Not Just Another 7 vs 9 Thread

[Rallylancer122]

I'm assuming the 7 is similar in landing performance to the 8? If so, you may not want to discount it's short field performance. My Dad's 8 with a constant speed prop can land freakishly short. The prop allows me control the speed bang on and set up a fairly steep descent profile. And the Hershey bar wing does not float, so it's pretty easy to hit your spot. I used to have a Piper PA-12 (think Super Cub without flaps) and on a good day the 8 would turn off sooner. Getting out isn't a problem, but ours has an IO390 so it shouldn't be.

Have not flown a 9 so can't compare.

DEM

[ChiefPilot]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I was throttled back for that flight to extend my range.

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by N941WR

My point was, the short wing RV's don't perform as well up high as the -9 with that wonder Roncz airfoil does.

And yet there is that pesky video that seems to suggest otherwise.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Rallylancer122

I'm assuming the 7 is similar in landing performance to the 8? If so, you may not want to discount it's short field performance. My Dad's 8 with a constant speed prop can land freakishly short. The prop allows me control the speed bang on and set up a fairly steep descent profile. And the Hershey bar wing does not float, so it's pretty easy to hit your spot. I used to have a Piper PA-12 (think Super Cub without flaps) and on a good day the 8 would turn off sooner. Getting out isn't a problem, but ours has an IO390 so it shouldn't be.

Have not flown a 9 so can't compare.

DEM

It is the same but will get off quicker than an -8, when equipped with the same engine and prop combination.

All distances are from Van's site and are for the 160 HP tail draggers versions at GW:

RV-7
Take off: 650'
Landing: 500'
ROC: 1,400 FPM
Ceiling: 18,500'
75% Cruise: 191
Stall: 58 mph
Range: 835 SM

RV-8
Take off: 650'
Landing: 500'
ROC: 1,400 FPM
Ceiling: 18,500'
75% Cruise: 195 mph
Stall: 58 mph
Range: 855 SM

RV-9
Take off: 475'
Landing: 450'
ROC: 1,400 FPM
Ceiling: 19,000'
75% Cruise: 188 mph
Stall: 50 mph
Range: 710 SM

Out of curiosity, I looked up a 260 HP Maule M7.
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%...e/Maule/24.htm)
Take off: 600'
Landing: 500'
ROC: 1,650 FPM (Well below GW.)
Ceiling: 20,000'
75% Cruise: 164 mph
Stall: 40 mph (Well below GW.)
Range: ? (But this thing hauls a bunch of fuel!)

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by ChiefPilot

Uh huh.

Yep, I am carbureted and to have the engine run smoothly at LOP settings, I and to pull back a little bit. I don't recall the ROP settings, so I can't give you any kind of numbers for that.

Originally Posted by ChiefPilot

And yet there is that pesky video that seems to suggest otherwise.

Yep, that pesky video showed you were running 28.3 NMPG and I was running 30.6 NMPG

The -9 wins again.

[snoop9erdog]

Regardless of the model or the performance numbers.

Ditch the pole vault nosewheel design and be a real man.

Put the little wheel in the back...I changed my mind on my build to tailwheel. Hope I like it.

Uh oh....now I did it.

[Captain Avgas]

Let me see now.....RV7 owners are suggesting the OP build an RV7, and RV9 owners are suggesting the OP build an RV9....and there are builders who haven't even flown yet who are extolling the flight virtues of their aircraft.

Some things just never change on VansAirforce.

[tomww]

Originally Posted by N941WR

Yep, I am carbureted and to have the engine run smoothly at LOP settings, I and to pull back a little bit. I don't recall the ROP settings, so I can't give you any kind of numbers for that.


Yep, that pesky video showed you were running 28.3 NMPG and I was running 30.6 NMPG

The -9 wins again.

Do you really not realise your ground speed and MPG are due to a stonking great tail wind?

I flew for 3 Long flights with my friend in his nose dragger 9. When we added up the fuel used I had use 1L more in my 7. Don’t choose you airframe for fuel speed etc there is not enough to make a difference.



For the OP. If you are not interested in Aeros then a 9 is the way to go. The lower landing speed is the advantage of the 9.

Me. I’ll stick to my 7 with 200hp and the ability to turn it upside down thanks.

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by snoop9erdog

Ditch the pole vault nosewheel design and be a real man.

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

Some things just never change on VansAirforce.

Yes, the nose vs tail wheel debate always starts from a tail wheel person. They seem to be most insecure about the position of their little wheel.

[StuBob]

Originally Posted by snoop9erdog

Regardless of the model or the performance numbers.

Ditch the pole vault nosewheel design and be a real man.

Put the little wheel in the back...I changed my mind on my build to tailwheel. Hope I like it.

Uh oh....now I did it.

I'm not worried about the third wheel reflecting my manhood; I fly floats!

I am concerned about chuck holes in the runway, though. On the one hand, a nosewheel makes it easier to see and avoid them. On the other, if I don't see one and roll into it, I'd rather tear off the tailwheel than pogo over the nose.

My original choice for this project was a Carbon Cub. Then I realized I'd be spending a lot of money to go awfully slow.

[Pat Stewart]

Originally Posted by snoop9erdog

Regardless of the model or the performance numbers.

Ditch the pole vault nosewheel design and be a real man.

Put the little wheel in the back...I changed my mind on my build to tailwheel. Hope I like it.

Uh oh....now I did it.

Well I have built and flown both, I do think the tail wheel may be a little cooler looking but I will always fly the nose dragger going forward. The pole vault issue is pilot error but it is true the nose gear is not a big heavy Cessna design.

Both the 7Aand 9A are great, if you want a more dousal landing airplane with no aero buy the 9A, but IMO the more rounded airplane is the 7A. The rest of the comparable differences are so small there not worth discussing. As for the short wing 6, some are way off on this one. The 6A is a very good performer, I have flown on cross country trips with several. The numbers are very close and the 6 or 6A is the best RV value of all, but if you buy one get the O360.