RV-7A vs RV-9A

Hi, I am a newbie and thinking of getting either an RV-7a or RV-9a but having trouble making a decision which one to get. I realise the obvious difference is that the 7 is aerobatic and the 9 is not. I also realise they both have the same fuselage and seating position. Therefore, assuming the same engine were put into both (180hp), I have two quesions,

i) If you just want to fly from a to be (no aerobatics), how different do the two aircrafts handle. If you were to sit in either, is there any handling charactoristics that would discern one aircraft from the other?

ii) There is an aircraft being built nearby whereby I was able to sit in the aircraft in the guys garage. One thing I noticed is the seat is close to the floor and in the passenger seat, I noticed there was nowhere to put my feet (I am 6 foot tall) where I wouldnt interfere with the rudder pedals. Can the seat be made higher or can the passenger side rudder pedals 'fold away'?

iii) Is there any significant building differences between the 7 and 9?

Thanks all in advance.

i) The general concensus is that the 9 is a better cross country aircraft if you're hand flying. If you're using an autopilot, George will carry you on your X/C's so there is really no practical difference. The 9 has a longer wingspan and thus a slower roll rate which makes hand flying more relaxed.

ii) Was this aircraft a -7A or -9A? I'm 6 foot tall and a good 'ol boy as they say and I fit in my 7A fuselage with cushions, no problem. Remember that there are many options to make the aircraft more comfortable. You as the builder decide where to put the rudder pedals. There are also booster cushions under the seats that can be added/removed to accomodate people of different sizes.

iii) I would say no. As you mentioned the -9 fuse is identical to the -7 fuse in almost every way. I understand that even the center sections look the same (even though they probably aren't). One difference is a decked out -9A will be slightly cheaper than a -7A due to the smaller engine...but we're just talking a couple of K here. Obviously the -7's can use O-320's too.

Best of luck. Just start! You'll never look back.

The differences between the -7 and -9 are the wing and tail. The -9 has a higher lift wing and a larger horizontal tail. The larger wing and tail of the -9 will not accept the 180 hp engine. The seat was lowered on the -7/-9 to accomodate taller pilots. You simply make the cushions as thick as needed. Once you have the thicker cusions I don't think leg room will be a problem. As far as handling goes, you won't find a lot of difference. The -9 has better low speed characteristics. Whereas the -7 begins to "drop" below 80 mph, the -9 has more "float". Top speed, you'll see very little difference. If you are not into aerobatics, I would recommend the -9.
Mel...DAR

You can fly a -7A like a -9A. The opposite can't be said!

Biggest difference in my mind, biggest rationale to pick the -7A: FUEL CAPACITY.

Let's say you put the O-320 in, regardless of -7A or -9A. Same instrument panel. The two planes cost exactly the same in the end. The -7A will get you further on a tank than the other...which conversely means you have greater fuel reserve in the -7A if both planes were to fly the same leg.

Also consider how "beefy" the -7A is compared to the -9A. Even if you never do any acro, isn't that a big comfort factor flying through turbulence, pointing the nose downhill and seeing the airspeed climb, knowing your airframe can take the abuse? Va and Vne are higher on the -7A.

These two items, fuel & beefiness, are "built-in" safety advantages.

And what about handling? This is extremely subjective. At the risk of ticking off a bunch of -9A drivers out there, I flew one and didn't like the way it handles. I know Van's employees say they'd rather fly the -9, but it's really a subjective thing.

How many -9[A] drivers out there feel they have "outgrown" their planes and want a little more performance? Raise your hand... (sound of crickets chirping) I don't think you'll find an unhappy -9[A] driver anywhere out there.

Really need to fly both and see what you like!

My Experience

I am a very low time pilot and have flown mostly the 6A since I got my ticket. I have had the pleasure of flying a friends 9A several times. He has it equiped with a 180hp O-360. When he takes off it looks like he is going straight up. His max power crusie at 6500, we live in the mountains, is about 185 mph indicated. No correction factor included in this figure. The 6A's that we regularly fly with are considerably faster when going from point a to b.

As far as landing, I think that a 1 legged blindfolded dog could bring the 9A down without any problems. The 9 had better low speed characteristics than any of the facotry planes that flew. 150, 150/150, Cherokee x 2.

The 6A, which I am assuming is closer to the 7A in characteristics, is still a very docile craft and has good low speed characteristics. For my money I went with the 7A. I get almost all of the benefits of the 9A and I can go upside down, sideways and all other ways and do it a lot faster.

It may cost more but in the scope of airplane building the increase is negligible.

There is no going wrong with either craft as they are both fantastic. Just consider the type of flying that you will be doing and pick the most appropriate for your style. Wither way you will be have the greatest time of your life.

ww2planes said:

I am a very low time pilot and have flown mostly the 6A since I got my ticket. I have had the pleasure of flying a friends 9A several times. He has it equiped with a 180hp O-360. When he takes off it looks like he is going straight up. His max power crusie at 6500, we live in the mountains, is about 185 mph indicated. No correction factor included in this figure. The 6A's that we regularly fly with are considerably faster when going from point a to b.

As far as landing, I think that a 1 legged blindfolded dog could bring the 9A down without any problems. The 9 had better low speed characteristics than any of the facotry planes that flew. 150, 150/150, Cherokee x 2.

The 6A, which I am assuming is closer to the 7A in characteristics, is still a very docile craft and has good low speed characteristics. For my money I went with the 7A. I get almost all of the benefits of the 9A and I can go upside down, sideways and all other ways and do it a lot faster.

It may cost more but in the scope of airplane building the increase is negligible.

There is no going wrong with either craft as they are both fantastic. Just consider the type of flying that you will be doing and pick the most appropriate for your style. Wither way you will be have the greatest time of your life.

Click to expand...

