Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Agree completely, whichever plane you have chosen.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-7A vs RV-9A
- Thread starter lepd
- Start date
Agree completely, whichever plane you have chosen.
I knew there was a good defence for all the weight my plane gained in the paint boothAs 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!
L.Adamson --- RV6A, and it's agile too...
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
After thinking about this some more I did some digging and the only thing I could find was in the sixth issue of the RVator for 2000. There was an article about pulling the MT propeller off of the factory 9A and installing the Hartzell from the factories RV-4 to compare. At that time the claim was 187 with the MT, which I remember being a decrease from early reports. It was also stated that it was a "Bit conservative." With the Hartzell on the nose the speed increased 1-2 mph and climbed around 50fpm greater. In other words the plane is getting to the 189 mph area, and it conservative by the admission of the factory.
Lastly, although debated to the point of beating a dead horse an 0-360 could make the 9's very much a valid choice for anybody wanting the speed of the other planes. I know, the factory says not to. But look at my airspeed indicator on the front page of my web site and you will see there is more than 10 knots, and closer to 15 left before getting to the yellow. It really seems like there is room from some more displacement on the nose.
SX-ALY
Active Member
We should put this thread on the never ending debates
Since i' m not building anything right now but i considering doing that in the future i start analyzing the differences between RV models in order to make my mind what to built (or buy).
My missions seems to be X-Country & local entertainment flights.
RV10 was rejected for cost and that i don't really need a four seater.
RV8 the same because i don't like tandems.
So only RV7A and RV9A were in the game. I like the nose wheel.
I tried a lot to justify the 9 but i couldn't really find a reason to go with it.
7 is less expensive than the 9 as a kit by $520 in 2009 prices.
7 has more gross weight (50-200lbs) that allows more useful weight with similar configurations. (Question: Why 9s gross weight vary from 1600-1750?)
7 has more fuel capacity (6 gallons) and has more range because of that, useful in long X-C.
7 has more baggage allowance by 25lbs (CG permitted of course)
7 seems more "stronger" due to aerobatics capability (i 'm not into it but i' ll take it as an advance)
7 is faster than 9 by few mph but not a big deal.
9 climbing faster than 7 with same engine by 50fpm (fix pitched prop on 9, on CS must be more)
9 uses less runway in landing due to lower landing speeds by 50ft.
9 has lower stall speeds by 8-10 mph.
7 wins on total estimate cost with same configuration and is about $1000 more expensive with an 180HP engine, because 320 and 360 are very close in price.(Van's calculator).
I will say that in general you get similar performances with both of them on the same configuration.
I flew a couple of times with a friend's RV7A and i find it very responsive and accurate, not that difficult to land or maneuver it around. Never flew a 9.
I feel you get more airplane with a 7 and i can't really justify the 9, special with no price difference (its' actually more expensive as a kit). The only reason i find to go with a 9 is to have a really small used engine of 118-135HP (which Vans does not offer at least on the calculator) and make it light and be happy with it.
Other reasons will be the lower landing/stall speeds and possible better glide.
All above are my personal opinion comparing the two airplanes and based on what i read here and at Van's site.
Comments are always welcome
Thanks
Since i' m not building anything right now but i considering doing that in the future i start analyzing the differences between RV models in order to make my mind what to built (or buy).
My missions seems to be X-Country & local entertainment flights.
RV10 was rejected for cost and that i don't really need a four seater.
RV8 the same because i don't like tandems.
So only RV7A and RV9A were in the game. I like the nose wheel.
I tried a lot to justify the 9 but i couldn't really find a reason to go with it.
7 is less expensive than the 9 as a kit by $520 in 2009 prices.
7 has more gross weight (50-200lbs) that allows more useful weight with similar configurations. (Question: Why 9s gross weight vary from 1600-1750?)
7 has more fuel capacity (6 gallons) and has more range because of that, useful in long X-C.
7 has more baggage allowance by 25lbs (CG permitted of course)
7 seems more "stronger" due to aerobatics capability (i 'm not into it but i' ll take it as an advance)
7 is faster than 9 by few mph but not a big deal.
9 climbing faster than 7 with same engine by 50fpm (fix pitched prop on 9, on CS must be more)
9 uses less runway in landing due to lower landing speeds by 50ft.
9 has lower stall speeds by 8-10 mph.
7 wins on total estimate cost with same configuration and is about $1000 more expensive with an 180HP engine, because 320 and 360 are very close in price.(Van's calculator).
I will say that in general you get similar performances with both of them on the same configuration.
