What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

-9A Aerobatics

ARJAY

Member
I saw a 9A doing aerobatics on YouTube. Are slow rolls and loops ok in a 9A and if not, what is weaker on them?
 
Any airplane can perform loops and rolls, if they are executed properly. Botch a manoeuvre and things can get ugly really fast.

They extra margin / strength built into the -7 is what makes it more desirable for acrobatics.
 
The RV-9/A is not approved for aerobatics.

Higher aspect ratio of the wing, different airfoil, different spars, different empennage, etc.

If you want to do aerobatics, find a different airplane. PLEASE!
 
good question, and a common one...

I saw a 9A doing aerobatics on YouTube. Are slow rolls and loops ok in a 9A and if not, what is weaker on them?

I see you're fairly new on the forum, and a good place to ask such questions.
First, I've seen people on YouTube put xxxxx into their yyyy, and light it on fire!
Is it ok? ;)
I've been passed in winter by a '97 Sunfire with bald tires doing 100 mph. Can you do it? Is it instantly fatal?:confused:

As many smarter and more experienced that we are, have said....don't do it, or you may just end up on YouTube.

Lots of good -4's & -6's out there too, and places to get aerobatic training with all the money you save.
 
Enjoy you're -9A for what it was designed to do.... GREAT X-country flying!!!! Want to go upside down.... go out with a friend in an airplane designed for that.
JMHO...
 
design limits

don't want to hijack the thread but, what do you do once the limit is exceeded? Good pilots have now died the these airplanes, and yet idiots have lived through doing totally stupid things...ie the rv4 pilot who's canopy exited the plane pulling "7" G's running 230 mph.... speed should not be exceeded because of flutter...flutter destroys airplanes .... is the g limit a one time deal? do you throw the wing away? how is it inspected... with so many planes built by so many inexperenced people, can a plane be throughly inspected to know that it is completely, without a doubt, airworthy? The rv4 pilot lived and told his story, but how many would possibly do this and not say anything and later sell the plane?
 
G limits are specified as Design and Ultimate. The Design limits are chosen such that if you fly beyond them, you will bend something. The Ultimate loads are chosen such that if you fly beyond them, you will break something.

Exceed the Design limits, you may get back to the airport in one piece. And you'll want to ground your airplane until you figure out what you bent.

Exceed the Ultimate limits, and hopefully you have a parachute and the space and wherewithal to use it.

The -9 design limits were not chosen with aerobatics in mind. Yes, Bob Hoover can fly aerobatics all day in a non-aerobatic twin, but he didn't learn to do them in that airplane. He learned in fighters that were stronger than his own G-limit.
 
Who is flying the airplane?

Ted Johnston rolled a 707. My Dad (14k hour pilot) rolled a Citation. My Grandpa did aerobatics in a Piper Pacer.

Will I do that in my 9? Not a chance since I will never be the stick they were...

I think we can agree we need to fly within our skills.
 
Do US Experimentals need specific aerobatics clearance or is it like with the Gross Weight - declare what you want? Apart from being incredibly stupid, this would be illegal in the UK.
 
It depends

It depends on what the inspector/DAR who issues the A/W certificate writes into the operating limitations, if anything.
Mine (RV10) say, "No aerobatic maneuvers permitted".
 
If you want to have aerobatics approved for an otherwise non-aerobatic aircraft, you will need to convince the inspector that the aircraft meets normal aerobatic category requirements.

Normally he will want to see engineering data to confirm that the aircraft meets these requirements. Not an easy task.
 
Ted Johnston rolled a 707. My Dad (14k hour pilot) rolled a Citation. My Grandpa did aerobatics in a Piper Pacer.

A Citation would be extremely easy to safely roll even for someone without a lot of aerobatic experience. 14K hours is irrelevant anyway. Aerobatic experience is all that matters - it's not about seat time. Tex Johnston.

