What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Oh yeah, more RV9 vs. RV7

S

skelrad

Well Known Member
Friend
I'm currently working on getting my PPL, and am also getting ready to bite the bullet and start building soon if all the stars align correctly. Like many people, I'm stuck between the -7 and -9 (shocker, huh!).

My dad, who will also be flying the plane, is worried about the 7's sink rate compared with the 9, and hence, likes the 9 better. Personally, I'd prefer the 7. I need ammo to convince him that the 7 is going to be just fine in the "unlikely event of an engine failure." Do the stall speeds and landing speeds differ enough to make an off-field landing in the 7 that much more dangerous than the 9? Yeah, the 7 sinks twice as fast as the 9, but what does that truly mean in terms of landing it once you reach the ground? Does having 4 minutes versus 2 minutes to pick a landing spot really matter - I mean, how long does it really take to decide where to put the plane?

None of these questions are meant to be smart or sarcastic at all. I'm a total rookie and want some help from experienced pilots reasoning through these questions.

Thanks,
Brandon
 
Wow, great question. What's the difference in 2 minutes? Well, if you look at it in terms of distance then it does make a difference. You have a bigger area to choose from with the 2 extra minutes so yes it could make a difference. If the field is 3 minutes away then it's too far for one and close enough for the other.

Guess I would bet on is more of what the pilot is capable of than what the plane could do. I would say that an experienced -7 driver could put his bird down in just about any field a -9 driver could provided the field is long enough, ~500 feet. Perhaps the field is 500 feet long with 50 foot trees around it, the sink rate could actually help you get on the ground and stopped faster in the -7. Still, depends on the skill of the pilot and how they react under pressure.
 
Last edited:
Morning, Brandon.

When I flew a RV-7 for the first time I was really surprised much more it floated in ground effect than my RV-6. You could tell it was a different (bigger?) wing. The stall/landing speeds are very, very close and (IMHO) it will probably take most pilots about ten seconds to find a spot to land. Although, it will seem like ten minutes <g>.

If you ever even mildly suspect you might want to do a roll someday - it's the 7.

Best,
D
 
I don't think so....

Hi Brandon,
I don't know where you got the numbers but I find it very hard to believe that a 7 sinks TWICE as fast as a 9 !!. The 9 was the first RV I ever landed and the -6A the second. The stall speeds are not very far apart so the sink can't be, even with the higher lifting airfoil.

I practiced a 180 degree landing last week, where you pull off all the power on downwind, abeam your desired touchdown point, and judge when to turn base/final, and found out that I still needed flaps. The rapid sink doesn't start until you get below 80 MPH or so and it has a surprisingly good glide. For the small difference in landing/stall speed plus the aerobatic capability (it's a stronger wing), you can't beat a 6 or 7, ;)
 
I think the first question should be what engine to you want? 180 or greater, then RV-7 and be done with it. Under 180 then you can still debate.

Do you want to do aerobatics? A simple roll I would say a 9 is more than up to that task. More than that then build a 7. If not then my question would be why build a 7? People talk about resale but that seems to me to be very hard to debate because you do not see many 7's for sale and even less 9's. I suspect resale will have more to do with equipment, engine, prop. Then again the cost to build also has to do with those same things. Sure you can get $25k more for it, but did it cost $25k more to build?

Decide what is more important to you and build that one. They are all great. You will get pro-9 opinions from the 9 guys and pro-7 opinions from the 6/7 guys. Remember Van seems to like the 9. ;)

Scott - #90598 - N598SD Flying - 54 hours
 
There is a huge difference in survivability between 45 and ~70-80 mph landings off airport. The biggest difference between the 7 andf 9 (IMHO) is in flying efficiency- the 9 can cruise at nealy the same speeds as the 7 (and most other things as well), but with less power, and some things (flying slow) it does much better. The 9's do not slow down easily w/o c/s props, so I would not necessarily say the 9's are easier to land.

Id pick the 9 over the 7 anyday for cross country flying; ask Vans which model is the first thier pilots want to fly to airshows... IMHO, the 9 is an improvement over the 6/7, not a "downgrade" as many may want you to think. FWIW, I think the longer narrower 9 wings look a bit better than the short/wide hershey bar shape of other Vans kitplanes.
 