I flew a couple of times with a friend's RV7A and i find it very responsive and accurate, not that difficult to land or maneuver it around. Never flew a 9.
I feel you get more airplane with a 7 and i can't really justify the 9, special with no price difference (its' actually more expensive as a kit). The only reason i find to go with a 9 is to have a really small used engine of 118-135HP (which Vans does not offer at least on the calculator) and make it light and be happy with it.
Other reasons will be the lower landing/stall speeds and possible better glide.
All above are my personal opinion comparing the two airplanes and based on what i read here and at Van's site.
Comments are always welcome
Thanks
1600 with O-235, 1750 with O-320. The lower gross weight improves the climb rate with the smaller engine.
Finley Atherton
Well Known Member
I have a 9A and I will admit that all else being equal, I would most likely choose the 7A over the 9A. I decided on the 9A as I considered it the best RV for operating off my short, marginal airstrip. It IS nice to be able to comfortably approach at 55 kts IAS.
The 7A does have a 50 lb higher gross than the 9A but this does not necessarily translate into a 50 lb higher load capacity. I had a quick look at Dan Checkoway's RV weight and balance database. The most common prop on the 9A is the Sensenich and I compared the average of the 9As and 7As with this prop and found that the average 7A was 32 lb heavier. I realize that this is mainly due to the larger engine on the 7A but the fact remains, that based on these figures, the 7A you build could be around 32 lb heavier than the 9A you build. This means that your real extra load carrying capacity may be only around 18 lb.
Given that you may only be able to carry an extra 18 lb then the extra 6 gal capacity of the 7A may be unavailable if you are carrying a passanger and baggage and you want to stay under Vans recommended gross. The extra 6 gals will, in most case really only be available if you are solo, especially if you have a heavy prop.
There seems to be conflicting allowable baggage weights for the 9A. The weight and balance section of my Vans Construction Manual states 100 lb as the max permissible baggage limit. I have operated with 100 lb of baggage with no problems.
I will admit it would be nice to have a 7A with 180 or even 200 HP rather than a 160 HP 9A. However, for me at least, there is no real advantage having a larger engine. Takeoff distance at gross weight with my 160 HP/Hartzell combination is better than even the 200 HP 7A. I cruise at around 150 to 155 kts TAS because this gives good fuel consumption at a reasonable speed. Even if it had a 7A with a bigger engine I would not cruise any faster because my fuel consumption would go up.
Fin
9A
Last edited:
Ridiculous!!!
I guess this topic can also be compared to "mine is bigger than yours"" mentality.
I've been flying since 1971. Started out with an 75 hp Ercoupe and got my private and commercial in the Coupe. Put 500 hours on the Coupe, and flights included Oshkosh, and 2 flights to the Bahamas from New England.
People would look at the Coupe, and kinda scratch their head and give me a knowingly smile. I'd ask them what plane did they have, and the reply was usually "none". "At least I have a plane, and even though it's small, it's what I can afford", I'd think to myself. And it's a great hour builder. Perhaps the distance I covered could have been accomplished in half the time in other aircraft, but I was in the air and flying. Sure, some days with a strong headwind, we could watch a lady (or man) hang out the clothes, and then watch them take them in on the same leg, but we were in the air, and flying!!
The purpose of my thread here is that pilots claim they love to fly and be in the air, and in the other breath, they like to brag how fast they got to where they were flying. I really don't understand it.
So, my 9A will arrive for Sunday's breakfast 2 minutes behind a 7A (not really, only if I want them to, and I don't run my usual 23 square, because I have 180hp, and a 3 blade MT constant speed prop).
I really need someone to tell me where my thinking is wrong.
Thanks
Jack
I guess this topic can also be compared to "mine is bigger than yours"" mentality.
I've been flying since 1971. Started out with an 75 hp Ercoupe and got my private and commercial in the Coupe. Put 500 hours on the Coupe, and flights included Oshkosh, and 2 flights to the Bahamas from New England.
People would look at the Coupe, and kinda scratch their head and give me a knowingly smile. I'd ask them what plane did they have, and the reply was usually "none". "At least I have a plane, and even though it's small, it's what I can afford", I'd think to myself. And it's a great hour builder. Perhaps the distance I covered could have been accomplished in half the time in other aircraft, but I was in the air and flying. Sure, some days with a strong headwind, we could watch a lady (or man) hang out the clothes, and then watch them take them in on the same leg, but we were in the air, and flying!!
The purpose of my thread here is that pilots claim they love to fly and be in the air, and in the other breath, they like to brag how fast they got to where they were flying. I really don't understand it.
