What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7A vs RV-9A

UnPossible said:
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
Click to expand...
I just again entered "RV-7 RV-9" in the search function and again ended up with 2 pages and 73 results. I pulled all of the thread links from among those 73. Sometimes it just takes a little while to figure out the best keywords to use in the search feature. It's a pretty handy tool. Very few questions exist that haven't already been asked.
 
Either choice is the correct one. :) The 9 is a bit more comfortable and stable for long trips and more economical for short trips, hence Vans employees travel preference before the 10 came along. The 9's tend to be more popular locally these days (abt 8-3), excluding a few of the older 6's that were selected before the 9s were offered.

Biggest difference is the faster roll rate in the 7- for x/c; a wing leveler is a must have. Be careful if you drop something in the cockpit or reach across the pax seat...

I prefer the 7's greater strength (slightly higher cruise speeds) and larger fuel tanks and the 9's greater stability, glide slope, and slower stall speed. I feel the 9 has a better wing for high altitude use, probably not significantly so.

Performance, with the same powerplant is so close that it is not a deciding airframe factor. Ive gathered however, that the O-320hp engine has been reported somewhat "marginal", in that cruise speeds tend to fall slightly slower than Van's specs (closer to 160 than 180mph) and not a lot more economical than the 360's at the same speed.

Given that the O320 and O360s are so close to each other in weight- Id prefer a 180hp engine in both the 7 and 9.:eek:
 
Interesting responses

If not already discussed in the previous threads then it certainly provides viewpoints to help others decide.

JC, getting an autopilot (whether TruTrak or Trio) will make your cross-countries much nicer. I have the Trio EZ-Pilot and while it helps a lot, I sure would like the altitude hold as well.

A month ago I flew eight hours in one day (Atlanta GA to Colorado Springs area) and I attribute that partly to having the autopilot. The rest is due to my superior piloting abilities. Obviously my largest excursions from perfect are in altitude, whether it is making a sandwich, looking at the charts or trying to talk to ATC. Even with my best pitch trimming, altitude still has to be watched closely and adjusted.
 
I have the servos (TT)

I need to order the head unit- I'm pretty set on the ADI II.

Come annual time (FEB), there will be lot's and lot's of changes.

Catto prop, 2 axis AP, a little more insulation, some new interior touch ups-it'll be like flying a whole new airplane....:)
 
Ron Lee said:
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...

Ron, I wanted an RV-6 so badly that I could taste it. When I finally made it to the factory to get a ride and order the tail the 9A was being pushed over the 6, strongly. The advances in the kit, ease of build, new airfoil, bigger fuse, efficiency, safer landing speed, nosewheel were all pushed strongly as better choices. A ride helped to seal the deal and I left there happy with my choice. When two months later Doug posted pictures here of the new 7 I was shocked. I had clearly told the person giving me the tour that I wanted the aerobatic wing and the bigger engine and he still pushed the 9A and kept the 7 a secret. I was very dissapointed that the seven was cloaked in secrecy as if it was a product of the Skunk Works and that I had most likely purchased a plane that would have been my second choice if I had known. To their credit Van's has dropped this secret developement attitude somewhat with the 10 and the 12. So now that my plane is finished I do truly love it, but I'll never forget the feeling I had in the pit of my stomach when I saw the 7 and realized that I shouldn't have had to sacrafice what I wanted for the prepunched kit.

Best,
 
Last edited:
I've been there

UnPossible said:
Hey - I'm one of those goofy student pilots that is seriously considering jumping in and building a plane.
Click to expand...

After a very long time looking at different kits (Velocity, Zenith, Vans, etc), I finally got down to either an RV9A or a RV7A just like you. I read all the posts and did the research, and it took a few months before I decided. The two are very close when it comes down to it. Finally I made my decision based on what was right for me.

However, because of my indecision, I lost a couple of months of build time and ordered after a price increase. DOH!

You probably already have an idea of which model you prefer, and if not, just flip a coin. This way you can get your order in before the price increase, which I believe is Feb 1.
 
You have to look at your primary mission and decide which fits you better.

