Vans RV-9A For Sale - $96,500

[FastEddieB]

Posted for a friend:

VANS RV-9A IFR/VFR GLASS PANEL • $96,500 • FOR SALE • Slider, completed 2009 by seller, total hours: 493, tach: 395. ECI IO-360 with Catto 3-blade prop, eMag/pMag ignition, Airflow Performance fuel injection, sump heater, dual alternator w/ backup avionics battery. IFR Avionics: Dual Advanced Flight Systems 4500's, Backup VFR GPS, Garmin GNS 430W, SL-40 Com, Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV, Trutrak ADI, PS8000B audio panel, GTX 330 transponder, TIS Traffic, XM Weather, Gretz heated pitot, APRS, HID taxi/landing lights, many other extras. Annual April 2015. • Contact Bret Smith, Owner/Builder - located Copperhill, TN (1A3) • Telephone: 706-374-3650. • VISIT MY WEBSITE • Contact Bret Smith, Owner - located Mineral Bluff, GA USA • Telephone: 678-313-7230 . 706-374-3650


I've flown the plane and I'll vouch for his fastidiousness.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

 

[James331]

 

[FastEddieB]

5 photos on Barnstormers:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1078688&ZOOM=71e5f3a7f0bb85cbdc2f7ce19aba840b

 

[Henning]

Huh, interesting choice to see a wood panel and grips on an RV. I take it that's an electric prop? Is the RV-9 series aerobatic?

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

Great looking airplane right there. Too bad it's a nosedragger.

 

[Henning]

Great looking airplane right there. Too bad it's a nosedragger.

I know that being experimental, 'can' is subjective, so rather I'll ask, is there a factory supported design to make it a TD?

 

[alfadog]

That is a Barnstormers ad:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1078688_VANS+RV-9A+IFR_VFR+GLASS+PANEL.html

edit: Man, was I slow. Had the post loaded up and was looking at other stuff while 2 or 3 folk took care of business.

 

[frfly172]

Nice looking airplane.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Huh, interesting choice to see a wood panel and grips on an RV. I take it that's an electric prop? Is the RV-9 series aerobatic?

https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv9.htm

It's basically a long-winged, usually lower-powered RV-7. I don't think it's aerobatic in the traditional RV sense, although I'm sure it will roll just fine, if a bit slowly.

(We looked at them but, as with all side-by-side RVs, they couldn't be fitted with quick-adjusting rudder pedals. Since Mary and I swap PIC every other flight, and I am a full foot taller than she is, the RV-8's quick adjustable rudder pedals were a must. We just pull a handle, move the pedal assembly as desired, and go.)

 

[James331]

https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv9.htm

It's basically a long-winged, usually lower-powered RV-7. I don't think it's aerobatic in the traditional RV sense, although I'm sure it will roll just fine, if a bit slowly.

(We looked at them but, as with all side-by-side RVs, they couldn't be fitted with quick-adjusting rudder pedals. Since Mary and I swap PIC every other flight, and I am a full foot taller than she is, the RV-8's quick adjustable rudder pedals were a must. We just pull a handle, move the pedal assembly as desired, and go.)

What's the point of that?

Is it a better IFR/XC machine or something?


Thought most folks looked at RVs as the smaller and thinner the wings and the bigger the engine the better.

 

[Jay Honeck]

What's the point of that?

Is it a better IFR/XC machine or something?


Thought most folks looked at RVs as the smaller and thinner the wings and the bigger the engine the better.

That was my thought, too. I've been told the 9 flies more like a Cherokee/Skyhawk, and the long wing is more efficient.

 

[ateamer]

What's the point of that?



Is it a better IFR/XC machine or something?





Thought most folks looked at RVs as the smaller and thinner the wings and the bigger the engine the better.

Exactly. The -9 is not certified for aerobatics.

 

[Witmo]

Exactly. The -9 is not certified for aerobatics.

What experimental is certified for aerobatics? Vans might not recommend aerobatics for certain of his designs but nobody certifies an experimental aircraft for anything--it's "experimental" and up to the builder what he wants to do with it.

 

[wanttaja]

What experimental is certified for aerobatics? Vans might not recommend aerobatics for certain of his designs but nobody certifies an experimental aircraft for anything--it's "experimental" and up to the builder what he wants to do with it.