So, my 9A will arrive for Sunday's breakfast 2 minutes behind a 7A (not really, only if I want them to, and I don't run my usual 23 square, because I have 180hp, and a 3 blade MT constant speed prop).
I really need someone to tell me where my thinking is wrong.
Thanks
Jack
As a non-RV owner, I'll throw in an argument I did not see included (at least, not deeply) in this discussion. Economics and resale.
Face it, we're all growing older and some day we'll fail that physical.
Now, I've heard arguments about the 9 being a bit more docile but, having flown a 6A myself, it was pretty darned easy to fly.
In the 9, a 360 is not recommended. In the 7, it is. All other things being equal, the 360 has better resale value.
Weight difference? You can minimize it by using a composite prop (e.g. Whirlwind 200RV). You could also "go for the gold" and build a 7 instead of a 7A (which will also increase your cross-country speed).
But economic value? Cost to the builder is nearly identical; resale is another matter. Do some research, and compare 9's to 7's (try to equalize for differences in panel, age, etc.). I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that you will find that the 7's carry a premium.
Finally, the OP said they wanted the plane for XC flying. If that includes IFR, it may include holding. There is no such thing as "too much fuel" when you arrive at your destination and a cell has descended upon it, and nowhere else nearby is looking good either. While it may cost you a little in the long run to carry that extra fuel (and, you could certainly install tabs for under filling on shorter VFR flights) you may thank yourself later on that day when you truly need it.
Having spouted my 2 cents worth, all of the Vans aircraft are good aircraft. Build what makes you happy!
Face it, we're all growing older and some day we'll fail that physical.
Now, I've heard arguments about the 9 being a bit more docile but, having flown a 6A myself, it was pretty darned easy to fly.
In the 9, a 360 is not recommended. In the 7, it is. All other things being equal, the 360 has better resale value.
Weight difference? You can minimize it by using a composite prop (e.g. Whirlwind 200RV). You could also "go for the gold" and build a 7 instead of a 7A (which will also increase your cross-country speed).
But economic value? Cost to the builder is nearly identical; resale is another matter. Do some research, and compare 9's to 7's (try to equalize for differences in panel, age, etc.). I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that you will find that the 7's carry a premium.
Finally, the OP said they wanted the plane for XC flying. If that includes IFR, it may include holding. There is no such thing as "too much fuel" when you arrive at your destination and a cell has descended upon it, and nowhere else nearby is looking good either. While it may cost you a little in the long run to carry that extra fuel (and, you could certainly install tabs for under filling on shorter VFR flights) you may thank yourself later on that day when you truly need it.
Having spouted my 2 cents worth, all of the Vans aircraft are good aircraft. Build what makes you happy!
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
7 vs 9
yes, the debate,
my -9a with a 320 will likely have more fuel at destination because;
you've burned up the extra in your -7 with the larger engine.
As far as gross weight, the larger wing on the -9 can possibly be certified at a higher gross. See Todd Bartrim's 'Endurance' site. almost 2200 lbs is what the wing will lift!!!! he also put just a little extra fuel in it!
I agree the stronger structure of the -7, and wide market appeal with any engine from 150 to 200 hp is great.
a final note; short field ability is nice, but they are typically rough, not great for our nose gear, and you have to get OUT again ( =hp!)
happy flying!
yes, the debate,
my -9a with a 320 will likely have more fuel at destination because;
you've burned up the extra in your -7 with the larger engine.
As far as gross weight, the larger wing on the -9 can possibly be certified at a higher gross. See Todd Bartrim's 'Endurance' site. almost 2200 lbs is what the wing will lift!!!! he also put just a little extra fuel in it!
I agree the stronger structure of the -7, and wide market appeal with any engine from 150 to 200 hp is great.
a final note; short field ability is nice, but they are typically rough, not great for our nose gear, and you have to get OUT again ( =hp!)
happy flying!
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
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.
Yes, but the 7 was designed to accomodate 180hp which makes it a completely different animal.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Yes, but the 7 was designed to accomodate 180hp which makes it a completely different animal.
And that's a fact, because my 180HP equipped 6A constantly out climbs and out runs the 9A's with 160 HP engines that I fly with. I'll assume the 180HP "7" is much the same.