Hi Bill: I'm pretty sure your friends O-360 powered RV-9A is not going as fast as you say. At 6500 pressure altitude, that works out to a TAS of 207 mph, just 2 mph under Vne. My calculations indicate that it would take over 200 horsepower to achieve this.

I'd believe 197 mph TAS, 170 IAS

I think some airspeed indicator correction is in order!

7a vs. 9a

All right Dan, I'll bite. How many 9 drivers have outgrown their 9A's and are wishing for more performance, well here is one! But before bad talking the 9A let me explain...

The aerobatic stuff really doesn't interest me so that aspect of the seven isn't important to me, but as you said the extra strength would be nice if extreme turbulance were to be encountered, or if the plane got away a little bit in decent as you gave as an example. To put the turbulance in perspective though I find that I usally hit my head on the canopy in chop long before reaching the kind of turbulance that will hurt the 9A and I slow down out of self preservation for my head. During my phase one I went looking for turbulance to prove the airplane prior to putting anybody else in it and the process gave me a pretty good feeling about how much the airplane can handle. I would settle in about 1000' agl over the coast line where the air started to burble and show it's teeth and fly up and down the coast increasing speed as my confidence increased. Later in the mountains near Big Sur in August with outside temps around 90F at 8500' and moderate to severe turbulance my airplane and I gained some mutual confindence in each other. I spent about an hour flying around these mountains litterally getting the stuffing beat out of me while at manuevering speed with extreme control intputs to keep everything going right. While completely fatiguing on me it really put the strength thing in perspective for me. Sometimes we read about specs and don't have a true understanding what they translate to when we leave the ground and add that third dimension to equation. For you folks that are ringing out your planes necks doing all of the acro stuff this wouldn't apply, but for the averaga builder getting anywhere near the G limits of the nine would probably scare them to death.

As for range... I have no argument for the larger tanks being an advantage. The 9A is what it is. While sounding corny, the old cliche that I'm ready to get out and stretch long before I need gas really applies for me and certainly does for my wife. Early on I planned on 3 1/2 hour legs when taking trips leaving 1 hour reserve, but I quickly learned that I'm ready at the 2 hour mark to get out and 3 hours is starting to make my legs long for the ground. Truthfully I think the thought that went into the design were pretty realistic as far as endurance. The plane has a pretty good distance that it'll cover and will easily match what I can do in a day and still be ready for more long after I'm looking for rest and maybe some very simple conversation with friends that doesn't require to much of my tired brain. My 9A will do 164 or 165 knots firewalled turning the prop at 2600 all day long and burn 7.8gph including the climb. We have proven it now over and over now, but unless in a real hurry I turn the prop down some and settle in around 160 knots. This seems to be the sweet spot for my airplane.

Now for the bigger engine... If building again I would put an 0-360 on my 9A!! I have shared this with the groups before, but I'll do it again here. I know there is a strong recommendation to not exceed 160hp on the 9A, but mine is 170hp and comes nowhere near the yellow under any level flight scenario. With that said I have just put out the biggest complaint that I have with my airplane. For some reason I think that having indicated airspeeds significantly below the yellow at full power cruise is screaming to me that I used to small of an engine. I think it every time I look at the airspeed indicator on a long trip. Actually before going with the larger engine it might be smarter to talk with pilots flying with the James cowl and if the claims are true this might be a better solution to the speed issue, but I was brought up on the cubic inches thing solving any problem.

Lastly,for those building who might like to get a real world understanding of the speed issue between a 9A and a 6A with 180hp here is a true example. Cruising at 8500' with some of the So. Cal group near Trinity Lake Rosie excused himself to decend and buzz the lake. Apparently he had friends on the lake that he had told in advance to watch for him. While we held heading and speed he went down significantly and then did a couple of roles for the folks on the ground. Within about 10 minutes or so he was on the radio telling me that he was coming up behind and to my left to take some picures of us. For anybody who has ever tried to catch somebody you will know how impressive this was. He climbed back up to altitude and caught us easily. I was running full throttle and 2500 rpm to cruise with them when he did this. Folks, this is the difference on these planes... I read, studied, justified, calculated, schemed, etc., but this demonstration was when the understanding of the RV's and displacement finally sank in.

Regards,

You'll find lots of old posts on this topic that might be informative, so I'd encourage you to use the search function. They are both great planes, but they serve different purposes. That said, here are the factors that helped make my decision... and they were mostly related to safety:

1. Stall speed about 7 mph less--survivability in an impact increases dramatically with only a slight decrease in velocity. (In other words, it is not a direct relationship between survivability and velocity.)

2. Sink rate--about 600fpm in a 9. 1000+fpm in a 6/7/8 (I've heard some builders say it's more than that in real life). Check the cafefoundation.org reports for confirmation of this. The -7's numbers would be about the same as an RV8.

3. Glide ratio-- 12:1 for the 9, 9:1 for the 6/7/8. (Also in the cafefoundation report).

I think the first time you are in an engine out situation, you'd appreciate the 9.

Re: safety, Dan may be right in one regard.... next time I fly into a thunderstorm maybe I'd wish I was in the -7. On the other hand, I don't fly into thunderstorms, and the load limit of a 9 is no worse than the C182 I've flown in the past so if a thunderstorm (or going downhill) would hurt me in the 9, it would hurt in a lot of production planes too! See Bryan's comments above. Also, how much fuel do you need to be safe? 38 gallons in the 9, at (conservatively) 8 gallons per hour = almost 5.0 hours. Do you really need more than that to be safe?

Sometimes people refer to the 9 as a "trainer" or something you'll eventually "outgrow." I laugh whenever I hear someone say that... I suspect if you fly in one you'd laugh at this comment to. It is still very much "sports car"-responsive compared to just about every production plane out there. True, it can't do aerobatics (and that may be an issue for you), but unless you're willing to pay significantly more just to get a few extra knots with a bigger engine on a 7, the 9 flys just as fast. I have yet to hear of anyone--though I'm sure there's one out there--who has "traded up" after having a 9. Who knows, though, maybe I'll be the second one!