The FAA-issued Operating Limitations for my Experimental Amateur-Built Fly Baby prohibit aerobatic flight.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[hindsight2020]

From my understanding it's basically at the kit manufacturer level that they set these guidelines that the FAA then quotes as de facto regulatory limits when they agree to issue you the experimental airworthiness certificate with said operating limitations boilerplated into it. Essentially the FAA already did the drug deal with Vans, so there is no wiggle room for you to demonstrate the ability to perform aerobatics to the FAA's satisfaction in order to have an AWC issues for the RV-9 without that limitation in the Ops Limit section.

I suppose one could modify the airframe during construction in a way that then suggests it's no longer an RV-9 by design and thus could be flight-demonstrated to be aerobatic safe to the FAAs satisfaction. I suppose most people are not interested in pursuing that hassle since there are plenty of RV options available which are already aerobatic-boilerplated from the get go.But I could be completely out to lunch on the particulars of this process.

What I don't understand about the RV-9 offering is the 36 gallon capacity.
I get it was designed with the O-235 in mind, but they left a lot on the table by restricting its range so dramatically compared to how far an RV-7 can go on 6 more gallons at the O-320 engine choice benchmark.

 

[retpd2001]

https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv9.htm

It's basically a long-winged, usually lower-powered RV-7.

Most -9's have a 320 in them, this one has a 360 (as does mine), they really get up and go...

 

[Jay Honeck]

Most -9's have a 320 in them, this one has a 360 (as does mine), they really get up and go...

With that big wing I'll bet she climbs!

 

[LandSickness]

A friend of mine described the -9 as a cross between a glider and a Grumman.

 

[Ravioli]

I know that being experimental, 'can' is subjective, so rather I'll ask, is there a factory supported design to make it a TD?

My understanding is that it's fairly major surgery to change from Nose to Tail wheel.

The mains are attached and oriented differently, may even be a change to the motor mount since that's where the nose wheel attaches on an -A.

 

[Brad Z]

(We looked at them but, as with all side-by-side RVs, they couldn't be fitted with quick-adjusting rudder pedals. Since Mary and I swap PIC every other flight, and I am a full foot taller than she is, the RV-8's quick adjustable rudder pedals were a must. We just pull a handle, move the pedal assembly as desired, and go.)

Curious, did you consider trading legs yet keep your "assigned seats", i.e. one of you always flies from the right, the other flies from the left? The advantage is you can trade off PF duties without having to land and shut down.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Curious, did you consider trading legs yet keep your "assigned seats", i.e. one of you always flies from the right, the other flies from the left? The advantage is you can trade off PF duties without having to land and shut down.

Yeah, we did. In fact, that's how we flew the Ercoupe, cuz it was such a PIA to change my custom seat out. I simply learned to fly right seat, and she always flew from the left seat.

In the Ercoupe, the distance between left and right seat was virtually nonexistent. The sight picture was basically the same from either seat.

In the RV-7, the distance seemed like a big enough difference to not want to do this.

Besides, the -8 is just cooler -- so I wanted it.

 

[Henning]

My understanding is that it's fairly major surgery to change from Nose to Tail wheel.

The mains are attached and oriented differently, may even be a change to the motor mount since that's where the nose wheel attaches on an -A.

So the design does exist it's just a matter of opening things up and doing the work.

 

[CJones]

So the design does exist it's just a matter of opening things up and doing the work.

There is a TW version of the -9 series kit available from the factory, so the parts and design are available.

Assuming it is like the -7/7A series, you would need to replace the engine mount and maybe re-do some of the longerons in the tail section to beef them up for the tailwheel. MAYBE have to re-do the bottom of the rudder for added clearance.

 

[Mike5250]

That was my thought, too. I've been told the 9 flies more like a Cherokee/Skyhawk, and the long wing is more efficient.

It is more stable than the other rv's. The controls are much more responsive than a Cherokee or 172 but not as light as the rv12 or rv7 (only others I can compare it to).

 

[dweyant]

What's the point of that?

Is it a better IFR/XC machine or something?


Thought most folks looked at RVs as the smaller and thinner the wings and the bigger the engine the better.

I built/fly a 9A (9 is the tail wheel, 9A is the nose dragger).

