Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:27 AM - RV-7A vs RV9A (Jim Smith)
2. 03:41 PM - SEC: UNCLASSIFIED : RV-7A vs RV9A (Francis, David CMDR)
3. 09:50 PM - RST web site (Cliff Lotter)
4. 10:48 PM - Re: RST web site (David Taylor)
5. 11:09 PM - Re: RV-7A vs RV9A (David Taylor)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Jim Smith" <jsmith@openairnet.com>
I would like to ask for some opinions about the differences between an RV-7A and
a RV-9A. I originally chose the RV-9A, but after creating a layout of my hangar
with visio and trying to arrange my C172 and new the RV-9A around my existing
small apartment in the hangar, I found that it ain't possible. However the
RV-7A fits perfectly.
I have about 300 hours in the 172, stretched over many years. I get to fly about
2-4 hours per month (wife permitting). My thought was that the RV-9A would be
a fun and faster airplane to have available, but with a warm fuzzy because of
the low-time pilot ammenities.
I guess I am a little worried as to whether I can handle an RV-7A. Even though
I have to admit that being forced into the RV-7A because of limited space, intrigues
me because I would love to have one. Any thoughts?
Jim Smith
www.fun-places-to-fly.com/rv-7a
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
Jim,
One's choice of plane is a highly personal matter, like choosing the correct
wife. So what follows is my approach to choice and others may feel free to
totally disagree and not offend.
The main driver of the choice is the intended usage of the plane, not where
it will fit. You can always stack planes, use dollies to make them fit,
extend the hangar or go get a new one.
Now to the planes. I once owned a Tri-pacer, a good cruiser but ultimately
boring - why? I found that while doing cross countries is excellent, time
and money generally mean that we only did about two big trips a year. But
the plane has to be flown weekly or fortnightly to keep corrosion out of the
engine and cobwebs out of the pilot. So most flying is in fact local. You
quickly get bored doing circuitsin a non-demanding nose dragger. So I found
an unexpected propensity to "throw the plane around a bit" - and a joy and
interest in mild aerobatics. Not the lunch regurgitating type, rather the
elegant loop, roll etc.
Now the RV9 is a compromised optimised for two compatible aims - to be
cheaper than the RV6 and other competitors, and to be a very efficient
cruiser. To be cheap it was designed to take a 125hp engine (160max)and to
be efficient at that horsepower it had to be light. Van reduced the weight
by eliminating the aerobatic capability and installing a much lighter
structure, particularly in the wings. It is indeed efficient as a cruiser,
maybe 20% less fuel for the same cruise performance as a RV6.
The RV7 is optimised as a sports plane, with some concession to cruising
efficiency (fuel load and side by side seating). Its aerobatic and if you
hang a 180 or 200 hp engine on the front it flies like a fighter and goes a
long way (a very long way with the Johanson tip tank option), but burns more
fuel to do so. Its a more capable all-rounder than the specialised cruiser,
the RV9.
If you want to expand your flying skills then go for the aerobatic
capability of the RV4, 7 or 8, and dont forget these babies have tail wheels
- harder to learn to control, but immensely more satisfying to land once you
have mastered the technique.
Tantalising choices.
Have fun, David Francis, VH-ZEE, with a Jabiru 5100 engine I hope.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Smith [mailto:jsmith@openairnet.com]
Subject: RV7-List: RV-7A vs RV9A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Jim Smith" <jsmith@openairnet.com>
I would like to ask for some opinions about the differences between an RV-7A
and a RV-9A. I originally chose the RV-9A, but after creating a layout of my
hangar with visio and trying to arrange my C172 and new the RV-9A around my
existing small apartment in the hangar, I found that it ain't possible.
However the RV-7A fits perfectly.
I have about 300 hours in the 172, stretched over many years. I get to fly
about 2-4 hours per month (wife permitting). My thought was that the RV-9A
would be a fun and faster airplane to have available, but with a warm fuzzy
because of the low-time pilot ammenities.
I guess I am a little worried as to whether I can handle an RV-7A. Even
though I have to admit that being forced into the RV-7A because of limited
space, intrigues me because I would love to have one. Any thoughts?
Jim Smith
www.fun-places-to-fly.com/rv-7a
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Cliff Lotter" <exodus@gds.co.za>
Does anybody know what the web address is of RST. They put together headset, audio
panel etc do it yourself kits.
Regards Cliff
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RST web site |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "David Taylor" <rv7@cox.net>
Cliff,
The web address is http://www.rst-engr.com/.
-David Taylor (207DT reserved)
Building the empennage
Warner Robins, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Lotter" <exodus@gds.co.za>
Subject: RV7-List: RST web site
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Cliff Lotter" <exodus@gds.co.za>
>
> Does anybody know what the web address is of RST. They put together
headset, audio panel etc do it yourself kits.
> Regards Cliff
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7A vs RV9A |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "David Taylor" <rv7@cox.net>
Jim,
I really think you'd have no trouble in an RV-7A. I flew 152's and 172's
and transitioned to a Sonerai after 4.8 hours in a Champ. After that I
bought a T-18 and have had no problems. The RV is a great aircraft. You
might see if you can get a ride with someone in a 6A or a 7A and that might
ease your conscience. Much cheaper than a tail kit even if you have to drive
a couple of hours. Most EAA chapters have pilots who are more than willing
to give a ride. Just my .02 cents.
-David Taylor (207DT
reserved)
Building the empennage
Warner Robins, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Smith" <jsmith@openairnet.com>
Subject: RV7-List: RV-7A vs RV9A
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Jim Smith" <jsmith@openairnet.com>
>
> I would like to ask for some opinions about the differences between an
RV-7A and a RV-9A. I originally chose the RV-9A, but after creating a layout
of my hangar with visio and trying to arrange my C172 and new the RV-9A
around my existing small apartment in the hangar, I found that it ain't
possible. However the RV-7A fits perfectly.
>
> I have about 300 hours in the 172, stretched over many years. I get to fly
about 2-4 hours per month (wife permitting). My thought was that the RV-9A
would be a fun and faster airplane to have available, but with a warm fuzzy
because of the low-time pilot ammenities.
>
> I guess I am a little worried as to whether I can handle an RV-7A. Even
though I have to admit that being forced into the RV-7A because of limited
space, intrigues me because I would love to have one. Any thoughts?
>
> Jim Smith
> www.fun-places-to-fly.com/rv-7a
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|