Go to Van's a fly in a 9 (and a 7 if you can)--that will help you make up your mind about what's best for you. ]

Good luck.

Nail on the head

vlittle said:

Hi Bill: I'm pretty sure your friends O-360 powered RV-9A is not going as fast as you say. At 6500 pressure altitude, that works out to a TAS of 207 mph, just 2 mph under Vne. My calculations indicate that it would take over 200 horsepower to achieve this.

I'd believe 197 mph TAS, 170 IAS

I think some airspeed indicator correction is in order!

Click to expand...

Got to be careful when talking about speed numbers.... There are Indicated, TAS, and GPS? All three will be different (last two will be the same in no wind, but who ever sees that).

vlittle is right, if that speed is indicated, there'd be some rockets looking for a race . I'm betting it's GPS speeds, which would be pretty close to the TAS number depending on wind, and indicated would be lots less.

my .02,

The differences are:

9's Wings longer, narrower, and different shape (Roncz design). Result is better efficiency (hence the lower engine HP rating- the extra HP really is not needed to achieve acceptable performance), better lift, and slower stall speeds. The 9's trailing edges are built different, I believe easier to build. The 9 has huge flaps, which it needs- it is a slippery devil that would rather fly than come back down to earth. The plane is easy to fly, especially so in slow local flights (economy cruise).

Tail: Taller vertical stab (I believe the 8 and 7's later adopted the 9 stab) and a straight (not angled) horizontal stab, probably larger control surfaces.

The 9s are built with thinner aluminum in some places- a little less strength, which lowers the Vne a little, which is based on turbulent air cruise limits. Personally, I think the longer narrower wings on the 9 looks better than the other Vans "chocolate bar" wing designs. The 9 will be less tippy in turbulence with the longe wings, and probably a bit more stable for cross country flights, with our without an autopilot.

Im going to use a Rotary engine, more power avilable (180-200) with more throttle, with the same weight as the Lyc 320 series; should help high altitude takeoffs, but will require close attention to top airspeed. Ill probably add additional tanks outboard of the OEM ones to act as a mogas tanker for longer flights- lots of open space there, looks easy. I live in the Mountains, so with the added power and lift capabilities, I believe the 9 might have a small advantge over the 7 for the flying Im interested in, but then I have little interest in power dives and spins. Both are great planes, the differences are minor. I think the deciding factor in my decision was the small edge the 9 has with efficiency, given rising fuel costs.

I must be at the other end of the spectrum

After realizing that most of the flying I like to do is buzzing around on Saturday afternoon, visiting grass strips, I stopped working on the -6 tail kit and waited for Van's to offer a -9 kit. This was back in '98, '99, or '00 and when the -9A had flown but Van wasn?t sure if he was going to release a -9.

My original goal was to install the O-235 in my -9 then located a great deal on an O-290-D2 (135hp @ 2600 rpm & 140hp @ 2800 rpm for five minutes). Based on everything I've learned from one other -9 flying with this engine and a -9A w/ the O-235 the 175 mph cruise van's lists on his web site are right on. Better yet is the expected 5.6 gph fuel burn.

Will my -9 be under powered? I don't think so; this engine has powered four place pipers in the past and should work very well in something as small, slippery and light as this plane. (There is one O-290-D2 powered -9 flying w/ and empty weight of 998lbs.)

This is the plane that fits my requirements. I am sure going to miss doing acro but if wanted to do that, I would build an -8 and keep it very light w/ a smaller 160-180 hp engine and still not keep up with the 200 hp CS guys.

The differences between the -7 & -9 really isn't worth mentioning. The tail cone is the same. The VS and rudder are the same. The side skins are different as is the spar carry through. Most of the center section is -7 parts. The forward section is mostly -7 parts and the firewall is a -6 part.

Heck, even the -9 builder's manual hasn't removed all reference to the -7 in it.

Best of luck picking the plane for your.

Bill, we are gonna have to trade ships a time or two when all the aluminum shavings settle!

We are on both ends of the spectrum on this one, but have many commonalities!

You: -9, O-290, fixed pitch and light!

Me: -7, IO-390, C/S and fat city!

Should be an interesting afternoon!

CJ

I'm a new pilot and have decided on getting a Vans RV. That was an easy decision to make! The hard part is deciding on the 7 vs the 9. My home airport is in Santa Fe NM so 6,500msl. I will be using the plane primarily for transportation and fun. I do many trips to places like Phoenix, Clovis, Houston, Deming. 400-900nm trips generally. I'm looking for a plane that has the power for this altitude (especially during the summer months) is quick cruising and an great platform for a beginner. I recently flew a 7a in Michigan and LOVED it. Is there anyone on the forum in New Mexico with a 9 that might be interested in showing me your plane?

Thanks in advance for your advice.


Best,

Jon

Choice is really pretty simple. It's all a question of acro. If you are not interested in acro, then go with the -9A.
ANY RV has the high altitude performance you are looking for. Don't let these guys that say you MUST have lots of hp and constant speed prop scare you. I have flown my RV-6 with a tired 150 hp engine and a wood prop out of Leadville, CO (highest elevation public use airport in North America) in the summer with no problems. The worst RV is twice as good as the typical spam-can.

Jon,
I had the same issue. In the end I could not let go of the fact that no acro was the word on the 9.
That being said, my bet is the engine and prop choice can be as important as 7 vs 9! I am not speaking of auto conversions etc, a 7 with an O-320 handles much different than with an IO-360/CS prop.
Do your best to attend a flyin and beg for a ride.