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane. People always bring up Bob Hoover in these discussions, but you don't need to be anything like Bob Hoover. Just have some minimal competence and understanding of the maneuvers. If you're unsure whether or not you have enough of this, then you don't. I don't happen to understand the appeal of doing some loop or roll on occasion in a non-aerobatic airplane (get an aerobatic airplane), pilots are still reponsible for flying within their abilities, aerobatics or not. I think most understand that the 9 is not designed or stressed for aerobatics in the eyes of FAA standards. Same as for a Cessna 172. That's all that needs to be said. Most here are grown-ups. All the admonishments are for those with no aerobatic experience. The same admonishments would apply for these same people who want to start flailing around on their own without training, even in their "aerobatic" RV model. None of this is a recommendation for doing aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes.
 
Last edited:
The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane.

I beg to differ. Whilst a loop could JUST be flown within 4g, it leaves absolutely no margin for error. Worst still is the idea that a roll or barrel roll is an easy, gentle manoeuvre. I was a flying instructor in the RAF and I can tell you that both these can go horribly wrong, very quickly if you fail to get the nose high enough in the first half.

Doing aerobatics in a non-approved aircraft goes into the same category as flying in cloud without an IR, unauthorized "fly-bys" and any other number of rule-breaking acts which display poor judgment and lack of professionalism even if they could be considered "safe".
 
The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane
I might agree with this statement, but I have removed:
safely and consistently
By definition, and accident records, it is not safe - not least because any pilot doing it on their own accord is unprofessional, probably acting illegally and hence by definition is "unsafe".
 
Having rolled and looped many of you in my aerobatic aircraft (simetrical wings) and in yours (asimetrical) i can say "most" (as in almost all) tend to load the aircraft too much after dropping the nose comstantly. I seen 300 to 700 feet drop in just rolls only for some to start pulling hard on the stick. Easy flying mechanics to fix with someone willing to analize your flying and spend time fixing your mistakes. Still aerobatics is not for everyone and must be done safely and with proper training for make and model (if allowed)
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ. Whilst a loop could JUST be flown within 4g, it leaves absolutely no margin for error.

4.4G, but I disagree. A competent aerobatic pilot could fly 1000 out of a 1000 loops with no more than 3G on the meter. They could fly 1000/1000 aileron rolls under 2G. Competent aerobatic pilots don't NEED much margin with the basic maneuvers. Pilots who are first learning? Of course they do. They also need an instructor sitting with them.

Saying 4.4G gives you "absolutely no margin for error" is like telling a licensed pilot that a 1.3Vso approach gives you "absolutely no margin for error". I would no more tell an inexperienced aerobatic pilot to jump in an RV-9 (or any aerobatic airplane) and have them go do some aeros than I'd tell someone who has never flown an airplane to go take the airplane up...and be sure to fly a 1.3Vso approach for sufficient "safety margin".

I was a flying instructor in the RAF and I can tell you that both these can go horribly wrong, very quickly if you fail to get the nose high enough in the first half.

No kidding. You're talking about pilots experiencing aerobatics for the first time. I'm not. And instructors can also tell you how beginning PPL students will spin airplanes during basic stall practice and come close to stalling on base-to-final...and a million more shenanigans that happen when you are first learning. I fail to understand how this comment relates to aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes. Anyone with the ability to screw up the basics this badly will not be protected by an additional 1.6G of load limit. They are at the beginner level, and they need to be in an aerobatic airplane with an instructor.

Doing aerobatics in a non-approved aircraft goes into the same category as flying in cloud without an IR, unauthorized "fly-bys" and any other number of rule-breaking acts which display poor judgment and lack of professionalism even if they could be considered "safe".

I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing legality. I'm purely talking aerobatics. Legality vs. safety issues are two different things.

I might agree with this statement, but I have removed:By definition, and accident records, it is not safe - not least because any pilot doing it on their own accord is unprofessional, probably acting illegally and hence by definition is "unsafe".

Any pilot doing aerobatics without training "on their own accord" in any airplane is unsafe. I am not talking about these types of pilots. I'm talking about pilots with enough experience, basic skill, and smarts to make perfectly acceptable decisions on their own. And yes, it CAN easily be done safely and consistently by an experienced pilot.

