What's new
Van's Air Force

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

When did you decide?

ryanturner

ryanturner

Member
I have decided to build an RV-7 or RV-7A and am having trouble deciding which to get. I would like to get some feedback on when other builders made the decision. It looks like I don?t have to decide where to put the third wheel until I order the fuselage kit. Did you know when you started your project or did you wait until you were forced to make a decision?
 
Welcome !!!!

Ryan, welcome to VAF.

I did not get a chance to make that decision, the 10 is has a training wheel only.:(

The 8 will not.

As to when I made that decision, well-------I started flying a taildragger in 87.

Good to have you aboard.
 
NG vs. TW

I would suspect that it has more to do with your flying abilities. If, you have a TW endorsement and are use to TW go for it. If you do not have any TW exterience then you will need TW training and endorsement-extra $$$. Personally I love the looks of TW planes. But, I have not TW experience, hard to find training in my area, most TW trainers have 200# max rear seat requirements-I weigh 250#, and since every major air force, and aircraft manufacturer in world have converted to NG since WWII I decided to stay with NG aircraft.
Mike H 9A/8A
 
Nose or Tail, Nose or Tail??????

ryanturner said:
I have decided to build an RV-7 or RV-7A and am having trouble deciding which to get. I would like to get some feedback on when other builders made the decision. It looks like I don?t have to decide where to put the third wheel until I order the fuselage kit. Did you know when you started your project or did you wait until you were forced to make a decision?
Click to expand...

When I started my 9 the A model was the only one offered. Before it was time to order the fuse. the 9 tail wheel model was flying and I though for quite awhile about weather to switch.

I had a tail wheel endorsement and some 20 hours of experience, so I didn't thing going without rubber on the nose would be a problem. The plane at rest looks a little more classic, cool.....

But I ended up going with the nose wheel for the following reasons.
1. Insurance would be a little cheaper.
2. I think resale value will be a little more (of course build cost are a little more.) And the market for resale would be greater (not everyone has a tail wheel endorsement).
3. I think that my PAX would not like being tilted back while on the ground and I want her to fly with me as much as possible.

Good luck with your decision, remember there is not wrong decision when it come to flying an RV.


Kent
 
I decided the day Van's announced a tail dragger version of the -9.

Learning to fly a plane with conventional gear isn't difficult, just 10 more hours of instruction and who can't use that?
 
When did I decide? I think when I was about five years old....:D

...tailwheel that is....
 
Last edited:
Do what you want!

As you stated, you must decide before you order the fuselage kit. Both the -7 and 7A fly the same except for the first and last 15 seconds of every flight.
RV's are relatively easy to take off and land as taildraggers go. If you don't have any TW experience, it is wonderful to learn and be proficient at a new skill. And your feet will never be lazy again. If you really want a -7 go for it!
 
Things that I didn't think about

The majority of my time is in a TW. I have 500 or so hours in a TW but in one specific airplane, an Aeronca Sedan. When the RV-9 came out that is what I intended to build. I changed my mind and went with the NW for a number of reasons. There were some things though that I didn't think about that I wish I had:

-It was pointed out to me by Ken at Van's that you can get the tail down lower in a NW which could allow for a slower touch down speed which I thought would be a good thing in an engine out situation. But WHAT I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT WAS you have the opportunity to hit the rudder if you flare WAY too much. I don't know if this is even something to worry about but it seems to me that the potential is there. I remember landing my Sedan once at the same moment the wind shifted 180 degrees. I slammed my tail down pretty hard and was happy there was a little wheel back there.

-Insurance must be cheaper for the NW because of the reduced chance of a ground loop but WHAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT AT THE TIME WAS the spat of NW versions that ended up on their backs. The redesigned NW gear looks to have pretty much solved that problem though (except for that guy in San Diego last year who had his nose gear bend). I also have the Grove NW just to act as suspenders to my belt. Even so, an off field emergency landing in a NW might be a little more exciting than in a TW airplane.

-I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT the fact that the TW version actually has steering on the ground versus steering with brakes for the NW. I had a seeping brake line on my Aeronca that, despite numerous attempts to snug the line, still seeped. Once I was somewhere and the right brake pedal went pretty soft. I still had steering and some brake on that side and I was able to fly home. On the NW, less brake = less steering = no go. And yes, I did eventually replace that line which fixed the problem.