Wait a minute........

Mike,
Van's numbers show the 9 stalling at 44 MPH and the 7 at 51.. Big difference when you claim landing off-field at 45 vs. 70-80...!! it's 44 vs 51. True, the 9 is almost as fast as the 7 with the same engine. Van shows 192 cruise for the 7 and 189 for the 9 with 160 HP in both. Not much speed difference but it sure is nice knowing that I have a 6 g wing and aerobatic capabilities, :)
 
I've been flying my -6 for many years and love it. Having said that, if I built another RV, it would be a -9. If you are considering aerobatics, then the -7 it is. But, the older I get (no snickering please), the less acro I do.
 
Mel said:
I've been flying my -6 for many years and love it. Having said that, if I built another RV, it would be a -9. If you are considering aerobatics, then the -7 it is. But, the older I get (no snickering please), the less acro I do.
Click to expand...

Well said. If you think you might like acro, then try some acro with an instructor before deciding what plane to build. I found out I really love it so that pretty much decided things for me.
 
At the Langley BC fly-in, this was a topic of discussion.

The summary is: determine the mission first.

A '7 builder said that he wants to do some acro, but his wife likes to fly with him, so a side-by-side makes sense, hence the 7. He is skilled in tail wheel operation.

I chose a '9A because I want to fly x-country over the mountains, and the extra climb rate and glide ratio are important, as is the stability in turbulence.

I've flown in both, and the landing/approach are quite different. Below 70 KTS in a '7, the sink rate builds quickly. It's 60 KTS in a 9 before the sink rate starts to build. The 7 will also have 35-40% more kinetic energy (at stall) than the 9.

The comments on the sink rate of the 7 being an advantage over the 9 for short field emergency landings is not quite correct. The 9 will have high sink rates too, but at a lower, more survivable speed.

Another effect of the additional kinetic energy is the landing roll and wear and tear on the brakes and tires in some situations.

On a final note, in my opinion all of Van's models are superior to any other kit-built aircraft and that there is no 'better' model--- it's all a personal choice. I'd suggest building one of each.

Vern Little
 
pierre smith said:
Hi Brandon,
I don't know where you got the numbers but I find it very hard to believe that a 7 sinks TWICE as fast as a 9 !!. The 9 was the first RV I ever landed and the -6A the second. The stall speeds are not very far apart so the sink can't be, even with the higher lifting airfoil.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I have always heard that whereas the 9 has a power off sink rate of about 600 fpm, the 7's is around 1000-1200 fpm. Honestly, it's always puzzled me how a plane like a 7 can have a relatively slow stall speed and yet have such a high sink rate. If we were only going to be flying over the flatlands, I don't think the sink rate of the 7 would bother my dad so much. But, we'll be flying quite a bit through the mountains, where I assume the glide ratio of the 9 becomes even more of a safety factor. :confused:
 
This thread reminds me of the thread on 2X rivet gun verses 3X, the 2X being the 9 and the 3X being the 7
 
skelrad said:
I could be wrong, but I have always heard that whereas the 9 has a power off sink rate of about 600 fpm, the 7's is around 1000-1200 fpm. ...
Click to expand...

I did some testing with my RV-6 at 80 knots, but did not actually determine what the minimum sink speed was. At 80 knots IAS with the engine at idle, fixed pitch prop, the sink rate was 845 fpm. At 80 knots with the engine off and propellor stopped it was 909 fpm.

It landed easily with the engine off and propellor stopped.

http://www.matronics.com/searching/...TNUMBER=190?SERIAL=0939029054?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
 
Any plans for an Instrument Rating?

One more thing to consider is whether you intend to pursue an IFR ticket. With a longer span and correspondingly slower roll rate, you'll likely find the 9 a much easier plane to learn in and much easier to hand fly on any approach. Think stability. As for stalls, try stalling the 9 straight ahead and continue to hold the stick full aft. Steer with your feet, and the wing goes in and out of stall almost like a canard.

