Hey I have a couple of questions for you knowledgable RV pilots. I am thinking about building an RV9 or just buying a used RV6. How much harder is the 6 to fly over the 9 and does the RV6 climb better. I am a cessna 172, cherokee 140 pilot and want something that I can manage. I have heard the 9 is a great low time pilot plane but I am not sure I want to build. The older 6's are cheaper and still look great. Just want some honest opinions. Thanks Guys.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV9 vs RV6
- Thread starter iluv2fly
- Start date
Well, I am not sure that you will ever get an unbiased opinion, but both models seem to be great.
Personally, I only flew 152's and and owned a 172 so when I got my first flight in a 6A I was probably on your level. In my opinion, being a fairly low time pilot, the 6A was a bit too sensitive for my tastes. It took only a very small amount of input to turn...so much so that I felt if I were to not pay quite enough attention I could find myself looking a little crooked at the Earth when I got back. Just too touchy in smooth air to make feel comfortable building the 7, which is why I chose the 9A.
I have not flown a 9 yet, but if it is even remotely more stable than the 6 I am sold (which I guess I already am) because even though it made me a bit nervous, it was soooo fun! In the end, you probably could get used to either and, yes, I do sometimes regret that I will never be able to flip mine over and see the world spin around me, I figure it is a worth while price to pay for my piece of mind when turning final with a heavy cross wind and a 40' wide runway.
Just my opinion!!!!
Personally, I only flew 152's and and owned a 172 so when I got my first flight in a 6A I was probably on your level. In my opinion, being a fairly low time pilot, the 6A was a bit too sensitive for my tastes. It took only a very small amount of input to turn...so much so that I felt if I were to not pay quite enough attention I could find myself looking a little crooked at the Earth when I got back. Just too touchy in smooth air to make feel comfortable building the 7, which is why I chose the 9A.
I have not flown a 9 yet, but if it is even remotely more stable than the 6 I am sold (which I guess I already am) because even though it made me a bit nervous, it was soooo fun! In the end, you probably could get used to either and, yes, I do sometimes regret that I will never be able to flip mine over and see the world spin around me, I figure it is a worth while price to pay for my piece of mind when turning final with a heavy cross wind and a 40' wide runway.
Just my opinion!!!!
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
I flew Van's 9A but have never flown any other RV--so take this with a grain of salt.
Most of my time is flown in a Cessna 182. The 9A, on my short flight, seemed every bit as stable as the 182 (at least on a calm day), but much more responsive--it went exactly where I pointed it, right away! Gus at Van's took me on a flight, banked about 25-30 degrees, stalled three or four times, and the wings did not even drop an inch--the plane just mushed in that same 25-30 degree bank. Stalls in C150s while I was training were not nearly so benign--they always dropped a wing on me pretty hard. One other thing--Gus gave me the entire approach, from the practice area, into the pattern and then over the fence. I kept expecting him to take back the controls and finally, did only to keep the nose up on roll out. It was a very easy plane to fly. I learned in about .5 hours!
Perhaps more important, from my perspective... I chose the 9 over the 7 for the much lower stall speed and sink rate over the 6/7/8. If you have to land off airport, a stall speed of 44 vs 51 mph or whatever the differences are (it's about 7 mph if I remember correctly) mean an exponential increase in survivability if you hit something. Just as importantly, the power off sink rate is about 700 fpm in the 9 vs about 1500 fpm in the 6/7/8. I'll take twice the amount of time to figure out what I'm going to do when my engine fails any day!
That said, I too will wish I could occassionally go upside down, but choices have to be made. So far I'm completely happy with mine. If you want to go upside down, get the 6. If you have no need to go upside down I cannot see any reason to get anything other than the 9 (except you will probably have to build it yourself until more 9's are flying and being sold)!
Good luck with your decision. I was basically in your shoes a couple years ago.