And before anyone thinks I am advocating we should forget about design intent, I am not doing that. None of this is a recommendation for anyone doing acro in a plane not designed for it. In reality, the RV-9 is little different from the countless other airplanes "not designed for aerobatics" in which pilots consistently and safely do loops and rolls in. And regarding airshow pilots, most people (with little or no acro experience) seem to give them worship status. Let me break it to you, to get an ACE card to begin flying air shows only takes very minimal aerobatic skills that anyone with some very basic training already has. "Airshow pilots" are no more special in the skill, judgment, and ability department than the many other aerobatic pilots out there who don't care about flying air shows.

So let me repeat -

Don't teach yourself aerobatics (in any airplane) - especially an RV-9.

Get aerobatic instruction in something other than an RV-9.

Afterwards, do NOT build your basic aerobatic skills in an RV-9.

Understand an RV-9 is stressed to 4.4 not 6.

If you question your skills and wisdom of doing acro in an RV-9, it is unwise.

Don't be stupid.

If you are a skilled aerobatic pilot and do an aileron roll in an RV-9, well that's your choice. We even have some of these pilots here on VAF. :eek: They're more likely to kill themselves turning base to final. There's not much margin remember. ;)
 
Last edited:
If you are a skilled aerobatic pilot and do an aileron roll in an RV-9, well that's your choice. We even have some of these pilots here on VAF. :eek: They're more likely to kill themselves turning base to final. There's not much margin remember. ;)

never ever done on other than an RV8 myself!
 
A Citation would be extremely easy to safely roll even for someone without a lot of aerobatic experience. 14K hours is irrelevant anyway. Aerobatic experience is all that matters - it's not about seat time. Tex Johnston.

The reality is that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of aerobatic experience and skill to safely and consistently fly a loop and a roll in a "non-aerobatic" airplane. People always bring up Bob Hoover in these discussions, but you don't need to be anything like Bob Hoover. Just have some minimal competence and understanding of the maneuvers. If you're unsure whether or not you have enough of this, then you don't. I don't happen to understand the appeal of doing some loop or roll on occasion in a non-aerobatic airplane (get an aerobatic airplane), pilots are still reponsible for flying within their abilities, aerobatics or not. I think most understand that the 9 is not designed or stressed for aerobatics in the eyes of FAA standards. Same as for a Cessna 172. That's all that needs to be said. Most here are grown-ups. All the admonishments are for those with no aerobatic experience. The same admonishments would apply for these same people who want to start flailing around on their own without training, even in their "aerobatic" RV model. None of this is a recommendation for doing aerobatics in "non-aerobatic" airplanes.


I agree 100%. Best and most common sense post on the subject so far. Almost any aircraft can be rolled safely if you know what you are doing. Regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a maneuver is safe or not. I was nearly grounded by the FAA when performing at the MERFI airshow once because my paperwork was incomplete, which I fixed. Fixing the paperwork to make me "legal" to fly the airshow did not increase my safety, nor the safety of the crowd. It simply made it legal for me to fly the airshow.

Having said this, and knowing I am capable of safely rolling any aircraft I happen to be flying, I have NEVER, EVER, rolled one that was not approved for aerobatics. Excepting the skilled, experienced airshow pilots who fly planned routines, practice regularly, and inspect their non-aerobatic aircraft regularly, I have felt such activity is showing off solely for the sake of showing off.

Many of my friends who liked to show off for the sake of showing off are dead as a result. And they were flying aerobatic approved aircraft when they were killed.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about pilots with enough experience, basic skill, and smarts to make perfectly acceptable decisions on their own. And yes, it CAN easily be done safely and consistently by an experienced pilot
Yes - but it just takes the experienced pilot to have exceptional stupidity and poor judgement to actually do so :D
 
Yes - but it just takes the experienced pilot to have exceptional stupidity and poor judgement to actually do so :D

Are you saying the well-known and respected pilots I've seen doing aerobatics in a Columbia 400, Twin Beech, stock J-3, Lear Jet, Shrike Commander, Interstate Cadet and others I can't think of off the top of my head - have exceptional stupidity and poor judgment? And don't pull the airshow card. They are just people who have practiced. Anyone can practice and learn to fly an airplane within its (as well as their own) capabilities.
 