The tradeoff is an inability to do aerobatics and utilize a larger engine with greater speed potential. At the same time, 150-155 kts in cruise isn't too shabby for a plane that has such a low stall speed and posesses a glide in the area of 12:1. The late Sam Benjamin owned one of the earliest 9A's and always maintained it was his favorite plane. That from a professional pilot and instructor whose career spanned about 50 years.
 
Pierre,
I realize the stall speeds are closer- I used the 7 numbers from an earlier post (figured closer to real life conditions). The acro isn't a big deal with me, the 9 will do anything Im interested in, including basic lazy rolls and loops. What was a big deal, with the slighhtly stronger wing, is the slightly higher top speed allowance and the bigger fuel tanks on the 7. I believe there is plenty of room for second tanks in each outside leading edge in the 9 tho, so that is a minor thing for me. With the impending future of fuel price increases, the economy plus at cruse speed became my deciding factor. With equal power, the 7 and 9's are near equals, performance wise, its just that the 9 does better with less power.

FWIW, Im going rotary power with plenty of extra power on tap for high country takeoffs or high alt cruise here in the Western Mountains, no penalties at lower rpm operation or with weight. Looks better for durability and reliability as well, plus it has no problem with mogas (hence the desire for bigger tanks).
 
vlittle said:
The comments on the sink rate of the 7 being an advantage over the 9 for short field emergency landings is not quite correct. The 9 will have high sink rates too, but at a lower, more survivable speed.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so at a given altitude say 75 feet and assuming both are flying at minimum sink airspeed, the -9 can touch down and get stopped in a shorter distance than the -7 even though the -7 with a higher sink rate will touch the ground sooner.

I understand that if they both touch down at the same point on the ground the -9 can stop shorter (according to Vans numbers). But if they both start at a given altitude, clearing a tree line for example.

I don't know, different wings, vastly different flaps. Would be interesting to find out that's for sure. Still, if you only have 500 feet of real estate to work with, first on the ground at the slowest speed possible has my bet and that points back to the driver.
 
9 vs 7

Go take a ride in a 7 and a 9. This is the best way to tell what you want. Do not build without taking a ride first.

I thought I wanted an 8, until I rode in one and saw how it comes down power off. Like a safe, but at about 80 kts. To me it felt more like a "pointing mechanism" for a large engine, than a flying machine.

Then I went to Van's and flew the 9 and absolutely fell in love. It feels like a flying machine that wants to fly. You have to idle the engine on the 45 to downwind in order to land power off. 5-600 fpm descent at 65 mph. But it will still go 190 mph too! Well executed loops and rolls are not out of the question, but not recommended by Van's.

The 7 does have 2 more feet of wing, so I imagine it glides alot better. Everyone really seems to like it, so maybe it would work for you. However, as a new pilot, I really think you are going to like the 9.

Before you 6 and 8 guys start flaming me, engine failures are exceeding rare with real aircraft engines, so enjoy your birds. Just one man's opinion, so don't get your beeks out of joint!

John
 
Just another opinion...

The cafefoundation.org reports on the 9 and 6 pretty much answer this sink-rate question. If I remember correctly, about 500-600fpm on the 9 and 900+ on the 8 or 6. I would assume that the 7 would be close to the 6 or 8's numbers. Most 6/7 owners I've talked to said they'd be lucky to keep it under 1000fpm.

Re: the stall speed being only 7 mph slower... I think it was from Sparky Imeson (mountain flying guru) that I learned that survivability increases exponentially with just a slight decrease in landing speed... it's not a direct relationship in other words. May only be 7mph, but may mean a lot more than that in terms of whether or not you survive.

I made this decision myself, and so I'm obviously biased, but if you think you're going to do regular aerobatics and/or want a few extra knots in speed, for which you will pay, you have to get the 7. Otherwise, I would go 9. Sure, a "stronger" 7 airframe may make some people feel more comfortable in turbulence, but the wings aren't going to fall off the 9 either, at least if you don't make a habit of flying in thunderstorms.

This is definitely one of those toughest of decisions with no right or wrong answer depending on your mission. I made the choice and briefly wondered whether I had made the right one. When I flew the 9, all I could say was WOW and never questioned that decision again. Good luck deciding for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Lot's of great comments on this thread.

