|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

02-07-2014, 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 36
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naigool
Hi folks,
I'm really concerned on what Roger said and recommend to me... Is there any "new" pilot with less than 200 hours of flight experience owning and flying a RV7A ??? I'm now very confused and very close to change mind!
Thank for all recommandation guys
|
My advice is to spend a little upfront figuring this problem out. Which one you decided to build will be a huge time and money committment, so don't be afraid of a little research cost. Where are you? Maybe try finding people near you who own a 7 and a 12 and ask them for a ride, for your share of fuel or dinner, or a fee, or whatever. Or, if you can't, consider a vacation to an RV training center. Even if you have to fly to one of the US training centers spending the $1000+ that would take would be money well spent if it saves you a decision you'll regret.
I guarantee a ride in each will make your decision easier. But where I'm leaning is it's always better to fly cheap than not at all, and planes you outgrow can always be sold, so... 12.
Have you considered buying over building? Way faster... but comes with its own headaches.
__________________
SEL +HP +Complex
Glider Instructor
No RV (Yet!) - drooling for a 4
RVators: Titanium Bolts, Screws, Nuts, and Washers at www.tiwings.com - a veteran-owned small business. PM me for any hardware needs!
VAF Advertiser
2014 Dues Paid - Active Duty, Paid Anyway. Thanks for the services!
|

02-08-2014, 04:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Ollon Switzerland
Posts: 78
|
|
Nobody to defend the RV7?
|

02-08-2014, 05:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
|
|
Nicolas,
The RV-7 doesn't need any defending. It is a wonderful aircraft that excels in the mission for which it was designed. I don't think there is an aircraft to compare with it in terms of handling, performance, utility and versatility. The ball is now in your court and you must make a decision.
Based on what I understand, you want more performance than the 160hp Robin is providing. The RV-7 will fulfil this wish of yours as it is a great performer and in a completely different performance category to the the RV-12.
It is realistic to say that even if you decide on a quick build RV-7, it will take you more than two years to complete. If, as you say, you expect to have accumulated 200 flying hours by then, you should be ready for the 7.
There are a few RV-7's flying in Switzerland and at least one RV-12. So go and get yourself a ride in each and make your decision. The longer you wait, the later it will be finished.
I would recommend getting some training in an RV before you fly it yourself. I will certainly be doing that before I fly my own in spite of my experience. It is sad to hear that it is mainly professional pilots who get training before flying their RV's and less so private pilots.
It may interest you to know that I'm thinking of building an RV-12 after I finish my RV-7! I would like to keep and fly both.
|

02-08-2014, 06:04 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 988
|
|
not in the same ballpark...
The very idea of considering a -12 vs -7 is bizarre 
__________________
Stephen
RV7 powered by a lycoming thunderbolt IO-390
turning a whirlwind HRT prop
with more hours flying than building... 2,430 on the hobbs!
ORCA Flight
Race 771
margarita!
|

02-08-2014, 08:15 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Estes Park, CO
Posts: 3,947
|
|
defend?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naigool
Nobody to defend the RV7?
|
Unnecessary. Get a ride or better, ask if you can fly a bit. That's why it's called the $50,000 ride! Someone posted a good idea to travel somewhere to experience them. It's worth it to help make the decision.
__________________
Larry Larson
Estes Park, CO
http://wirejockrv7a.blogspot.com
wirejock at yahoo dot com
Donated 12/03/2019, plus a little extra.
RV-7A #73391, N511RV reserved (2,000+ hours)
HS SB, empennage, tanks, wings, fuse, working finishing kit
Disclaimer
I cannot be, nor will I be, held responsible if you try to do the same things I do and it does not work and/or causes you loss, injury, or even death in the process.
|

02-08-2014, 10:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 710
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by schristo@mac.com
The very idea of considering a -12 vs -7 is bizarre 
|
I know where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I'd call it bizarre. I think it's a matter of perspective. An apple and an orange look about the same to a starving man. Likewise, to a person that's not particularly interested in acro or speed, the two planes look similar. I recently took test flights in both a 7A and a 12 and was equally impressed with both.
|

02-08-2014, 01:19 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Townsend, Montana
Posts: 3,179
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by schristo@mac.com
The very idea of considering a -12 vs -7 is bizarre 
|
I tend to agree. I'd guess, the people with this dilemma want to fly...but do not have enough experience to know what they don't know.
Need to make a list. here's a start...
1. acro
2. speed (fuel burn, cross country, racing)
3. training
4. short field
5. rough strips
6. wild life spotting
7. camping
8. 4 seats
9. Light sport medical
10. budget
11. comfort
I'll use myself as an example. I was a 200hr pilot, (cessna and citabria) but wanted a plane to travel to see our kids and also fun wildlife spotting, pancake runs, fly-ins etc. I looked at a "J" Bonanza which filled the travel need, but not much else. The fuel burn wasn't good for the other stuff. I helped build a Rans S-6,,,great little light sport for local flying but very limited baggage and travel. I fell for the Vans RV sales pitch after a ride in a Rv-6 and then a RV-4. A fun sport plane with great XC potential. (I do miss the wildlife spotting capability of the Citabria and the 4 seats of the 182) I almost ordered a -9, but Kris is not a great flyer and said "if you are building one make it a fast one, to limit how long it takes to get somewhere" That's how I ended up with a -7. 8-8.5gph at 178-180kts TAS is a normal cruise setting for me. Locally I will throttle back once in a while140kts @ 5.5gph, but I also like to do speed runs down the valley burning as much fuel as possible.
So could I have done a -12 vs 7...not for my calibrated choices
__________________
Retired Dam guy. Life is good.
Brian, N155BKsold but bought back.
Last edited by hydroguy2 : 02-08-2014 at 01:48 PM.
|

