![]() |
Quote:
1) The -7 has the larger counter-balanced rudder same as a -9. My -6a has a smaller counterbalanced rudder similar to a -8. 2) The -7 has the sheared wingtips; my -6a has the Hoerner style tips. 3) The -7 has a slightly wider span than my -6A. 4) The -7 has a flat bottom skin between the wing spar and the cowling where the same skin on the -6A matches transitions from flat behind the cowling to a slightly convex shape to match the dehiedral angle at the point where the spars enter the fuselage. The same cowling, wheel pants, fairings, etc. are used on both. |
One major difference not mentioned is the RV7 has the RV8 wings which include longer ailerons with crisper control characteristics.
Pat |
No imperical data...
Quote:
I am sure it is arguable. |
Sorry pat, the oposite is true.
Quote:
|
Yep! It's certainly arguable.
Quote:
The primary purpose of the -7 was to make the kit easier to manufacture and easier to build. |
Agreed...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Consider your statement retracted. :) (except in the archives where it will live forever!!) |
Same airfoil, same fuselage cross section, longer wing span.
|
This is just speculation, but having a complete computer model would allow some very rapid iteration on design choices. If the 6 was hand designed, there would have been less iteration and more building. The design would have been finalized and moved on. Having the ability to optimize the design more on the 7 means that they could remove excess weight, shift this component slightly, shift that component slightly, etc. and still end up with essentially the same plane.
|
One advantage of the -7 over the -6 is if you break something. For the most part, -7 parts are plug and play. For example when my rudder was banged up in a hangar door incident I built up a new rudder and bolted it right on. The non-prepunched parts on the -6 make fabbing new parts a little tricker, although obviously still doable.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 AM. |