-I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT the fact that two big guys on the steps of a NW version at the same time has the potential for the tail to come down and smack the ground.

So here I am, thinking that maybe I should have built a TW but I don't want to go through the effort and cost to make a change now. But every time I think the TW looks sexier I'll see a NW and think that is hella sexy too!

Make sure you think about the things that I didn't think about then go ahead and build what you really want. I'm sure I'm gonna love my airplane. Once it's off the ground, who cares where that third wheel is?
 
Decide,TW or NW?

I like one mans answer,,,, "when I was 5"! TW.
I am 62 and had tail wheel planes when I was 5. Tissue rubber band models. I love the looks of a tail wheel. I do not remember making the decision. I was too little to remember.
2000+ hours of TW time so far. No worries mate! Go for it.
 
I have no tailwheel experience. I have 160 hours, and i think my overriding concern when i was thinking about which one i'd get is the price- the NG is around $900 more just in the kits from vans.

other things that have convinced me a tail dragger is for me- no problems with a bending front landing gear. theoretically better for rough fields. looks cooler. If i own a 7, i'm going to fly it a fair bit. therefore a 7tg will encourage better flying skills
 
less bolting on a tailwheel?

I had always planned a NW (no TW experience)... but I nearly changed my mind last week after bolting in, removing (don't ask :(), rebolting, removing (don't ask again :mad:) and bolting in the main gear mounts on the front of the spar. Those bottom two inboard bolts are a _____!!!

BTW - I'm planning an upgrade on the nosewheel - either an axle space or a whole Grove wheel. Between that, the new fork design, the fact that I fly 99.9% on pavement, and the fact that the Skipper has taught me how to land an airplane (I NEVER let the nose wheel touch anymore) I feel confident that I won't have a dreaded tipple over problem.

I'll probably upgrade the main wheels also just to be different.
 
Newby tail draggers get to pay a very high insurance permium. There is a reason. Air Force, commercial airlines and most GA aircraft are not tail draggers. There is a reason. If you want to go home happy with most of your landings, go nose gear. I've built and owned a 6A and a 7.
Sold the 7 and have not been unhappy with my landings since. 3/4 of my power time is tail dragger towing gliders. The 7 does looks better on the ground than a 7A if thats whats important. If you ground handle an A model as you would a tail dragger (i.e. keep the weight off the nose) I can see no reasons to worry about the nose gear. Don't let the macho thing get in your way. It's not to macho to have a bad tail dragger landing and have witnesses. Remember the weed thing with taildragger pilots. Those that have and those that will be in the weeds. Thats why insurance premiums are higher. That $900 difference in kit prices will be the difference you'll pay in your first year insurance as a new tail dragger pilot. Loved my 7 by the way.
 
agough277 said:
Newby tail draggers get to pay a very high insurance permium. There is a reason. Air Force, commercial airlines and most GA aircraft are not tail draggers.

The 7 does looks better on the ground than a 7A if thats whats important.
Click to expand...

But the 6A is the best looking A model that Van has ever built.....:rolleyes:
 
agough277 said:
Newby tail draggers get to pay a very high insurance permium. There is a reason. Air Force, commercial airlines and most GA aircraft are not tail draggers. There is a reason. If you want to go home happy with most of your landings, go nose gear. I've built and owned a 6A and a 7.
Sold the 7 and have not been unhappy with my landings since. 3/4 of my power time is tail dragger towing gliders. The 7 does looks better on the ground than a 7A if thats whats important. If you ground handle an A model as you would a tail dragger (i.e. keep the weight off the nose) I can see no reasons to worry about the nose gear. Don't let the macho thing get in your way. It's not to macho to have a bad tail dragger landing and have witnesses. Remember the weed thing with taildragger pilots. Those that have and those that will be in the weeds. Thats why insurance premiums are higher. That $900 difference in kit prices will be the difference you'll pay in your first year insurance as a new tail dragger pilot. Loved my 7 by the way.
Click to expand...

