---------------------------------------------------------- RV9-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/13/07: 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:00:58 AM PST US From: "Rafael" Subject: RV9-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:39 AM PST US Subject: RV9-List: Initial build decisions From: James H Nelson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:59 AM PST US Subject: RV9-List: RV9A and why From: James H Nelson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:20:48 AM PST US Subject: RV9-List: RV9A From: James H Nelson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:58:16 PM PST US From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: RV9-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv9-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV9-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv9-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv9-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.