But nothing wrong with "9's" though. They are good airplanes. More stable, and landing/stall speeds that are about 10 mph below mine.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Greg Arehart
Well Known Member
FWIW, I am aware of a number of folks (including me) who have put 360s in their 9s and have no issues. I certified mine at 1800 gross and have no qualms about it being able to carry that load. The extra weight of the 360 vs 320 is about 10 pounds (Superior engine). I turn an 85 pitch prop and get fuel burns at altitude (12-15k) of around 6 gph at 165 mph. Full throttle at altitude I run around 185-187 (but have not really cleaned up the airframe yet - no intersection fairings yet, for example), so it seems that I am reasonably close to the factory numbers. Climb is not as good as some other 9s or 7s probably because of the FP cruise prop, but I still get 1300-1400 fpm at 8000 ft - plenty good for me. I wouldn't trade the engine because I like the extra hp in case I ever need it, and it doesn't seem to cost me anything extra in fuel consumption over the 320.
I have not flown a 7, so don't have a personal comparison, but am very happy with my 9A after the first 75 hours.
greg
I have not flown a 7, so don't have a personal comparison, but am very happy with my 9A after the first 75 hours.
greg
RV7 vs RV9
Hi,
I'm new, thanks for having me here.
I ordered the information package and the RV7 preview plans.
My dream is to build my own plane. I'm a PPL SE/ME.
My mission is mostly me myself flying and maybe once in a while a friend of mine. I'm planning to have another plane to fly the family around. So the RV is mostly to fly strictly for fun in good weather. I would like seat next to each other because of the bigger panel and to be able to look in eachothers face.
I have no real intentions to fly acro (yet) I did 1 hour spin training because my instructor said it wasn't needed for the checkride but it was needed for him to learn me. It scared me alot, but it made me a better pilot. I do not know what to answer if I ever wanna fly acro. Maybe.
Since i'm digging into the subject heavely I come up with this question, maybe it's better i build a RV9 instead of an RV7 ?? What do you think ?
I love tailwheel planes and it is a must for me as an RV to have it as a taildragger.
Thanks.
Hi,
I'm new, thanks for having me here.
I ordered the information package and the RV7 preview plans.
My dream is to build my own plane. I'm a PPL SE/ME.
My mission is mostly me myself flying and maybe once in a while a friend of mine. I'm planning to have another plane to fly the family around. So the RV is mostly to fly strictly for fun in good weather. I would like seat next to each other because of the bigger panel and to be able to look in eachothers face.
I have no real intentions to fly acro (yet) I did 1 hour spin training because my instructor said it wasn't needed for the checkride but it was needed for him to learn me. It scared me alot, but it made me a better pilot. I do not know what to answer if I ever wanna fly acro. Maybe.
Since i'm digging into the subject heavely I come up with this question, maybe it's better i build a RV9 instead of an RV7 ?? What do you think ?
I love tailwheel planes and it is a must for me as an RV to have it as a taildragger.
Thanks.
Because the A models are so much fun to fly.
Now I don't like acro, but I sure love my model7a. I wouldn't trade it for any other model. I love the quick response of the airlerons. I do pull some G's and love it, just don't like going upside down. Maybe someday, but not right now. I think the 7 is easier to land than the 6 that I trained in. I think it floats more. I kind of think of the 9 as a trainer. It has less G ratings. That's why I didn't concider it.
Now I don't like acro, but I sure love my model7a. I wouldn't trade it for any other model. I love the quick response of the airlerons. I do pull some G's and love it, just don't like going upside down. Maybe someday, but not right now. I think the 7 is easier to land than the 6 that I trained in. I think it floats more. I kind of think of the 9 as a trainer. It has less G ratings. That's why I didn't concider it.
N941WR
Legacy Member
That's a good question. The RV-9 is one of the easiest tail draggers I have ever flown and IMHO the tail draggers look better than the A's.
It is lighter than the A's and because of the low landing speeds, crosswinds are a non-issue.
That may be the reason why. Funny how Van's compaired the -9A to a C152 and next thing you know, the -9(A) is considered a trainer. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
Another thing to consider, it sounds like I've had my -9 upside down more times than allbee. Go figure.
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Only if they're painted.............and airborne!
IMO, a lot of RVA's still look better on the ground! They just look more substantial.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
N941WR
Legacy Member
ChiefPilot
Well Known Member
Only if they're painted.............and airborne!
IMO, a lot of RVA's still look better on the ground! They just look more substantial.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
I've never flown an RV yet, but I am on the finishing kit of my -6A and I do think they look better than the tail draggers.
The way I heard it on the -7 vs. -9 thing was this: The RV-7/7A is like the -9/9A, but for men.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
I've never flown an RV yet, but I am on the finishing kit of my -6A and I do think they look better than the tail draggers.