My brother and I went back and forth between the 9 and 7 for a long time before finally deciding. Wing structure was the main driver for us. We like the idea of being able to do the occasional loop and roll without feeling like we were pushing our luck. Also...Flying in central Kansas is like flying over one big landing strip. Finding a suitable landing area is not a problem. Our decision would most likely have been different if we planned to do lots of mountain flying where uneven terrain and trees live.

I do want to point out that the airspeed for minimum sink and the airspeed for best L/D are not the same. Minimum sink always occurs at a lower airspeed and lower L/D that the airspeed for best L/D.

If your engine dies and you trim for minimum sink rate you will not be able to glide as far from a given altitude. Just something to think about when testing your airplanes performance during "the 40 hours".

I don't mean to make this really long but I want to thank Brian Sader for giving my brother and I a ride in his RV-8 a few weekends ago in Newton. It was an absolute blast and I can't wait to finish my plane. I'm confident that no matter what plane I've decided on I'm going to love it. Can't wait to finish.
 
DB1033 said:
I do want to point out that the airspeed for minimum sink and the airspeed for best L/D are not the same. Minimum sink always occurs at a lower airspeed and lower L/D that the airspeed for best L/D.

If your engine dies and you trim for minimum sink rate you will not be able to glide as far from a given altitude. Just something to think about when testing your airplanes performance during "the 40 hours".
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. Given that you have trimmed for minimum sink it will give you more time but not more distance to chose a field. Once you have made the field, if you push over to get on the ground faster you then increase L/D as well as inertia to deal with once you touch down. Better to slip than push.

The two airframes will have different minimum sink rates as well as speeds and I suspect the speed and sink rate would be lower in the -9. That is the reason I would think in certain conditions the sink rate of the -7 could be used to your advantage. At minimum sink, the angle of decent would be greater in the -7 thus having more of the field to get stopped.

I guess I should also say that my way of thinking comes from a bit of time in sailplanes where with spoilers one can increase sink rate at will. With all of my landings in sailplanes being dead stick, increased sink rate can keep you out of the fence at the other end of the field. If you can get it on the ground sooner, you at least have a chance to use braking or steering to get stopped.

Like someone said earlier, with traditional aircraft engines these scenarios almost never happen anymore even though it has happened twice in the last couple of months in RVs that I know of. Also, the -9 will stop shorter than the -7 so the extra real estate might not even matter. I think everyone would agree landing distance in any RV isn't much to speak of. Still, it's an interesting thought process of what if.
 
hmmmm....

Well first of all.... Your statement sounds like you are on the -7 and you are trying to convince your dad. Physics states that twice the airspeed then you have 4 times the energy// I hope. I could be wrong/// So if you are planning on putting a POS engine in it go with the -9... A good engine... GO -7... If you think you will do any loops or rolls...GO -7... If your dad cannot handle a hot machine... go with the -9. They are both fine for IFR... a wing leveler is a must on both though for IFR. And a backup vacuum system or electric system. PS MANY THANKS TO PIERRE SMITH!!!! He gave me a ride in his Georgous -6a and a friend of mine a ride... WOW!!!!! What a super ambassador to aviation. SO listen to pierre! He knows his stuff.
Brian
N41RC
AA-1A Driver
-7a wannabe
 
Brian is right. Inertia force (in this scenario) is a function of weight and accleration. In a crash it is actually de-celeration.

The decleration is calculated by V1-V2/T.

So Assuming that the perior of time of the crash stay the same, and that the crash we are measuring results in the same terminal speed (probably zero) there is a direct relationship between crash speed and deceleration.

This is an exponential factor, and when combined with weight determines the force of the crash.


There is another statistical base to believe that crashing slower is safer. The above calculations would have to be applied to various objects. For example, you would want to know the force a body exerts on the restraint belts during the crash, and also how the compartment would crush. But a rough hand way of prediction is available from crash statistics.

I think Vans cites crash statistics to show that your chances are much better at 60 than 80 than 100. I bet that has something to do with the physics, and A LOT MORE to do with the poor design of the restraint systems in these airplanes. In other words, you will probably stay in your belts, or survive the forces of slipping through at 60.

