-6 vs. -7 vs. -9

I?ve looked for similar threads, but couldn?t find any. My apologies if this has already been discussed.

My father was co-builder and ?owner of a RV-6A a little more than 10 years ago. Helping him build that airplane, as well flying it, was my introduction to RVation, and what continues to motivate me to make preparations to build an RV of my own.

I thought I had pretty well decided on an RV-9. The main factors in that decision were economic ? namely that a less expensive (and somewhat more readily available) 160HP engine gets you the same performance in an RV-9 that a 180HP engine gets you in an RV-7.

Then I watched one of Doug?s videos. Toward the end of the video, Doug performed an overhead approach?..and the memories came flooding back. One of the main reasons I have RV Fever is because of the handling of my dad?s -6A. I loved how you could flick the thing around the pattern with just your thumb and forefinger on the stick. I loved flying overhead approaches that made me feel like I was in a fighter, not a dirigible. Plain and simple: I love to yank and bank. It makes even the most mundane parts of flying (like a traffic pattern) fun.

While I?m sure that the -9 is WAAAAY more responsive than the typical general aviation airplane that most are used to flying, it obviously can?t be as responsive as a -7 or my dad?s -6A was. I?m somewhat afraid that with a -9, I won?t have that yank and bank ?fun factor? that really got me started in all this. Also, I wonder how the -7 might be different from the -6, since the -7 has a slightly longer wingspan. Aerobatics aren?t really a factor; I wouldn?t mind doing a roll or two every now and then if I had a -7, but I wouldn?t miss them at all if I had a -9. All I really want is that nice, responsive, ?the airplane almost does what you think?, handling.

So I?ve got two questions. I?d like input from anyone who?s had a chance to fly either the -6 and -7, or the -7 and -9. Specifically, I?m interested to know:

1. If the -7 has lost any responsiveness as compared to the -6.
2. If the -9?s yank and bank ?fun factor? is anywhere near that of the -6/-7.

I?ll post this in the -7 and -9 forums, too. Just to make sure I catch everyone.

All cream puffs.

I can comment on the 6 vs the 7, having flown both. The 6 is MUCH more pitch sensitive in the flare (the 7 is longer and has a larger tail and is much more stable in that tricky moment just before the wheels touch). Roll rate is about the same. Crosswinds are easier in the 7 (due to larger tail).

I've soloed Danny King's Beautiful Doll also....the RV-8 lands easier than my RV-6. Once on the ground it STAYS. The 6 will bounce if there is any vertical smash at touchdown. Danny, chime in here! (he's flown my 6 also).

'Yank and bank' makes me think you might like the 7 better than the 9. The 7 is a cream puff. The 9 is even easier to land I'm told <g>.

Best always,
Doug

PS. I deleted those duplicate posts, one of the rules I'm afraid (no cross-posting).

jrsites said:

snip....
Then I watched one of Doug?s videos. Toward the end of the video, Doug performed an overhead approach?..and the memories came flooding back. One of the main reasons I have RV Fever is because of the handling of my dad?s -6A. I loved how you could flick the thing around the pattern with just your thumb and forefinger on the stick. I loved flying overhead approaches that made me feel like I was in a fighter, not a dirigible. Plain and simple: I love to yank and bank. It makes even the most mundane parts of flying (like a traffic pattern) fun.

While I?m sure that the -9 is WAAAAY more responsive than the typical general aviation airplane that most are used to flying, it obviously can?t be as responsive as a -7 or my dad?s -6A was. I?m somewhat afraid that with a -9, I won?t have that yank and bank ?fun factor? that really got me started in all this. Also, I wonder how the -7 might be different from the -6, since the -7 has a slightly longer wingspan. Aerobatics aren?t really a factor; I wouldn?t mind doing a roll or two every now and then if I had a -7, but I wouldn?t miss them at all if I had a -9. All I really want is that nice, responsive, ?the airplane almost does what you think?, handling.

So I?ve got two questions. I?d like input from anyone who?s had a chance to fly either the -6 and -7, or the -7 and -9. Specifically, I?m interested to know:

1. If the -7 has lost any responsiveness as compared to the -6.
2. If the -9?s yank and bank ?fun factor? is anywhere near that of the -6/-7.

