What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7A vs RV-9A

RV-7A vs. RV-9A

Hello all. When I got "talked into" thinking about owning and building an RV, I was like alot of you. What model suited my "needs" best? Most of you have the advantage of having owned planes, built planes, and even having a pilots license! I have some right seat time, and back seat time (Thanks Lee!!), so as you can see, my chrystal ball was cloudy. Knowing my limitations, I was leaning towards a 9A. My reasoning was the bigger wing would allow slower landings, and since I'm not prone to think of aerobatics (although I do get a charge out of watching some else), I thought the 9A would make a good fit. Now, after further studying, I'm thinking a 7A might fit better. More fuel, alittle faster cruise, with the same 0-320 160hp that I was considering for the 9A.
Has anyone had this problem, and how did you come to the conclusion? I see that the fuselage is the same for both models, so cabin space is the same. The engine combination that I was thinking of would be the same 0-320 160hp. Different wings, and empennages, fuel capacity, but all else being pretty equal, what swayed your decision to build one over the other?
This has been bothering me for some time now. Any ideas?

Tom
 
Hi Tom,
These 10 pages 7a vs 9a will give you good start :) This dilemma has been discussed in details during last 5 years I am reading the forums.

I am " talking you into" 9a :D you said you know your limitaions :)
 
I prefer the "lighter" touch of my 6A............which would translate to a 7A. But the 9A lands about 10 mph slower. In reality, either plane is about the same in turbulence in regards to getting bounced around.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
9A VS 7A

Tom,
Use the search engine on this site to view several discussions concerning the merits of each model. It has been bantered about a lot. Truth be told,
you can't really go wrong with either design, as they are similar in their flight characteristics. I chose the 9A, and I really love it. I have flown a 7, and a couple of sixes, and I love them too. The 9 has better slow flight manners, and the wing likes higher altitudes, making it a somewhat more efficient travel option. The 7 has aerobatic capabilities, and although I am not an aerobatic pilot, and have no intention of pursuing the art, I really love the way you can snap them around with their lighter stick forces. 7 is a little faster, but not by a whole bunch. If I was forced to make a recommendation, I would say a new pilot would be best suited in a 9.
My advice is to get some training under your belt. It will take a bit of flying experience to begin to realize the differences in the airplanes. Then, get together with a 7A and 9A owners for a bit of right seat time. That should cement your decision. You will find RV owners and builders most gracious in this regard. I am here at Ocean Isle Beach, NC, and will be glad to give you a hop in my 9A. I have hopped a half a dozen prospective builders in my plane, and really enjoy the opportunity to help folks with their decision.
One piece of advice. Try to get a hop on a really calm morning or evening so you can get a chance to feel the plane and how it responds. Bumpy rough air makes it harder to assess the differences in forces and responses.
Bottom line, Both the 7 and 9 are outstanding, efficient, fun, easy to fly aircraft, and represent great value in terms of ownership.
Welcome to the VAF Tom.

Regards,
Chris
 
The speed difference is really small, so that didn't factor in to my decision.

I like the longer / thinner wing... more efficient like a glider.

I've flown in a 6A and in a 9A.. and while they are both great I prefered the 9A for me. A bet less "touchy" but still extremely responsive & balanced.

Get a ride in each and then decide.
 
Ahhh, all these diplomatic answers!
Fact is, I love my RV-9A. I built if for x-country, but I rarely fly more than 2 hours at a time. Instead, I fly mostly formation with other RV's and a Swift.

So I built it for one mission, and I've ended up flying a different one.

What I recommend is for you to really determine what you want to do with your aircraft. Look deep down inside and make that determination first.

By the way, the 9A flies in formation just fine, but the landings need more work because Vfe and landing speeds are slower than the other aircraft. This is more of an issue for the aircraft following you on landing, but can be handled by forward slips rather than deploying flaps.

Nothwithstanding the above comments, my second a/c is a Harmon Rocket. In retrospect, perhaps a -7 or an -8 would have been a better choice for my first RV. Of course, I would still have built another one, or two, or ...

So maybe that's the answer. It's a lifelong addiction, plan on building more than one!

So your decision becomes "what do I build first!"
 
The -9 is a very stable airplane and handles roll inputs very well. It has about the same pitch sensitivity as a -6 or -7. However, as a result it does NOT have balanced control. That is, it is more pitch sensitive that roll sensitive. I really, really like that. Makes for a smooth comfortable ride. Excellent for cross country flying and hand flown IFR.

It's a tough decision between a -7 an -9. Both are great airplanes. If I had to do it over, it's hard to say what my decision would be. Like the other guy said, maybe it's a question of what I will build next.
 
The thing I enjoy most about my -6 is the ability to carve up the sky. Effortless loops and rolls. Wingovers and zoom climbs. Split S'es, Immelmans, huge lazy 8's. The aerobatic RV's allow you to fly the way you do in your dreams. Sure, you have to respect Vne, G limits, and airspace restrictions, but the ability to go out and really fly in three dimensions is fun.

