allowed for the RV-9/9A what Cirrus Aircraft did for their aircraft: a ballistic parachute? The Cirrus aircraft models were not certified for conventional spin recovery, so they use the chute as the recommended recovery mechanism. Now according to the Spin Testing section of the Van's plans for the aircraft, "The RV-9/9A is not intended for spins at all." Yet Van has been ambivalent at best towards ballistic parachutes - yet if any model would benefit from having an ballistic parachute, I would think it would be the 9/9A.

 

[N916K]

What part of the RV-9 has LOWER strength structure don't folks understand.

My RV-9 plans didn't have any strength data in it. Where can I find the test data for the RV-9?

 

[sportpilot]

spins

The best thing to do is just dont spin the RV9. I can give you a list of all the planes that I have never spun, but its to long for here. Dont loop it, dont roll it, dont get inverted, whats so hard about that?

 

[rv12iS-builder]

My RV-9 plans didn't have any strength data in it. Where can I find the test data for the RV-9?

According to the CAFE foundation Aircraft Performance Report that was published a year or two ago, acceleration limits for the RV-9A are +3.8 and -1.5 at gross weight (1,750 lbs.) and +4.4 and -2.2 at <1,650 lbs.

 

[N916K]

According to the CAFE foundation Aircraft Performance Report that was published a year or two ago, acceleration limits for the RV-9A are +3.8 and -1.5 at gross weight (1,750 lbs.) and +4.4 and -2.2 at <1,650 lbs.

I understand that Vans intent was to build a normal category plane to compete with Cessna 152's, but market placement has nothing to do with capabilities. I just would just like to see the test data for the RV9. It sure seems like quite a few people know what the RV9 structure is capable of and sense I actual fly an RV9, I would like to know what the data is also.

 

[Greg Dillon]

I understand that Vans intent was to build a normal category plane to compete with Cessna 152's, but market placement has nothing to do with capabilities. I just would just like to see the test data for the RV9. It sure seems like quite a few people know what the RV9 structure is capable of and sense I actual fly an RV9, I would like to know what the data is also.

The wing and empennage are the limiting factors of the 9-the fuselage is virtually identical to the 7. In our EAA builder's center we have 3 9s and 2 7s going together. It's tough to tell them apart unless you know what to look for. The 9 and 7 wing spars are almost identical except for length. The 9 and 7 wings have nearly identical rivet sizing and spacing as far as I can tell. The rudders are the same. Big difference in the HS and elevators-elevator skins on the 9 are much thinner. The 9 is not a "trainer" by any means(190MPH trainer?) It just has a different mission. By the way-we had a Young Eagles event on Sat and the 9 "whistle" was verified-sounds like a turbo! Has anyone found out why the 9 is only rv that does this?

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I understand that Vans intent was to build a normal category plane to compete with Cessna 152's, but market placement has nothing to do with capabilities. I just would just like to see the test data for the RV9. It sure seems like quite a few people know what the RV9 structure is capable of and sense I actual fly an RV9, I would like to know what the data is also.

Don't you think the guys at Van's that designed the airplane know what the airplane is capable of?

People blindly except that an RV-9 has all of its parts properly designed so that the wings wont fall off when they fly it, but then the same people second guess the designers when they say not approved for aerobatics!
If you wont believe this, then you probably shouldn't be trusting your life to all of the other engineering eather.

As far as what it is capable of...I have seen photos of a Boeing 707 prototype inverted over Seattle while doing a barrel roll.

I don't know about you, but that does not prove to me that any ATP airline employee pilot type guy would have done just fine providing his passengers with a little extra excitement during there flight (when 707's were being used for passenger service).

Bottom line is this...
The RV-9 is capable of aerobatics, just like most any other airplane (even the Boing 707).
If you choose to do aerobatics you should know that you are doing so with a much smaller safety margin than you would have if you did aerobatics in an airplane that has that approval (the reason that FAR 23 certification requirements for aerobatics approval requires a +6/-3 G. limit load rating, among other things, isn't so that people flying the airplanes can go out and do 6 G. loops all day. It is so that they have a good safety margin for the level of G's that typically get applied when doing aerobatics).

No one would buy RV kits if they were designed as 2.5 G. airplanes. Why? Because you would have to be much more careful when you flew them (even in normal flight conditions).

If you do aerobatics in an RV-9 it is the same as buying that 2.5 G. airplane.
You are flying it at a reduced safety margin and if you accidently screw up... that margin might not be enough!

(P.S. Not meaning this as a flame job directed at you Cam, just tired reading all the second guessing the designer posts in this thread)

 

[alpinelakespilot2000]

I don't think Cam is second-guessing Van's. He seems to just want to know what the test numbers are. I would love to know what the actual failure load is as well. Wouldn't we all?

One other obvious difference b/w the -9 and -7, it seems, is that they have different wing spans but, if I remember correctly, the same number of ribs. If true, that would explain why the -7 wing might be stronger.