What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7 or RV-9 Help me I cant decide

4. - *putting on my fireproof suit* - Better looking airplane - the longer wing looks MUCH better than those short, stubby little 7 wings

They ARE short and stubby! Never look at one from underneath, or in squatting position............as the tail draggers do. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Primary reason for a 9 for us as we are in the mountains a lot ....
Slower stall speed in case the fan stops.
Less energy
Increased survivability

But..............I remember seeing pics of a "6" that was able to fly squirrley enough to (kind of) land on a winding logging road, when the engine quit. 9's aren't squirrley enough! :)

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
 
But..............I remember seeing pics of a "6" that was able to fly squirrley enough to (kind of) land on a winding logging road, when the engine quit. 9's aren't squirrley enough! :)

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

So...

Are you saying -6's are squirrely or just RV-6 pilots?
 
I put my 9 on floats about a month ago and believe it to be safer to any other RV model on wheels or the only 7A on floats because of 9's low stall speed safety advantage. Those fowler type flaps, the extra wing with the Roncz airfoil and the large tail make it a better choice in my opinion. Another indication is the 9's popularity. How many 9's compared to the 6, 7or 8's, do you see advertised for sale. I realize there are a few more of them flying, but even so there are just not that many owners of 9's that are willing to part with them. I think that Van regrets initially touting the 9 as a trainer. Mine has the 0-360 titan and easily gets over 200mph at 75% on wheels and nearly 150 on floats. Some trainer! If you want to loop it or flip it around, then the 9 is not in the running. At my age aerobatics does not hold the charm it once did. JMHO

see www.flickr.com/photos/bob_butcher/5989426778 for float plane picture
 
7 vs 9

Okay, need some more help before making my final decision. I'm leaning toward the 7, and hadn't paid much attention to the 9's, but have noticed several folks here have them. Is the main difference between the 7 and 9 the fact that you can do some acro with the 7? I know the 9 has a different wing and is supposed to be more stable, but I don't know what that means since I've flown neither. Sports car versus sedan? Any help? :confused:
 
I've only been in a 7 for a short time. When either flying in my 6, or the many hours I've flown in a 9...............it's hard to tell who is who on a cross country. They're much the same. The 9 lands 10 mph slower than my 6, and has less of a descent rate with power off. I prefer the bit livelier control feel of the 6. As to turbulence, they both bounce around, just about the same. As mine is a 6, it's close to a 7, in how they fly.

L.Adamson
 
Okay, need some more help before making my final decision. I'm leaning toward the 7, and hadn't paid much attention to the 9's, but have noticed several folks here have them. Is the main difference between the 7 and 9 the fact that you can do some acro with the 7? I know the 9 has a different wing and is supposed to be more stable, but I don't know what that means since I've flown neither. Sports car versus sedan? Any help? :confused:

I think DR moved my post to here, which is great -- I didn't realize this one existed. This thread is awesome and has answered my questions completely. The 9 sounds like a great plane, but I'm going with a 7 for the flexibility, strength, possibly higher resale value, etc.

Thanks to everyone for all the info.
 
They ARE short and stubby! Never look at one from underneath, or in squatting position............as the tail draggers do. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A

I see my old reply came up. Dated the end of August. During the first week of Sept., I wiped out my nose gear, and a few other important items to go with it. I've changed my "tune" so to speak. Taildraggers no longer look like squatting dogs! They're "beautiful"!!!:D

L.Adamson --- RV6 something. All the wheels are off.
 
Come to the dark side Larry, we have cookies and tailwheel pilots get more chicks (it was in some Advisory Circular somewhere).
 
[The 9] has a wider wingspan and is more stable, therfore preferred by many for cross-country flight.

All true, but if you're new to rv's, don't read too much into the "more stable" part. The -7 is still a joy to fly cross country, with or without a/p.
 
CG question

With the narrower airfoil does the 9 have a narrower CG range?