It is a great plane. Extremely stable, easy to fly, about a 49 MPH stall speed, and I can do 140kts TAS at 8500 on less than 7 GPH.

The 7 has slightly shorter wings and is aerobatic rated. For that you have a slightly less stable plane.

We do a lot of cross country trips so the 9A made the most sense for us.

-Dan

 

[CJones]

It is more stable than the other rv's.

For that you have a slightly less stable plane.

I think 'stable' is the wrong word to use here. If you put a 'short winged' -7 into a 60* bank and get it trimmed, it will hold that attitude hands-off until your stomach can't handle it any more just like the 'longer winged' -9 (or -10 for that matter).

Saying that the short-winged RVs are less 'stable' gives the impression that they require constant input correction to maintain control in flight. I don't think that's the impression either of you are trying to give, though.

I would say that the short wing RVs have faster roll rates, so less input is required to perform more aggressive maneuvers and as a result, small control inputs have slower responses in the longer-winged RVs. Even so, the 'long winged' RVs still beat the pants off of a 172/Cherokee as far as control response.

All of the RV series that I have flown (6, 7, 8, 10) are extremely stable in all aspects of flight.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I think 'stable' is the wrong word to use here. If you put a 'short winged' -7 into a 60* bank and get it trimmed, it will hold that attitude hands-off until your stomach can't handle it any more just like the 'longer winged' -9 (or -10 for that matter).

Saying that the short-winged RVs are less 'stable' gives the impression that they require constant input correction to maintain control in flight. I don't think that's the impression either of you are trying to give, though.

I would say that the short wing RVs have faster roll rates, so less input is required to perform more aggressive maneuvers and as a result, small control inputs have slower responses in the longer-winged RVs. Even so, the 'long winged' RVs still beat the pants off of a 172/Cherokee as far as control response.

All of the RV series that I have flown (6, 7, 8, 10) are extremely stable in all aspects of flight.

This. I can trim up my RV-8 and fly hands off until I get bored with it. It's as stable as can be. Add my TruTrack autopilot, and it's hard to imagine wanting anything more stable.

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of adding more wing to the -9. Is the service ceiling higher?

 

[dweyant]

This. I can trim up my RV-8 and fly hands off until I get bored with it. It's as stable as can be. Add my TruTrack autopilot, and it's hard to imagine wanting anything more stable.

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of adding more wing to the -9. Is the service ceiling higher?

I have had my 9A up to 18,000 and it was still climbing at 200 - 300 fpm. Just didn't have a mask so I couldn't go any hire.

I routinely fly in the 12 - 16k range at 140kts TAS and 6.5 GPH.

The 9A has a lower stall speed than the 7, and is very docile to fly. I have some time in a 6 (no 7 time). The difference isn't huge, but the bigger wing does make the plane more docile(?).

I had no interest in aerobatics, and the wife said no tandem seating. Don't need a four seater, so the 9A made the most sense to me.

-Dan

 

[Jay Honeck]

I have had my 9A up to 18,000 and it was still climbing at 200 - 300 fpm. Just didn't have a mask so I couldn't go any hire.

I routinely fly in the 12 - 16k range at 140kts TAS and 6.5 GPH.

The 9A has a lower stall speed than the 7, and is very docile to fly. I have some time in a 6 (no 7 time). The difference isn't huge, but the bigger wing does make the plane more docile(?).

I had no interest in aerobatics, and the wife said no tandem seating. Don't need a four seater, so the 9A made the most sense to me.

-Dan

That is significantly better than my -8. I've had it to 15,500', and it was climbing at about that rate. Being normally aspirated, the engine was gasping for breath, we were on O2, and it was time to descend to our destination, so I've never been higher.

Of course, living at sea level in the gulf, I have little reason to fly that high (or higher). Our sweet spot for performance is 6 - 10K, where we will cruise at 170 knots on 8 - 9 GPH.

So the -9 seems to be suited for the high country.

 

[Dav8or]

Great looking airplane right there. Too bad it's a nosedragger.

Too bad it has fixed gear.

 

[Dav8or]

I have had my 9A up to 18,000 and it was still climbing at 200 - 300 fpm. Just didn't have a mask so I couldn't go any hire.

I routinely fly in the 12 - 16k range at 140kts TAS and 6.5 GPH.