02-08-2014, 02:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
|
|
Basically I think we're all saying the same things in different words.
Both the RV-7 and RV-12 are very sweet aircraft with great handling qualities and in that sense very similar.
The RV-12 is ideal for short hops and sight seeing with its superb visibility out the cockpit. This is the aircraft to go and spot wildlife and take in the panorama of the Alps. It is economical as it is difficult to burn much more than 6 gph.
The RV-7 offers aerobatic capability and will get you further on a full tank of gas in a shorter space of time so it's a better aircraft to travel longer distances. It is also economical considering it's cruising speed. Its short field performance is also better.
What you see on your VSI or ASI you either get used to very quickly or it becomes a drug and you need more of it. If you need more of it, you'll soon have the desire build something else or go and fly with the military or the airlines (short range) where good performance is routine.
If you're into racing, the RV-7 could be an entry level aircraft. 180 kts looks more impressive at low level but you become accustomed to that too but a residual thrill will remain. Where do you do air racing in Europe other than the UK?
Define your mission and decide what you want Nicolas. Be aware that with the numerous short grass strips in Europe, there have been a number of RV-XA (nose wheel) accidents. Interestingly, most of these accidents involved pilots who were either low time or had not built their aircraft themselves. Be sure you are aware of these issues when making your decision. These accidents are avoidable once you have familiarised yourself with the cause.
Any way you decide, you will end up with a far nicer aircraft than you have been flying up to now. I can only repeat what many others are saying. Go and take a ride in both types and make your decision
|

02-08-2014, 02:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 710
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounz
Basically I think we're all saying the same things in different words.
Both the RV-7 and RV-12 are very sweet aircraft with great handling qualities and in that sense very similar.
The RV-12 is ideal for short hops and sight seeing with its superb visibility out the cockpit. This is the aircraft to go and spot wildlife and take in the panorama of the Alps. It is economical as it is difficult to burn much more than 6 gph.
The RV-7 offers aerobatic capability and will get you further on a full tank of gas in a shorter space of time so it's a better aircraft to travel longer distances. It is also economical considering it's cruising speed. Its short field performance is also better.
What you see on your VSI or ASI you either get used to very quickly or it becomes a drug and you need more of it. If you need more of it, you'll soon have the desire build something else or go and fly with the military or the airlines (short range) where good performance is routine.
If you're into racing, the RV-7 could be an entry level aircraft. 180 kts looks more impressive at low level but you become accustomed to that too but a residual thrill will remain. Where do you do air racing in Europe other than the UK?
Define your mission and decide what you want Nicolas. Be aware that with the numerous short grass strips in Europe, there have been a number of RV-XA (nose wheel) accidents. Interestingly, most of these accidents involved pilots who were either low time or had not built their aircraft themselves. Be sure you are aware of these issues when making your decision. These accidents are avoidable once you have familiarised yourself with the cause.
Any way you decide, you will end up with a far nicer aircraft than you have been flying up to now. I can only repeat what many others are saying. Go and take a ride in both types and make your decision
|
Good summary statement. I would add that you can always modify your RV-12 fuel system to take more fuel along for those longer trips when needed. Also, the RV-12 may be less prone to flip overs than the RV-7A since it has a larger nose wheel and far less weight on the nose wheel.
|

02-08-2014, 10:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Ollon Switzerland
Posts: 78
|
|
RV7 vs RV7A
Guys,
To answer all the post, i'm interessed in aerobatics and speed for sure and I'm definitly sure the RV7 or RV7A will fit my expectation more than the RV12, but maybe I should start tu build the RV12 for both experiencing building and flying ...
So if I spotted well all the answer I reveived, it seems that the RV7A nose landing gear is a little weack!?
I'm now learning my PPL and my instructor if really concerned on tricycle landing and don't allow you touching the nose gear before you can't maintain the aircraft nose up anymore so I'm quiet confident I will do it proprely ... But you never know, anything can happen anytime!!
I will consider yet buying an RV7 and not a 7A but maybe the tailwheel if even more complicate to manage..? I will ask my instructor to be trained on and see what I prefer!
Thanks again for all your advice guys, it really help to take a decision!
Regards
Nicolas
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.
|