I haven't built anything yet, still working on the ticket after a short delay. The RV-something is in the retirement plans in a big way which comes in 3 years. My goal is not acro, mostly XC and day trips. But in XC where you carry more than what you're wearing CG range is an important factor in balancing fuel, pax and luggage. So, does the fat 7 wing provide better CG range than the narrow 9? And with less fuel in the 9, is the difference, if any, mitigated?
 
Last edited:
With the narrower airfoil does the 9 have a narrower CG range?

I haven't built anything yet, still working on the ticket after a short delay. The RV-something is in the retirement plans in a big way which comes in 3 years. My goal is not acro, mostly XC and day trips. But in XC where you carry more than what you're wearing CG range is an important factor in balancing fuel, pax and luggage. So, does the fat 7 wing provide better CG range than the narrow 9? And with less fuel in the 9, is the difference, if any, mitigated?
I cannot answer for the 7. I can for the 9.

As for the CG question:
The CG range for my 9A is 77.95" to 84.84". There is adequate CG range in the 9 for anything you wish to carry. In my plane I cannot bust the forward CG. I can bust the aft CG if not careful. If I burn the fuel down to 2 gallons with me as pilot, my wife as passenger and 100 lb baggage I am right at the aft CG limit. Notice the fuel has to be down to 2 gallons for this to happen. In this scenario the fact that I only have 2 gallons is more worrisome to me than the CG. I have defined these particular parameters because this is the most likely loading I would encounter while flying with my wife on a cross-country flight. There are other scenarios with more fuel and more passenger weight that would cause aft CG issues also but I would also be exceeding the Max Gross Weight for my plane in those scenarios.

The truth for the 9 is that I have to work hard at going outside of CG in both directions before I could make it happen.

As far as the fuel issue goes that also should be a non-factor. The 9 carries 36 gallons (18 each side). I believe the 7 carries 42 (21 each side). I typically burn around 7.0 - 7.5 gph and flight plan for 8 gph. At 8 gph 36 gallons will still be 4.5 hours. To date I have never flown more than 3 without landing.

Hope this helps.

Live Long and Prosper!
 
With the narrower airfoil does the 9 have a narrower CG range?

...

So, does the fat 7 wing provide better CG range than the narrow 9? And with less fuel in the 9, is the difference, if any, mitigated?

The answer is yes but it is not significant. A lot of other things come in to play, such as the HS, which is larger on the -9.

The CG range for the -7 is 78.7 to 86.82 (7.12") and the -9 it is 77.95 to 84.84 (6.89").

Truth is, depending on how you build your plane, you will go well over gross before exceeding the CG on either plane.

Here are the CG Ranges for the other RV's:

RV-3 (Couldn't locate the PDF)
RV-4: 68.7 to 77.4 (8.7")
RV-6: 68.7 to 76.8 (8.1")
RV-8: 78.7 to 86.82 (8.12")
RV-10: 107.84 to 116.24 (8.16")
RV-12: 80.49 to 85.39 (4.9")
 
Last edited:
Acro made the decision for me

After training in C152's and 172's, I honestly couldn't tell much difference between the 7 and 9 when I did demo flights trying to make the same decision...
So I took an hour of aerobatic instruction. One roll and the decision was easy! Add a loop and there was no question whatsoever.

4 years building a 7A, then I sold the project and bought a flying -7. Now every flight is an exercise in restraint until I can get some more acro instruction. One hour 5 years ago doesn't cut it.

YMMV
 
Thanks Steve/Bill for the numbers and encouragement. I am all over this site and others to ensure all my questions and concerns are answered prior to committment. I have 3 years to retirement and no place to build right now. Just finished a hiaitus induced by FAA AME quack and got my medical in spite of one of DC's most highly rated docs, so PPL training at KGAI continues. Meanwhile, time is on my side while I invest toward retirement dream of slow-build 7A. What I find most encouraging is the speed at which people respond here, and the sheer depth of knowledge, insight, and plain common sense. There is no such thing as a problem when such support is freely and rapidly available.