The way I heard it on the -7 vs. -9 thing was this: The RV-7/7A is like the -9/9A, but for men.
You'll love the 6A! The sixes are the best flying.......... out of all the side by sides! The others are just a compromise to make several models out of the same parts....
L.Adamson --- RV6A
N941WR
Legacy Member
I've never flown an RV yet, but I am on the finishing kit of my -6A and I do think they look better than the tail draggers.
The way I heard it on the -7 vs. -9 thing was this: The RV-7/7A is like the -9/9A, but for men.
Funny I was always told you needed one of these
to fly a -6A/-7A/-8A/-9A and the -3/-4/-6/-7/-8/-9 are for men.
Last edited:
ChiefPilot
Well Known Member
hevansrv7a
Well Known Member
Just to be argumentative (the apparent theme of this thread)
OK, I fly a 7A and I agree that the TD's look better.
But, slower landing speeds better in XW? My math says the opposite. The slower you land, the greater the XW component of the vector solution. Right?
If my landing speed is 40 and my XW component is 10 then that's 25%, calling for a lot of rudder and wing-down.
Here's a link to a good discussion: http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/Crosswind Landings.html
With the same XW and a landing speed of 70, the XW is only 14%.
And for the same wing area, a heavier plane is less sensitive to gusts while requiring higher speed for the same Coefficient of Lift.
I'm not suggesting that high landing speeds are good, only that they are less sensitive to XW components.
OK, I fly a 7A and I agree that the TD's look better.
But, slower landing speeds better in XW? My math says the opposite. The slower you land, the greater the XW component of the vector solution. Right?
If my landing speed is 40 and my XW component is 10 then that's 25%, calling for a lot of rudder and wing-down.
Here's a link to a good discussion: http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/Crosswind Landings.html
With the same XW and a landing speed of 70, the XW is only 14%.
And for the same wing area, a heavier plane is less sensitive to gusts while requiring higher speed for the same Coefficient of Lift.
I'm not suggesting that high landing speeds are good, only that they are less sensitive to XW components.
Kind of like this
compared to this
I'd buy that if you fly your RV with a mono wheel main gear and you use a support crew to pick up your outrigger gear after takeoff...ala U2.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I have flown a friend's Mono Wheel Europa, does that count?I'd buy that if you fly your RV with a mono wheel main gear and you use a support crew to pick up your outrigger gear after takeoff...ala U2.
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
We count different, you and me. It looks like four wheels to me.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I'm not so sure. You still have to transition through the slow speed range to get to a stop. Thus things can happen faster. At least with the slower speeds there is less chance you will lose control, be it a NW or TW.
Anyway, the -7 vs. -9, NW vs TW is a dumb argument because they are all RV's and you can't really go wrong with an RV, any RV.
The simple answer is, if you want to do acro, build a -7/-7A. If not, the -9/-9A is just as good. In my case, I have a bad back and can't do acro, even 3 G's hurts me, so the choice for the -9 was simple.
Last edited:
Mel,
I think, the original poster, one or two others that have posted and certainly myself are asking the questions because we don?t know what to build. Or in my case, what I want to build just isn?t available, so I am faced with a compromise. Relative to the discussion going on here, the RV-7 represents one set of compromises and the RV-9 represents another set of compromises. In my case there isn?t even an RV-9 or ?9A in New Zealand that I can go and fly in (there might be one being built). So the contributions of all the posters are valued however small, ?argumentative? or flippant they are. And it is also providing some pretty good entertainment.
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
It also seems to me that when Vans ?upgraded? from the RV6 to the RV7 the expected powerplant was upsized from an O-320 to an O-360. A lot of things got upsized along with it, the stall speed and weight being foremost in my mind. It has often appeared to me that Vans then invented the RV9 to fill gap left by discontinuing the RV6. I don?t think it actually happened like that, but if the O-320 isn?t the best powerplant for the RV7, the RV9 might be the better aircraft for those of us on O-320 sized budgets.
So, I will read any more comments however small, argumentative, flippant or irrelevant they may be!
Cheers,
Andrew.
Andrew,
I certainly didn't mean to be "flippant". When a forum post gets to 9 pages, sometimes the original post gets sort of lost. Bottom line is, if you want to do acro, go with the -7. If not, then the -9 is the way to go. Really, there is not that much difference between the two.
As to your friend, I can't imagine anyone being bored with ANY RV. If he does a lot of acro in his -4, then he may be bored with upright flying. But in that case, he would also be bored with the -4 if he kept it upright.