Regards

You can't loose with an RV

Jon,

My decision to built an RV 9A is because I am not interested in acrobatics and just want to do crosscountry traveling. The 9 is to my feeling an economical travel machine(160 hp instead of a 180 on the 7). I typically flight plan for 150kts, so this is a fast plane. I had my plane up to FL20, just for the heck of it( I think this is a ceiling of my plane). It flies fabuloulsly at 15000. It is a very stable platform, that means (for me) relaxing crosscountries. The 7 is a lot more responsive on the stick. But the very, very best thing I like about the 9 is her landing characteristic. You can slow her down like an ultralight on landing. The easiest plane to land in my experience. I can land and stop in 300ft predictably, and I dont even have to brake very hard. The resale value of a 7 is higher, because there is more demand for a 7 than a 9. It's a macho thing....( I will get flamed for sure)

Good luck with your choice....both ways you can't loose.

Pete

Pete, you are now flamed....

I built the RV9A so that I could brag that my wings are bigger then the other RV drivers.

But then they came out with the 10.

Kent

Jon,
I have been doing rolls and wingovers with my -9 and nothing has fallen off. Yet, I enjoy long x-country trips in a very stable, smooth, and fast (145kts GS at 2300 rpm and 7-8 gph) machine. How 'bout stalls around 45-50 mph?

I'm sure the -7 has some nice qualities also but I have never flown in one.

Toss-up

I built a 9A but took my transition training in a 7. Perhaps it was because I became used to the way the 7 flew, but I found it easier to land than the 9 (not counting the fact it was a tailwheel.) The 9 will float and the 7 didn't. It took quite a few landings to get used to that and make slower approaches. That being said, I know I can land the 9A shorter and it is easy to land. But I wouldn't rule out the 7 on that account. I do believe the 9 is a little more stable in straight and level, and it is more economical. But not by much! IMHO, whether or not you want to do acro is the deciding point, along with do you want to go with a 320 or 360. I think the 7 needs the bigger engine; the 9 does not. My opinion, anyway. It appears I can get out of a smaller field with a 320 FP than with the 7 w/360 CS. Amazes me! BOTH great airplanes!

Bob Kelly

The 7 is a stronger airplane. No one can argue with that whether or not you do acro. It also has a higher gross but this is somewhat offset by typically a bit heavier empty. It carries more fuel, so you have greater range compounded by going faster for the same power. You can install more power and V numbers are higher. The 9 can't beat the 7 in anything but slow flight, so you can walk up to a 7 driver and challenge, "My airplane's slower than your airplane!")

Frankly, I don't think a few mph difference on landing speeds amounts to an advantage either way if you ignore aeronautical truths. You can have fun and kill yourself just as easily in either type. The 9 is a bit of a duffer on the controls compared to the snappier 7, but some people like that (it's still sharp compared to a spam can).

You'd want good transition training in either type. Then, what will you want to see when you open the hangar door a year after first flight? Listen to your heart, what stirs you? I think the 7 is more the sports sedan and the 9 a mini-van. (Auto analogies draw more response than primers, 320/360, CS/FP, nose/tail dragger... )

John Siebold
Boise, ID

Gee, I didn't know a sport's sedan will only go 10 miles/hr faster than a minivan, with 25% more power, by burning a lot more fuel in the process. Imagine if they had the same power...? With an auto comparison, it is probably more like the difference between a BMW and Porsche.

IMHO, the 7 is a slightly better sports plane and the 9 is a little better cross country cruiser but not by much- both are great planes. With an autopilot, the differences are insignificant. I don't see the 9 as a step backwards, rather, it is a more efficient improvement, better suited for high altitude flying or short week end trips where top speeds are less important. No wonder it has been Vans choice for long trips.

RV7ator said:

The 7 is a stronger airplane. No one can argue with that whether or not you do acro. It also has a higher gross but this is somewhat offset by typically a bit heavier empty. It carries more fuel, so you have greater range compounded by going faster for the same power. You can install more power and V numbers are higher. The 9 can't beat the 7 in anything but slow flight, so you can walk up to a 7 driver and challenge, "My airplane's slower than your airplane!")

Frankly, I don't think a few mph difference on landing speeds amounts to an advantage either way if you ignore aeronautical truths. You can have fun and kill yourself just as easily in either type. The 9 is a bit of a duffer on the controls compared to the snappier 7, but some people like that (it's still sharp compared to a spam can).

You'd want good transition training in either type. Then, what will you want to see when you open the hangar door a year after first flight? Listen to your heart, what stirs you? I think the 7 is more the sports sedan and the 9 a mini-van. (Auto analogies draw more response than primers, 320/360, CS/FP, nose/tail dragger... )

John Siebold
Boise, ID

Click to expand...

John, my friend. I have a 9A that I've flown beside a 6A with the same engine. The 9A is faster and outclimbs the 6A at similar weights. I also routinely cruise at 150 Kts and 6.4 gph best economy.

So... faster, climbs better and get's better gas mileage... so tell me again, which one is the sports sedan and which is the mini-van? I know the 6A is not a 7A, but it's similar.

In the end, it comes down to personal preference. With the exception of aerobatic capabilities, the 9A is a very capable machine.

I do have one problem though: When flying an overhead brake in formation, it takes a lot longer to slow down the 9A and get the flaps out compared to the short-wing RV's. This needs some planning and extra distance compared to the others. So anyone planning to fly formation work would be advised to choose a similar aircraft to their friends, just to keep things simple.

Vern Little

Jon-

Not sure if you searched or not, but there are a LOT of threads that debate the 7 vs. 9 that may help you decide. As Mel said, any RV has way more power than you need, whether your at sea level or 6500. Beyond that, both planes each do one or two things that the other cannot, some performance related, some safety related. The threads I alluded to probably cover all of them. If you know for sure what your mission is, talk to Van's. They know their planes and what they're suited for better than anyone... and they won't express any personal attachment to which one YOU choose.

Good luck with your decision, though. Many of us have been right where you are at.