But as the speed goes up and the force on the body and belts increases the chance that your body will shift, bend, or distort, and slip through the belts.

In any case, crashing slower, and spreading the deceleration over a longer time frame at lower forces is a good thing.
 
brianwallis said:
So if you are planning on putting a POS engine in it go with the -9... A good engine... GO -7...
Click to expand...

I'm curious what makes an O-320 a POS and an O-360 not one??? I love blanket statements like that.

If one really wanted to stir up an arguement they could ask which ones have been having all the AD's and which ones have not? I would not call an O-320, or O-235 for that matter, a POS.

Scott - #90598 - N598SD Flying - 54 hours
 
Formation flying. If you see yourself doing a lot of it, put in the biggest engine you can afford with a C/S prop, and the -7 would beat the -9 hands down.

While we're on controversial topics, may as well make it a tip-up canopy as well. I spent half the day yesterday watching a pilot bob his head fore and aft due to his slider frame getting in the way of his view.

Not everybody wants to do "airshow" formation work, so if you don't see yourself getting into that, disregard.

Bottom line...don't listen to any of us. We all seem to be "100% right" about the choices we have made. Build what you want to fly. Even though a lot of us say we'll build 2nd, 3rd...airplanes, for some of us it'll be a while before we get to that. So build what you want to fly NOW.
 
Last edited:
Yukon said:
He's a student pilot, not an airshow performer.
Click to expand...
Understood. But how about in a year or three when his project is complete? I guess my point is...if you can help it, try not to close any doors that you think you might want to pass through at some point. An O-235 equipped RV-9 isn't gonna cut it if you want to fly your RV in the formation at OSH. Again, if you know you have no desire to do that, disregard.
 
dan said:
Bottom line...don't listen to any of us. We all seem to be "100% right" about the choices we have made. Build what you want to fly. Even though a lot of us say we'll build 2nd, 3rd...airplanes, for some of us it'll be a while before we get to that. So build what you want to fly NOW.
Click to expand...

You got that right, Dan.
It sometimes looks like new recruits worry more about making choices that will fulfill a mission that other people have in order to gain respect from the rest of the RV community rather than make choices that they should be able to make without ANY input from others.

Now, people who build Volksplanes... those guys definitely march to their own drummer. :D
 
Make Mine A 9

Dan,

Dan,
Didn't you have about 1600 hrs and an instrument rating when you finished your 7? The very fact that RV-7 is satisfying and challenging to you makes it a questionable choice for the beginner. Yes, it would be nice to build one aiplane for all experience levels, but I don't see that as a practical goal.

Fact is, the vast majority of RV pilots do not participate in airshow work. This student pilot probably won't either in the near future. I think he should look hard at the 9.

John











dan said:
Understood. But how about in a year or three when his project is complete? I guess my point is...if you can help it, try not to close any doors that you think you might want to pass through at some point. An O-235 equipped RV-9 isn't gonna cut it if you want to fly your RV in the formation at OSH. Again, if you know you have no desire to do that, disregard.
Click to expand...
 
Yukon said:
Didn't you have about 1600 hrs and an instrument rating when you finished your 7? The very fact that RV-7 is satisfying and challenging to you makes it a questionable choice for the beginner.
Click to expand...
I did...but to be honest I don't think the -7 is any more difficult to fly well than a -9 is to fly well. If anything, the fixed pitch -9 is more demanding in the landing phase. To put that more clearly, speed control in a C/S equipped -7 is actually pretty trivial...we have high wing loading and a "brake" (the prop)...whereas if you can nail your airspeeds and approach profiles in a fixed pitch -9 through varied conditions and entries, you're demonstrating above average ability imho.

Each plane will present its unique set of challenges, but I don't think it takes any more of a pilot to fly either well.
 
Why a 9?

Dan,

Interesting observations, but there are many more considerations built into a trainer than ease of airspeed control. Besides, many RV-9's have constant speed props. However, if this were the case, I really don't think Van would have dedicated the considerable time and effort to develope the RV-9 in the first place. He recognized the need for a low wing loading trainer, maybe we should too!

