Is Van a complete genius?

[Paul Folbrecht]

How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability, etc.?

P.S. Zoom is a wiener.

[John Ammeter]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:43:40 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
>yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability, etc.?
>
>P.S. Zoom is a wiener.


I wouldn't say a "complete genius" but damn near that...

I built an RV-6 and was always amazed at how easily it
handled. You didn't have to move the stick so much as
merely put a little pressure in the direction you wanted to
go.

IMHO, the RV aircraft is as close as you can come to flying
completely by feel and instinct.

John Ammeter

[Jerry Springer]

Low drag and airfoil...

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
> yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability,
> etc.?
>
>
Low drag and airfoil...

Jerry(number 2 RV-6 to fly)Springer

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
> yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability, etc.?

Don't have the details, but the CAFE Foundation has a cleaned up C152
that's about 50MPH faster than stock...

Ed Wischmeyer

[Paul Folbrecht]

Ok, I knew that much. :-) Actually, I meant to compliment Van because
it's obvious he really knows what he's doing and designs some wonderful
aircraft, but looking at a 152 up close it's really not too difficult to
imagine something going lots faster with the same engine. :-) Lots of
bumps & draggy stuff all over those things.

Bryan Martin wrote:
> in article .net, Paul
> Folbrecht at wrote on 1/4/04 8:43 PM:
>
>
>>How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
>>yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability, etc.?
>>
>
>
> Less drag.
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

If anybody cares to humor me any further-

One question I have on my mind now is why build a 7A over a 9A unless,
possibly, you really have to have the aerobatic capability? Or really
want more than 160hp? Cause at 160 the -9 just performs better. The 7
gets you a measly 2-3mph better cruise with a whopping 7-8mph increase
in stall speed. And the -9 is a better XC platform as well, is it not?
(I still have not gotten my demo ride.. didn't happen at AV this year
as I got there too late. Almost got a ride in a -6A once but then the
airport went IFR.)

Yeah, I'm still in the 'dreaming' stage but I'll get there (building the
thing, that is). At least I have the PPL almost out of the way-
checkride scheduled for 1/22.


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
> yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability,
> etc.?
>
> P.S. Zoom is a wiener.
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:06:05 -0700, Ed Wischmeyer >
wrote:

>> How can an RV-9 possibly cruise 50 mph faster than a 152 w/same engine
>> yet stall at the same speed and give up nothing in terms of stability, etc.?
>
>Don't have the details, but the CAFE Foundation has a cleaned up C152
>that's about 50MPH faster than stock...

Quote from the CAFE Writeup:

"1. Obtain RV-9 kit.
2. Unbolt engine from Cessna fuselage...."

:-) :-) :-)

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote...
> Ok, I knew that much. :-) Actually, I meant to compliment Van because
> it's obvious he really knows what he's doing and designs some wonderful
> aircraft, but looking at a 152 up close it's really not too difficult to
> imagine something going lots faster with the same engine. :-) Lots of
> bumps & draggy stuff all over those things.

http://www.airdale.com/comet%2021.html
http://www.ultralightnews.com/airventure99/comet21.htm

Not 50mph faster, but a good 20 or so, much better climb too...

[RobertR237]

In article .net>, Paul
Folbrecht > writes:

>
>Ok, I knew that much. :-) Actually, I meant to compliment Van because
>it's obvious he really knows what he's doing and designs some wonderful
>aircraft, but looking at a 152 up close it's really not too difficult to
>imagine something going lots faster with the same engine. :-) Lots of
>bumps & draggy stuff all over those things.
>
>

Best example of same basic design that goes much faster on same engine is the
GlasStar. It is very comparable in design and size to the 152 but has
performance figures that are far better.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[plumb bob]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> If anybody cares to humor me any further-
>
> One question I have on my mind now is why build a 7A over a 9A unless,
> possibly, you really have to have the aerobatic capability? Or really
> want more than 160hp? Cause at 160 the -9 just performs better. The 7

RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.

-- Plumb Bob (straight up opinions, screw political correctness)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:07:23 GMT, "plumb bob" > wrote:

>"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>> If anybody cares to humor me any further-
>>
>> One question I have on my mind now is why build a 7A over a 9A unless,
>> possibly, you really have to have the aerobatic capability? Or really
>> want more than 160hp? Cause at 160 the -9 just performs better. The 7
>
>RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.

I'll let Patty Wagstaff know.

Ron Wanttaja

[Paul Folbrecht]

Well, ouch!

> RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.
>
> -- Plumb Bob (straight up opinions, screw political correctness)
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Hey, how do you feel bout auto-conversions?

plumb bob wrote:
> RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.
>
> -- Plumb Bob (straight up opinions, screw political correctness)
>
>

[plumb bob]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:07:23 GMT, "plumb bob" > wrote:
>
> >RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.
>
> I'll let Patty Wagstaff know.

While you're at it, file a complaint with the PC police! Ok, let me restate:

"RV-9A's are for non-aerobatic girls."

How is that?? :-)

-- Plumb Bob.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:51:15 GMT, "plumb bob" > wrote:

>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:07:23 GMT, "plumb bob" > wrote:
>>
>> >RV-9A's are for girls :-) No aerobatics.
>>
>> I'll let Patty Wagstaff know.
>
>While you're at it, file a complaint with the PC police! Ok, let me restate:
>
>"RV-9A's are for non-aerobatic girls."
>
>How is that?? :-)

I'll have to check with my Persons of Hench. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[StellaStar]

>
>I'll have to check with my Persons of Hench. :-)
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>

'Zat just any old henchman, or your hench-wench?