What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7 or RV-9 Help me I cant decide

brandon67e

I'm New Here
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
RV7 or RV9 Help me I cant decide

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.;)
 
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.
 
YEP!

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.
 
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.
 
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" )
 
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
 
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.
 
..............and it rolls those pesky 210's and Bo's :D

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

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.

DB:cool:
 
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.
 
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
 
Being a bit harsh there Peirre.....flown a 172 lately?:eek:

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks you all for the help, still cant decide though. Not interested in rolls and loops that much, but i want to be able to do a good ol buzz job and pull up and turn at the end and not have to worry about the thing coming apart! LOL The 9 is what i would like to have, but i want to know its going to be OK to do that.
 
If that's all you're looking for, then the 9 will be fine. the reality is there are not too many airplanes that "come apart" due to structural overload unless you do something really dumb... And if that's the case, you are destined to kill yourself anyway.

I have a fair amount of time in the 9 and it is a delightful airplane to horse around with.
 
go with the 7

I build a nose wheel 7A because for stength and the performance numbers. I was against aerobatic flight and my mission was to travel. Well that has changed. I love the formation flight and aerobatics are fun. You can choose to add aerobatics if you build a 7, but you can not change your mind if you have a 9. Oh yea I am still in a toss up over the nosewheel issue. Get started!:)
 
Thanks you all for the help, still cant decide though. Not interested in rolls and loops that much, but i want to be able to do a good ol buzz job and pull up and turn at the end and not have to worry about the thing coming apart! LOL The 9 is what i would like to have, but i want to know its going to be OK to do that.

Brandon,

Mike Robinson has poured a little cold water on your camp fire and I will add a bit more.

Please see "No Wonder People Bash RV's". It is not OK "to do a good ol buzz job and pull up and turn at the end..." in this day and age.

I was reading some old stuff about Richard Bong, the 40 kill ace of the Pacific in WWII a couple evenings ago. Before going to war, he was grounded for a while and missed an assignment to Europe because he buzzed Market Street in San Francisco in a P-38. He may also have done a loop from under the Golden Gate Bridge but never admitted it. The upshot of it was the temporary grounding but his commanding officer commented, don't do it again but truth is we need guys like you.

We are not at war, Brandon, and live in a different time. It is very, very politically incorrect to do any kind of buzzing these days. You will get caught and if you are not totally spun up on flying the RV, could end up in a wreck.

Sorry for the cold water. Beyond that, if I were building again, it would be an 8 with its center line seating and perfect for practicing evasive maneuvers at altitude. :)
 
To me, the only reason to select the -7 over the -9 is the desire to do acrobatics. All the rest is just opinion.

Ditto, Ditto and Ditto. No need to complicate this issue more than you should. Acro or not? Acro=7. No acro=9.
I used to think I wanted a 7. Flew one...then flew a 9. Then went home and ordered a 9A.
 
-6a cross country

Susan and I just love our -6a for cross country, having just completed a nice loop of the west from 2S6 to KBIL-KBDU-KBOI-2S6, about 2200 SM with points in between. I keep hearing that the -9 is a much better X-country machine and that makes me wonder why... Our RV is wonderfully stable in all kinds of wind and bumps and gives enormous confidence with it's high-G stubby little wings. I have yet to be in enough turb to dial it back to maneuvering speed, and don't think the G-meter has been over about 2.75 except on purpose.

Would someone explain that please? Maybe the 9 has more cabin room?
 
Market values?

One other thing... I watch the RV market closely and I may be wrong but think the RV7s and 8's hold value better than 9's. 6's are real bargains right now.

YMMV
 
Well...

...Mike Robinson has poured a little cold water on your camp fire and I will add a bit more...


...My point was that despite the -9 not being designed to aerobatic strength; that distinction does not mean the airplane is ?weak? and will self destruct at anything over a 61 degree bank angle. Just pointing out that for the kind of limited yanking and banking the OP wishes to do, the -9 (or almost any airplane, for that matter) is well within its capabilities. I have done plenty of it myself in a -9.

Let?s face it, there are only a few hard rules (ie. GOD?S) governing airplanes continued ability to fly: Don?t over ?G?; don?t over speed; don?t exceed the critical AoA; and don?t hit anything solid. Stay within those bounds and the -9 doesn?t know the difference between aerobatic or normal flight any more than a Beech 18, Shrike Commander, or 707 does. That?s the science of it; and while just as valid, I?ll leave the commentary on social responsibility or pilot ability to the other threads.
 