Another thing to be careful of is things that people on this forum seem to think as "necessary". Everyone wants more horsepower. Some say they "need" the extra hp because they live at the higher elevations. More hp is nice and many people like it, but as "necessary"? Nope! I have flown my RV-6 in and out of Leadville, CO. (highest elevation airport in North America) with a very tired (>2500 hr) 150 hp O-320 and a wood F/P prop, in the summer, at noon, with a density altitude of over 13,500' with absolutely no problems.
I certainly didn't mean to be "flippant". When a forum post gets to 9 pages, sometimes the original post gets sort of lost. Bottom line is, if you want to do acro, go with the -7. If not, then the -9 is the way to go. Really, there is not that much difference between the two.
As to your friend, I can't imagine anyone being bored with ANY RV. If he does a lot of acro in his -4, then he may be bored with upright flying. But in that case, he would also be bored with the -4 if he kept it upright.
Another thing to be careful of is things that people on this forum seem to think as "necessary". Everyone wants more horsepower. Some say they "need" the extra hp because they live at the higher elevations. More hp is nice and many people like it, but as "necessary"? Nope! I have flown my RV-6 in and out of Leadville, CO. (highest elevation airport in North America) with a very tired (>2500 hr) 150 hp O-320 and a wood F/P prop, in the summer, at noon, with a density altitude of over 13,500' with absolutely no problems.
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
If you were blindfolded, and flying in a 6,7, or 9 on a cross country flight, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in level flight. The stick sensitivity in my 6 is more than a 9, but not like a Pitt's. And in reality, the 0360 was the most common engine for the 6's (at least around here) And the sevens allow 200 HP.
My 6A with a 0360/CS prop is about 20 mph faster than a 9A with an 0320/CS combo. Yet the 9A can land around 10 mph slower. The 9A gets a little more mileage per gallon, but I don't like slowing to those real efficient speeds.
While some may compare a 9A to a trainer, it's only valid when comparing to other Van's other aircraft. The performance is far more than what you'd get from a Cessna 172, Piper Warrior/Archer, let alone a gutless Cessna 152!
Note: I do live in mountain country, and prefer the more powerful engine and constant speed prop. But as Mel said, a smaller engine and fixed pitch prop will work at Lead Ville, Colorado. It's just because most RV's have a lot more performance to start with.
L.Adamson
Mel,
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
It also seems to me that when Vans ?upgraded? from the RV6 to the RV7 the expected powerplant was upsized from an O-320 to an O-360. A lot of things got upsized along with it, the stall speed and weight being foremost in my mind. It has often appeared to me that Vans then invented the RV9 to fill gap left by discontinuing the RV6. I don?t think it actually happened like that, but if the O-320 isn?t the best powerplant for the RV7, the RV9 might be the better aircraft for those of us on O-320 sized budgets.
So, I will read any more comments however small, argumentative, flippant or irrelevant they may be!
Cheers,
Andrew.
As already mentioned, an RV-9 is likely to only be considered boring when compared to other RV's (even then I don't agree, it is a whole lot of fun with a good stiff wind blowing / very STOL).
Couple of other points...
The RV-6 was always approved for the 180 HP O-360
The RV-9 came before the RV-7
The RV-7 did fill the gap of the RV-6 with most of the improvements that 6 builders requested (bigger engine / IO-360 200 HP, higher gross weight, more fuel, etc.) but the #1 reason for the development of the RV-7 was to turn the RV-6 into a pre-punch kit.
I don't consider the O-320 to be a lower budget engine compared to the O-360. Purchase prices for new engines aren't that much difference. Used prices - you can spend more or less for either engine.
An O-360 can be operated for about the same cost as an O-320.
do not make the decision based on acro or not. I don't like acro. Doubt I will ever. But I do like quick airleron control, short approach landings, I occationally get zinged for, quote "doing acro in the patter", even though I don't go upside down ever. I just like banking and pulling, fun. The 7 is very fun and responsive, if you like that kind of plane, build the 7. Mine gets a little touching at times on the level flight, I just reach up and hit the AP and continue without worrying about staying level. As far as going slow for land, with full flaps, mine stalls at 47kts, and clean at 55kts. I think that's pretty good. Did I mention I love my 7a, all the plane I've ever wanted. Just need to get the wife in there now. 27hrs and counting.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Andrew,Mel,
I think, the original poster, one or two others that have posted and certainly myself are asking the questions because we don?t know what to build. Or in my case, what I want to build just isn?t available, so I am faced with a compromise...