I?ll post this in the -7 and -9 forums, too. Just to make sure I catch everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm building a -9, and after my ride in an -8 I have exactly the same question... look forward to hearing the responses, especially from anyone who has flown a 9 as well as some of the other RVs.

Which One to Build

From your post it seems like you have clearly identified your mission and the seven or the eight appear to be the logical choices for you. This is a good thing! So many builders never really figure out what they will be using their airplane for prior to building.

Before starting to respond to your question I clicked on your screen name to see if your actual name was listed to kind of personalize the response and I saw that your profile states you will be building a 9A. Apparently the idea of being able to "Yank and Bank" keeps working its way to the dream center of your brain and this is keeping you from pulling the trigger on the 9a. That's not a problem. The other planes are fantastic and sound like just what the doctor ordered for your needs. While I don't really have an interest in aerobatics the thought often crosses my mind that I should have built a six. At the time I ordered the 9A the 7 wasn't out yet. I think the grass is always greener, or something like that and you'll always wonder What if?" This is no kidding, if I was at your stage and thought that there was even a remote chance of doing high G stuff I'd order a 7 or 8 in a second.


Best,

Now, wait a minute here...

160/-9 gets the same performance as 180/-7?

I don't think so.

The -7 has superior numbers to the -9 except for stall speed: higher Vne, gross, bag and tank capacity, mph/hp (there may be a few oddball things, like service ceiling that's vice versa; haven't compared them recently). Either is fun to fly, the -9 is responsive, but the -7 is stronger and it shows up in the numbers. I consider myself very fortunate to have spotted the -7 prototype at Van's two weeks before it was announced, when I was about to plunk down $ for a -9A. I would have felt I'd bought the lesser airplane forevermore.

If the -9's docility characteristics appeal to you and your missions, get it. I think the best write-up about it is Van's own briefing on their website.

John Siebold
Boise, ID

Bryan Wood said:

...remote chance of doing high G stuff I'd order a 7 or 8 in a second.

Click to expand...

It's not just about Gs. I just wrote this on the Matronics list a few days ago...but a big difference between the -9[A] and -7[A] is 6 gallons of fuel. Doesn't sound like much, but if you travel, it's another hour of range (or reserve). Same O-320 in a -9[A] and a -7[A], I'd rather have that extra 6 gal.

Same comparison between the -6 & -7, just not as big a difference in fuel capacity (4 gallons difference if memory serves).

DeltaRomeo said:

I've soloed Danny King's Beautiful Doll also....the RV-8 lands easier than my RV-6. Once on the ground it STAYS. The 6 will bounce if there is any vertical smash at touchdown. Danny, chime in here! (he's flown my 6 also).

'Best always,
Doug

Click to expand...

Doug, your observation re the 6 and 8 landing is interesting.

Had a 6 tail dragger endorsement a couple years ago and hated the way that thing landed. It was all work, no fun, and needed an extremely wide runway, although a busted tail steering device probably made it more miserable than normal. It did pogo's and squirrelies at the same time. I've been told they behave better with tail wheel steering. Hat's off to you for successfully flying (landing) the darn thing.

Glad to hear the 8 is much better behaved - thinking about building one just to sit in the middle of an airplane again.

dd

Really? The only time I flew a 6 was up in Vernonia with Mike Seager. Even after having been put on 3 booster cushions, and only being able to reach the rudder pedals with my tiptoes I was able to land the thing pretty easily. I think that 6 landed MUCH easier than my Aeronca Champ. Though I'd have to say my RV-4 lands easier than that 6 did. That may only be because I can actually see AND reach the rudder pedals.

Looking forward to landing an RV-7 some day. I'm hoping to close a deal on a 7 tail kit soon! Yee-haw!

There's a lot more to this story and the forums are full of the 7 vs. 9 debate. What's above is a lot of the pro-7 stuff. If you want to do aerobatics and want to go a few mph faster and pay for it, you really have to go the 7 route. It's a great plane. Go fo it. If not, the RV-9 has a lot to offer and some significant advantages over the -7. Someone asked about the sink rates on another current thread. Look at the cafefoundation.org reports on the 6, 8, and 9 and you see some very significant different differences on this number. The 9's power off sink rate is almost half that of the 6/7/8.

Wow factor? The first time I took a ride in a 9 I said "wow" immediately after takeoff, all through the flight, and am still saying it a couple years later. Maybe not quite as responsive as a 7? Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing? In any case, the -9 very much does have that "finger-touch" responsiveness that you seem to be interested in.