I am a power advocate

I have NEVER heard of an RV pilot changing an engine to get less horsepower but the other way...yes. Go for the largest approved engine (180 HP OK in the 7A).

ronlee said:

I have NEVER heard of an RV pilot changing an engine to get less horsepower but the other way...yes. Go for the largest approved engine (180 HP OK in the 7A).

Click to expand...

Perhaps this HP issue is due to our experiences and observations with the somewhat anemic spam can airplanes we all started with. Any or all of them could see an increase in performance if their HP could be bumped up. All of these certificated planes tend to be dogs in comparison to the RV's. No matter which RV you fly or which engine you put in them the RV will never have doggy performance. So as everyone has stated before. Decide what your goal for the airplane is and then chose the model based upon those decisions.

Steve, HP applies to RVs as well

I know a 8A guy who started with a 150 HP then rebuilt it to 160 HP and still wants more power. I doubt that you will find any RV pilot at my airport who won't strongly recommend 180 HP for most RVs (except the 9 and 10).

IFR Range

When I analyzed the 7A vs. the 9A using Van's numbers, assuming a 20KT headwind, using 90% of claimed cruising speeds and using 75%, the -7/7A came out with an effective IFR range about 100 miles more than the -9/9A. This is largely a function of the additional 6 gallons, of course.

I agree with all the other arguments in favor of the 7, so that's what I chose. I doubt you can go wrong either way. For me, one of the final criteria was IFR range (with all that implies).

Another input

Don't forget also the -7A can not only fly further (more fuel), it can fly faster and it is a +6/-3g airframe (stronger). Based on this and the fact that it will cost the same to build either, the -7A just seems to make sense in benefit per dollar. I went thru this reasoning and decided the -7A just made more sense to build for me.

I have never been in a -9A, but was lucky enough to have a -7A available to ride in and after flying it for about a half hour and seeing that it is very easy to fly and land, the differences in handling qualities (whatever they are) just made no difference to me.

Are you compairing Apples to Oranges?

hevansrv7a said:

When I analyzed the 7A vs. the 9A using Van's numbers, assuming a 20KT headwind, using 90% of claimed cruising speeds and using 75%, the -7/7A came out with an effective IFR range about 100 miles more than the -9/9A. This is largely a function of the additional 6 gallons, of course.

I agree with all the other arguments in favor of the 7, so that's what I chose. I doubt you can go wrong either way. For me, one of the final criteria was IFR range (with all that implies).

Click to expand...

From Vans website for RV7 160hp and RV9 160hp both at Gross:

RV7 Speed at 75% 8000ft 191 mph RV7 better by 3 mph
RV9 Speed at 75% 8000ft 188 mph

RV7 Range at 75% 8000ft 835 sm RV7 better by 125 sm
RV9 Range at 75% 8000ft 710 sm

RV7 Rate of climb 1400 fmp
RV9 Rate of climb 1400 fmp

RV7 Ceiling 18,500 ft
RV9 Ceiling 19,000 ft RV9 better by 500 ft

RV7 Stall Speed 58 mph
RV9 Stall Speed 50 mph RV9 better by 8 mph

RV7 Takeoff distance 650 ft
RV9 Takeoff distance 475 ft RV9 better by 175 ft

RV7 Landing distance 500 ft
RV9 Landing distance 450 ft RV9 better by 50 ft

Which one is better... It just depends on what data you want to look at.
I decided on the RV9, because I had no interest in aerobatics. I wanted the most efficient platform for flying cross country and the most stable platform.
I fly mostly by myself or with one other person. I also don't think that I could stay in my plane for more then 710 miles, so the smaller fuel tanks are of no problem.

Yes you can up the power in the RV7 and fly even faster, but the cost goes up in not only building, but in operating cost.

I would be happy flying either plane, but I am 7.5% happier with the RV9A.

My Numbers to support above post

RV7A 180 HP Range, using Van's figures, IFR: 460 NM
RV7A 160 HP Range, using Van's figures, IFR: 512 NM
RV9A 160 HP Range, using Van's figures, IFR: 411 NM

Factors: 75% cruise, subtract 20 Kts headwind, 15% for climb, 5% for less-than-max performance, 1 hour for reserve at same speed.
Using 0.45 BSFC:
180 HP=10.125 gph,
160 HP=9 gph.

These are approximately 3 - 4 hour trips.

Van's range figures are not, IMHO, real-world.
Spreadsheet on request.

9 over 7

I have encountered numerous 7 tail builders who had to wake up to the fact that the 9 is a slower quieter plane with a greater choice of true-aircraft engines. I explain that the 6 and 7 are more power intensive. Lots of people are building Vans because they are 1. metal, and 2. kits. The 7's fuel consumption is more of a rude awakening than a 9 and yes, that's important. The most faulty information I find on the subject is that the 7 is a better cross country plane. Cross country wants quietude, less fuel consumption, and lower landing/crashing speed. The final twist is you and your passenger might want the trip to last longer. How many hours a month do you get to spend in the air? Go with the 9.

This post is totally unrelated. Anyway, I just got in from taking a friend on his first light plane ride in my -9. He spent 12 years as a sheriffs deputy here in GA. He was one of those cops you see on TV dashcam videos who runs towards the shooter and drops the bad guy at point blank range. Seriously, his video runs on court TV sometimes. Really amazing.
Well, we had a great time even if the haze from the Waycross fires killed the visibility.

I really enjoy giving "discovery flights"

RV-7A spec w/ Const. Speed. RV-9A spec. w/ Fixed Pitch

kentb said:

From Vans website for RV7 160hp and RV9 160hp both at Gross:

RV7 Speed at 75% 8000ft 191 mph RV7 better by 3 mph
RV9 Speed at 75% 8000ft 188 mph

SNIP .

Click to expand...

To add to Kent's comparison post, the performance figures quoted were not comparing apples to apples. Note that Van's performance figures for the RV-9A were demonstrated with a fixed pitch propeller, and the RV-7A was demonstrated with a constant speed propeller.