Back to the original debate:
An RV4 builder/owner who also owned an RV9 told me the RV9 was boring to the point that from the first flight he regretted owning it. I still haven?t entirely got my head around his comments, but it strikes me that the RV9 seems to have attracted a ?trainer? reputation. This seem undeserved as some of the missions described in this thread show the aircraft to be very capable and I would content that for certain flying the RV9 could well be far more capable than the RV7.
Andrew.
The first -9 I flew was mine but did my transition training in a 180 HP CS prop RV-6 and to tell the truth, there really is very little difference between the two.
After 230 hours in less than 2 years I can understand the booring comment. I have rolled my -9 more times than I can count and would like to do more but will limit it to rolls.
bsacks05
Well Known Member
350 Hrs. in My -9
After yesterday's flight to Aircraft Spruce, there was exactly 350.0 hours on the Hobbs. So I spent this morning changing the oil and retorquing the prop bolts. Something I do every 50 hrs.
As I reflect on the past 350hrs, I can remember many different flying situations and adventures. We have been to the Bahamas, Key West, PA, MD, AL, NC, and all over GA and FL. Lately, I have been teaching my kids, 13 and 15, basic flying skills. There are so many other adventures in the future including OSH 2009.
I can honestly say that in all that time flying "Catalina", I never, ever regretted my decision to build a -9. I still love everything about the plane. She can be as tame or exciting as this nearly 44 year-old wants her to be.
After yesterday's flight to Aircraft Spruce, there was exactly 350.0 hours on the Hobbs. So I spent this morning changing the oil and retorquing the prop bolts. Something I do every 50 hrs.
As I reflect on the past 350hrs, I can remember many different flying situations and adventures. We have been to the Bahamas, Key West, PA, MD, AL, NC, and all over GA and FL. Lately, I have been teaching my kids, 13 and 15, basic flying skills. There are so many other adventures in the future including OSH 2009.
I can honestly say that in all that time flying "Catalina", I never, ever regretted my decision to build a -9. I still love everything about the plane. She can be as tame or exciting as this nearly 44 year-old wants her to be.
I take it you have the Hart, meaning hartzell prop. Have you ever found the bolts loose when retorquing the prop bolts?
bsacks05
Well Known Member
Steve,
I have an Ed Sterba wood prop 70x79. I have never had an issue with the prop bolts becoming too loose or tight due to shrinkage/expansion of the wood. I cut the safety wire, back off the bolts, retorque, and resafety as a matter of routine every 50 hours.
As I wrote before - absolutely no regrets with any of my decisions regarding my -9's equipment. Don't want to add anything or take anything away.
I have an Ed Sterba wood prop 70x79. I have never had an issue with the prop bolts becoming too loose or tight due to shrinkage/expansion of the wood. I cut the safety wire, back off the bolts, retorque, and resafety as a matter of routine every 50 hours.
As I wrote before - absolutely no regrets with any of my decisions regarding my -9's equipment. Don't want to add anything or take anything away.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Bruce,
I couldn't agree more, I'm very happy with the -9. It is a great performing airplane!
I retorque Catto prop every three months, regardless of hours. My thinking is that the changing season has more to do with prop swelling or shrinking than hours flown.
Jamie
Well Known Member
I did some checking on my prop, Hartzell, and I was told, once on, no more work.
Hmm...what Hartzell prop do you have. I have a blended airfoil Hartzell and the manual says an overhaul is needed every 5-6 years (I forget which interval).
My buddy just had this done and it was over $2000! Not looking forward to doing that.
Thanks.
As my post prompted a fair bit of comment, as well as a couple of personal e-mails, I?d like to express my thanks to those who responded.
As a general response to some of those comments,
1. When Bill R. says his RV9 was so close to the RV6 his did his transition training in, I still find it puzzling why Vans went to the trouble of developing the RV9 when its performance and handling is so close to the RV6 which in turn is reported to be very close to the RV7.
2. I well recognise the small difference between O-320 and O-360 in purchasing new, but as evidenced in the pages of this site, many of us still opt for second hand engines. Currently in New Zealand there is a good choice of second hand O-320?s for sale, but it is only by digging would I unearth an O-360. I won?t again muddy the waters by suggesting one is more economic to operate than the other!
3. The comment about the RV7 being spawned as a result of people wanting more fuel, payload and room is appreciated, but for me I find the RV6 being just right in terms of fuel volume, aircraft weight, useful load, room and required power. Sometimes less is more. OK, that relates to using an O-320, not an O-360, but as Mel says, build the aeroplane you want. I?ve communicated with Vans and they will not issue new serial numbers for RV6s. Some on these pages say the RV7 needs the O-360, some do not. But that is why I end up time again at the RV9.