Personally, I need a XC travelling machine with a hard IFR panel and 2-axis AP - so far no clear winner, either one would work. I want one that has enough power to get in and out of short fields, and over mountains when hot and heavy - again, either one would work. I'm not into aerobatics, and I figure that to be safe at it, you have to do a lot of it - and I'm realistic enough to know that I won't be doing enough of it to be safe, so I'm going to remove the temptation - score one for the 9. Most of my trips are 400nm or better, so cruise fuel burn and TAS at my preferred high altitude cruise is a consideration - the high aspect ratio of the 9(A) gives better performance for the same fuel burn, or lower fuel burn for the same performance, so score another for the 9 - it's happier in the mid-teens than the 7. Side-by-side seating and nosewheel are personal choices, no winner there. I REALLY like the idea of a little additional power for better climbout and better TAS up high, and it's easy to hang a 360 (versus the recommended max 320) on the 9, while it gets expensive to add more power to the 7 (versus the max 360), so score another for the 9. Price and build time are roughly a wash.

By the time I get finished with all the stuff I cared about, I had 3:0 for the 9A versus the 7A. It's all about your mission, your flying style, and what you want to do with it.
 
Last edited:
It is kind of like real-estate, only here it is...

mission, mission, mission.

Some people say they want the stronger airframe of the -7 and they don't feel comfortable flying a plane with the "low" limits like the -9 but they continue to fly Cessna's and Pipers with the same ?low? limits while building. Duh!

Other's comment that the -9's fuel capacity isn't enough. I call BS on this because if you install the engine designed for the airplane, there is more than plenty of fuel. (Some say they just pull the black knob back to reduce fuel burn. Ok, if I had 180 HP up front, that black knob would be all the way in, all the time.) The 75% power range of a 160 HP -9 is 710 miles, the 75% range for a 180 HP -7 is 775 miles. I?m not sure that 65 miles is a deal breaker.

Others talk about wanting better climb performance the larger engine provides. Better than what, a C-172? My 135 HP O-290 powered -9 goes up around 1400 FPM at gross on 90 degree days. How much more climb do you need?

Just doing some myth busting here.

As for why I picked a -9 over the -7...
My wife and I hope to use it go camping I figured the longer wing gets off the ground faster, which is critical for short / soft fields. According to Van's web site, my 135 HP -9 will get off the ground in 500 feet while a 160 hp -7 takes 650 feet. You have to move up to 200 HP in a -7 to match the ground roll of my 135 hp -9. Once I'm off the ground I can always circle to gain altitude but the trick is to get off the ground ASAP.

This little talked about performance item had a lot to do with my selection.

Do I wish I could perform some acro, sure I do but I have a 2G back which limits me to rolls and the -9 rolls very nicely. Oh, did I say that out loud. You aren't supposed to roll a -9. ;)

It comes down to buying and building the plane for the mission you have in mind. The rest doesn't really matter.
 
RV-7A and/or RV-9A Flight

Hey - I'm about 90% done with the construction of my airplane factory.
Garage space - check
Drill press - check
Band Saw - check
Compressor - check
Scheduled for Grov-Air class - check

The only thing holding me back is my indecision as whether to build a 7A or a 9A. I don't want to make an $80K mistake. I am hoping to beg, borrow or steal a ride in each to help me make the decision. Is there anyone in the Northern Illinois / Southern Wisconsin area that would be willing to give me a quick ride in a 7A and/or a 9A so that I can make up my mind and get my tail on order?

Thanks,
Jason
 
Jason, The -7 is slightly faster and aerobatic.
The -9 has better low speed characteristics. The cruise speeds are very close. Unless you really want the all out speed and/or acro, most people seem to prefer the -9. I've flown a lot of RVs during the last 16-17 years. If I were to build another RV, it would be the -9. Call Van's and ask which airplane gets scheduled first when going to a fly-in.
On the other hand, I don't think you would ever consider it the wrong choice no matter which one you build.
 
Not in northern IL, but central IN. I know it is a bit far (and I don't have any plans of being up your way,) but you would be more than welcome in my 9A. I believe it is a good representation of the model and should give you a good idea of what to expect. I transitioned in a 7 and now fly the 9A. You can't go wrong, but Mel has it right--go with the 7A only if you want the acro. I know you will love which ever you build. Let me know if you need to work out a ride in the 9A. I wouldn't want you to make a decision without the chance to get the feel, and enjoy the grin.

Bob Kelly
 
ditto

Mel's right. It would not be a mistake to build either of these planes. I like the sports car/sedan analogy. Jason, you have a lot of "checks" in your post, the only thing left to do is to write a cheque to Van's and get going! Are you thinking of the standard builld or quick build?
 
lorne green said:
Are you thinking of the standard builld or quick build?
Click to expand...