Performance figures for a constant speed propped RV-9A will certainly beat the presently quoted fixed pitch propped RV-9A specs. (the cruise speed would probably be one spec that would not change much.... but take-off, climb etc would certainly improve)

I believe Vans could have done a better job marketing the RV-9A by providing a more equitable comparison to the other models.

RV-7 Performance

Gross Weight 1800 lbs160 hp180 hp200 hp Empty weight and performance measured with Hartzell 2 Blade C/S prop
-----------------------------

RV-9 Performance


Gross Weight 1600 - 1750 lbs118 hp135 hp* 160 hp Empty weight and performance measured with fixed pitch propeller
---------------------

Huh?

phil9diesel said:

... The 7's fuel consumption is more of a rude awakening than a 9 and yes, that's important. The most faulty information I find on the subject is that the 7 is a better cross country plane. Cross country wants quietude, less fuel consumption, ...

Click to expand...

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a Lyc 320 in a 7A is the same as in a 9A. Let's also assume for the heck of it that this same engine runs at the same BSFC at 75%. So, how is the fuel consumption less in the 9? Remember that Van's says the 75% GW cruise with 160 HP is 7A=189, 9A=186.

I'll agree that you can go with lower HP and thus slower and thus better mpg in the 9A. I'll further agree that if you go to 180 hp in the 7A and use it you will burn more fuel per mile. But, I further suggest that if you go the same speed in each even with a bigger engine in the 7A you will burn pretty close to the same fuel per mile.

Is there evidence that I'm wrong?

Lycosaurus, I hadn't noticed that.

I thought that the climb numbers looked a little low compared to what I see on my plane. CS will definitely help with climb, takeoff and also landing numbers.

hevansrv7a, I agree that when you use, let's say 120HP (160 at 75%) from a 320 or the same HP from a 360 that the fuel burn will be very close. But we can see from Van's number that the speed between the two planes is on the border of measurement error (I know the 7 is 3 mph faster). IMHO that the longer wing and updated airfoil on the 9 increase comfort and performance for cross country flight. The 7 is the winner if you want to stress your self (aerobatics), but for a more comfortable cross country I think the 9 is the ticket. I think that the 10 would be even better, but is a little pricey.

Kent

Apples to apples?

A few mph here, a few fpm there. What's the big deal? I fly a 9A and make no excuses, and the same would be true if I flew a 7 or 7A. If I felt I needed more range, extra fuel tanks are available. So is a CS prop. These are both great airplanes as anyone who has flown them knows.

Personally (and that is a key word here) I like the low sink rate and better (Wow, I I should have said IMHO, please don't flame me) flaps. Next time you have an engine failure as I have had, you will appreciate a few more minutes to set yourself up, and a little lower landing speed. Considerably lower speed percentage wise if you take into account that 20 kt headwind. Kent said it best. You will be about 7.5% happier with one than the other. Maybe 8%. We don't have to justify what we fly. Pick what suits your mission.

Bob Kelly

RV-9A flying since June 2005...

It sounds like all the usual facts have been served up in this thread. And of course, the specifics of several builder/pilots flying their RV-9/9A airplanes. Here is my version for N2PZ "Enterprise".

Typical mission to Florida and back for a "day trip" when needed:

Chattanooga to Stuart/West Palm Beach area.
Fuel stop at Alma (KAMG) or Homerville, Georgia (KHOE)
Distance approximately 630 statute miles to Stuart (KSUA)

The stop at Alma or Homerville is based on gas prices and comfort needs. That keeps the flight legs to about two hours each. I have an O-320 with carb, Hartzell C/S prop, and fly at 10,000~12,000 feet for lean burn fuel settings between 5.5 & 6 gallons per hour. The air speed trues out at 160 mph. That's about 25 MPG. Not bad for cruising at 160 MPH. The higher cruising altitudes often can provide better tailwinds going south or east in my part of the country. IF the HEAD winds aloft are more than 10 to 15 MPH, I will get down "low" to avoid them. Low for me is 2500-3500 MSL across Georgia.

When I went to OSH 2002 and sat in all the Van's models, I was interested in comfort, visibility, ease of construction, cross-country flying, and NOT aerobatics. I thought about how many times I fly with someone, and the use of the seat beside me when it is empty.

I did all the math on weight and balance and confirmed that using derated V-speeds, I could load the airplane to 2000 pounds and remain in CG limits. I flew the airplane to OSH 2006 loaded that way. It was like taking off in a 172 at max gross weight, but at cruise, it was business as usual. I have a placard on the panel with two columns of V-speeds. One column for 2000 pounds max gross weight, and one column for Van's recommended gross weight.

You can learn all about these flights and more on my web site at www.n2prise.org, including videos from the 2006 trip in and out of Oshkosh.

I have another Florida "day trip" coming up on May 13th, weather permitting. With lunch at the Florida end, the eight hours of flying in 2-hour increments with the breaks in between is not bad. The autopilot does the work, I just fly the takeoffs, landings, and the radio when needed.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A N2PZ Hobbs = 213.3 hours

Lured into this again???

For the life of me I don't know why I'm allowing this to lure me in again. This usually means being flamed by somebody with two clecos holding a brand new tail kit component together who knows everything already. Others on this thread have stated that it is a simple question of whether you will fly acro. On the surface the question is truly this simple. But if you start to peel the layers away kind of like peeling an onion there is much more to the question. As your flying evolves so can your mission. Before going any further here are my qualifications for talking about the nines. They are what they are and I'm making no claims to knowing everything. In fact as my time and flying lessons continue to build my opinions have changed on many things regarding these airplanes. So far I have 452 hours on my plane and just returned from a 5500 mile trip with other RV's. The numbers I'll give are just simply what they are and you can decide for yourself.

