Home > VansAirForceForums

- 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

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-23-2011, 10:53 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021

The 9 will get bounced around in turbulence just the same as a 6 & 7. I've flown two other 9's, and the 9's pilot has flown mine. We seem to agree on my above statement. The 9 is not as nimble as my 6. I hear my 6 is slightly more nimble than a 7, but I really can't say. I prefer the control feel of my 6, over a 9. The 9 is a bit too sedate for my taste.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:13 PM
alpinelakespilot2000 alpinelakespilot2000 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,491

Hi Brandon-
This topic is definitely one of the "never-ending" debates. If you do a search with "RV-7 vs RV-9" in the search engine, or something similar, you'll find lots of reading. For me, absent the need to do aerobatics, it was the low speed capabilities and long glide ratio that make it very attractive for the terrain around which I fly. In general, though, I agree with the aerobatics litmus test. Do you need to do them or not?
Good luck.
Steve M.
Ellensburg WA
RV-9 Flying, 0-320, Catto

Donation reminder: Jan. 2019
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:25 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,815
Default You mean -10

Originally Posted by twsurveyor View Post
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! really mean the -10 flies like a truck...mine does.

Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga

It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132

Dues gladly paid!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 07:40 AM
RV10inOz's Avatar
RV10inOz RV10inOz is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,131

..............and it rolls those pesky 210's and Bo's

Being a bit harsh there Peirre.....flown a 172 lately?

My thoughts, if short field ops are a concern go the -9, if you want a more sporty machine go the -7.

Its that easy, the rest is splitting hairs.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 08:07 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,491

Just another opinion, but why consider the 0235 in the 9?

It sure will reflect in market value of the airplane and apples to apples comparison in engine cost with a 0320 or 0360 is very similar. Fuel burn on the basis of BSFC is also about the same.

If you don't want to burn a lot of fuel, just pull the throttle back on any of them.

Its nice to have the extra power when you need it.

I've flown in both, either is a delight. The 9 might be a bit more docile but its larger wing is good for cross country and it is a great glider with a FP prop.
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2018 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 08:54 AM
WAM120RV WAM120RV is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coventry. England
Posts: 604
Default No question!!

I always find it strange when a person asks a question but has actually provided his own answer in asking it!!

The envelope you want to fly excludes the 9 as its non aerobatic, so that makes the 7 your choice.

For various reasons I was persuaded to build a 9A, its a great aeroplane and i enjoy flying it, but my own choice would have been a 7. As I also have a 4 under construction the lack of aeros in the 9 does not matter that much.

Like you I only want to loop/roll occasionally.

Hope this helps
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 09:55 AM
ArVeeNiner's Avatar
ArVeeNiner ArVeeNiner is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,103

Originally Posted by RV10inOz View Post
Being a bit harsh there Peirre.....flown a 172 lately?
RVs sure spoil you. I had the pleasure to go up in a couple of RV-6As just before I got transition training with Mike Seagar in the Old Blue 6A back in April. In July, I flew a 172 for the first time in something like 10 years. I was surprised how sluggish it seemed to be! That flight right there was very motivational for me to get my RV to the airport. I never thought I'd be one to bash the good old 172.

Those RVs are evil!!

I went with the 9A for all the same reasons stated in the other posts. I know a few 9 pilots and I haven't heard anything but good things. For me, I don't need to go upside down.
Kelly Johnson
San Jose, CA

Pink slip issued: 5/7/12

First flight: 5/28/12, Memorial Day.

Phase I Complete: 8/18/12!

2018 donation: complete
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 10:25 AM
Bill Dicus Bill Dicus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shorewood, WI (Milwaukee area)
Posts: 1,066
Default 7 vs 9

One poster suggested that you should use a 360 in the -7. I flew recently with Mike Saeger in his RV-7 with an O-320 and fixed pitch prop. Performance was excellent, sparkling by normal light plane standards. Van has expressed his opinion that the short-wing 2 seaters are not underpowered with 150 HP, and the RV-9 is certainly not. Mike's plane climbed superbly and is reasonably fast as well. Van's literature has some performance figures for various powerplants. Hopefully his data will allow you to make a good decision on airframe and powerplant. Good luck!
Bill Dicus
Shorewood (Milwaukee) Wisconsin
RV-8 N9669D Flying 12/4/14!
Flying Pitts S-2A, Piper Lance
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 10:35 AM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,503

As has already been posted this is a loaded question that will get you all kinds of opinions. Of course after reading everything it will then become your job to decipher all of those opinions to develop your own thoughts on the matter.

So, since you asked I will give you my opinion as well. Weigh it with whatever analysis you feel necessary. I built a 9A because I was not interested in aerobatics. Since I intended to use my airplane for cross country flight it was the right choice for me. I agree with others about the larger engine. You will be able to throttle back a larger engine and end up with the same performance as a smaller engine.

I did transition training in a 6. I have been in the back seat of Jay Pratt's 8 and flown my 9A and other's 9's. The 6 was a real hot rod. The 8 was an all out performer. My 9A is not an all out hot rod like the 6 or the 8 but it is close enough. It is a very stable airplane that does what you ask of it with only minimal movement of the stick. Whoever said the 9 is a "truck" has obviously never flown one. It is every bit an RV as any other. Perhaps there are some subtle differences that are making the 6,7,8 a tad more responsive but for the average spam can flyer it will still be an eye opener when you end up flying one.

As for grass, my 9A lives on a 3K foot grass strip. The grass is not an issue. The pilot is. Just do not treat the nose gear as a landing gear. Take care of it by keeping it off of the ground until it will not stay up any longer and then gently let it down. Do that and the nose gear will work fine on grass.

As has been said, go with the 7 if you have any inclination for aerobatics. Otherwise the 9 will be a great choice for other missions outside of the yank n bank world.

You will enjoy whatever plane you choose. Welcome to the club.

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 11:04 AM
hecilopter's Avatar
hecilopter hecilopter is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 389
Default Biased 7

Maybe a little biased but the 7 has many advantages:

1) 50% Stronger airframe (+6 to -3 g vs +4 to -2)
2) Higher Vne (230 mph vs 210)
3) Higher maneuvering speed (142 vs 118)
4) More fuel (42 gal vs 36)
5) ~5 mph faster on the same engine (160 hp)
6) Slightly higher gross weight (1800 vs 1750)

Just because the 7 can do aerobatics doesn't mean you have to do aerobatics or that the airplane will start doing an aerobatic maneuver on its own. But the capability is there if you need it. Which airframe would you rather be in during severe turbulence? I'd prefer the stronger one.

I've never flown a 9 but don't understand the more stable issue either. My 7 flys hands off when trimmed. Rock solid with ball in the middle.

Costs the same to build either one.
Rusty "Rooster" Williams - FFI Wingman
N357RV RV-7A Tip Up (flying and Painted!) - 1130+ hrs.
Superior XP-360, carbureted, Hartzell 74" Blended Airfoil Prop
Grand Prairie, TX

Last edited by hecilopter : 08-24-2011 at 11:07 AM.
Reply With Quote

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 11:03 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.