What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7/7A vs. RV-9/9A

KatanaPilot

KatanaPilot

Well Known Member
I have been in the market for an RV-9A for a little while. So far, I haven't found anything that is suitable. I've expanded my search to include the RV-7A since there appear to be a few more of them available. I've now added the straight 7's and 9's to my search as I would like to work on my tailwheel flying skills.

What I don't understand is the 50-100% premium the 7/7A seems to demand over the 9/9A. Yes, I'm aware of the likelihood of an O or IO-360 vs a -320 and possibly a CS prop, plus the strengthened airframe - but other than that I'm having difficulty in seeing the "value". The kit prices are basically the same, so I can understand $10-20K for the engine and prop upgrade, but the 7/7A asking prices are much higher, even with comparable avionics.

So does anybody have a good explanation other than "that's what the market will bear"? Thanks in advance.
 
Prices

I am not sure agree with the price diff you quoted?

I enjoy checking over the for sale listings and have seen many 9 or 9a's get pretty close to what the 7s get. I will say that there have been some amazing 7s on here for sale over the years commanding a very good price but from paint to interior trim level and avionics and engine prop combos...they were just amazing birds.

There have been a few 9s on low side price wise, and they seem to sit but my guess is that they are likely a little rough on the build quality and in skimming the pics...often very basic on trim etc. Home made seats, old steam or gen 1 mini glass panels, smaller and often used older engines, wood fp prop, home painted etc.

I am certainly no expert on the prices but think that if two equally equiped and equal quality built/finished birds came up...think the price would be close. The dream of aeros might add a few bucks but cant see it being 10%. Hope you find you dream plane, they are all awesome and you will never be sorry whatever you end up with.
 
What's your mission?

Life is all about choices and our selections usually come down to one answer, "It depends" ;) Mainly on your mission.
I did not build mine but was lucky enough to find a plane that was built WAY BETTER than I could ever build one. When I was looking to buy/build and move into the Experimental world I looked at some of the things that you are looking for in order to decide which model is right for me. Vans has some information on their website about the difference so that's always a good place to start. You can even call them and discuss it with one of their experts as well.
In my book what mattered was my mission : The main difference between a -9 and a -7 was the wings/Spar and the ability to do aerobatics with a -7 and not a -9. The -9 has larger wings and it cruises beautifully cross country. Not to say that the -7 doesn't cruise well but it does have shorter wings and more responsive. The fuse is either the same or very similar I'm not sure and don't want to say one way or another because I have not built a -9.
The pricing difference that you mentioned is real. I'm not sure if it's 50% as you stated but it is there. I always tell my friends who are looking to get in to the RV world to budget around $75K for a well built -7 and around $80 for a well built -8. There is about a $10K to $15K delta when you look at which engine, with engine options such as injected, inverted fuel and oil, etc. and which prop. Then you start adding other extras like the paint and avionics.
- Add $5K for a decent paint job and $10K for a professional paint job. Add between $10K to $30K for the Avionics and interior.

So my point in giving you these ballparks is not to say I'm some price expert (because I'm not), but it's to ensure that you are looking at all aspects when comparing a non aerobatic plane vs one that is designed from day 1 to be one. Things like constant speed prop, prop governors, fuel injected, inverted oil, inverted fuel and better avionics can add between $20K to $40K to the cost of a -7 but when looking at a -9 you generally are looking at carbureted, fixed pitch plane that is designed to be light and go fast. Of course you can always find a nice -9 with a great paint job and up to date glass panel in the high $80's and low $90s but there are not that many of them out there.

This is just my experience in the short time that I've had my RV grin on and have been fortunate enough to be part of this incredible community.

Good luck with your search. I'm sure whatever you decide you will wear your RV Grin proudly.:D

Best of luck to you
 
I didn't read both replies, but my experience has shown that an RV-7(A) equipped exactly like a -9(A) demands about $10-15,000 more in the market. Also, the -6(A) is another $10-15,000 lower yet. With the -6, it's age of design, looks, size and supply/demand that drives it, IMHO. With the -7/-9 difference it is aerobatics and demand (supply seems fairly equal on the used market).

With the same engine and prop, interior, paint, panel and age, the cost to build is roughly the same. The -9's are only supposed to go up to -160HP, but I regularly see them with 180HP and C/S props.