Fact... The three 9A's on the trip used the most fuel at each stop! Again, this is just simply how the numbers came out. There were no 7's on the trip, but there were 6's and 6A's with 0-360's. The best for economy was a six with fuel injection and running LOP. On 3 hour flight legs this ship would use 5 to 6 gallons less fuel than my 0-320/carburated/Hartzell equipped 9A running 50 rich and oversquare to save gas. The carburated 0-360 planes would use similar or less gas than me also. On some fill ups the carburated sixes would come in a gallon or so less than me.

Fact... Down low which I'll call 6500 feet and less the power difference is dramatic. As we got higher though things changed a bit. Don't get me wrong though because the tides never turned enough that the 9A would outrun any of the planes with more displacement. But to run with them low I had to make up either 3 inches in manifold pressure or 300 rpm or some combination of the two. As we got up to the 9500' range I was running similar power settings for the same speed. At 10,500 I could run either 1 inch less or reduced rpm for the cruise speed that we were at. This must be the wing taking over, but the 7 could have less effect from this, I don't know. Never, never, never could I run with or out run the bigger displaced engines if the pilots didn't want me to. This example was running at a more economy based cruise where I had reserve power to add still. If we ran with more power the sixes would leave and check out if they wanted to. This was demonstrated when photos were being taken in flight and there were power reserves to allow the bigger engines to come and go at will to any where in the gaggle.

Fact... I know from flying on other trips with sixes with 0-320's both nose and tail wheel that the nine is faster. Van's claims for the 7's is that they are faster yet, but I don't know this to be true having not flown with one with the smaller engine. Van's numbers are accepted as accurate by everybody and I'm not questioning them.

Fact... The seven carries more fuel meaning more range or reserves.

Fact... The eight is faster than the seven.

Fact... At high density altitude runways my 9A always lifted off first. The sixes with constant speed props would beat me to altitude by about 500'. These numbers are for me only as I don't know the power settings they were holding. I did hear one pilot say he was at 24sq on climbs though. I was all in for throttle and 2500 rpm. With this I could match them enough that they could allow me to fly with them.

Now for my opinions... If I built another nine it would have an 0-360. If I were to actually build again though I'd build a 7A with injection and a constant speed prop. Here's another opinion and advice that was given to me by Ken Scott at the factory when I started. Before taking advice on the net find out if they have finished their plane.

Lastly, I love my airplane. It flys great and does everything that we ask of it. This is no nine bashing, just simply information to help others choose.

Blue Skies,

RV-9/9A likes it up "high"...

Bryan,

You called it right. The RV-9/9A likes to fly above 10,000 MSL. When I flew to LOE5, I was tail-end Charlie to a group of RV's (6, 7, 8) from the DFW area. I ended up climbing higher to take advantage of lower fuel burn, and some wind advantages. When I arrived at the intermediate fuel stop, there were only two of the other planes still in line at the pumps.

At the end of the day, I was no more than 10 minutes behind the other guys, but I flew my RV-9A at normal economy cruise on 6 gallons per hour and 160 MPH TAS. I never was out of radio contact with the others, and that was good since they were out front scouting the weather as we passed El Capitan on the way to El Paso. The weather reports they shared helped me when I got to the mountain.

You can read about that on my web site at this link: http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a174.htm with the story continuing onto the next few pages.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN

fast Vans faster decision

hevansrv7a said:

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a Lyc 320 in a 7A is the same as in a 9A. Let's also assume for the heck of it that this same engine runs at the same BSFC at 75%. So, how is the fuel consumption less in the 9? Remember that Van's says the 75% GW cruise with 160 HP is 7A=189, 9A=186. Is there evidence that I'm wrong?...Add: Wrong as in wrong tree (barked up). The key phrase where you went wrong is "Lets assume for the sake of" . Nothing wrong with the figures. Let's unassume. Unassume that all Vans 2 place go 75 percent/160 ponies in the same cruise mode for the same purpose. Backing down with the 9 is how you save gas and noise, which is a valid role for many owners. My points aren't just that the 9 is different, but that a larger than ever number of kit builders successfully finish or just take on a plane without ever knowing the difference between the 7 and 9 models. In the kit scheme, they start the 7 and find out the 9 would have served them much better. Vans never misrepresented the models. Owners sites leave out the flexibility discussion.

Click to expand...

7 or 9 thats the Question

RV 7 or 9 ? I had the problem. Went to the Vans factory in March 07. was able to fly both the 7 and the 9. the 7 was great, but it seemed a little to much for me, things happening to fast. The 9 reminded me of my 172. It was easy to fly to land, ect. Ended up talking to my son, cfii mei His comment was after some recurrent training and 20 or so hours in the aircraft which one would I rather fly. I ordered the RV7a quick build. and going with the IO-360 with c/s prop full IFR panel

So there has been some talk about range differences. But how often do you go for max range before refueling? Out here in the west, you will often refuel at the same place just because there is no place farther within your range--either fuel range or bladder range. And few folks fly long X-C flights most of the time. If you do, the few times where the range difference matters may be important, but generally not an important enough factor on which to base a decision for most people.

What do you want to do with your plane?

Aerobatics? Ya gotta go with the 3, 4, 7 or 8.

X-C? FWIW, the factory folks overwhelmingly prefer the 9, at least if they can't take the 10.

Both? Put an autopilot in your 7 or 8 & have a nice trip.

RV-7A vs RV-9A Decision Search Help

Hey - I'm one of those goofy student pilots that is seriously considering jumping in and building a plane. I just can't see spending $50K or more on a plane that is 10 years older than I am and has instruments that would be at home in the jurassic period. I am stuck at the common fork in the road as to which plane to build, a 7A or a 9A.

I'm sure that there are a ton of threads comparing and contrasting the two models, but I'm having trouble finding them with the search tool. The searches I've tried are either too broad, or too specific. Has anyone else going throught the same process saved any links to good threads discussing the pros/cons of each model?