Last edited:
Brandon, Have you gone and looked at all of the models that you are interested in? A great part of building and owning any aircraft is looking at it. If the purpose is not well established then you might like one over the other...........

Example............ and this is just my opinion.............

The 9, ugly airfoil. Ugly horz stab. Ugly big tail. And the wings are too long. The A sits too tail high also.

The 7, Ugly big tail. And the A sits too tail high also.

The 6, was the perfect side by side all around RV. If you really want to build, then build what you want to look at and fly.

But if you want to fly, and fly for 1/2 the price, then go find a good used 6, 6A. No matter what you do (as long as you finish your project) you will never regret owning an RV.
 
One other thing... I watch the RV market closely and I may be wrong but think the RV7s and 8's hold value better than 9's. 6's are real bargains right now.

YMMV

7's typically retail for higher price although I have noticed that builders put more do dads and do hickeys in 7's (i.e. complex insturmentation, constant speed props and the ever popular IO 360 which usually increases the resale value. A lot of 9's that are on the market people are running basic instrumentation and paint and fixed pitch props with O/IO320's...as a result they are less expensive. 9's with IO360's and complex instrumentation are fetching very similar prices as the 7's (although I will not comment or speculate on whether it is right or wrong to install a 360 in a 9 ;))

Susan and I just love our -6a for cross country, having just completed a nice loop of the west from 2S6 to KBIL-KBDU-KBOI-2S6, about 2200 SM with points in between. I keep hearing that the -9 is a much better X-country machine and that makes me wonder why... Our RV is wonderfully stable in all kinds of wind and bumps and gives enormous confidence with it's high-G stubby little wings. I have yet to be in enough turb to dial it back to maneuvering speed, and don't think the G-meter has been over about 2.75 except on purpose.

Would someone explain that please? Maybe the 9 has more cabin room?

The 9 has the same fuselage as the 7. They are virtually identical. The reason people like them better for cross country is because the 9 has a lesser roll rate than the 7 and a SLIGHTLY heavier feel to it which makes it feel more solid (less twitchy) in the air. The wing also performs well up high. It is a very efficient lifting wing.
 
The 9 has the same fuselage as the 7. They are virtually identical. The reason people like them better for cross country is because the 9 has a lesser roll rate than the 7

Aaron, yes I have heard that also. But the pilot controls the roll rate doesn't he?
I mean, I can make the rate anything I want with my fingertips, fast or slow, so I just don't get that argument. I guess I'll just have to fly a 9 to understand why a slower roll rate would be desirable...

Would some 6/7 drivers who have also flown 9's weigh in here please?

As always, YMMV
 
I do not understand the roll rate issue. If you are doing lots of cross countries, having a dual axis autopilot makes it less tiring...not the inherent roll rate IMO.

If the thread author wants a 9(A) then go for it. Just don't put an O-235 in it.
 
Aaron, yes I have heard that also. But the pilot controls the roll rate doesn't he?
I mean, I can make the rate anything I want with my fingertips, fast or slow, so I just don't get that argument. I guess I'll just have to fly a 9 to understand why a slower roll rate would be desirable...

Would some 6/7 drivers who have also flown 9's weigh in here please?

Sure.......I'll weigh in..:)

I've said it numerous times, and I'll tell it again. If you're blind folded on a cross-country, you would not be able to tell the difference between a 9 and a 6. I'll even say a 7, but I only have a few hours in one. Lot's of hours in two 9s, and lot's in several 6s. The difference in roll rate, is only noticed with stick movement. With an A/P it won't matter, and if you're holding the stick still, it won't matter.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
 
I build/flew/sold a 9A and have flown a few different 6's, 7's, 8's. The 9 is a LITTLE less 'quick' on the controls but not a whole lot. They are all very much sport airplanes that you fly using two fingers and that's it. A 9 can still yank and bank quite a bit. MANY of them have been upside down too but yes are not 'aerobatic'.
 
Wile I own a 9A, I have flown a 7. No experience in a 6 or 8. One of the things that comes up (not in this thread so far) is that the 9 is easier to land. Not true. The 9 can be a floater, if you you are a little hot. The 7 is more forgiving here. The 9 can handle shorter fields, both on landing and takeoff, given the same power. The glide is much better on the 9, but the only time that might be a big deal is when the fan stops. Then it might be a Big Deal!