4. I also understand the improvement in ease of assembly of the pre-punched kits, but to save a few thousand dollars, I?d be quite happy to add my own holes.
5. The environment that we operate in, in New Zealand, is different enough to put a different spin on a number of issues. So if some of my questions seem kooky, that may be why!
6. Since the ?RV9 being boring? comment has been responded to more than once, rather than dob the bloke in, I?d suggest spending a bit of time over on the RV4 section. That sort of sentiment seems to come through pretty regularly!
Again, thanks to all. I really appreciate the comments and have enjoyed the ten pages of discussion!
Cheers,
Andrew.
As my post prompted a fair bit of comment, as well as a couple of personal e-mails, I?d like to express my thanks to those who responded.
As a general response to some of those comments,
1. When Bill R. says his RV9 was so close to the RV6 his did his transition training in, I still find it puzzling why Vans went to the trouble of developing the RV9 when its performance and handling is so close to the RV6 which in turn is reported to be very close to the RV7.
2. I well recognise the small difference between O-320 and O-360 in purchasing new, but as evidenced in the pages of this site, many of us still opt for second hand engines. Currently in New Zealand there is a good choice of second hand O-320?s for sale, but it is only by digging would I unearth an O-360. I won?t again muddy the waters by suggesting one is more economic to operate than the other!
3. The comment about the RV7 being spawned as a result of people wanting more fuel, payload and room is appreciated, but for me I find the RV6 being just right in terms of fuel volume, aircraft weight, useful load, room and required power. Sometimes less is more. OK, that relates to using an O-320, not an O-360, but as Mel says, build the aeroplane you want. I?ve communicated with Vans and they will not issue new serial numbers for RV6s. Some on these pages say the RV7 needs the O-360, some do not. But that is why I end up time again at the RV9.
4. I also understand the improvement in ease of assembly of the pre-punched kits, but to save a few thousand dollars, I?d be quite happy to add my own holes.
5. The environment that we operate in, in New Zealand, is different enough to put a different spin on a number of issues. So if some of my questions seem kooky, that may be why!
6. Since the ?RV9 being boring? comment has been responded to more than once, rather than dob the bloke in, I?d suggest spending a bit of time over on the RV4 section. That sort of sentiment seems to come through pretty regularly!
Again, thanks to all. I really appreciate the comments and have enjoyed the ten pages of discussion!
Cheers,
Andrew.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
There are definate differences; but nothing severe.
The RV6 has a more nimble feel when moving the stick, compared to the more sedate RV9. Yet the RV9 is nimble compared to a Cessna 172. The RV9 has more tolerance on landing compared to the 6, but will still fall (stall) through the flare if you don't watch it. The 9 lands 10 mph slower than the 6.
The 6 has a higher sink rate than the 9. With power off in a 6, you flare at the precise moment (as my C/S bleeds speed quickly), or use a bit of power on the landing. The 9 really is more forgiving here. And I've previously made the comment that they both basically feel the same when on level cross country flights. If blindfolded, it would be very hard to detect a difference.
Note: My comments for both the 9 & 6 are with a constant speed prop.
Before flying my 6A, most of my time was in a 9A, and around six hours in a 6A. Flying the 6A (80 hrs. now) has been no problem at all. I immediately adjusted on the first flight, and flew a cross country two hrs. later.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
N941WR
Legacy Member
Andrew,
From what I have read and the few very brief conversations with the man, Van (not the company) is a real efficiency geek. When he designed the -9 the idea was to use the smallest reasonable engine he could. This dictated a different wing with a custom airfoil and a different horizontal stabilizer. The first -9 was really a modified -6 with different wings and HS and a small engine.
The fact that its handling characteristics and top speeds are so close to the short wing version with the same engine and prop combination is a testament to the engineering skills he and his team possess.
Larry is correct, compared to a factory plane the -9 is lightening quick on the controls but compared to a short wing RV, not so much. Each time I introduce a new pilot to the -9 I have to guard the stick and rudder to keep us right side up. I let a 500 hour Citabria pilot attempt to do the takeoff in my 135 HP RV-9 taildragger and he almost ground looped the thing even at low speeds the -9 needs to get airborne. Oh, and we were on grass. Had he kept his feet from moving, other than some light pressure on the right peddle, it wouldn?t have been a problem.