Regardless, much of this long debate is below as well as on earlier threads that should show up in a search.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=8828&highlight=rv-7+rv-9

Good luck with your decision. Many of us have already been there and lived through it!

dan said:

It's not just about Gs. I just wrote this on the Matronics list a few days ago...but a big difference between the -9[A] and -7[A] is 6 gallons of fuel. Doesn't sound like much, but if you travel, it's another hour of range (or reserve). Same O-320 in a -9[A] and a -7[A], I'd rather have that extra 6 gal.

Same comparison between the -6 & -7, just not as big a difference in fuel capacity (4 gallons difference if memory serves).

Click to expand...

Another good point.

Regards,

Differences ...

I currently fly an RV6. I have flown the RV6A, RV7A and RV9A.

There are two big differences I have seen between the 6 and 9.

Slow speed work and stick forces after say 20 degrees (estimate) of bank.

1. I fly the 9A in MPH at about the speed I fly the 6 in KTS for pattern work. Thus about 15% slower. The flap extension speed is slower and obviously the stall speed is lower on the 9A. Cruise on the two planes seems to be about a wash when using the same (say 160 hp + Sensenich) configuration.

2. For most handling in most flight conditions the stick forces (to me) seem about the same. The 9 "feels like an RV". But if you want to bank say 40-50 degrees, somewhere past say 20 - 30 degrees you can really feel the stick force getting "heavier" (some would interpret this as more "stable"). Thus the so-called "yank and bank" factor would be less in the 9.

Other than this, when in the plane you are in an RV. Oh, I forgot, there is **some** difference in how they feel in turbulence (I think) but I honestly cannot rememebr exactly what it was.

So, if you want to pull on it a bit more and you like have the extra fuel go for the 7. I also think it is a little bit easier to fly the 7 in formation with what most other RVs are likely to be in formations. Not that it cannot be done with a 9, just that that little extra respsonsiveness always helps.

James

I'll try to cram several replies into one post here.

I remember the 6A being very pitch sensitive in the flare. To be honest, once I got used to it, I really liked that aspect of it's flight characteristics. I felt I could be more precise with setting the airplane in the proper landing attitude. There was no feeling of slop; no need to "work" the elevator trying to get and hold the nose in the right place. Once you knew to be easy with it so that you didn't over-rotate, I found that it made for very precise flare control. I've never made landings as consistently good in anything else as I was able to in that 6A.

I probably do need to update my profile now that I'm back to "undecided". Thanks for the reminder, Brian.

Yes, I did over-generalize a bit on the 9/160 to 7/180 comparison. I think I was looking at it from somewhat of a holistic point of view. To me, doing 200 mph and climbing at 2,000 fpm on 160HP is "the same" as doing 210 mph and climbing at 2,200 fpm on 180HP, especially in light of the additional cost (both capital and operating) of a 180HP engine.

Never thought about the fuel capacity issue. I probably won't be doing a lot of long cross-country stuff right off the bat, but every little bit of capacity helps. You know what they say: "Runway behind you, fuel in the truck, altitude above you......."

Never heard similar comments about 6s being difficult to land before. Hopefully 7s aren't the same way. I have very little tailwheel time, but my plan was to build a tailwheel version of whatever model I choose. Mainly because I think they look so much nicer, but also because most of my flying is local "bore a hole in the sky stuff". I want some challenge in my flying to keep me sharp, and flying a taildragger in Kansas, even one known to be as benign as an RV, will up the challenge factor.

Again, acro is not really a factor for me. If I end up with a -7, then I'm sure I'll do the occasional aileron roll or two. But if I go with a -9, I won't care that I can't do rolls. I wish I could explain it better, but what I REALLY want is that responsive handling. The only way I've been able to explain it in the past is that if you flew the -6A with anything more than two fingers on the stick, you were ham-handing it, and all you really needed to do was think about a bank and you were in at 60 degrees. I....like.....that!

Sink rate? Doesn't bother me. Was the first thing Dad showed me in the -6A. We didn't fly normal patterns in the plane. If they weren't overheads, they were close in, with steeper bank angles on the turns than most people are comfortable with. But to me, the airplane almost begged to be flown that way, especially once you got used to speed management in it.