I'm totally planning on the the quick build for both the wings and the fuselage. While I am looking forward to the project (I need a project), when I look at the cost difference/the time savings the QB appears to be a bargain. Additionally, I met a 9A builder at his shop a couple of weeks ago. He did not go the quick build route, but he strongly hinted that if he had it to do over again, he'd definately go QB. That was enough to convince me.

Jason
 
Very happy with my 9A, but..........

The 7 is about 5% faster in cruise, depending on what numbers you use. That's not a bad trade for the low speed characteristics of the 9.

The killer is VA which is 20% higher in the 7. In my 9A I'm slowed to sub 172 airspeeds when its rough.

I bought the 9A because the way this one was configured & priced it was the closest to my overall desires compared to 7A's available at that time.

On average it hasn't yet become a big enough issue to convince me to sell the 9A and get a 7A, but if I were building the choice would be the 7A for sure - unless it was a 10.
 
The main difference between the two is the wing, of course. The -9 wing allows for incredible climb rates, rock solid stability, and landing is like taking a leisurely escalator ride to the ground floor.
What do you give up? Aerobatics - well I dunno - the other day I did a couple rolls and even looped it with my instructor in the right seat during my BFR last month. Chandelles and wingovers are nice in the -9 as well. I just don't get jazzed about aerobatics anyway and would prefer to watch them from the ground.
Speed is the main compromise. I plan all my trips for 140kts GPS g/s at 2300 rpm. That gets me where I want to go quickly. In the -7 I guess I could get there a few minutes earlier.
I fly my -9 between 2-3 hours a week consistently since July 1, 2006 and I am still in awe of the machine every time I strap in.
 
VA is directly related to stall speed.

Steve Brown said:
The killer is VA which is 20% higher in the 7. In my 9A I'm slowed to sub 172 airspeeds when its rough.
Click to expand...

The 7 stalls at a higher speed, the 9 stalls at a lower speed therefore the 7 has a higher VA then the 9.

Kent
 
Good luck

If you ever figure it out please let me know.. I have been looking into a -7 or -9 for over a year, and still can't make up my mind.. I have never done acrobatics in my 8 years of flying but it does look like fun.. I like the idea of being able to use a smaller engine with good economy if gas prices keep going up.. Most of my flying will be local in nature.. I don't know maybe I should build both a -7 and -9 and then I just choose each morning what I want to do..
I wish the -4 was prepunched I would build one and never look back.. The -4 has always been my favorite..

Chris in Bonney Lake,WA
 
UnPossible said:
I'm totally planning on the the quick build for both the wings and the fuselage.
Click to expand...
Back when I was building my plane (Ok, last year) I figured I paid myself around $8/hr to go with the slow build. If doing it again, I would probably go with a quick build.

Bruce is correct about the -9, you can do some light acro in it, if you like. The roll rate is better than the Decathlon I had been flying, so wing overs and rolls are much easier.

Oh, and I love scaring the heck out of -7 pilots by approaching at 65 mph.
 
I chose a 9A as it is supposed to be easier to fly, and when I started building, I hadn't flown for over 26 years. But after building up more time in a 9, I might then build a 7, or whatever might be available at the time! No way would I build a QB - building is half the fun.
 
RV9A vs RV7A

Hello all, I am currently in the process of deciding on which aircraft I want to build. I got the OK from my wife and now the research starts in earnest. I am currently considering the 7A or the 9A.

I am looking for any advice on making the decision between the two. I know the basic differences between them, but some "real life" experiences would be great.

Also if there are any RV builders in the Denver area that would be willing to show off their completed RV or their project, I would be interested in seeing them.

thanks in advance

Mike Quam
Castle Rock, CO
ready to build
 
Mike,

Welcome to the forum and congrats on getting the green light!

This very topic came up (again) a few days ago.

Check out this thread.

There is a lot of "hidden" info on the forum, you just need to hit the search button and or expand how many posts you want to see at one time. Scroll to the bottom of the forum page to expand the "age" of posts displayed.
 
Welcome!

Bill is right--there is a lot of stuff already here for you to research. You will probably find out (like most of us did before) that if you want acro, go with the 7A. If not, go with the 9A (or 9, if tailwheel suits you.) You can't go wrong either way. I did the 9A and couldn't be happier.

