What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV6A vs RV7A

ten4teg

Well Known Member
I currently fly a RV8 and looking to transition to a side by side A model. What is the difference between the 6A and 7A? What are the advantages/disadvantages? Thanks
 
The biggest difference is cost. The 6A can be found for much less than the 7A.
Other than that, the 6A is a little smaller. That is good if hanger space it tight, bad if you need the room.
The 7A has a little higher Vne, so aerobatics are a bit easier.
If you need to repair an airframe part the 7A kits will work, where the 6A you will have to fabricate the parts to fit.
There are a whole lot of other differences, but none very noticeable from an ownership standpoint.
 
6A

A light and simple -6A will be more nimble and way more fun to fly than any overweight and over-kitted -7A! :p
 
The 7A holds more fuel for better range. That's a biggie in my book.

-Marc

The 6A out-ranges me, so its not a ?biggie? to many of us. Four hours is plenty but I plan for 3 1/2 max regardless of the airplanes range.

If you want to do 2 up Aerobatics, and keep within the published gross, you can?t in a 6A.
Interior shoulder room is not significantly different, barely different if that.

The 6A is lightly more sprightly in control feel, slightly.

Don?t let anyone tell you that 7?s are better built because they where prepunched. I have seen bad workmanship in both series. The OshKosh Grand Champion was a 6, at a time when there where dozens of 7?s showing.

The 6 series remains the most bang for the buck in the side by side world but I have noticed prices creeping up.
Price varies more by time and a typical 6 will have more time and less avionics typically than most 7?s on the market.
 
+1 JonJay.

Payload is THE disadvantage of the -6, the rest being more academic than anything else.

Vne should not apply, unless you botch your aeros or forget to watch your speed clock in a steep descent... which can happen, but look, I'm still around ;)
 
Differences I recall

6A
1650 lbs gross
210 mph VNE
38 gals fuel
up to 180HP engine recommended
Shorter, non counter balanced rudder

7A
1800 lbs gross
230 mph VNE
42 gals fuel
up to 200HP engine recommended
Taller, counter balanced rudder

Supposedly 1 inch more headroom and legroom
 
6A
1650 lbs gross
210 mph VNE
38 gals fuel
up to 180HP engine recommended
Shorter, non counter balanced rudder

7A
1800 lbs gross
230 mph VNE
42 gals fuel
up to 200HP engine recommended
Taller, counter balanced rudder

Supposedly 1 inch more headroom and legroom

The rudder is shorter on the older RV6As but on the newer ones it will have a taller counterbalanced rudder.
 
This question has been asked and answered many times... but that is OK. Go to Van's....

https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-6/ (out of production)
https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-7/
https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3-9FLY-2-19-screen.pdf

The wing on RV-6A is 23ft 110 sq-ft area. Gross 1650lbs, stall 55 mph (gross)/49 mph (solo)
The wing on RV-7A is 25ft 121 sq-ft area. Gross 1800lbs, stall 58 mph (gross)/41 mph (solo)
Cruise and Top speeds are almost identical but Van's gives the RV-7 +1 or +2 MPH advantage.

I agree the RV-6 was before pre-punch but they can be beautifully built. RV-7's are more consistent but quality of build is not guaranteed by pre-punched kits.
 
Last edited:
non counter balanced rudder
Wrong.
My late series -6 sports a -8 tail, with counterbalance, as delivered from Vans...

before pre-punch
Wrong, again.
I had pre-punched wings and tail components on my -6, as delivered from Vans...

Like Harleys, they all different, just don’t assume ;)
 
Last edited:
Wrong, again.
I had pre-punched wings and tail components on my -6, as delivered from Vans...

Like Harleys, they all different, just don?t assume ;)

Most folks here references to ?pre-punch? should be ?pre-punched and matched drilled?. While some 6/6A?s had some punched skins, like HS and wings, none where ever match drilled to the ribs like the 7 and newer kits. You still had to jig the tail and wings on the 6 regardless. Pre-punching the skins wasn?t much of an advantage and many of us thought it more of a pain than a help.
 
Most folks here references to ?pre-punch? should be ?pre-punched and matched drilled?. While some 6/6A?s had some punched skins, like HS and wings, none where ever match drilled to the ribs like the 7 and newer kits. You still had to jig the tail and wings on the 6 regardless. Pre-punching the skins wasn?t much of an advantage and many of us thought it more of a pain than a help.
Also as a builder of early rv6 which most were like this, They had no holes punched in the skin or ribs. It was all lay it out and drill it in assembly. Now building an RV 7 big difference. The rv-14 is even one step further in the evolution and it's just basically an assembly.
 
Structural

The RV-6 is structurally stronger as never having an inflight structural failure. However, the -6 has more variation in the build as many were built before process automation was implemented .

The RV-7 has had several inflight structural failures but the build seems to be more consistent over the -6. The -7 is slightly larger.

A well built -6 is a nice plane with lots of margins.

Good luck on your search!
 
If the 6 was that good why did Mr Vans bring out a 7?
I find the 6 really cramped, but each to their own I guess:)
 
If the 6 was that good why did Mr Vans bring out a 7?
I find the 6 really cramped, but each to their own I guess:)

-7 is less effort for factory to manufacture and for builder to build. Plus incorporation of incremental improvements.

6/7/9 all about the same for space, like getting into a bathtub. Hence -14 for more space...like in a bigger bathtub. Once you know the technique for getting in and out I think it is OK, but probably not elegant.
 
And you assume that no 6's have ever gone above VNE. The stat is still meaningfull.

I do not disagree with you nor the comment made by grubbat that I quoted (nor did I say it was meaningless). It simply needs pointed out that the -7s were not flying within parameters...
 