Thanks,
UnPossible

You're right, here's a lot of threads (used "RV-7 RV-9" in the search feature):

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10250&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=13411&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10201&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10771&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=8828&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=7325&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=1327&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=267&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

Good luck.

Thanks for the post

I cannot understand the rationale for picking the 9(A) over the 7(A). The 7(A) is aerobatic, carries more luggage, is faster (may need a larger engine), somewhat longer range and probably has a better resale. This is not slamming 9(A) owners but it would be interesting to know what led you to pick the 9(A).

I'm building a -9A. Check out the recent thread entitled "second guessing model choice". From time to time I wonder if I should have built an -8 instead, but keep coming back to being reassured on my choice of the -9A. For a student pilot or low time pilot (I am the latter), I think the -9A is a fantastic choice, particularly if you want to do IFR training. I believe a well-equipped -9A will be an outstanding IFR ship. Also, for a low-time pilot the slower stall and landing speeds of the -9A, and increased gliding range provide a measure of safety. Many people ignore this factor, or feel it doesn't apply to them. But my view is that when I end up with an engine failure someday, I will be VERY glad to have the increased gliding range to choose the best landing site, and the slower landing speed when I touch down on that rough field.

The -9A can also be cheaper to operate depending on your engine choices for the -9A vs -7A. The ONLY drawback that i can see is that you are limited when it comes to aerobatics. A bit slower, sure, but then it also lands slower which gives that added safety margin.

If your main mission is x-country, if you want to go into out of the way places with small strips, and if you want to do IFR training, you can't go wrong with a -9/9A. Also, I've heard that Vans employees all prefer flying the -9A when they do long x-country flights. If true, that's got to tell you something.

If you want to do hardcore aerobatics, I personally would get an -8 over a -7. The roll rate is better on the -8 I believe, and sitting centerline makes it more realistic when you "play fighter-pilot". I feel the -7/7A tries to be a bit of both... side-by-side seating for x-country with a pax or for dual flight training, and also capable of aerobatics. I'm sure the -7/7A is about as good a blend of these two requirements as you can get, but I personally think the -9A is ultimately a better choice for one, and the -8 is better for the other. If you're rich and have lots of time, the best would be to have a -9A AND an -8... horses for courses.

Either plane would be great. Cost is similar. Both build about the same. If you want to do aerobatics, then the 7(A) is the appropriate one. Some will say the 9(A) would be a better IFR platform. But I think either one, so equipped, would be fine. My 7A is very stable and easy to fly. The ability, of the 7(A), to do the sport aerobatics is the really significant difference. Comparably powered, the speed difference is slight. You can power a 7(A) more than a 9(A) and get significantly more cruise speed at a cost increase.

JMHO
Roberta

I was building a 9a and now own a 7...

I really am a XC flyer- hence the decision for the 9a. We sold our kit after realizing that when our first child was to be born the construction would take MUCH longer to complete. So I sold it for sheet metal value (kit costs less labor) and bought a RV7 for a good price.

I spent a fair amount of time customizing and tweaking the RV7 and a lot of time flying.

Here are some notes:
1. To get the most out of the RV7, I think you need a O-360, the W&B is best. SO that will cost you more, but you get more power.
2. I fly all day long at 170mph burning 8.5gph below 6k- that is a very acceptable speed for my mission.
3. I wasn't interested in acro before- but I am now, burning holes in the sky takes on a whole new meaning with acro...
4. For cost- build a RV6, you can buy partial built kits for almost half the price of a new kit. They are snappier on the controls than the 7 or 9. If cost is king, go this route-you could build a great day vfr light plane for under 40k (maybe under 30k)
5. I fly a lot of XC- atleast one 500+ mile trip a week right now. Next week I will fly from Atlanta to Houston to Alberqueque to Tucson and back. The 7 does fine BUT (BIG BUT) plan on installing atleast a wing levellor Auto pilot to reduce the work load. I would want this in the 9 regardless.
6. WHATEVER you build- keep it simple stupid.

alpinelakespilot2000 said:

You're right, here's a lot of threads (used "RV-7 RV-9" in the search feature):

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10250&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=13411&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10201&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10771&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=8828&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=7325&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=1327&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=267&highlight=RV-7+RV-9

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Steve - thanks for sending the threads. Quick question - how did you get the search to go back that far. I searched on similiar words, and got 10 pages of matches that only took me back through mid-07. What do you need to to to search beyond the first 100 matches?

Thanks,
UnPossible

Ron Lee said:

I cannot understand the rationale for picking the 9(A) over the 7(A). The 7(A) is aerobatic, carries more luggage, is faster (may need a larger engine), somewhat longer range and probably has a better resale. This is not slamming 9(A) owners but it would be interesting to know what led you to pick the 9(A).

Click to expand...

Depending on weight and balance, the 7 and 9 hold the same baggage (100#).

Since I was not all that interested in doing significant aerobatics, the sink rate and power off stall were of more significance to me.

Cafefoundation.org tests suggest ~600 fpm power off sink for the -9, versus about 1000 for the short-wing RV's. That translates into roughly double the time to decide what you're going to do if you lose power. It also allows for a gentler transition to an off-field landing.

The -7's stall speed is 16% faster than the -9's. Since survivability of an impact decreases exponentially with velocity, that means an impact in a forced landing may be, all else equal, significantly more survivable in a -9.

Since I fly in and near mountains a lot, these two things mattered to me.

The -7s may have a better resale, although I don't think there is yet data to support that, but I didn't worry about that when I started.

I know that there are some missions that make the -7 a better plane, to be sure. I might even like to have one someday (though more likely it would be an -8 if I could keep the -9). Van's is pretty smart, though. They wouldn't have gone to the time and expense of inventing a new model if there weren't significant reasons for doing so.

Just my .02.