For training in, I would certainly recommend the -9A, especially for IFR training.

I had a -9A and loved the way it flew. I hated to sell it but had to. Short version, that same engine/prop combo went into my 1999 -6A. Speeds were roughly the same, although the -9A seemed a little more comfortable at higher altitudes (above 11,000). Short version, I am now in the market for a new airframe to put this same engine/prop combo on. Torn about -6A or -7A. Decided -6A because the project is substantially cheaper. The resale difference would more than make up for the extra cost, but for me it's strictly a cost issue. I love the way the -6 flies, and that's good enough for me.
 
Thanks for the replies

My search so far has found RV-9A's in the $50K to high $60's range and RV-7/7A's starting in the $80's and as high as $130K.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found a 9A that has the build quality I had hoped for and the 7/7A's seem to be priced in the stratosphere. To be fair, I have not gone and looked at any 7/7A's yet, primarily because I can't yet justify the price premium being asked for.

Either the 7/7A or 9/9A would meet my "mission" requirements. However, the aerobatic capability of the 7's is very appealing to my son who will end up with the plane in a few years when our 10 is (hopefully) completed.

I just need to find a well built plane, equipped and priced appropriately.
 
KatanaPilot said:
My search so far has found RV-9A's in the $50K to high $60's range and RV-7/7A's starting in the $80's and as high as $130K.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found a 9A that has the build quality I had hoped for and the 7/7A's seem to be priced in the stratosphere. To be fair, I have not gone and looked at any 7/7A's yet, primarily because I can't yet justify the price premium being asked for.

Either the 7/7A or 9/9A would meet my "mission" requirements. However, the aerobatic capability of the 7's is very appealing to my son who will end up with the plane in a few years when our 10 is (hopefully) completed.

I just need to find a well built plane, equipped and priced appropriately.
Click to expand...

Why not look at a -6? They fly pretty much the same as a -7 (at least to me) and though you maybe give up a bit of payload, the purchase price is likely much more reasonable...
 
I think the biggest disservice Van's ever did for the -9(A) was to compare it to the Cessna 152. Ever since that article came out, the RV community looks at the -9(A) as a trainer RV, thus there is a bias that it is less of an airplane than the -7(A).

When in fact that the people who fly it understand what a great plane it really is. In many ways it out performs the -7(A) on the same power and some who have flown the entire line of RV's prefer the -9(A) over the other two seat planes, as long as acrobatics are not part of the mission profile.

The assumed inferiority of the -9(A) is why I believe the prices are depressed.
 
Value- my opinion

The best value is the used -6. They are a joy to fly and you can buy them cheaper than you can build. The -9 has a better safety record than the -7 since there have been some highly publicized -7 accidents with the tails separating for whatever reason. However, that hasn't seemed to hurt the -7 value. I think the "option" to do limited aerobatics in the -7 seems to be a primary reason it brings a higher resale value over the -9's. It's no Pitts but it gets the job done for most. My personal preference is the -9 as I like the slower side of envelope. My -6 would not get on the step till about 100mph and at 85mph the -6 is descending. The -9 performs better at those speeds.
No matter what you choose, all the RV are just fine machines.😄
 
A real Sleeper.

N941WR said:
I think the biggest disservice Van's ever did for the -9(A) was to compare it to the Cessna 152. Ever since that article came out, the RV community looks at the -9(A) as a trainer RV, thus there is a bias that it is less of an airplane than the -7(A).

When in fact that the people who fly it understand what a great plane it really is. In many ways it out performs the -7(A) on the same power and some who have flown the entire line of RV's prefer the -9(A) over the other two seat planes, as long as acrobatics are not part of the mission profile.

The assumed inferiority of the -9(A) is why I believe the prices are depressed.
Click to expand...

Yeah - that is what I thought too when choosing the 7. I did want aerobatics, but still kinda looked down on the 9. No more. That wing makes it a jewel, a real sleeper. I knew a longer wing made a better altitude flyer, but had no idea it exceeded the 7 above 10k (or so, not exact) with lower power.

Going cross-cty a Vans team member said they choose it to get there first (like Bill said)! Pretty impressive.
 
The kit cost of the -9 also is higher than the -7 by about $500. I guess there is more aluminum in the longer wing and bigger HS. The fuselage is essentially identical.