The -9 isn't designed to do most of those things. On the other hand, it is a marginally better X/C airplane because of the stability profile.
 
Lessons --learning!

Thanks all!!
I probably should have mentioned that my dream RV would be for short trips, 500 -600 miles, although Oshkosh is a goal. I will take the advise and get a ride in both models. I'm pretty sure that I can find something close to me. I have alot to learn about this--not my speciality--, but after being on this forum for a year, I can certainly see why you all are the best. And I appreciate the help.
I guess I need to sit down and define the mission--but right now I would say regional flights to see clients. Kyle, I like to watch the aerobatics, and I guess I could get used to it, but--Ive watch a good freind of mine do all of those things in his Rocket, and I just dont think so!!!!! No, I think that mine needs to be a plane that is a time saver---sure beats 5-6 hour driving trips.
Tom
 
I'm having a whale of a time deciding myself what to build, but for me it's between a -9A and a -12. I also don't care to do aerobatics at all. My battle is that one side of the brain says to build a -9A because it's faster and better x/c capabilities, but the other side asks "how fast is fast enough", and "why can't the -12 be considered a good x/c choice". The most common x/c trip I would do is a 950 mile trip to my birthplace a few times a year. With 1 fuel stop, the -9A probably gets me there about 2 hours faster, but costs me about $100 more in fuel per round trip. Is it worth saving 2 hours for the twice a year I go? I have a 250 mile trip I would do much more often, but there I would only be about 30 minutes faster in the -9A. I rode in a -12 and loved the open view. Maybe I'm OK flying a little slower and enjoying a better view. I'm still doing mental gymnastics trying to decide, but the whole point of this is that before you decide between a -7A and a -9A, take a good look at the capabilities and advantages of the -12 and talk yourself out of that before you spend much more time trying to decide between a -7A and a -9A.
 
Last edited:
HINT!

You can always fly the -9 as slowly as a -12, but you can't fly the -12 as fast as a -9!
To me, the only "logical" reasons to build the -12 over the -9 would be for sport pilot privileges or for shorter build time.
 
diamond said:
... but the other side asks "how fast is fast enough", and "why can't the -12 be considered a good x/c choice"...
Click to expand...
We RV pilots are so spoiled!

120 Knots is the same speed as a Cessna 172 (maybe faster) and they are flown all over the place.

Either way, you can?t go wrong with any RV.
 
Mel said:
You can always fly the -9 as slowly as a -12, but you can't fly the -12 as fast as a -9!
To me, the only "logical" reasons to build the -12 over the -9 would be for sport pilot privileges or for shorter build time.
Click to expand...

You can always fly the HR3 as slowly as a -9, but you can't fly the -9 as fast as a HR3.

So where does this reasoning end? I still ask, "How fast is fast enough"? Not that I've resolved it myself either. I still may end up with a -9 kit in my garage soon, but just like any new RV wannabe, I still have some soul searching to do.
 
diamond said:
You can always fly the HR3 as slowly as a -9, but you can't fly the -9 as fast as a HR3.

So where does this reasoning end? I still ask, "How fast is fast enough"? Not that I've resolved it myself either. I still may end up with a -9 kit in my garage soon, but just like any new RV wannabe, I still have some soul searching to do.
Click to expand...

When you're trying to get somewhere on a timeline, anything short of the Millenium Falcon is too slow.

When you're out leaf peeping, a Cub or Champ is plenty fast.
 
diamond said:
You can always fly the HR3 as slowly as a -9, but you can't fly the -9 as fast as a HR3.
So where does this reasoning end? I still ask, "How fast is fast enough"? Not that I've resolved it myself either. I still may end up with a -9 kit in my garage soon, but just like any new RV wannabe, I still have some soul searching to do.
Click to expand...

The flight characteristics of the RV-9 and RV-12 are very similar. The characteristics of the -9 and HR3 are not. Plus the cost to build the -9 and -12 are similar. The cost of the -9 and HR3 are not.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
The thing I enjoy most about my -6 is the ability to carve up the sky. Effortless loops and rolls. Wingovers and zoom climbs. Split S'es, Immelmans, huge lazy 8's. The aerobatic RV's allow you to fly the way you do in your dreams. Sure, you have to respect Vne, G limits, and airspace restrictions, but the ability to go out and really fly in three dimensions is fun.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When I built my 7A I didn't know I'd enjoy acro as much as I do. When deciding what you want to build think about how your flying interests might evolve over the years. Since I started (basic) upside-down flight a couple of years ago I haven't done a single $100 hamburger - I just don't see the point and (most) of my acro passengers seem to have a good time.

