Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - FW: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A (Rafael)
2. 06:30 AM - Initial build decisions (James H Nelson)
3. 07:07 AM - RV9A and why (James H Nelson)
4. 07:20 AM - RV9A (James H Nelson)
5. 08:58 PM - Re: Initial biuld decisions (Carl Peters)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | FW: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A |
I forgot to copy the RV-9 list.
_____
From: Rafael [mailto:rafael@gforcecable.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
James,
I'm in Aiken, SC. I would absolutely love to take a look at the projects
and would gladly pay all expenses for a ride in an RV. I'm retired, so any
time any day is convenient for me.
My decision once more changes to the 9A over the 7A. Last night a voice
kept telling me: Keep It Simple Stupid! After running a spread sheet with
the number$, a 9A with a fixed pitch prop, and an O-320 engine would plenty
of airplane for me.
My cell # (803)292-7410
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Clark
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Rafael,
Where is SC are you?
If you are ever in the Columbia area, we probably can arrange for you to see
an RV9A, RV6's, maybe RV7A, several RV7s under construction, an although you
did not reference such maybe an RV4 under construction and an RV10 just
getting started. Probably could rustle up a ride as well.
Now to your questions ... I think you have received good answers already but
ask yourself the following ...
1. Will MOST of my flying be cross-country?
2. Will I EVER want to do aerobatics?
Both planes fly quite nicely. The stick forces on the 9(A) is a bit
"heavier" as you get farther into the roll to one side or the other but it
still flies "like an RV".
James
On 5/9/07, Rafael <rafael@gforcecable.com> wrote:
Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My interests
are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips from South
Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast. Aerobatics are
not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like to dip my toe into
this type of flying.
A couple of questions:
Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9 would
probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave better in
the bumps (higher wing loading).
If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you higher
faster.
For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the added
cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal, giving 55 gal
total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its aerobatic capabilities?
This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
questions appropriate for this forum.
Thanks and best regards,
Rafael
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
http://forums.matronics.com
james@nextupventures.com .
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 |
|
Subject: | Initial build decisions |
Raffel,
In todays world the vote (mine) goes to the injected engine. The
big reason is you can run the engine lean of peak for the BEST economy.
You can not do that with a carburated engine. The O-360 will always run
at a higher GPH than an injected engine. My additional plus ws one less
control to have to use (heat).
Jim
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 |
|
Rafeal,
I went thru the same decisions. I went for the 9A beacuse of the
better handling as slow speeds. I however went with the IO-360 (ala -
RV7 fwf). I did this because with the IO 360 and LOW COMPRESSION
pistons you still have 167 hp. More than enough for the 9A. The big
reason again is: First, the low compression version is 7.2 : 1 which
allows for (need i say) auto gas. I refer to it as garbage gas. This
can give you the lowest cost in fuel as the years go by. Good HP but
with the lowest cost. Second: The injected engine can be run at
maximum efficiency ie: lean of peak. The carb engine can not. So I
traded about 30# extra in the 360 engine for lower operating cost. Next,
I bought the engine with a solid crank so I could not add a constant
speed prop. My project is at the prop spinner stage. As I finish this up
in the next few days, I will be doing the wings next. I bought the QB
kit and I have about 1250 hours in it now. You can look over my build at
www.websites.expercraft.com/jimn where I have been documenting the
build. I have my comments about the build both + & - . So far it has
been a good build. I expect to have it flying in 3 to 4 months. Of
course depending on the hurrican season here in florida (St. Petersburg).
Then again, using the IO 320 is a very good option. I would do
it with the 150 hp engine and a constant speed prop to get the whole 150
hp. Then again, the cost of upkeep on the constant speed prop has to be
figured in the equasion. So I went for the simpler fixed sensenich prop
and the low comp. IO 360 with a fixed prop. Gives me the HP with the
simplicity and few controls. Does this all make sense? Its the way I
figured it and went.
Jim Nelson
N15JN
RV9-A
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 |
|
Rafeal,
Are you doing a new engine? If so the cost difference is almost
nill (in airplane money) I believe it was about a grand less +/- for the
IO 360 vers IO 360. I bought mine at Mattituck in NY. Bought it at SNF
so I could get a few freebees. Paint color, shipping but then again it
may make little diff in the total cost. I also went with the E-Mag
ignitions for the best power and economy that electronic ignitions give.
( one "E" and one "P"). Did I say I'm cheep?? If a used engine -
well, it all up to you and the pocket book. BTW, have you flown in the
"9" yet? I took a ride in the factory 9 and it was a great flyer. Very
nice near the stall if that is what you call a stall. You had to work to
get it to quit flying. It had the O-320 with constant speed prop. Went
--- well, very fast. Take off was very quick. Of course if you put a
150 hp in a cessna 150, it would probably go like that (on take off
only). Just joking---
Jim Nelson
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: Initial biuld decisions |
Rafael,
A couple things:
1) Regarding Vne and the O-360, it shouldn't be a big deal with the
RV-9. There are quite a few O-360 powered -9's out there, and you won't
flirt with Vne in cruise. The only time it would be an issue is in a
dive/descent, a small part of your time flying. One will need to watch
for Vne with both the O-360 or O-320 in a descent - the former will make
it a bit easier to get close in a more shallow descent. Just throttle
back, that's it.
2) Between the O- and IO-360, there are many threads on this in the
archives for the various forums. Weight will be a non issue. The
injected models main advantage IMHO is to run lean of peak and achieve 1
gph improvement. A more balanced fuel mixture to each cylinder is
possible. You don't have to worry about carb icing. But, there is some
complexity, higher fuel line pressures, need for a return fuel line to a
tank and more expensive fuel selector, more difficult hot starts. There
are others on these forums that have much more real world info since I'm
still a builder.
3) FP vs CS prop - this is one of the the top three debates that rage
amongst the OBAM market (along with to prime or not, slider vs tip-up,
etc). I'm still deciding on that one, and have a year still to worry.
Frankly, I'm leaning toward an FP - lighter weight, MUCH cheaper, less
maintenance/overhaul issues. Craig Catto builds a beautiful 3 blade prop
that I have flown behind in a -9 - smooth, excellent craftmanship, and
costs $1800. He (and other manufacturers) can set you up with a prop
that is coarse pitched that will give you Van's cruise numbers.
Comparing performance numbers from various builders shows cruise numbers
about equal between a properly configured cruise FP vs a CS. You will
sacrifice climb rate/takeoff distance a bit, so if you fly into hot and
high or short fields all the time, then you need to re-think this. But
honestly, I do all my flying in Illinois and elsewhere into airports
with at least 3500' strips - really look at Van's T/O and landing
numbers with a FP prop in the -9. There are few places where you can't
go that a CS will make a difference. On the flip side a CS resell may be
better, especially with the -7. Acro and formation flying have some
benefit with a CS. One thing against the FP is slowing down and descent
rate. Coming into the pattern and trying to slow down takes a little
more forethought and earlier energy management with the FP, since the CS
can give a little drag when in fine pitch and help out. This is
particularly so with the -9. Basically, I think the argument is a little
silly, as some practice will make you competent. I fly a Dakota with a
CS, but have no trouble when I grab the glider-like Diamond DA-20 with
FP after practicing with it a little once or twice. So, for me, I'll
likely go with the FP and use the $5000 saved over the CS for about 1500
gal of avgas. That's quite a few cross-country trips!
Carl
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! --
|