Steve
Most of my time is flown in a Cessna 182. The 9A, on my short flight, seemed every bit as stable as the 182 (at least on a calm day), but much more responsive--it went exactly where I pointed it, right away! Gus at Van's took me on a flight, banked about 25-30 degrees, stalled three or four times, and the wings did not even drop an inch--the plane just mushed in that same 25-30 degree bank. Stalls in C150s while I was training were not nearly so benign--they always dropped a wing on me pretty hard. One other thing--Gus gave me the entire approach, from the practice area, into the pattern and then over the fence. I kept expecting him to take back the controls and finally, did only to keep the nose up on roll out. It was a very easy plane to fly. I learned in about .5 hours!
Perhaps more important, from my perspective... I chose the 9 over the 7 for the much lower stall speed and sink rate over the 6/7/8. If you have to land off airport, a stall speed of 44 vs 51 mph or whatever the differences are (it's about 7 mph if I remember correctly) mean an exponential increase in survivability if you hit something. Just as importantly, the power off sink rate is about 700 fpm in the 9 vs about 1500 fpm in the 6/7/8. I'll take twice the amount of time to figure out what I'm going to do when my engine fails any day!
That said, I too will wish I could occassionally go upside down, but choices have to be made. So far I'm completely happy with mine. If you want to go upside down, get the 6. If you have no need to go upside down I cannot see any reason to get anything other than the 9 (except you will probably have to build it yourself until more 9's are flying and being sold)!
Good luck with your decision. I was basically in your shoes a couple years ago.
Steve
The main difference to me between the two models (other than the acro limitation) is that the 9 has a considerably larger tail than the 6 (and is less pitch sensitive in the flare).
I have about 750 landings now in my RV-6 and there have been times when the rudder was all the way to the floor and I would have liked a little more. Friends in 8's and 7's have more rudder authority (and 9's) - plain and simple.
The 6 is harder to land than the 7, 8 and 9 - but not impossible by any means and certainly something you can master. It's really a mixed bag here decision wise, do you want to *ever* do acro and/or would you want more crosswind authority.
Personally, I vowed to never do formation or acro and now I can't get enough of either, so I can attest to the 'interests change' school of thought .
I suspect either model will provide the RV Grin you seek!
Best always,
I have about 750 landings now in my RV-6 and there have been times when the rudder was all the way to the floor and I would have liked a little more. Friends in 8's and 7's have more rudder authority (and 9's) - plain and simple.
The 6 is harder to land than the 7, 8 and 9 - but not impossible by any means and certainly something you can master. It's really a mixed bag here decision wise, do you want to *ever* do acro and/or would you want more crosswind authority.
Personally, I vowed to never do formation or acro and now I can't get enough of either, so I can attest to the 'interests change' school of thought
. I suspect either model will provide the RV Grin you seek!
Best always,
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
Legal disclaimer: Take everything I?m about to say with a grain of salt as I have never flown in a -9, just a bunch of hearsay.
A few months ago I spoke to a gentleman in Canada who is selling his O-290 powered -9A. Turns out he had previously built and owned a -6. When I asked him what the difference between the two was and which he preferred to fly he said the -9A was his hands down favorite.
Now I?m going to paraphrase what he said.
? The -9A was much more stable, better instrument panel.
? -9A was a better cruiser and since he wasn?t into doing even mild acro, that wasn?t an issue.
? The -9A would float more if you carried even a little bit more speed.
? The slower landing speeds were considered a blessing when flying over the Canadian Northwest.
? The -6 landed like a Cherokee, you had to keep the speed up or you would come down like a brick.
There was more but you get the idea.
A few months ago I spoke to a gentleman in Canada who is selling his O-290 powered -9A. Turns out he had previously built and owned a -6. When I asked him what the difference between the two was and which he preferred to fly he said the -9A was his hands down favorite.
Now I?m going to paraphrase what he said.
? The -9A was much more stable, better instrument panel.
? -9A was a better cruiser and since he wasn?t into doing even mild acro, that wasn?t an issue.
? The -9A would float more if you carried even a little bit more speed.