Are you saying the well-known and respected pilots I've seen doing aerobatics in a Columbia 400, Twin Beech, stock J-3, Lear Jet, Shrike Commander, Interstate Cadet and others I can't think of off the top of my head - have exceptional stupidity and poor judgment?
I would say they do not if they have carried out suitable processes / peer review such as:
  1. Approval from the regulator (e.g. FAA)
  2. Approval from the aircraft manufacturer
  3. Approval from the Insurer
  4. Written risk assessment / safety case
Only my opinion, but anybody just jumping in an RV-9(A) and treating it as a RV6/7/8 with the sole difference as a 4.4g limit v 6g would have to go some to convince me they had a professional/safe approach to flying. Others may well differ ;)
 
Interesting discussion.

I can see both points of view.

I can probably do 1000 loops and rolls in my Super Decathlon without ever exceeding the g limit of a 9A.

Does this mean I would step into a 9A or other non aerobatic airplane and do even 1 loop or roll?

Not a chance. Been there, done that, won't do it again (I used to be invincible).

However others may have a different risk profile. I expect they would not take passengers and would ensure the ground below is devoid of people.
 
Ok--ALL of you have more flight experience than I do. I shifted between the 9A and the 7A for several years. But, I chose the 7A because of the higher speed, and the 'possibility' that I might want to learn some sort of aerobatic maneuver.
I didnt want to learn that in a 9A.
I do fly with some VERY EXCELLENT aerobatic pilots and retired military pilots. They know the limits of their aircraft. I'm not interested in becoming Chuck Yeager, or Bob Hoover---by testing the limits of the unknown. Some of our friends have been there, and are now watching over us.

Guys--please respect the limits of the RV's.
Tom
 
dead-horse.gif


Are we done yet?
 
I saw a 9A doing aerobatics on YouTube. Are slow rolls and loops ok in a 9A and if not, what is weaker on them?
Because beating a dead horse is what we do...

Don't think I saw an answer to the original question.

From distant observation (I don't have the plans) the 9 differences in the 9 are mostly in the wing design. Different, higher aspect ratio (since it is rectangular just means narrower chord and/or longer span. Different airfoil. So assuming the airfoil thickness is the same this means the depth of the spar is the same but length is longer. For similar AC load conditions (number of gs x weight) a spar built in similar fashion will experience higher bending moments due to longer length. Hence lower g rating on the aircraft.

The designers could have built a stronger spar design but that would have added weight but that would have countered the design goal of longer aspect ratio wing delivering less induced drag and more lift. Everything in configuration design is a trade off and mission design goals of the 9 where focused on making a more docile handling aircraft at expense of low speed handling, etc.

That is the main difference in the aircraft and the 6, 7, etc.

As far as will it roll with a less than 6 g load factor? Sure. But greater moment of inertia around longitudinal axis due to longer wing means lower roll rate for given aileron induced roll moment making it "harder" to do than in a shorter wing RV.

Bottom line the 9 wasn't designed for it but just as the 707 wasn't designed for it.

Should you do it? That is up to you. But know your margin of safety is approximately half of in the short wing RVs.

Having said that if I had a 9 I'd probably do it because I would feel like I could.
But that isn't a good reason to recommend the practice.

The beauty of Van's designs is the optimization of all the trade offs to get a great all-around design that can do so many things well. The 9 is just more optimized toward mission requirements that do not include aerobatic structural strength requirements. All for very valid reasons from an engineering perspective. They all obey the same laws Sir Issac Newton defined as well as the strength of a materials derived from theory and empirical observation. There ain't no free lunch and as someone's signature on here points out - aerospace engineering is approximation carried out to 5 decimal places....
 
dead-horse.gif


Are we done yet?

Vans Aircraft:

"The next question – do you intend to fly aerobatics?

This question often requires a bit of soul-searching – sure, we’d all like to fly like Bob Hoover -- but it’s an important one. Remember that honest answers are imperative. If you are really, truly interested in sport aerobatics and one of the reasons to have an airplane is to rotate freely in three dimensions, the RV-3, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A will fit the mission.
The RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12 are not aerobatic airplanes"
 
Back
Top