I know a pilot with all kinds of airplanes, nosewheels and taildraggers. He's also flown them a lot of hours. However, his F1 (Rocket type), and a high wing taildragger have both got damaged in ground loop accidents in this last year. I think the F1 had something to do with the rear wheel linkage, and I have no idea on the recent highwing.

BTW--- I too have been keeping weight off my 6A's nose gear, ever since landing #1. I let it down to soon, and it picked up the shimmy. Also had to re-torque the nut to 22 lbs side load.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Even before I had decided which RV I was going to build, an RV-7 or RV-8, I knew it would be a taildragger.

I have been flying taildraggers since the early '60's and have no valid reason to change now. Besides, nosedraggers scare me.

Flying a taildragger will teach you what your feet are for--dancing on the rudder pedals.

wil
 
Still undecided....

My emp is almost done... I'm leaning toward a -9A... I'm a low time pilot (~100h).. all of this was on C172...

For TW :
The look of a tail dragger is way better...IMO
I've sit in a RV-6 and the visibility is good for a TW.
I also like the fact that you actually steer the rear wheel...
Easier to get on the wing, harder to get in the plane because of the weird angle
Slightly faster (not really an issue for me... I'll be going nowhere anyway)

For NW :
Lower insurance cost
Bigger step to get on the wing but easier to get in
The look is OK
I can't get TW endorsment in any local airport
I've flown them before

In my case the bigger question is Slider VS Tipup...
 
7 vs 7A wing kit differences (also applicable to the 8 and 8A)

ryanturner said:
I have decided to build an RV-7 or RV-7A and am having trouble deciding which to get. I would like to get some feedback on when other builders made the decision. It looks like I don?t have to decide where to put the third wheel until I order the fuselage kit. Did you know when you started your project or did you wait until you were forced to make a decision?
Click to expand...

Ryan,
Vans will tell you that the decision needs to be made before ordering your wing kit. That's not exactly true. I started out building an 8 (same wing) but switched to an 8A later on. The only reason Vans requires which end the third wheel will be located on (for the wing kit), is because the fuselage's main spar center section and main spar bulkhead are included with the wing kit.
The 7 and 7A wing spar center sections only differ in the number of rivets holding the main spar center section together. The A models omit 20 rivets on this area. These rivets are omitted to allow the steel main gear mounting weldments to be bolted to the forward side of the spar center section.
The 7's main gear mount to the motor mount, so the spar center section gets those extra 20 (3/16" diameter) rivets.
If you order a 7 wing kit and change your mind, you will have to drill out 20 large rivets. If you order a 7A wing kit and change your mind, you will have to install and rivet those 20 missing rivets.
I figured that installing rivets is easier than removing them, so I ordered an 8A wing kit. I decided to stick with the 8A because it is:
1 5 lbs lighter than the 8 (this is not true of the 7 vs 7A)
2 The 8A is slightly easier to build (no gear leg mounting towers. Another non factor for you)
3 The 8A has more leg room (important when you are 6' 4")
4 Lower insurance rates for tricycle gear aircraft

So you really don't have to finally decide till you order your fuselage kit.
Hope this helps
Charlie Kuss
 
I have over 1200 hrs in the tail wheel in the last 4 years. Yup, this guy flies every day. With that being said, I'm still glad the 7 is an A. Why, because I wanted one. I read a post the other day that someone put in a statement that the A model pilot is not skilled, that is why he has one. Well I guess when I fly the A model I will be underskilled. At least when I fly my tailwheel I'll be skilled. What a bunch of ****.

Build what you want, fly what you want. Take out the Mocho. It's you that is paying the bills here. There is so many veriations, slider, tipup, engine size. Makes your head spin. You know the kind of flying you do, and the type of people you hang around. If you want statis, you better go with the people you hang with. If that doesn't matter, than you have your own criteria.

I do know that the person that says, I don't care about weight and speed of the aircraft, either never has flown a light aircraft with power, or they already made a bad decision and are trying to justify what they did.

Don't make a bad decision for YOU, do what is best for YOU.
 
allbee said:
I have over 1200 hrs in the tail wheel in the last 4 years. Yup, this guy flies every day. With that being said, I'm still glad the 7 is an A. Why, because I wanted one. I read a post the other day that someone put in a statement that the A model pilot is not skilled, that is why he has one. Well I guess when I fly the A model I will be underskilled. At least when I fly my tailwheel I'll be skilled. What a bunch of ****.
Click to expand...