? The slower landing speeds were considered a blessing when flying over the Canadian Northwest.
? The -6 landed like a Cherokee, you had to keep the speed up or you would come down like a brick.
There was more but you get the idea.
N
n76gc
RV9 vs RV 6
I have built and flown both the Six and Nine. The Six is a super airplane, but as others have said it is very sensitive. One of the reasons I built the Nine is that I am a senior citizen and the Nine is so much more docile than the Six. If I were. a young man I would go with the Six, Seven, or Eight. The Nine is a great stick and rubber airplane and has almost the same performance as the others. The one thing I don't like about the Nine is it is a floater and requires precise approach speeds. The Nine has only 32degrees of flaps where the Six has forty. I could land the Six in half the distance of the Nine. This is very critical when landing on a short field with obstacles. When there is 2000" with no obstacles both can almost quailfy as STOL airplanes. I have flown almost all the single engine aircraft in my forty years of flying and the RVs are head and shoulders above the rest. The only thing more fun to fly is a old Cub with the windows open. Gerry Chancey, RV 9, N92GC
I have built and flown both the Six and Nine. The Six is a super airplane, but as others have said it is very sensitive. One of the reasons I built the Nine is that I am a senior citizen and the Nine is so much more docile than the Six. If I were. a young man I would go with the Six, Seven, or Eight. The Nine is a great stick and rubber airplane and has almost the same performance as the others. The one thing I don't like about the Nine is it is a floater and requires precise approach speeds. The Nine has only 32degrees of flaps where the Six has forty. I could land the Six in half the distance of the Nine. This is very critical when landing on a short field with obstacles. When there is 2000" with no obstacles both can almost quailfy as STOL airplanes. I have flown almost all the single engine aircraft in my forty years of flying and the RVs are head and shoulders above the rest. The only thing more fun to fly is a old Cub with the windows open. Gerry Chancey, RV 9, N92GC
n2prise
Well Known Member
RV-9 climbs better than all the others...
I read all the postings above and no one mentioned the climb rate question you posed. From the first time the Van's airplane had the 160 HP engine in it, the factory guys reported it would climb faster than the 180 or 200 HP RV-6, 7, or 8 airplanes due to the longer wing span on the 9.
One thing intersting about getting transition training for the 9: Mike Seager uses an RV-6A to train RV-9A pilots. If you can fly that one, the 9 is a piece of cake.
I have flown in two different RV-9A airplanes from the right seat, and they are smooth!
Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
www.n2prise.org
I read all the postings above and no one mentioned the climb rate question you posed. From the first time the Van's airplane had the 160 HP engine in it, the factory guys reported it would climb faster than the 180 or 200 HP RV-6, 7, or 8 airplanes due to the longer wing span on the 9.
One thing intersting about getting transition training for the 9: Mike Seager uses an RV-6A to train RV-9A pilots. If you can fly that one, the 9 is a piece of cake.
I have flown in two different RV-9A airplanes from the right seat, and they are smooth!
Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
www.n2prise.org
Peetie the Pilot
Active Member
Can vouch for the "9"
I own a "9A" and I must say it is the most fantastic plane I have flown. In my 32 years of flying, it has to be the best plane I have stapped myself into and is the right fit for those long cross-country trips I have planned. With its light wing loading, you will feel those 'bumps' in the sky but this is not a bad trade off for having the ability to land 'slow.' Like others in this forum, I am not into 'aeros' and therefore staight & level is good enough which the '9' does very well. Good Luck with your project.