The 9A has a lower stall speed than the 7, and is very docile to fly. I have some time in a 6 (no 7 time). The difference isn't huge, but the bigger wing does make the plane more docile(?).

I had no interest in aerobatics, and the wife said no tandem seating. Don't need a four seater, so the 9A made the most sense to me.

-Dan

That is significantly better than my -8. I've had it to 15,500', and it was climbing at about that rate. Being normally aspirated, the engine was gasping for breath, we were on O2, and it was time to descend to our destination, so I've never been higher.

Of course, living at sea level in the gulf, I have little reason to fly that high (or higher). Our sweet spot for performance is 6 - 10K, where we will cruise at 170 knots on 8 - 9 GPH.

So the -9 seems to be suited for the high country.

Wow! Is there really a 30 knot difference between a -9 and a -8, or is it just the way they are being flown here?

 

[Henning]

Wow! Is there really a 30 knot difference between a -9 and a -8, or is it just the way they are being flown here?

Well, there are three differences I see in the comparison, 9A is not tandem, has a longer wing, and in the comparison, was operating 8,000' higher with the same NA engine. Unless you have a turbo, most NA planes start losing the TAS gain game around 10-12'k with power dropping off faster than TAS is gained. I would suspect at 10'k the 9A will give up around 7-10kts on the 8A.

 

[CJones]

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of adding more wing to the -9. Is the service ceiling higher?

The -9 has a different wing design than the -7/8 series (the -7 and -8 have the same wing dimensions). It isn't just a longer version of the short fat wing on the -7/8. It's designed to be a little more efficient with less horsepower. The trade-off with that design change is that you aren't supposed to do aerobatics with it.

 

[FORANE]

Our RV-9a with a 150hp, o-320, 7.5:1 pistons, will typically cruise at 145-150 knots. The long wing makes it virtually impossible to stall. It will float and float. The stall speed is just 38 knots. In this cooler air with me solo I can climb at 700-1000 fpm through 10,000.

 

[timwinters]

Add my TruTrack autopilot, and it's hard to imagine wanting anything more stable.

I'm curious. What planes, when being flown by an autopilot, aren't "hands off stable?"

 

[timwinters]

Wow! Is there really a 30 knot difference between a -9 and a -8, or is it just the way they are being flown here?

The RV9 is designed around a smaller engine.

RV9 recommendations = 118, 135, and 160 HP

RV8 recommendations = 160, 180, and 200 HP

Using the only common HP listed...160...the 9 is only 8 mph slower than the 8 @ 187 vs. 195.

All data per the Van's website.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm curious. What planes, when being flown by an autopilot, aren't "hands off stable?"

many....autopilot maintenance requires more than just money...

 

[German guy]

Too bad it has fixed gear.

I read in the Vansairforce forum that I guy from Germany built a retractable RV. Speed was only marginally better, the small gain did not justify the added weight and complexity. The gear of the RV's appears to be a very clean design.

I recently flew a 7A and a 14A - absolutely beautiful aircraft. I felt that both were very stable, but that the 7A was quite a bit more responsive.
The first stall in the 7A caught me somewhat by surprise and I pushed the stick a bit too far forward. This send us right up, banging our heads against the canopy. Next, all I saw in front of me was ground. First steep turn, 60° bank and hitting the own wake turbulence? No problem. Two fingers and minimal control inputs are all it takes to control this amazing little bird.

The 14A is still very responsive, capable of aerobatics, but not as agile and light on the controls. The cockpit is also much bigger - in my opinion a perfect two person + luggage traveling machine.

A friend of ours flies a 9A. He is absolutely in love with it and claims that it is very stable, great cross country plane which is fun to fly and very economical to operate.

 

[Dav8or]

I read in the Vansairforce forum that I guy from Germany built a retractable RV. Speed was only marginally better, the small gain did not justify the added weight and complexity. The gear of the RV's appears to be a very clean design.

I saw one too years ago, it may be the same plane, I don't know. I think it was an RV-3 or -4. The problem is, it's a conversion and it used heavy components from much larger certified airplanes. The airplane was not designed retractable gear, so squeezing the stuff in and beefing up the structure to support all the new gear added a fair amount of weight. The result is a plane that is heavier than it needs to be had it been designed from the get go as a retrac and so not as fast as it could be.

Great job though. The one I saw looked to be nice work.