It is a bunch of ****:D

For my "A" model, I have to go all out with elevator and rudder to keep the nose wheel light; and rudder to stay on the center line. Unlike a sedate Cessna 172, my 6A gets rather torqued, and must have a nice propeller slip stream, which wants to aggressive pull to the left, as well as roll. In other words, I'm always thinking rudder, at least until I'm slowly idling on the taxiway.

But for all I know................it could be that shorter "classic tail' of the early 6A's that's the problem. It's just far better looking (kind of like the early P-51's) , but a bit harder to use, I suppose! :D

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
I knew immediately

That I wanted an A.

Reason is because I wanted to go IFR and the thought of dealing with a tricky crosswind landing after popping out of the clouds at 200 feet (especially after a long X country) sealed the deal.

remember that ILS (precision approaches) usually are only available on one of the runways...So if its a 25kt cross wind to that runway..Tough, you either land it of go somewhere else.

Frank
 
llavalle said:
Still undecided....

My emp is almost done... I'm leaning toward a -9A... I'm a low time pilot (~100h).. all of this was on C172...

For TW :
The look of a tail dragger is way better...IMO
I've sit in a RV-6 and the visibility is good for a TW.
I also like the fact that you actually steer the rear wheel...
Easier to get on the wing, harder to get in the plane because of the weird angle
Slightly faster (not really an issue for me... I'll be going nowhere anyway)

For NW :
Lower insurance cost
Bigger step to get on the wing but easier to get in
The look is OK
I can't get TW endorsment in any local airport
I've flown them before

In my case the bigger question is Slider VS Tipup...
Click to expand...


Tip ups are good for visibilty if you don't put a sun shade on the canopy but are a bitch to get out of if you flip over as are most off field landings. The roll bar in a slider is something else to consider. Never had a concern for more visibility in my sliders.
 
I learned to fly in tailwheel airplanes in the 1950s. I doubt that I have accumulated 25 hours in nosewheel airplanes in the past 40 years. It was never a question for me. I purchased my RV-6 flying. I was having a problem finding a suitable airplane. I considered an RV-6A to convert back to conventional gear, but found my airplane before that happened.
 
chaskuss said:
I decided to stick with the 8A because it is:
...
2 The 8A is slightly easier to build (no gear leg mounting towers. Another non factor for you)
...
Click to expand...
It is quite true that the original RV-8 fuselage kit had some significant issues with the landing gear boxes. I spent many hours figuring out how to resolve the various interference issues that I ran into. But, the current matched hole RV-8 fuselage kit is significantly improved. A local RV-8 builder fully completed his landing gear boxes in fewer hours than I spent scratching my head trying to puzzle out solutions to the problems I had with mine.

With today's kits, I would not use the landing gear boxes as a reason to pick the -8A over the -8.
 
Before I had flown either one, and now I have flown both (as well as 600 more TT, and MANY more types) and still TD it is :).
 
Sometimes nosewheels are not so good....

L.Adamson said:
This pilot could have used one! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7859807.stm

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
Click to expand...

This one not! :D
28tcrxt.jpg
 
Last edited:
agough277 said:
Newby tail draggers get to pay a very high insurance permium...
Click to expand...
This is a myth! I've compared my premiums to two different A's and they are the same, when taking the differences in hull value into account.

chaskuss said:
Ryan,
Vans will tell you that the decision needs to be made before ordering your wing kit. That's not exactly true. I started out building an 8 (same wing) but switched to an 8A later on...
Click to expand...
For an -8 maybe but the SbS models use the same spar. I didn't have to declare mine to be a -9 until I ordered the fuselage. Even then Van's called me up to make sure I was building a TW -9.

It comes down to building the plane you want, be it a 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 12 with FP or CS prop, a TW or NW, and a tip-up or slider, bla, bla, bla...