Bob Kelly
 
thanks for the advice on the searching. i will keep looking for the info to help make my decision. On another note, these forums are great. the quick help is much appreciated.

can't wait to get going


Mike Quam
Castle Rock, CO
 
You have to ask yourself some HARD questions

I know there have been many threads on the subject that are quite extensive. Some clever searching will turn up lots of opinions.

They are both great planes but TWO BIG THINGS YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER.

RV-7 is aerobatic and designed for engines larger than 160HP

RV-9 is NOT aerobatic and designed for 160HP max.


Now people say well you can put a 180 HP in a RV-9. I say no, follow Van's advice (limitations) or get a RV-7.

Now people will say you can do some loops and rolls in a RV-9. I say no, follow Van's advice (limitations) or get a RV-7.

This is wise advice I am giving you. If you don't do aerobatics now and think MAY BE IN THE FUTURE.....you might. Go out and drop a few hundred on some intro aerobatics training/dual, may be even a tail wheel endorsement if you don't have one, since many acro planes are tail draggers. Don't waste your money on a joy ride get some books on both topics, acro and tail dragger and really go for it. It is "LIKE" getting two ratings but really of course they are not ratings. The TG is just an endorsement. As a CFI I have written about 10 TG endorsements and had about the same Acro students.

People write in with no Acro or Taildrgger experience and are trying to decide to build an acro or TG plane. It does not make a lot of sense but people do it. I love doing acro and there for the choice was easy for me.

If you decide going upside down, than the answer is obvious, get a RV-7. If all you ever want to do is cruise straight and level than RV-9 is on the short list.
 
Last edited:
Mike, email me at ronlee at pcisys dot net

You can go up in my 6A which is close enough to a 7A.
 
Ron

I sent you an email.. I would appreciate the opportunity to take a ride in you 6A. let me know what woks for your schedule

thanks In Advance
 
gmcjetpilot said:
If you decide going upside down, than the answer is obvious, get a RV-7. If all you ever want to do is cruise straight and level than RV-9 is on the short list.
Click to expand...

Well said. I'd add two comments:

* A 9 is probably a bit more stable for IFRage - worth considering!

* I built a 7 with the thought that "I might like to do acro someday" and boy am I glad I did. Acro has totally killed the fun of the $100 burger for me - now I go at least once a week to work on my basic maneuvers and it has totally rekindled my love of just flying.
 
Thanks to Ron Lee and his hanger mate Stewart for taking me on my first ride in an RV. Ron's 6A performed great and the formation flying was a sight. Also got a chance to spend some time with both of them and discuss the pro's and con's of both the 9A and the 7A. many thanks to both of them

with their input and all the input from these forums, I am further down the road of choosing a kit, but haven't made up my mind.

thanks kevinh for the input on the acro, sounds like it adds another reason to go flying besides the $100 burger. I think the next step is to follow some of the other advice and find a local acro pilot to go fly with.

thanks again for all the advice. Ill let you know when I make my final decision.


Mike Quam
Castle Rock, CO
Getting ready to build, and acquiring tools
 
What Mike did not mention.....

Is that Stewart felt "left out" and just before Mike and I started the engine Stewart asked if we wanted to do a little formation flying. Of course we felt sorry for him standing there with forlorn, puppy dog eyes so we said yes.

Mike and I took off first so Mike could get the feel of the airplane. He did fine to which I attribute my preflight admonition (twice) to NOT move it like a Cessna yolk. Small movements. Hand braced on leg.

When Stewart caught up with us I took the controls as lead. Then we headed west and Stewart increased his separation distance as I let Mike assume lead as we climbed up to and around Pikes Peak.

As we got past COS Class C, Stewart took lead so Mike and I could be #2 for the overhead approach. I felt being #2 would be mo fun (like mo better) for Mike.

It was a nice early evening flight

PS, MIke saw the two maps that show where Stewie and I have flown both in Colorado and around the US (and the Bahamas for me). I have to say that the 6A has been a wonderful cross-country plane. I only have a single axis autopilot and that makes it better. Two axis (wing leveller and pitch) and it would be perfect.
 