John
 
Yukon said:
Interesting observations, but there are many more considerations built into a trainer than ease of airspeed control. Besides, many RV-9's have constant speed props. However, if this were the case, I really don't think Van would have dedicated the considerable time and effort to develope the RV-9 in the first place. He recognized the need for a low wing loading trainer, maybe we should too!
Click to expand...
I agree with you 110%. I guess my message hasn't been put clearly enough. It's that each builder needs to evaluate the type of flying they want to do. If there are aspects of flying that are "currently" over your head, or if there are traits of a different model that are "currently" undesirable, perhaps in N years those aspects and traits will be areas you find the urge to explore. It's a simple matter of building another airplane, right? Sure, but all I'm saying is that perhaps it's worth the up-front learning curve to take on a slightly more demanding airplane in order to keep those doors open in the future. I'm definitely not saying, "Go with a -7!" I'm saying to the new pilot...examine your own desires and potential for growth and exploration.
 
Decisions, Decisions...........

Dan,
I see what you are saying. I really think it's good for the potential builder to explore all these issues before metal is cut. ****, I spent 18 months trying to decide what RV I wanted, but that was before this great Forum existed. Wish I could have had the benefit of this knowledge before hand, and I might have been flying by now!

Speaking of which, I'm going to go mount my carburetor! Bye!

John
 
I appreciate all of the input. I am not too worried about eventually becoming skilled enough to fly both the 7 and 9, so that's not really a deciding factor for me. My only hiccup is in convincing my dad that the 7, even though it is a pretty lousy glider, will still be a "safe" plane should the engine fail (given proper pilot training and practice). An Rv8 was pancaked into the ground around here last year, seriously injuring the pilot, and killing the passenger (probably preventable, but still scary to think about regardless). My dad is excited to build, but the sink rate of the 7 just freaks him out a little at this point because of that accident I think.

Even though everybody always says to "build what you want to build", the truth of the matter is that hearing opinions from other people truly does help in the decision making process. From what I can tell, planes have personalities, and stats don't really tell much about those personalities. That's where pilots who have flown the planes come in. So, thanks for the input, but keep it up, because I still don't know what I can tell my dad to convince him that the 7 will be fine for him! :confused:
 
Last edited:
skelrad said:
...I still don't know what I can tell my dad to convince him that the 7 will be fine for him! :confused:
Click to expand...
Get him a ride!!! Where are you located?
 
dan said:
Get him a ride!!! Where are you located?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's probably what it's going to take. We're in Colorado. My dad's busy with business for a few more months, but this fall I'll look someone up and get him up in a 7. It'll either convince him that the 7 is as fantastic as I've told him it is, or it'll make him want the 9 even more. Here's hoping...
 
Now I am not a high time pilot by any stretch, but I have flown in a couple 6's, Dan's 7, and a couple 9's.

They are not that much different. If you can fly a 9 you can fly a 7, and vice versus. If you cannot switch between them like nothing, then you better get some training. Dan is definitely right that a fixed pitch is a little tougher in either one (done both with both props) because it doesn't slow down as good. That being said I have ZERO problems slowing down my fixed pitch 9a. It's a thing called the throttle, pull it back while holding altitude and the plane slows down just fine. Do I run wide open to a mile final and expect to land? No.

I could be way off base and probably am, but with any altitude, in my opinion, odds are the same pilot faced with an engine out in a 7 or 9 are probably going to have the same result. They are not that much different. You want a bigger engine and/or aerobatics build a 7. Want a LITTLE BIT better instrument platform, no big engine, build a 9.

At least it's a good sign that no one is saying they made a bad choice, so they must all be good. As for me if I built again (kid on the way, wife won't let me) it would be a 10 or one of them RV-4's with short wings and a big engine. :)

Scott - #90598 - N598SD Flying - 54 hours
 
For most missions a 9 is probably fine, but if you can handle a 7, why wouldn't you. The emergency considerations are such a remote possiblity tha I would NEVER make my decison soley based on that.
 