All the advice on this thread doesn't mean a thing if you are not happy with the end results. The truth is, after 10 hours of duel you will be able to fly a tailwheel, and who couldn't use another 10 hours of instruction? To add to that, there is a guy on our airport who finished his PPL and bought an RV-7 with just about 50 hours TT. He paid a premium for the first year's insurance but when he renewed it came down in line with the -7A.

You can learn to fly anything you want, heck you are building an airplane aren't you? How many people have said that was impossible?
 
Last edited:
Danny King said:
Build what you want. Pleeeeese, don't try to justify your choice of an "A" model with a video of a tail dragger flipping over. There are plenty of pictures of nose draggers doing the same thing. Like Bill R. I find it amazing that a builder has the guts to build his own plane, but is afraid of learning to handle a tail dragger. So fly your tricycle, and have fun. But don't blame tail dragger pilots if we remained confused as to your fear of a conventional airplane.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not afraid....

I got my tailwheel time in the Maule & Pitt's S2B. I just thought the "6" taildragger was a bit on the "ugly" side, with it's short & fat little wings looking like a squatting dog. That's all.... It all came down "looks" in the final hours; and I've told this story countless times already. They didn't have "8's" back then, and I do believe an 8 should be a taildragger.

But........as to a taildragging, tandem, RV type, I'd really prefer the Rocket/F1style. They look mean and fast............don't they?

BTW----------This forum is great isn't it! In just two days, I'm rediculed as an un-proficient pilot that can't think 30 seconds ahead..........because I prefer C/S props. And now, I'm in fear, just because nosewheels actually make more sense on airplanes; unless of course, you own a real backcountry airplane such as a Cub or Cub varient. I'm a Aviate Husky fan myself. Would love one of those new Cub type kits from Wyoming, too!

Quite honestly------------I'm tired of the Maucho Bull, regarding taildraggers on this forum

Over & Out --- L.Adamson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
something else how only a couple people make it seem like a bunch of people. Us nose wheel people are just quiet. Which reminds me. My 7A has mufflers. Oh my, what am I now.
 
ryanturner said:
I have decided to build an RV-7 or RV-7A and am having trouble deciding which to get. ....snip...... Did you know when you started your project or did you wait until you were forced to make a decision?
Click to expand...

In answering your question, I decided five seconds into my first RV ride (RV-6 tip up) that I wanted a RV-6 tip up. I had <400 hrs TT in Cessnas and zero tailwheel time. It honestly didn't seem like that big a deal to get the TW endorsement during the transition training. It was simply another task in the build and only took about ten hours. Would I do it again? I am. <g> Turns out I dug tailwheels...

It's just not that big a deal really. For each 'pro' with an A model, there is a 'pro' for the TW model. Example: 'A' models are easier to get into. 'TW' models are easier to move around in the hangar. 'A' models give better viz over the nose while taxiing. 'TW' models are less complex to build. On and on...

They are all fun to fly and bad pilot technique will get you killed just as easily in either.

No worries, man. Build what you want and get the proper instruction when the time comes to fly it. You'll have a blast!

Build what you want and learn how to fly it later. After a few weeks/months of flying it you'll wonder what all the fuss was about (IMHO).

b,
d
 
Last edited:
Insurance

Thanks for the all of the responses. One thing that I didn't think of until someone mentioned it in this thread is the possible increase in insurance. I have been flying for a little less than a year and have 115 hours in a Cessna 172. Are there any low time pilots out there who have made the transition to taildraggers and had a large increase in your insurance?
 
I had less than 175 TT and about 10 TW (5 RV & 5 Champ). My RV-4 was around $2100 the first year and I figure it will be around $1800 this year.

Edit- > Better yet.. Call one of the insurance sponsors on this site. I bet they would be happy to help and their information would be much more accurate than ours.

<Not directed at anyone in particular, just the group>
I'm not rich, well-to-do or anything but you may be in the wrong hobby if you are worried your insurance may be $200 more a year. (I don't know if it's even any more for a TW aircraft)

It's been said so many times here but I'll say it again... Build the airplane YOU want. Small differences in cost will come out in the wash.
</direction>
 
Last edited:
I don't think the insurance thing is a problem. I remember when I started 1200 hrs ago and the insurance seemed to be about the same as it is now. Actually it went down when I hit 1000 hrs. But only about 100 dollars a year.