Last edited:
RV7 vs. RV9

Good afternoon all, and hello. This is my first post on this forum, and I am very excited about starting an RV project of my own. My first question is which one to build? I have narrowed it down to either a 7 or 9, but I am stuck on which one would best suit my needs. So I am looking for opinons and comments from owners of both models, or better yet someone who has had experience with both. Also, I have read what Vans has to say about them and was wondering is the slow flight characteristics really that much better in a 9 and can a 7 turn and fly that much faster?
Thanks

-Brandon
 
opinions

I had the same dilema when i started. The seven is great no question. But...i am a new low time pilot and plan on some fun cross country trips. I figured the little more docile plane, the little bit lower landing speed and the better cross country wing would be a better fit. The thought of aerobatics while very cool...isnt something i am planning in the near future so is a good trade off. RV's all handle like race cars compared to 172's so i am very happy with the choice and reasoning i used.

Now... as for 9 or 9a... Real men fly nosedraggers.. haha here we go.
 
Do some searching here on VAF, Brandon. You are certainly not the first (or the last) to have this dilemma.:)

You have to make the decision that is right for you and no one else.

Having said that, I really like my -7A. :D
 
7 vs 9

I only flew a -6, and thought it a little tight in the cabin, plus pretty hot on approach, when used to C 152 speeds.
I got my license in cherokees and 152 back in the 80's, then didn't fly until 2008, so didn't want a 'challenging' plane.
I find the -9a plenty fast enough, and easy to make a good, relaxed landing most of the time. THere are a few oddities I still need to work out, but overall am very pleased with the performance on a slightly anemic 150 hp engine/fixed pitch.

p.s. I bought, not built.
 
I own a 6A, have lot's of time in 9A's, and small amount in a 7. As to cross country trips, if you were blind folded ; it would be hard to tell the difference. They are just to close to the same feel when flying straight and level. Especially with auto-pilot.

Landing speeds of the 9A are about 10 mph below that of my 6A, but landing is still a cinch in the 6. So really, it just comes down to a bit of more responsiveness and some aerobatic abilities. FWIW, my "heavy" 6A does climb faster and out run the 9's that I fly with. If that matters.

L.Adamson --- RV6A, Lycoming 0360, Hartzell C/S prop
 
9 vs 7

L.Adamson said:
... FWIW, my "heavy" 6A does climb faster and out run the 9's that I fly with. If that matters.

L.Adamson --- RV6A, Lycoming 0360, Hartzell C/S prop
Click to expand...

Is that true at alitude as well? I would think the 9's higher aspect ratio wing would out perform a 6's wing (with the same engine and prop) at altitude...

Have you ever tested that by chance?

Thanks.

doug
9A, Mazda 13B
 
dlomheim said:
Is that true at alitude as well? I would think the 9's higher aspect ratio wing would out perform a 6's wing (with the same engine and prop) at altitude...

Have you ever tested that by chance?

Thanks.

doug
9A, Mazda 13B
Click to expand...

I know it does at 4000 & 6000' msl. airports. We're 4600' msl to start with.

The 9A's have a 150 & 160 HP with C/S props. Mine is 180 HP. C/S

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
dlomheim said:
Is that true at alitude as well? I would think the 9's higher aspect ratio wing would out perform a 6's wing (with the same engine and prop) at altitude...

Have you ever tested that by chance?

Thanks.

doug
9A, Mazda 13B
Click to expand...

L.Adamson said:
I know it does at 4000 & 6000' msl. airports. We're 4600' msl to start with.

The 9A's have a 150 & 160 HP with C/S props. Mine is 180 HP. C/S

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

If Larry's 6A had a 150 or 160, to have a direct comparison to the RV-9A's, the 9A's would out climb him and out run him at upper altitudes (10-12K ft.).
His 6A would probably be just slightly faster at lower altitudes.
 
kentb said:
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
Click to expand...


Kent,

I'm an early builder on the nine and remember when Van published numbers claiming 189mph for the 9A with 160 hp. The CAFE report confirms those numbers also. I never got an explanation for the decrease, but it happened around the time the 7 came out. If you can find any of the old articles you can see for yourself.
 
Explain why the 9 is better at cross countries than a 7. I have a 6 and do a reasonable amount of cross countries. Given that you will have an autopilot, why is the 9 better?

Note that I fly high...rarely below 10,000 feet.
 
