VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-7/7A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:06 PM
brandon67e brandon67e is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 6
Default RV-7 or RV-9 Help me I cant decide

Could someone help me. Im going to build an RV. Now the hard part, 7 or 9. Im not interested in aerobatics, but i want this plane to keep me happy for a long time. I would like to maybe loop and roll it. Is that possible with a 9? Has someone flown both. If so, what motor? Is the 9 a dud off of a grass strip with the O-235? I know the performance data looks good, but that is normally not 100% true. Please help me decide.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:28 PM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,276
Default

RV-7. O-360 engine minimum. Constant speed prop offers performance advantages although may not be as critical closer to sea level.

Your welcome.

PS...usually plan on the largest engine (or close) recommended for that model.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:34 PM
SeanB's Avatar
SeanB SeanB is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 410
Default

Brandon,

No aerobatic manuevers in the 9. It has a wider wingspan and is more stable, therfore preferred by many for cross-country flight. Should be easier to land. The 9 can use a smaller engine and still move out pretty well, but I agree with Ron on going larger with the engine. With today's sensors and engine monitoring systems, you can adjust mixture in flight and get great economy with a larger engine. If you need power, it will be there as well.

The 7 and 9 have essentially the same fuselage. The differences are in the wings and empennage.

FYI...I chose the 7 for the "what if I start to get bored" remedy.

Good luck.
__________________
SEAN BLAIR V7
Colorado Springs, CO
http://www.mykitlog.com/sblair
2017 VAF SUPPORTER
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:37 PM
John H John H is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DeLand, Florida
Posts: 53
Default RV7 vs. RV9

I have a RV9 and its a good comefortable craft. No aerobatics at all not rated for them. I can't comment on the O-235 but All the ones at Spruce Creek have O-320's and preform very nice. Three of them have FP and one CS. Admittedly the CS will accellerate faster on take off but can't compete in the climb. The one with the CS is the 'A' model where the others are Tail draggers.

I quite often fly into grass strips, not even an issue.

Bottom line if you want a great cruiser and good fuel ecomomy the 9 is the way to go. If you want to yank & bank go with the 7. With either building it light will be the best bet.

John H.
RV9 N194JH
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:42 PM
twsurveyor's Avatar
twsurveyor twsurveyor is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ridgetop, Tennessee
Posts: 134
Default RV7 or RV9 Help me I cant decide

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon67e View Post
Could someone help me. Im going to build an RV. Now the hard part, 7 or 9. .
The only advantage the 9 has is a slower stall speed and a kinder more gentle attitude. Compared to the "short winged" RV's, the 9 feels like a TRUCK!

If you want a plane with "Attitude", go with the 7(A)!!! You can thank me later.
__________________
Tommy Walker
Ridgetop, TN (1M5)
RV-6A, N 350 TW
830 Hrs & "Climbing”!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-23-2011, 05:40 PM
Vern's Avatar
Vern Vern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peachtree City, Ga
Posts: 943
Default Fuel difference

RV-9=36 Gals
RV-7=42 Gals
__________________
Vern Darley
RV-6A N680V / RV-10QB N353RV
Luscombe 8E
Hatz Biplane
Falcon RV Squadron
KFFC Hanger D-30
Peachtree City, Ga
770 310-7169
EAA Technical Counselor #5142
EAA Flight Advisor #486336
ATP/CFI/A&P/DAR
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-23-2011, 07:48 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,289
Default

I have flown my -9 with both a 135 hp and 180 hp engine. With the small engine, it is no slouch getting off grass with a full load.

As for the 36 vs. 42 gallons question, that only comes into play when you install a larger engine. Even then, you can always throttle back and run the same power settings as a small engine. I have found it not to be an issue.

I have never heard the -9's handling described as a "truck", so I don't know where that comes from. Compared to a certified aircraft, it is very sensitive. Compared to a short wing RV, it is not at sensitive and IMHO more balanced and stable.

If you are going to build an RV, put the larger engine in it. While I really liked my -9 with the O-290, had I not found such a great deal on that engine, I would have put an O-320 in it when I first built it.

To me, the only reason to select the -7 over the -9 is the desire to do acrobatics. All the rest is just opinion.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:07 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 9,905
Default YEP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
To me, the only reason to select the -7 over the -9 is the desire to do acrobatics. All the rest is just opinion.
That's pretty much it. I've flown every model of the RV family, and if I get into one that handles like a "truck", I'm going to get it on the ground as soon as possible. There's something definitely wrong!
The RV-9 is not quite as responsive as the short wing versions, but it is VERY close.

I would never part with my -6, but if I were going to build another 2-seat RV, it would be a -9.
__________________
Mel Asberry..DAR since last century
A&P/EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Specializing in Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
North Texas (8TA5)
RV-6 Flying since 1993, 172hp O-320, 3-Blade Catto (since 2003)
Legend Cub purchased 12/2017
FRIEND of the RV-1
Eagle's Nest Mentor
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:31 PM
Jamie's Avatar
Jamie Jamie is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanB View Post
It has a wider wingspan and is more stable, therfore preferred by many for cross-country flight.
This is almost entirely negated if you are going to use an autopilot. If you are going to be flying a lot on instruments however the -9 would win that argument all day long.
__________________
"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all." - Charles A. Lindbergh
Jamie | RV-7A First Flight: 7/27/2007 (Sold)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:35 PM
NeilMcLeod NeilMcLeod is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 77
Default

I'll add, if you build the plane more or less by the plans, you can pretty much trust Van's numbers. ( but as someone once said "trust but verify" )
__________________
Neil McLeod
Sierra Vista, AZ
RV-7 N748M (sold)
Slider
Aerosport IO-360 B1B
MT-MTV 15B-C/C Acro 2 Blade
Inverted fuel and oil
Trutrak EFIS GP AP 2
2014 Dues Paid
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.