I don't think the difference in roll is all that much. The 9 is a bit more stable, but the 7 can work well in XC, especially with autopilot. You need AP in either, IMHO. I do believe the 9 has one advantage that hasn't been mentioned; fuel burn at altitude seems to be somewhat less. I think the 7 needs those extra gallons. Others may argue...

Aerobatics--7, non-areo--9. It's as easy as that. Now for opinion. I hold with the "the days of the buzz job are gone" crowd, and aerobatics is something that must be taken seriously, and not just occasionally. Having a non-aerobatic plane keeps me from doing stupid (for me) things. Some of them, anyway.

Now,quit thinking and start building!

Bob
 
New here and looking for the answers to debate myself.

If you were to use 1 vs the other to say train one of your children would you pick the 9?

How many 7 builders actually do aero?

Being the 9 wings are more efficient, maybe using smaller motor is one cheaper than the other to build and or operate?
 
Economy and other stuff

I keep seeing this brought up - Having flown other aircraft with O-320 and O-360 engines, economy is not so much about the aircraft design (in this case a -7 vs a -9), rather it is more of a discipline of power settings. How fast do you want to go? That is how much you will burn. I have flown older cherokees with a 320 and a 360 and (one plane had both - at different times of course) and yes the 360 would climb better, cruise a litter faster, and yes it could even get that same fuel burns as the 320. Power management is the key to economy.

Also as others have said - acro or not, and then base your decision on that between a -7 or -9. They are closely similar in cockpit dimensions, so that is not a factor. It really is as simple as acro or not.

Finally, I do not think that as GA pilots we should hot dog our airplanes and showoff to others- after all most of us do not carry the endorsements to do so. If we continue to fly like we have a fighter plane, then we may well lose the opportunity to fly like we want to or even at all. To me the low passes and overhead breaks are a lot like the person that rides in the passing lane on the freeway but does under the speed limit. No its not illegal and often times it is not unsafe- but to other drivers it sure is annoying as heck, and frustrates people into using sign language as they pass them. Are they always wrong- well no. In an area like I live where the airport likely only gets 30 operations per week, you may be alright, but not even all the time at my airport. Common Courtesy is the larger thought here - I guess.

With that I will stop rambling.
 
Somewhat confusing thread here when taken as a whole. Several times mentioned that it's as easy as acro vs non acro, yet many other valid points of comparison brought up here that have nothing to do with acro vs non. What I take here is that if you are interested in acro, go with a 7. If you are not interested in acro, then there are still some valid reasons why one might choose a 7 over a 9. This is where one has to weigh which of the other comparison points are of highest personal value.
 
Every time this question comes up someone posts the following list:
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)
...
Costs the same to build either one. :)

1) While true, if you are worried about +4/-2, then don't ever get in a Cessna, Piper, or many other certified airplanes.
2) Not an issue. Even with the O-360 in my -9, I can't hit 210 mph. Going downhill, you will want to throttle back (with a FP prop) to keep from over speeding the engine.
3) Not an issue. If you ever have to go full and abrupt control inputs in an RV, any RV, something is seriously wrong.
4) Yep, only 36 gallons but then you are running a smaller engine than an RV-7, so you don't need the extra fuel. (Even with my O-360, I can fly for three plus hours and still land with an hours reserve and a full bladder.)
5) It is more like 3 mph according to Van's web site. Call it the same speed.
6) Yep, the -7 has a higher GW than the -9 but then the -7's typically have a larger engine that often spin a CS prop so their empty weights tend to be higher.

Let me add:
7) Takeoff distance. At gross, the 160 hp RV-9 will be off the ground in 475 FT and land in 450 ft. A 200 HP RV-7 will require 500 feet to get off the ground and will need 500 feet to get back on the ground. A 160 HP RV-7 will take 650 feet to get off the ground.
8) ROC. Both 160 hp versions of the aircraft in question will climb at 1400 FPM at gross weight but the -9 has a higher ceiling.

Now back to the real world...
All of those numbers are so close and can be controlled by the builder and the pilot that they are virtually identical.

Buy / Build the plane you want for the mission you want and you won?t be disappointed.
 
Think of a figure skater spinning

Aaron, yes I have heard that also. But the pilot controls the roll rate doesn't he?
I mean, I can make the rate anything I want with my fingertips, fast or slow, so I just don't get that argument. I guess I'll just have to fly a 9 to understand why a slower roll rate would be desirable...