2 cents from low time pilot/RV'er

I had similar questions while I was working toward my PPL. A little background on me: I got my PPL a little over a year ago in various 172's. This past fall at around 90 hrs I got my TD endorsement in a modified Cessna 175. Shortly afterward I started flying my purchased RV-6 with training from the same guy that did my TD training (not one of the "official" transition guys). I now have about 50 hrs in my -6. I have not landed any RV other than my -6, but I doubt other RVs are drastically different. Also, the elevation at my home field is 7100'.
With that said, the RV (or the taildragger) is not a huge handful to fly or land. If they were, they wouldn't continue to gain the popularity they have. Certainly it's different than a 172. But any plane is different. My -6 is much less demanding than the 175 I got my TD training in. I think it takes a little more practice to get "nice" landings than the 172. And if the landing isn't pretty good it takes more attention to be sure I don't self-induce something stupid. But even with a couple of really ugly landings, both the plane and me have always been re-useable;). On landing, if you just keep it pointed straight and going straight, everything works out fine.
So, to sum it all up: YES! You, too, can fly an RV. It "ain't no thang". And it is infinitely more fun than anything else a new pilot can safely fly!:D
 
Ron Lee said:
Explain why the 9 is better at cross countries than a 7. I have a 6 and do a reasonable amount of cross countries. Given that you will have an autopilot, why is the 9 better?

Note that I fly high...rarely below 10,000 feet.
Click to expand...

I think that some believe, because the 9's wing has a longer span, that it's more stable. We've often heard that comment, in regards to using the plane for IFR. Yet I was surprised, that my 6A is very much as stable as a nine in smooth air; and in rought air, we both get bounced around, depending on the strenght of the turbulence.

As to neutral roll stability, such as a Cessna high wing has; when you quickly whip the yoke to the right or left and release; it appears that 9's are like my 6, in that it hangs at that angle for a bit.

I have aileron trim (which I think is great for side by sides), and the plane will easily stay level, should I release the stick. Other than that; yes, if I roll the stick in my 6A, the response is somewhat faster in roll, but that's the real difference. When trimmed, you just can't really tell the difference!

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Ron Lee said:
Explain why the 9 is better at cross countries than a 7. I have a 6 and do a reasonable amount of cross countries. Given that you will have an autopilot, why is the 9 better?

Note that I fly high...rarely below 10,000 feet.
Click to expand...
Scott and others, please correct if I'm wrong here...

In addition to the wing, the -9 has MUCH greater dihedral than the other two place RV's, thus contributing to roll stability.

The -9 also has a much larger HS than the others. It is longer and doesn't tapper, like the others. That contributes to pitch stability.

The VS and rudder are the same as the -7. In fact, the -7 adopted the -9's VS and rudder.

All those things help with stability.

Keep in mind, the -9 will feel very sensitive, if all you have flown is factory birds, the other two seat RV's even more so. It always cracks me up when I give a pilot his or her first RV ride and watch them over control. After a few minutes they settle right down and have no problem controlling the plane.
 
N941WR said:
Scott and others, please correct if I'm wrong here...

In addition to the wing, the -9 has MUCH greater dihedral than the other two place RV's, thus contributing to roll stability.

The -9 also has a much larger HS than the others. It is longer and doesn't tapper, like the others. That contributes to pitch stability.

The VS and rudder are the same as the -7. In fact, the -7 adopted the -9's VS and rudder.

All those things help with stability.

Keep in mind, the -9 will feel very sensitive, if all you have flown is factory birds, the other two seat RV's even more so. It always cracks me up when I give a pilot his or her first RV ride and watch them over control. After a few minutes they settle right down and have no problem controlling the plane.
Click to expand...

Just looking at the 3D views on Van's website, I don't see any real difference in the dihedral. Since I never had made it a point to quickly roll the 9A's wings & release, I had to ask a 9A owner about that. What does yours do?

As to stability, remember......................my RV6A is heavy, and your 9A is light and agile. You've probably heard that heavier wing loadings ride better in turbulence. Therefor----------I win! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A, and it's agile too...
 
Bill, your plane is not any more stable than mine.. and yes, as you remember, I have flown it :)

But it is a good myth to keep propagating :)
 
Radomir said:
Bill, your plane is not any more stable than mine.. and yes, as you remember, I have flown it :)

But it is a good myth to keep propagating :)
Click to expand...
Sure it is, you just didn't realize it. ;)

Thane's -10 really blew me away. That thing is rock solid!
 
L.Adamson said:
...
As to stability, remember......................my RV6A is heavy, and your 9A is light and agile. You've probably heard that heavier wing loadings ride better in turbulence. Therefor----------I win! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A, and it's agile too...
Click to expand...
You are right, a mouse fart will lift a wing on my -9. :eek:
 
My point...perhaps not clear..is that if you want a great cross country plane then optimally a dual axis autopilot is highly desirable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top