Peetie the Pilot
RV-9A #90491
I own a "9A" and I must say it is the most fantastic plane I have flown. In my 32 years of flying, it has to be the best plane I have stapped myself into and is the right fit for those long cross-country trips I have planned. With its light wing loading, you will feel those 'bumps' in the sky but this is not a bad trade off for having the ability to land 'slow.' Like others in this forum, I am not into 'aeros' and therefore staight & level is good enough which the '9' does very well. Good Luck with your project. Peetie the Pilot
RV-9A #90491
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
9A vs. 6A
Here's two more cents for you from another with a flying 9A. If I had to think of reasons not to like a 6A or a 7A I really couldn't come up with any. After all Van's changed the entire general aviation market with the RV-4 and RV-6's. I have flown in Rv-6's, one with a fixed pitch three blade and and 0-360, and another with a constant speed and an 0-360. Both were fantastic and made me literally think about these planes daily for about 5 years. When I finally decided to pull the trigger and buy a kit a friend with an RV-6 told me that if he was to do it again he would build the 9A. I was having no part of this advice and was set on a 6, keep you nosewheel thank you. Mine would have a IO-360 and be very fast. After all, this dream was five years or so in the making and this was going to be fast, climb well and be the envy of all my friends that thought I was crazy to build one of these things. Anyway, this was my plan.
Deciding on a tour and a ride before purchasing I made the trip to Aurora. When Ken S. took me into the hanger and I saw the 9A sitting there next to Ole Blue and an RV-4 my mind was changed instantly. The plane had a real presence and I started looking for reasons to justify this thing over 5 years of dreaming about a six. Anyway, Ken was very in tune with my weakness for the 9A and took me up in completing the transition in my thinking. We were off of the ground long before I was ready for it and when we landed he had to add power to pull forward to the first turnout. With the two of us and full fuel (we filled it prior to the flight) we climbed out at 1700fpm and were at pattern altitude before leaving the airport perimeter. The controls were light and responsive but the plane was still very stable. Sold!
Last April I went up to Oregon for transition training and got about 5 hours in the factory 9A with Mike Seeger. Don't be fooled if you haven't been in one of these yet, this airplane is a real hot rod. Power it back and it is more docile than the 150 Cessna that most of you learned in. Anyway, all through the building process I went through the 0-320 vs. 0-360 debate and during my transition training with Mike I knew that I had made the right decision with the 0-320. If anything the plane is overpowered with 160hp and any more is really pointless. This is a tough concept to understand when reading and analyzing choices, but strap on the 9A with 160hp and it makes perfect sense. Van really got this thing right. Much like the RV-4 with a 0-320 which I have heard to be the best of all Van's configurations, the 9A mated with an 0-320 seems a close second.
Lastly, a question my wife asks me when I cannot decide between two items. In this case it would be both the RV-6/7, or the RV-9A. If you owned both and were about to go flying, which one would you take? The folks at the factory kind of answered this one for me because I was told that the 9A was the first choice of everybody on the long trips to Sun N Fun or Oshkosh.
Blue Skies,
Bryan
Here's two more cents for you from another with a flying 9A. If I had to think of reasons not to like a 6A or a 7A I really couldn't come up with any. After all Van's changed the entire general aviation market with the RV-4 and RV-6's. I have flown in Rv-6's, one with a fixed pitch three blade and and 0-360, and another with a constant speed and an 0-360. Both were fantastic and made me literally think about these planes daily for about 5 years. When I finally decided to pull the trigger and buy a kit a friend with an RV-6 told me that if he was to do it again he would build the 9A. I was having no part of this advice and was set on a 6, keep you nosewheel thank you. Mine would have a IO-360 and be very fast. After all, this dream was five years or so in the making and this was going to be fast, climb well and be the envy of all my friends that thought I was crazy to build one of these things. Anyway, this was my plan.
Deciding on a tour and a ride before purchasing I made the trip to Aurora. When Ken S. took me into the hanger and I saw the 9A sitting there next to Ole Blue and an RV-4 my mind was changed instantly. The plane had a real presence and I started looking for reasons to justify this thing over 5 years of dreaming about a six. Anyway, Ken was very in tune with my weakness for the 9A and took me up in completing the transition in my thinking. We were off of the ground long before I was ready for it and when we landed he had to add power to pull forward to the first turnout. With the two of us and full fuel (we filled it prior to the flight) we climbed out at 1700fpm and were at pattern altitude before leaving the airport perimeter. The controls were light and responsive but the plane was still very stable. Sold!