Would some 6/7 drivers who have also flown 9's weigh in here please?

As always, YMMV

Design controls the roll rate
When they want to spin faster, they bring their arms in. Want an airplane to have a faster roll rate, shorten the wings. Longer wings means greater stability. Not so important if you keep an autopilot engaged. More important if you're shooting an ILS, especially in turbulence. Someone mentioned Va above-the point isn't necessarily slamming your controls from stop to stop. More important is rough air penetration speed. It's the speed at which the wing should stall if vertical load limits are exceeded. You need to pay attention to it if the ride starts getting rough.
 
Building a 9A

I'm building a 9A cause:

1. - not really interested in aerobatics
2. - slower stall speed (my kids may want to get their ticket in it someday)
3. - better glide ratio (for when the fan stops)
4. - *putting on my fireproof suit* - Better looking airplane - the longer wing looks MUCH better than those short, stubby little 7 wings

Also remember that while the 9 is not built to the same G limits as the 7, it's still in the utility category and is a VERY strong airplane.
 
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.

After having flown in a RV-7A, and now doing flight training in a 172, I must say that even trimmed perfectly the controls in the 172 sure do take a lot of muscle to move in comparison to the RV...
 
Somewhat confusing thread here when taken as a whole. Several times mentioned that it's as easy as acro vs non acro, yet many other valid points of comparison brought up here that have nothing to do with acro vs non. What I take here is that if you are interested in acro, go with a 7. If you are not interested in acro, then there are still some valid reasons why one might choose a 7 over a 9. This is where one has to weigh which of the other comparison points are of highest personal value.
. . . And doesn't this post prove that any discussion about this topic is going to boil down to a simple issue of opinion. Build/fly the airplane you want and don't worry about what others think about it. In the debate over 7 vs 9, people are saying it is a matter of whether one wants to do acro or not because these planes are close enough in performance that this will most likely be one of the few differences you are likely to see. It really is going to be up to the individual to decide. No amount of discussion on this forum or anywhere else is going to make the decision for you. You just have to make it (the decision) and go get started building!
 
Every time this question comes up someone posts the following list:


1) While true, if you are worried about +4/-2, then don't ever get in a Cessna, Piper, or many other certified airplanes.
2) Not an issue. Even with the O-360 in my -9, I can't hit 210 mph. Going downhill, you will want to throttle back (with a FP prop) to keep from over speeding the engine.
3) Not an issue. If you ever have to go full and abrupt control inputs in an RV, any RV, something is seriously wrong.

2-if there is no issue with exceeding the vne why did van publish an article on exactly that??

3-yes, if you are about to collide with a bird or another airplane, something is seriously wrong. do you really want to be hesitant in that instance because you are concerned about the airframe integrity?
 
Why...Yes.

3-yes, if you are about to collide with a bird or another airplane, something is seriously wrong. do you really want to be hesitant in that instance because you are concerned about the airframe integrity?

Yes, just hesitant enough to avoid pulling the wings off to miss the bird...and are my reflexes enough to pull,push, or roll just enough to avoid same... Another reason for a 6 G wing...

YMMV
 
...and are my reflexes enough to pull,push, or roll just enough to avoid same... Another reason for a 6 G wing...


A -9 is at least as strong as the vast majority of store bought airplanes and probably stronger than the airplanes most of us learned to fly in. That said, if the 6 G wing on the -6,-7,and -8 are better for "just in case", then wouldn't the Extra series, with its 25G wing be even better?

There is a point were "better" really isn't... and that point is right after the mission requirements have been met.
 
I'm building a 9A cause:

2. - slower stall speed (my kids may want to get their ticket in it someday) - AND (for when the fan stops)
Primary reason for a 9 for us as we are in the mountains a lot ....
Slower stall speed in case the fan stops.
Less energy
Increased survivability
 
I also like the fact that there are more rivets in the tail. It helps to offset the added weight of the longer wings.;)
C'mon guys...we're starting to split hairs here. Rivet them together, fly em and have fun with the plane you decide to build. There is not one that is better than the other. They are just a little bit different. Match your mission to the plane and start building!!!!:D
 
Original post

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.

Note the original post above. Especially the part in RED. Forget everything else, if this is a requirement then the decision is made.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top