If I were doing it again

The choice is obvious. Build an RV-7 with an 0-235 because it will be faster than a nine with the same engine. With the larger fuel tanks on the 7 I can fly around the globe and set endurance records without fabricating additional fuel tanks. Of course this plane would have both a tail wheel and a nose wheel. The nose wheel would be used for the majority of landings, but on those occasions where somebody might be watching I would just flair a little more and taxi blindly to the transient row. Of course this plane would have to have a tilting slider. With current fuel prices I would probably buy a wrecked Prius and install the synergy drive system so the engine could shut itself down when the 11 batteries mounted on the firewall to bring the CG into range are charged and providing modern power to my airplane. I will fly this airplane proudly and share my insights often. While I will boast often and beat my chest I will secretly dream of building an 0-320 powered RV-10, but that will just be my secret. ;)
 
Clever Boy

Excellent post, Bryan! Sarcasm is just what this young man needs at this point!

John
 
Yukon said:
Excellent post, Bryan! Sarcasm is just what this young man needs at this point!

John
Click to expand...
All sarcasm aside, both the 7 and the 9 are great airplanes. The fact that they are both RV's should tell anyone that they are going to be fun to fly. If your mind is set on the 7 but your dad is set on the 9 then perhaps you both should sit down and come to a consensus on what compromises you both can live with. I don't think there is anything any of us on here can say to convince your dad if his mind is made up already. Sink rates for these airplanes should be just a small part of what makes up the reasons for buying one type over the other. In my opinion this would be a very small part as they both have sink rates that are, although slightly different, for the sake of reality not that different. Therefore all of the other reasons already posted should also be taken into consideration. Whatever your choice I think both you and your dad will be happy with the result.
 
Bryan Wood said:
when the 11 batteries mounted on the firewall to bring the CG into range
Click to expand...
No, no, no! If he has 11 batteries on the firewall, then he'll have to decide whether or not to use an internally regulated alternator to keep them charged. And that is an even bigger decision that 7 vs. 9. Come on guys, we're here to help the poor guy, not make the decision harder!
 
I love it...you never know which way a thread is going to turn when you start it. :D No worries - sarcasm doesn't help a decision, but it keeps the process fun! I know I'll be happy with either plane, so even though I'm agonizing over the decision, the end result will be the same - lots of fun!
 
Aren't the fuses the same for the -7 and the -9?
Just build a set of -9 wings and a set of -7 wings and swap 'em out every now and then! :) :)

Thomas
 
TShort said:
Aren't the fuses the same for the -7 and the -9?
Just build a set of -9 wings and a set of -7 wings and swap 'em out every now and then! :) :)

Thomas
Click to expand...
Yeah the fuses are the same but you would also have to change out the tail feathers as they are different also.
 
How about you build a -7 and dad builds a -9? So you don't have to compromise :)

Otherwise, the guy who puts in more money into the project wins...
 
Mix and Match

Now that is an interesting question! I've also been wondering about the possibility of fitting 7 wings to a 9 fuselage somewhere down the road. Heck,
builders are currently violating just about every guidance Van puts out, why not mix and match wings!

John
 
Sarcasm

Brandon,

Sorry, I got caught up in the posts and lost sight of the original question. I just wrote a serious response with info on what we see with our 9A so you could compare it to what others are sharing about their 7's. Unfortunately it was 8500 characters and when I hit send it was rejected for being to long. Sorry, but I just can't do it again today. Last week I wrote my first trip report to post and had the same thing happen. I spent 5 nights writing it and pasted it in, linked the pictures and hit send. When the message came that I had typed 22,000 characters and to shorten it to 8,000 and remove about half of the photos I gave up. This trip report gave a lot of performance info about the trip and what it is like ride in the 9A for long periods of time, etc. Send me your e-mail address if you are interested and I'll send you the whole thing direct. If you choose the 7 and we ever travel together please hold a parking spot for us and order a sprite for me and a coke for my wife. We'll get there eventually. :D
 
Bryan Wood said:
Send me your e-mail address if you are interested and I'll send you the whole thing direct. If you choose the 7 and we ever travel together please hold a parking spot for us and order a sprite for me and a coke for my wife. We'll get there eventually. :D
Click to expand...

Thanks Bryan. That would be fantastic! I'll send you my email in a PM.
 
Private Message

Bryan your PM mail box is full. Let us know when its open so I can send you my address. Love to read your response about the 9 vs 7 and the trip report. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top