Last April I went up to Oregon for transition training and got about 5 hours in the factory 9A with Mike Seeger. Don't be fooled if you haven't been in one of these yet, this airplane is a real hot rod. Power it back and it is more docile than the 150 Cessna that most of you learned in. Anyway, all through the building process I went through the 0-320 vs. 0-360 debate and during my transition training with Mike I knew that I had made the right decision with the 0-320. If anything the plane is overpowered with 160hp and any more is really pointless. This is a tough concept to understand when reading and analyzing choices, but strap on the 9A with 160hp and it makes perfect sense. Van really got this thing right. Much like the RV-4 with a 0-320 which I have heard to be the best of all Van's configurations, the 9A mated with an 0-320 seems a close second.
Lastly, a question my wife asks me when I cannot decide between two items. In this case it would be both the RV-6/7, or the RV-9A. If you owned both and were about to go flying, which one would you take? The folks at the factory kind of answered this one for me because I was told that the 9A was the first choice of everybody on the long trips to Sun N Fun or Oshkosh.
Blue Skies,
Bryan
txaviator
Well Known Member
And speaking of Van's, when I was there the -9 was not to be found. I asked Scott if we could wait for the -9 to return from a test flight, and he said "Van takes it home fairly often, and that's where it is at". (Van has a strip at his house). We took the -9A, and while I am building a -9, this plane was awesome. Nothing against the -6 at all, but I truly don't plan on aerobatics. And I will really appreciate the more docile handling of the -9.
The bottom line? ANY Van's model is the right one to choose!
p.s. I also heard from Scott, that he personally tried to fly the -9 to shows. He said Van always planned the flights/pilot selections to the airshows in a very technical manner: whoever got to the hangar first, got to choose their ride to the event.
The bottom line? ANY Van's model is the right one to choose!
p.s. I also heard from Scott, that he personally tried to fly the -9 to shows. He said Van always planned the flights/pilot selections to the airshows in a very technical manner: whoever got to the hangar first, got to choose their ride to the event.
n2prise
Well Known Member
Choosing the RV-9A...
I have read all the posts above this one and I must say I agree, since I have a -9A just about ready to go to the airport.
The thing I learned in this post is the guy who got transition training in the RV-9A instead of the RV-6A like a friend of mine from the Huntsville, Alabama area who finished his RV-9A and has it flying now.
So, I guess there is hope for me to get Mike Seager and the RV-9A if the timing is correct on my trip to Oregon for training.
Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
I have read all the posts above this one and I must say I agree, since I have a -9A just about ready to go to the airport.
The thing I learned in this post is the guy who got transition training in the RV-9A instead of the RV-6A like a friend of mine from the Huntsville, Alabama area who finished his RV-9A and has it flying now.
So, I guess there is hope for me to get Mike Seager and the RV-9A if the timing is correct on my trip to Oregon for training.
Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
Jerry-
When I was at Van's for my demo ride, I had to wait for Mike Seager to get back with a student he was transitioning into the 9A using Van's 9A. In that case, he didn't use his own 6, so I know using Van's 9A for transition would not be unheard of--probably just a matter of scheduling. Will be interested to hear if it works out for you to do so as well.
Steve
When I was at Van's for my demo ride, I had to wait for Mike Seager to get back with a student he was transitioning into the 9A using Van's 9A. In that case, he didn't use his own 6, so I know using Van's 9A for transition would not be unheard of--probably just a matter of scheduling. Will be interested to hear if it works out for you to do so as well.
Steve
bsacks05
Well Known Member
taildragger -9
Hey Steve,
Go with the -9, we need better representation at SnF next year! Besides, that's Vans choice as his daily commuter. Anyway, you can think about it as you're building the wings. I changed from a 9A to 9 midway through the wings. My goal is to have mine ready for next April.