Some people would have you believe that there are only cosmetic differences between the 6 and 7 but that is not true. There are some very fundamental structural differences including the way the wings attach. The 7 has a through-beam "centre section" in the fuselage and the wings bolt to this centre section. This allows you to remove the wings without having to remove the main landing gear on the 7A....huge advantage. The 6 has no centre section...the wings have extended spars that interlock in the fuselage. This means that on the 6A you have to remove the main gear before you can remove the wings.

I've helped two builders remove 6A wings after they landed off-field and it was a right royal pain in the arse. All of the wiring inside the fuselage that went through the wing spars had to be cut too to get the wings off.
 
You?re right Bob. Perhaps we need to do a poll and find out how many folks needed to ever remove wings. Features that make things easier if I land off field aren?t high on my list.
Pretty sure I would have a lot of other concerns at that point, having had one myself. (Not in and RV).
 
Have removed wings from 6,6A,7,7A,9A. The 6 & 6A were the easier of the bunch if they had to be rated. But overall they were all nasty.
 
Have removed wings from 6,6A,7,7A,9A. The 6 & 6A were the easier of the bunch if they had to be rated. But overall they were all nasty.

My experience obviously doesn't coincide with yours but I do agree that removing the wings of either a 6 or 7 is pure torture. However if I recall correctly there are 16 main spar bolts that have to be removed to take the wings off an RV7A and at least 76 that have to be removed to take the wings off an RV6A. And additionally on the 6A you have to remove the landing gear and sever all the fuselage wiring that goes through the spar web.

I've done pre-purchase inspections on 2 RV6A's and neither of them had all their centre spar bolts inserted and nuts installed. Cramped conditions and lack of access obviously made it very difficult for the builders to get some of the bolts in...so they just didn't bother. I guess they figured that there were so many bolts that leaving a couple of really difficult ones out just didn't matter. :rolleyes:

In the end however the proof is probably in the pudding....Vans dumped the RV6 spar carry-through design when they introduced the RV7. My best guess is that this was not done for structural reasons but for access reasons. As they say, bad access is inevitably a safety issue.

Mind you, the RV7 wing attachment design also leaves a fair bit to be desired and it didn't surprise me when Vans changed their approach once again when they introduced the RV14. :D
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas (or others), please describe in a bit more detail the wing removal bolts on an a -6A. Do the 76 bolts you refers to include the multitude of screws attaching the wing root fairing strips? I have come across several -6As I would have liked to truck home due to bad engines, etc, but was afraid to because of the reported wing removal difficulties. However, if it is a perfectly good reversible process with no undue damage or modifications, I may take on such a project.
 
Captain Avgas (or others), please describe in a bit more detail the wing removal bolts on an a -6A. Do the 76 bolts you refers to include the multitude of screws attaching the wing root fairing strips? I have come across several -6As I would have liked to truck home due to bad engines, etc, but was afraid to because of the reported wing removal difficulties. However, if it is a perfectly good reversible process with no undue damage or modifications, I may take on such a project.

In answer to your question, no, the 76 number refers to the bolts attaching the wing spars to the fuselage bulkhead. Removing wings in order to transport a project is certainly feasible but some of the bolts may need to be replaced if they incur damage due to scuffing. Some builders have used a rivet gun to drive stubborn bolts out of the bulkhead and several of the bolts will test your patience due to tight access. As long as reasonable care is exercised there should be no damage to the fuse or spars.
 
Wow, 76 bolts for the -6A wings attachment. 38 per wing spar. I presume these include the landing gear weldment bolts. Are all 38 bolts special "tight tolerance" or just a smaller critical subset?
 
The RV-6 is structurally stronger as never having an inflight structural failure. However, the -6 has more variation in the build as many were built before process automation was implemented .

The RV-7 has had several inflight structural failures but the build seems to be more consistent over the -6. The -7 is slightly larger. A well built -6 is a nice plane with lots of margins. Good luck on your search!
The hand full RV-7/A accidents that involved possible in-flight break up were explained by pilot error/loss of control and exceeding limitations (speed, G force), over stressing the air-frame, one bird strike, and one was not conclusive.

The through spar and center line spar cap splice plate of the RV-6 is a monster, but the wing wold not fail there... it would fail outboard about where the web doubler and fuel tank ends. However the Horizontal Stab might be the weaker point.
 
Back to the joys of removing a 3/4/6 spar compared to the 7/8/9/10/14 spar attach points, is easy and simple to remove the multiples of small attach bolts compared to trying to get at and apply enough force to get the big friction fit bolts out of the later designs. The last wings I removed were a 9A and HAD to remove the gear weldments (1 hr process total for getting gear attaches out of the way, much much longer to get those bolts out), converse to the first job being a 6A where I was able to trailer it with the gear legs intact.

As for the designed strength in Vans spars- I grey out at 4.5Gs, I fly what ever RV model with specs rated to 6Gs, engineering testing was to a higher G value (9?) to a prescribed deflection of (?"), ultimate failure would be even higher than that. I feel totally safe in any RV model flying my normal 3G antics and feel its a moot point to debate an ultimate failure mode as criteria to select a RV model.
 
As a buyer, I found the differences between 6A vs 7A to be insignificant. To me, what seemed to be the biggest advantage of the 7 over the 6 is the simplification of the build process with pre-punched holes, a benefit realized by the builder, not necessarily the pilot.

What engine/HP? Prop? Avionics? Build quality? For me, these were much bigger considerations than slight improvements in gross weight, VNE, and fuel capacity.

I guess I'm trying to say is that you will likely find bigger differences comparing two specific planes than comparing the two fleets.
 
Back
Top