Car analogy - the -9 is more Grand Touring (cruising at high altitudes efficiently) and the -7 is more Sports Car (aerobatic and higher HP).
 
I wonder how many people by a 7 for the aerobatics, yet never actually do aerobatics.

Probably as many corvette owners who never race I assume.
 
ty1295 said:
I wonder how many people by a 7 for the aerobatics, yet never actually do aerobatics.

Probably as many corvette owners who never race I assume.
Click to expand...

Please define "RACE"........is this something with a checkered flag or timing lights? or........ :D
 
I've certainly never considered the -9 to be inferior, even though I'm building a -7. If I wasn't interested in acro, the -9 would have been a better choice. The unfortunate thing about the C-150 comparison is that it's more of a 2 seat fixed gear Mooney than a C-150.

BTW, I guess I need to crawl farther out from under my rock. 'Highly publicized tail loss accidents (plural) on -7's'??

Charlie
 
Last edited:
BillL said:
Yeah - that is what I thought too when choosing the 7. I did want aerobatics, but still kinda looked down on the 9. No more. That wing makes it a jewel, a real sleeper. I knew a longer wing made a better altitude flyer, but had no idea it exceeded the 7 above 10k (or so, not exact) with lower power.

Going cross-cty a Vans team member said they choose it to get there first (like Bill said)! Pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

.. I don't want to do aerobatics in my 9-A, and have other planes for that. I fly all the models, but must say our 160 hp 9-A is vary outstanding and my personal hands down favorite. Ours climbs at 2800 ft min, I regularly practice on a 500' strip with take-offs of 250 ft and landings at about the same. I fly at 200+ mph cruise, do it on 7.3 gph and at altitude it cruises on it max vne. None of the other models even come close to this all around performance. I regularly fly to many aviation events, usually with a group of RVs and most are in tow. There are a couple of RV-8s with larger hp engines (200 & 210 hp) that can keep up with us but move up high and the contest is over. We go faster just sipping fuel. I don't think it fair to compare the 9s to other models, because they usually only do one of the a fore mentioned tasks well, definitely not all of them. I don't know of another aircraft on the planet, Vans or otherwise that has a comparable envelope, and if there is one, I want it. Now do you want to know how I really feel? Thanks, Allan..:D
 
Last edited:
I was actually going to build a 9 but found my 7 project 35 miles from my home and couldn't resist. I haven't done any aerobatics with it but I plan to soon. The 9 would have been easier to land on my farm with the lower stall speed. One thing I enjoy with the 7 that I didn't consider is the shorter wingspan tucks into the corner of my hanger/shop giving me more space.
 
I too wanted a 9 and ended up building a 7. It's a toss up of different capabilities, I would be equally happy with both!
 
Another hidden bonus with the -9

The long wingspan of the -9 makes for a slow stall speed and pleasant cruise up high. However, those long wings can be cumbersome in the hanger. Loose those -9 wingtips with a custom made flat plate and now you have a 25ft wingspan same as the. -7, more responsive roll rate, less drag, and about 3 to 5mph higher stall speed. Yes, the -9 can do a lot of stuff. ��
 
Last edited:
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
Wow! Mine climbs like a rocket too, but maybe a bit of a typo?
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible. I've seen climb rates in excess of 10,000 feet per minute in my 180HP RV-6A, so 2800 feet per minute on an RV-9 with slightly less horsepower is entirely believable - in fact, I bet it could do even better.

Neither will sustain those rates for very long, however, and talking about rates from zoom climbs isn't really relevant.
 
ChiefPilot said:
It's certainly possible. I've seen climb rates in excess of 10,000 feet per minute in my 180HP RV-6A, so 2800 feet per minute on an RV-9 with slightly less horsepower is entirely believable - in fact, I bet it could do even better.

Neither will sustain those rates for very long, however, and talking about rates from zoom climbs isn't really relevant.
Click to expand...

...So, that must have been you that passed me the other day climbing out. That explains it! :rolleyes:

....Actually the few little mods that make this climb performance possible, don't cost much, and if properly equipped most RVs will see about 400 or so ft min increases.
 
PerfTech said:
...So, that must have been you that passed me the other day climbing out. That explains it! :rolleyes:

....Actually the few little mods that make this climb performance possible, don't cost much, and if properly equipped most RVs will see about 400 or so ft min increases.
Click to expand...