Thanks for all the input. I know it's probably hard to come by, but I guess I'm still looking for the answer to one question: I know that the -9 is going to be less responsive in handling than the -7. It has to, it's physics. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it will be disappointingly so, or whether it's still responsive enough (as compared to, say, the 172s I fly now) to provide me with the fun and challenge I'm looking for while giving me a few economic, and perhaps "safety margin", advantages over the -7.

jrsites said:

Thanks for all the input. I know it's probably hard to come by, but I guess I'm still looking for the answer to one question: I know that the -9 is going to be less responsive in handling than the -7. It has to, it's physics. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it will be disappointingly so, or whether it's still responsive enough (as compared to, say, the 172s I fly now) to provide me with the fun and challenge I'm looking for while giving me a few economic, and perhaps "safety margin", advantages over the -7.

Click to expand...

Compared to a 172, you will never be disappointed. The -9 flying qualities are much closer to a -7 than any Cessna. I've had one ride in a -9 and would 10 times rather have it than a 172.

One of the guys at Van's told me the -9 is their favorite cross country air plane. That says a lot.

Go for it!
dd

Alot of good info here guys, I am struggling with the same decision, 8,9 or 7. My better half has helped me concerning the 8. She wants to sit next to me in case I get out of hand, now the decision is 7A and risk getting beat up after every snap roll or 9aA and traveling in harmony with 6 less gallons of fuel. I would hope NONE of the RV's would ever aproach handling of any Cessna 172. I love them, the gave me my ticket, but man whayt a underpowered mush dog. Good question JRSITES

dillonz1 said:

Alot of good info here guys, I am struggling with the same decision, 8,9 or 7. My better half has helped me concerning the 8. She wants to sit next to me in case I get out of hand, now the decision is 7A and risk getting beat up after every snap roll or 9aA and traveling in harmony with 6 less gallons of fuel. I would hope NONE of the RV's would ever aproach handling of any Cessna 172. I love them, the gave me my ticket, but man whayt a underpowered mush dog. Good question JRSITES

Click to expand...

While you're still deciding, Mike, try to get a ride in both. That's really the best way to decide. It's getting easier and easier these days with so many RVs flying. Just post a message on this forum in the regional section looking for rides around you and you'll have a pretty good chance of snagging one or more.

David's argument is good. Flying a 9 vs. a 172 is something akin to driving a porsche vs. the family station wagon. I'm not sure what extending that analogy would make a -7, but how many of us could actually appreciate the difference between a porsche and whatever is above that in terms of handling! I think the -9 has really got more of a perception problem because Van's said it would be a great "trainer." It is much more responsive than any trainer I have ever flown! (As an aside... I actually don't think any RV makes for a good trainer, though the -9 would certainly come the closest.)

Also, I'm not convinced that you need to worry about 6 fewer gallons with the 9. With an 0-320 burning maybe 8 gallons per hour on a fast day, you've already got almost 5 hours of fuel in the -9. Do you need any more? Does your bladder need more? Do you want to carry that extra 40# of fuel? Would you save any fuel stops on the vast majority of your trips? Sometimes more is better. Sometimes more is just more. Just a different point of view.

Good luck with your decision too.

LOL!

You know, as some others have said in this thread, once you get aclimated to the 6 landing it becomes no big deal. I can't say I even think about it anymore - it just feels natural and normal and the landings are stress free and uneventful.

I bet you could say that about most aircraft after you get a few hundred landings in them - they just feel normal.

I'll admit, the landings I made in Danny's RV-8, Scott's RV-7 and Alex's RV-10 involved more stress than my RV-6. With 2,000+ landings in it to date, the RV-6 is my 'normal'.

Go figure <g>.

I guess the singular truth in all this is that all RVs are easy to handle in the flare with the proper training and enough practice.

b,
d

BTW, I had zero tailwheel time when I started building my RV.

Porsche v. Porsche

I would say the 7 would be comparable to a 911 and the 9 would be like a 924S. Just my $.02 Greg RV9A EFIO-320-H2AD

One point not mentioned so far is the slower roll rate of the 9 (longer wingspan). While not as responsive as the other RVs, the tradeoff is greater stability. This might be important to you if you're looking at flying IFR, particularly in approach phase in gusty conditions. Still possible in the other models, just takes a little more skill and concentration.

DeltaRomeo said:

LOL!

