---------------------------------------------------------- RV9-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/16/04: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:57 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Richard Scott) 2. 08:40 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Bill Repucci) 3. 11:19 AM - Re: Turbulence (Ralph Cloud) 4. 08:47 PM - Re: Turbulence (Albert Gardner) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:12 AM PST US From: Richard Scott Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott I have ridden in the back seat of a -4. Not a place for full grown adults except for small women, maybe. I am 6'2" & 165 lb. and the space got pretty tight pretty quick. No room to change positions when the butt got tired. When the pilot put the flaps down my chin was on my knee. Electric flaps would have helped, but a 1 hr. flight would still have been pretty long. Richard Scott At 07:40 PM 5/15/2004, you wrote: >--> RV9-List message posted by: Charlie England > >Richard Scott wrote: > > >--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott > > > >Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have > >a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something. > > > >The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look > >macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want > >tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane. > > > >I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane > >rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really > >fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving > >300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some > >getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off > >altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is > >less work to fly. > > > >Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who > >want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids, > >midgets or small dogs. > > > >Richard Scott > > > >A couple of good reasons are: >1. MONEY (my reason for both I've owned). -4's are much cheaper than >-6's if you are buying one already flying. >2. Handling. Boy, do they fly nice; noticably better than -6's. > >If they are built light, you can still carry normal sized humans + >luggage in the back; you just have to watch GW if you have a back-seater >& you want to do acro. > >Charlie >Slobovia Outernational Airport >(Those of you in striking distance of central Mississippi, please come >on down for some BBQ June 5.) > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:40:44 AM PST US From: "Bill Repucci" Subject: RE: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Bill Repucci" I have to agree with Richard on this point. I'm 6'-0", 200 lbs and my shoulders where hunched so far forward it was extremely uncomfortable for the 1/2 hour flight. Not only that my head was on the canopy for the entire flight. Still, what a great flying airplane. It rolls and loops so effortlessly! I can only wish I were in the front seat for that flight. Claudio, the guy who built and flew the RV-4, "Purple Passion", that I got to ride in is a small person in physical stature so it fit him and most of his passengers like an RV-8 would fit me and my passengers. That said, it is my understanding that he is now building an RV-8. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Scott Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott I have ridden in the back seat of a -4. Not a place for full grown adults except for small women, maybe. I am 6'2" & 165 lb. and the space got pretty tight pretty quick. No room to change positions when the butt got tired. When the pilot put the flaps down my chin was on my knee. Electric flaps would have helped, but a 1 hr. flight would still have been pretty long. Richard Scott At 07:40 PM 5/15/2004, you wrote: >--> RV9-List message posted by: Charlie England >--> > >Richard Scott wrote: > > >--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott > >--> > > > >Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if > >they have a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something. > > > >The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to > >look macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for > >those who want tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single > >place plane. > > > >I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the > >plane rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & > >level. Really fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily > >start climbing or diving 300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is > >really light and takes some getting used to. A friend with close to > >300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off altitude without feeling it. The > >9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is less work to fly. > > > >Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those > >who want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than > >kids, midgets or small dogs. > > > >Richard Scott > > > >A couple of good reasons are: >1. MONEY (my reason for both I've owned). -4's are much cheaper than >-6's if you are buying one already flying. 2. Handling. Boy, do they >fly nice; noticably better than -6's. > >If they are built light, you can still carry normal sized humans + >luggage in the back; you just have to watch GW if you have a >back-seater & you want to do acro. > >Charlie >Slobovia Outernational Airport >(Those of you in striking distance of central Mississippi, please come >on down for some BBQ June 5.) > > == direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. == == == ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:19:57 AM PST US From: "Ralph Cloud" Subject: RE: RV9-List: Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Ralph Cloud" I have it on good authority that Van's uses the 9A demonstrator to commute from his home strip to work every day. Also, the crew at Van's likes the 9A for traveling to the shows (read that from the RVAtor) Ralph Livermore Wings do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:47:10 PM PST US From: "Albert Gardner" Subject: Re: RV9-List: Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" If every plane Van builds is as good as my 9A, there are many satisfied pilot/builders around. The 9 is a great plane, my wife and I have over 200 hours on mine this last year and love it. I don't do aerobatics so this is a good choice for me. Good range and low operating costs plus its very easy to fly and land. Burning under 8 gph in cruise at today's prices is kind of nice while doing 135-145 kts. And cross wind handling is great. We just made a weekend trip from Yuma to Kingman, AZ (pancake breakfast) to Cable, CA (friends graduation) and had a great time. Had some wind from WSW of about 12-18 kts both days but nice flying. Here are engine on to engine off elapsed times: KYUM (216') to KIGM (3,449') 160 nm 1.3 hrs = 123 kts avg speed. at 9,500' KIGM (3,449') to KCCB (1,439') 200 nm 1.7 hrs = 117 kts avg speed at 10.500' KCCB (1,439') to KYUM (216') 181 nm 1.3 hrs = 139 kts avg speed at 9,500' BTW, Cable airport is a great place to visit and Maniac Mike's cafe is top notch as is Mike himself. A RV3, 4, 6, 7, 8 or 10 may or may not do it quicker but this is the most fun you can have. Buy a Vans kit, build it, fly it, have too much fun. Albert Gardner RV-9A 872RV Yuma, AZ