Like.......NITROUS OXIDE ? :eek:
 
So......you can make it to 10,000 from SL in < 4 minutes? really? ok, where is that mod? I didn't see it listed on your website :D
 
I can easily exceed 2800 fpm. I just can't tell you the few simply mods I did to make this happen because this is a public forum and somebody might actually try them.....
If you have a magic pill, please do share....perhaps in a different thread.
 
performance reports...

In my experience performance reports rarely match the reality of race day results...

For the best climb performance, weight is super critical... there is a big difference potential from recorded data. Climb entry speed, starting altitude, ending altitude will skew the reported data significantly, especially for short duration climbs.

For benchmarking fun, I have done take off to 10,000 feet AGL climbs recording 1,000 foot intervals a few times... home field is pretty close to sea level. I see 3000+ fpm for the first 1000 feet but that starts to slowly decay with the climb finishing the 10k take off to climb under 5 minutes. I have tested various indicated airspeeds for best climb. This sort of extended duration high performance climb will stress many cooling systems; high power, low airspeed, high angle of attack. A surprising number of RVs struggle with this.

We could try to set up a start to finish climb trial that might be reasonably comparative... perhaps 1,000 SL entry at up to Vne and climb to 11,000 with 1,000 foot interval time hacks. Entry speed should bleed off to best climb target pretty quickly. RVs don't zoom climb very well.

I would do this with a minimum fuel load... no smoke tank, oxygen, flight bag, etc. Might even do it a second time with full fuel, smoke, oxygen, flight bag, etc. ;)
 
This thread reminds me of the Arnold Palmer quote I recently read about a device to improve your golf score...

"I have a tip that will take five strokes off anyone?s golf game. It?s called an eraser.?

:cool:
 
[email protected] said:
In my experience performance reports rarely match the reality of race day results...

For the best climb performance, weight is super critical... there is a big difference potential from recorded data. Climb entry speed, starting altitude, ending altitude will skew the reported data significantly, especially for short duration climbs.

For benchmarking fun, I have done take off to 10,000 feet AGL climbs recording 1,000 foot intervals a few times... home field is pretty close to sea level. I see 3000+ fpm for the first 1000 feet but that starts to slowly decay with the climb finishing the 10k take off to climb under 5 minutes. I have tested various indicated airspeeds for best climb. This sort of extended duration high performance climb will stress many cooling systems; high power, low airspeed, high angle of attack. A surprising number of RVs struggle with this.

We could try to set up a start to finish climb trial that might be reasonably comparative... perhaps 1,000 SL entry at up to Vne and climb to 11,000 with 1,000 foot interval time hacks. Entry speed should bleed off to best climb target pretty quickly. RVs don't zoom climb very well.

I would do this with a minimum fuel load... no smoke tank, oxygen, flight bag, etc. Might even do it a second time with full fuel, smoke, oxygen, flight bag, etc. ;)
Click to expand...

What? Support your claims with real world data? Surely you must jest. Christo - if you told me you sustained 5000fpm I would believe you. That is what I feel like when you say "bye bye", and zoom away.... truly unfair!

So, back to the original OP's questions, I think.... about the 9 vs 7?
Aerobatics aside, I felt the 9 was a bit sluggish compared to the other models. Not much, but a noticeable lack of "snappyness"? is that a word. Not much, but noticeable to me. I loved the "feel" however and have no doubt it would be a wonderful cross country airplane, or for that matter, a wonderful RV period. It still felt like an RV. I enjoyed my short time flying one, but I gotta go upside down. Just can't help myself. Of the RV's I have seen for sale, the 7's commanding the higher prices seem to be a little more lavish in avionics, interior, and ?? Perhaps the typical 9 builder is being a little more weight conscious than most 7's with their 200+ HP ? Just a guess.....
 
Sorry Guys!!!

...It seems I have unintentionally really stirred the pot here and that wasn't the intention. Some of the (all external) mods and adjustments I did, have a direct impact on HP, and my engine in max climb configuration is producing more power than the stock 160. Perhaps 180 or so @ 3000 rpm where I run it for performance take offs. My carbon fiber C/S prop blades are configured for efficiency at this level. I haven't put the engine back on the dyno, as this was a work in progress. I can only make an educated guess as to power. I guess in all fairness the propeller is necessary for all to come together. This combination of changes easily renders the climb I stated. Thanks, Allan..:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top