Best Regards,

Dennis "CDR Data" Snyder
Order form 0%
 
After training in C152's and 172's, I honestly couldn't tell much difference between the 7 and 9 when I did demo flights trying to make the same decision...
So I took an hour of aerobatic instruction. One roll and the decision was easy! Add a loop and there was no question whatsoever.

4 years building a 7A, then I sold the project and bought a flying -7. Now every flight is an exercise in restraint until I can get some more acro instruction. One hour 5 years ago doesn't cut it.

YMMV

I applaud your professionalism.
 
Nice. I don't envy your task ahead getting that tailwheel bracket in!

Almost done, after the tailspring comes tomorrow, to drill for the bolt holding the tailspring to the bracket. Putting in four new bulkheads, which are riveted in pairs back to back, along with the new angled bar stock to hold the horizontal stab & tailwheel bracket.

At least that part will be done..

L.Adamson
 
Almost done, after the tailspring comes tomorrow, to drill for the bolt holding the tailspring to the bracket. Putting in four new bulkheads, which are riveted in pairs back to back, along with the new angled bar stock to hold the horizontal stab & tailwheel bracket.

At least that part will be done..

L.Adamson

Oh trust me, I know the process. I almost stuck my head in the lawn mower after several hours because I couldn't take it anymore. Getting that rear most bulkhead in about drove me mad.
 
Ease of Build

I realize this post has been around a while (original post 2011) and it is now 2018, one question that was not asked was about the build. Is there a difference in the build of the 9 vs the 7. I understand Van's methods improved over the years is this reflected in the build time or complexity?
 
I realize this post has been around a while (original post 2011) and it is now 2018, one question that was not asked was about the build. Is there a difference in the build of the 9 vs the 7. I understand Van's methods improved over the years is this reflected in the build time or complexity?

They are pretty much identical. The only real change in construction is that the -9 has more wing rivets because it is a longer wing, even though they have the same number of ribs.

Now, if you are asking about the -7 & -9 compared to the -14, there is a huge difference!
 
They are pretty much identical. The only real change in construction is that the -9 has more wing rivets because it is a longer wing, even though they have the same number of ribs.

Now, if you are asking about the -7 & -9 compared to the -14, there is a huge difference!

Agree for the most part but, could add that there is a difference in how the control surfaces are constructed on the 3,4,6,7,8 vs. the 9,10,14. The Ailerons, Flaps, Elevators & Rudder trailing edges are a single sheet that is bent at the trailing edge on the 3,4,6,7,8 but on the latter the two sheets come together at the trailing edge and are double flush back-riveted together with an AEX wedge in between. The AEX trailing edge gives a very clean, precise, durable trailing edge but is a bit more complex to construct. It takes some care to build them straight with no twist but still easily doable for a novice like me.

I found that the empennage fiberglass tips on the -9 take a bit less fabrication than on the 8 (and presumably 7 as well). Specifically, the -9 rudder bottom has cut lines on it which helps a lot on this piece, and the elevator tips are closed in on the leading edge on the -9 already, vs open on the -8 which then get melded in with the lead counter weight. Nothing substantial just a bit more straight forward.

Like mentioned about the wing, the horizontal stab is larger as well, but only a couple hours larger.;)
 
The biggest difference, IMHO, is the aerobatic ability. You need to be realistic about what you want from the airplane.

If you want aerobatics and going flip-flopping in the sky on a regular basis (and that's a good thing, don't get me wrong) then the 7 is your bird.

If you don't care so much about the aerobatics but want a good solid long-distance cross-country airplane, the 9 is the better choice.

The 9 is a little more efficient in higher altitude cross-country cruise, while the 7 has the fun-quotient advantage of aerobatics at lower altitudes. Take your pick.

Disclaimer - I have a 9A, and it can go 1200 miles with two big butts and 100# of bags, plus NBAA reserves - and that's my idea of a useful airplane. Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top