I'll admit, the landings I made in Danny's RV-8, Scott's RV-7 and Alex's RV-10 involved more stress than my RV-6. With 2,000+ landings in it to date, the RV-6 is my 'normal'.

Go figure <g>.

I guess the singular truth in all this is that all RVs are easy to handle in the flare with the proper training and enough practice.

b,
d

BTW, I had zero tailwheel time when I started building my RV.

Click to expand...

Ditto here on the tailwheel time at first rivet. A zillion hours in a trike but a big void on the dark side.

I've been reading about brain function. Scary stuff.

When the brain is young, it will learn most anything easily. When it gets older and somewhat fossilized, nothing comes easy. Learning a foreign language, for example, is all but impossible because that part of the brain is shut down and has been for years.

I can land a tail dragger, but it feels strange everytime. Not at all fun like squeeking on a trike. I'm wondering if the tail dragger part of my brain is shut down. I've read books on the subject, understand what it going on, and have flown with at least 3 great instructors on the subject. All have said, you're doing fine, have at it. But it never feels fine. It's like being right handed and trying to do every thing with the left.

That's why I don't fly them. I'm probably an accident waiting to happen. But the 8 is very tempting.

dd
The original trike-tail wheel-trike guy. Yes, you can convert them, it takes about 2 weeks.

David-aviator said:

I can land a tail dragger, but it feels strange everytime. Not at all fun like squeeking on a trike. I'm wondering if the tail dragger part of my brain is shut down. I've read books on the subject, understand what it going on, and have flown with at least 3 great instructors on the subject. All have said, you're doing fine, have at it. But it never feels fine. It's like being right handed and trying to do every thing with the left.

Click to expand...

Practice makes perfect.

I flew a nosedragger yoke-meister the other day, a Grumman Tiger. What a dog, first of all. But second of all, landing that thing was so trivial it's not even funny. Land on the mains, keep the nosewheel off, let it down when you're good and ready...and gently. BFD. Where's the fun/challenge in that?

The taildragger is more demanding, that's for sure. And it takes lots of practice to get good and to stay good. To each his own. Some live for that satisfaction of mastering more demanding airplanes.

But when you get right down to it, an airplane is an airplane is an airplane. Making a "good landing" in either style simply means managing your descent rate when you're close to the runway. If you can grease a nosedragger on the mains, you can grease a taildragger on the mains.

dan said:

But when you get right down to it, an airplane is an airplane is an airplane. Making a "good landing" in either style simply means managing your descent rate when you're close to the runway. If you can grease a nosedragger on the mains, you can grease a taildragger on the mains.

Click to expand...

Ooh.... wheel landings versus three point landings... sounds like a great candidate for the never ending debate section.

Ok guys
Gotta ask this question in the quest for deciding 7A or 9A. Can a 6' 3" 250# guy fly the -7 and have leg and headroom, how do the cabins compare, and on a throw down which canopy system would give the best headroom?

dillonz1 said:

Ok guys
Gotta ask this question in the quest for deciding 7A or 9A. Can a 6' 3" 250# guy fly the -7 and have leg and headroom, how do the cabins compare, and on a throw down which canopy system would give the best headroom?

Click to expand...

The cabins are the same in all respects. I'm 6' 4", 215 and have plenty of both head- and leg-room. I do have the composite canopy system which has a little more headroom than the standard Van's slider, 1/2" more closed and 1" more clearance while opening.

Bob Kelly

Thanks Bob, thats definantely a concern for those of us 6' and over.

svanarts said:

Ooh.... wheel landings versus three point landings... sounds like a great candidate for the never ending debate section.

Click to expand...

A well baited hook by Mr. Checkoway.
Guess I'll have to build that 8 and go out and practice, practice.

dd

What about an RV-9A with 180hp and extended range tanks?

I have heard that there a lot 9s flying with the 360 engine, although Vans does not like it.

But given the mission of a VFR cross country plane probably upgraded to IFR in the future, wouldn't a 9A with extended range (either by adding bays or using the safe air ER tanks) be more suitable than a 7A?

PS: I am not interested in aerobatics.

DeltaRomeo said:

The 6 will bounce if there is any vertical smash at touchdown.

Click to expand...

You mean it's not just me?? Big sigh of relief!! I thought for sure my nickname was going to have to be Tigger, because bouncing is what Tiggers do best!