Now I started flying the tail wheel just about day one when I started flying, had to do the nose wheel (cessna) thing cus the guy giving the check ride wouldn't do it in the kitfox.

Why did I go nose wheel, many things, one was the vis over the nose. Hate those blue lights on the runway that appear out of nowhere. The wife wanted it. I think it looks cool. Now I also told the wife that I wouldn't concider it unless I kept the kitfox, she said ok. So I'm happy. I've already done the transition training and I love the nose wheel, very fun to land. So I personally don't care where the little wheel is.

I guess I also like to be controversial. I have a tipup, I have a nose wheel, I have a C/S prop, I have mufflers. I know a bonified sissy. I love it. It's white. I love it. I won't stick out in a crowd. I love it.

Have fun and enjoy the plane you build.
 
Tail dragger pilots that I have flown with, seem to apologized for their landings. I have never had to apologize for a landing in my 6A.

And I have never taxied into anything on the ground.

But I live in fear of flipping it over for no reason!!!!! other than it is a nose wheel...........

ps. That last line is pure BS.
 
I only have @ 75 hours all in a Cessna 172 and I plan on building a 9. I feel TW training will make me a better pilot over all, no matter what one flys every day.
 
David Z said:
All the "cool" airplanes have the wheel in the back, so mine will to.
Click to expand...
I would use more then "cool" as a reason to build something. After all you hate to spend all that time building and then not like the way it flys/handles.

Joe Parish said:
I only have @ 75 hours all in a Cessna 172 and I plan on building a 9. I feel TW training will make me a better pilot over all, no matter what one flys every day.
Click to expand...
I built a 6A because I did not have tailwheel time when I started. During the build I bought my Cessna 140 to have something to fly. Love the tailwheel and totally agree it made me a better pilot. I have no regrets in building the 6A and even now that I have hundreds of hours of tailwheel time, I made the right decision for me to build the A model. I think the desicion needs to be based on each individuals planned use for the RV (grass, pavement, racing, etc) and his flying style/experience.
 
Last edited:
No decision required

I didn't make a decision about the landing gear, I just knew what I wanted. In fact, if the RV's weren't available as taildraggers, I wouldn't have given them a second look.
 
plehrke said:
I would use more then "cool" as a reason to build something. After all you hate to spend all that time building and then not like the way it flys/handles.
Click to expand...

When I built my 6A, the "Eights" were not in production yet. The Four was a bit small, and I wasn't thrilled with the look of the Six in taildragger mode. It's pudgy wings showed too much, and didn't have the sleekness in looks of a tri-geared Glasair or Lancair. IMO, the Glasair looked great as a tri-gear, but not so hot as a taildragger.

Never the less, I was on the fence with the decision for months. Then the Pitts S2B I had been taking a aerobatic course in............hit a plane hauling tractor that had run out of gas on the ramp. The sun was in the pilots eyes, while S-turning. It was damaged enough to require disassembly & shipment back to the factory.

In the meantime, my uncle, who had been in the Airforce full time since WWII, suggested that the tri-gear was better for the "mission". After all, it's the reason most military aircraft are now with nose wheels. Better forward visibility, improved crosswind behavior, and much less chance of ground loops.

So.............I finally went with the 6A. Had the "8" been out, I probably would have bought one, as I'm a P-51D Mustang fan. It would have been a tail wheel. If I ever get another aircraft, it will be a back country bush plane. And it would be a taildragger & most likely tube & rags.

Still, my 6A looks sleeker on the ramp, and I like the forward visibility. I have no regrets in building the tri-gear version. To be honest........RV's really look better as retractables! And the taildragging RV's are certainly not real "bush" planes either... :D

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
No decision

The decision was not even close for me. The tail wheel RV6 was my only thought when I started building A RV6 in 1995.
Had 1528 hours in my log book when I finished my RV6, all in C172, P35 Bonanza, Piper PA 32-300. No Tail wheel time.

I taught my self tail wheel by taxing around the airfield. The RV6 is so easy it is not an issue. I do not recomend teaching your self but I would do it again. It was too easy.

Now I am flying a tandem RV8. I like the vis over the RV6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top