Bruce Sacks
-9 finishing kit
Hey Steve,
Go with the -9, we need better representation at SnF next year! Besides, that's Vans choice as his daily commuter. Anyway, you can think about it as you're building the wings. I changed from a 9A to 9 midway through the wings. My goal is to have mine ready for next April.
Bruce Sacks
-9 finishing kit
Well What can I say
I am flying an RV-6A And it is very easy to fly and it is FAST! I rode with Jim Younkin in his RV-9A and it is considerably slower. After owning a wonderful Archer II for 22 years and flight planning at 120 knots increased speed, range and altitude were very very (one more time VERY!) important to me. I am only 68 so I may change my view when I get old but for now there is no way I want to compromise any of the big three performance parameters, especially speed. I do not fly aerobatics but I do travel and the RV-6A is a traveling machine. If speed is not that important to you then I suspect the RV-9 series is easier to fly. Either aircraft will make you proud.
Bob Axsom
RV-6A, N710BJ
I am flying an RV-6A And it is very easy to fly and it is FAST! I rode with Jim Younkin in his RV-9A and it is considerably slower. After owning a wonderful Archer II for 22 years and flight planning at 120 knots increased speed, range and altitude were very very (one more time VERY!) important to me. I am only 68 so I may change my view when I get old but for now there is no way I want to compromise any of the big three performance parameters, especially speed. I do not fly aerobatics but I do travel and the RV-6A is a traveling machine. If speed is not that important to you then I suspect the RV-9 series is easier to fly. Either aircraft will make you proud.
Bob Axsom
RV-6A, N710BJ
N916K
Well Known Member
Not so sure about the 9's being slower
...I rode with Jim Younkin in his RV-9A and it is considerably slower.... From talking with a regular pilot of that plane, it's a slow plane, not sure why though.
I just finished running some more numbers on my plane today to finish calibrating my Dynon. I have an RV9A with 160hp o320, Sensenich 79" FP prop. All my fiberglass is on, not pretty though.
Some basic rpm and speeds are:
4500 feet, 3 degrees C, 4 way GPS GS runs converted to TAS
1930 rpm 118 knots
2140 rpm 134 knots
2450 rpm 155 knots
2560 rpm 164 knots
These speeds are pretty much right on with what Van's claims. The Sensenich props are limited to 2600 rpm which comes out to about 75% power at just a little altitude.
I'm not sure what an RV6 with the same motor gets but I can't believe it too much faster. Van's clams within about 1mph. A friend on mine has an RV4 with the same engine, on the way to SnF we were flat out for a couple of hours and we ran within about 1 knot and our planes took the same amout of fuel when we landed.
So as far as speed goes, with the same engine I don't believe the 9 is any slower.
...I rode with Jim Younkin in his RV-9A and it is considerably slower.... From talking with a regular pilot of that plane, it's a slow plane, not sure why though.
I just finished running some more numbers on my plane today to finish calibrating my Dynon. I have an RV9A with 160hp o320, Sensenich 79" FP prop. All my fiberglass is on, not pretty though.
Some basic rpm and speeds are:
4500 feet, 3 degrees C, 4 way GPS GS runs converted to TAS
1930 rpm 118 knots
2140 rpm 134 knots
2450 rpm 155 knots
2560 rpm 164 knots
These speeds are pretty much right on with what Van's claims. The Sensenich props are limited to 2600 rpm which comes out to about 75% power at just a little altitude.
I'm not sure what an RV6 with the same motor gets but I can't believe it too much faster. Van's clams within about 1mph. A friend on mine has an RV4 with the same engine, on the way to SnF we were flat out for a couple of hours and we ran within about 1 knot and our planes took the same amout of fuel when we landed.
So as far as speed goes, with the same engine I don't believe the 9 is any slower.
N
n76gc
Having built both a Six and a Nine The Nine is no slouch in the speed department. From my home airport to SNF which is approximately 150 Miles. It took me 46 minutes my Six couldn't have done much better. By the way I believe I was the only one there with a Nine (tailwheel) Gerry Chancey, N92GC, 70 Years Young