Something to consider unless you are really sure you won't ever be interested in aerobatics...
 
ok

Well now I really have a problem: This afternoon, a friend took me up in his
T18--and amused himself by teaching me rolls, lazy 8's, you know the stuff that you guys really love, and I thought that I didn't. Actually, it was kinda fun, and I could see where learning and practicing some basic acrobatics may come in handy IF you were ever in a position where you would need it. Kinda like having alot of horsepower; nice to have, really great if you get in a tight place and need it.
So, now I'm stuck. Not that I would do any acro, but I guess I could if necessary. So, I know that there is no acro with a 9A, but lazy 8's -or a roll?
If that really too much for a 9A?
Tom
 
TS Flightlines said:
So, I know that there is no acro with a 9A, but lazy 8's -or a roll?
If that really too much for a 9A?
Click to expand...
An experienced aerobatic pilot could certainly do quite a range of aerobatics while remaining within the allowable g loading of the RV-9A. But, there would be very little margin in the event that the pilot made an error. Even experienced aerobatic pilots may have the occasional bad day, and inexperienced aerobatic pilots have a very significant risk of making a serious error.

Bottom line - if you want to live a good long life, avoid the temptation to attempt aerobatics in an RV-9 or -9A.

If after one flight you think you might someday enjoy aerobatics, you will almost certainly be drawn to this in the future. You probably should build an RV-7 or -7A. I recommend you get some tailwheel experience before making the tailwheel/nosewheel decision - you might find that tailwheel aircraft are more enjoyable, and less difficult than you think.
 
Do not put less than an O-360 in a 7(A). Yea this is opinion but I am right.

CS prop is highly desirable.
 
Lazy 8's are taught for the commercial pilot's license

...in Cherokees and Cessnas but they're easy, gentle ones with an equal amount of altitude gain and loss for both left and right turns.

If you want to do aerobatic lazy 8's, the pullup can be near vertical, a 90 degree banking at the top and a near vertical initial descent. Now we're doing aerobatic 8's which can get you into trouble easily (think possible inadvertant spin)...so it depends on what kind of lazy 8's.

Best,
 
lessons

Guys, All of these comments are great lessons learned, and I will study them all, since you have gone through is before. Guess I need to really look at my abilities, and what lies ahead. I heard someone say something about "repeat offender". I guess I could do that ---maybe
Tom
 
The two things that made up my mind were These:

If I remember this right, the guys at Van's said they liked flying the 9 on cross country flights better than any of the others because of the different wing airfoil. They said it was smoother and actually a little faster at altitude.

I don't do acro.

I plan on using my plane for trips with the wife so it was an easy decision.
 
9A vs 7A

If you are considering an RV there is no wrong answer. Any choice is a good one. The 7 will allow acro; the 9 is better for cruising. Define your mission, then make your choice.

When I was building the RV8A, I thought I would be doing acro on every solo flight. I did less that a dozen rolls and less than 6 loops. Since I sold the 8 and bought the 6, I have done only 2 rolls and have never looped it.

The 6 is a great airplane. I think a 9 would fit my mission better.
 
The 9a is a great airplane. But you realy cant go wrong with any "RV".
The 9a is the choice if you're not doing acro, and those low end numbers are realy great. Don't worry about sacrificing sportiness with the 9.
 
I chose 9A for x-c. I also like the longer/slender wing (more efficient at altitude). Looks more impressive on the ramp to me. I also like the idea of landing slower, especially off-field if ever needed (sure hope not).

I flew a 6A and 9A (never flew a 7A but similar to 6A). I found the 9A a bit more to my taste - still plenty "sporty" but a little less touchy.

Try to fly both and then decide.
 
The biggest difference between them is the 7(A) is made for acro and is slightly less efficient for crosscountry, where the 9(A) has the more efficient cruising wing that is happy up high.

I chose the 9A because I don't plan on doing acro, but I do a LOT of long crosscountry flying and I'm an efficiency freak.
 
One thing to consider is the 42 gal of fuel in the -7 compared with 36
in the -9. That's an additional 1 hr with the same 160 hp engine. Most install
autopilots if they fly a lot of cross country. Not to mention larger engine
option of the -7. I've never flown a -9 but have flown -4, -6, -7 and -8 all
with basically the same wing. The -7 was a O-320 powered with
a constant speed prop and was IMHO the nicest flying RV I've flown.
 
"A NO BRAINER"!!!!!!!!!!!

maximillion said:
Come of guys help me make my decision, 7a or 9a. Was dead set on the 7a but things are brewing.............:confused:
Click to expand...

If you don't do acro, This is a "no brainer"!!!!!!
The 9 is a better choice in virtually every other respect. It is just as fast at altitude (Mine trues @ 197MPH), rides better, climbs better with less H.P., has more useful load, tolerates higher density altitude, lands shorter, and with all of these advantages it may also save your life in an emergency off field landing. With it's much lower touch down and stall speed (44MPH) your chances of survival go up by over 50% per 10 MPH. I fly many hours a month in my 9A, approximately 70 and consider my exposure high. The above stated performance should be considered by anyone who intends to travel and expose themselves and loved ones to potential flying hazards. No Acro? Go for the comfort and safety! Regards, Allan
 
Last edited:
I never did acro until I built and flew my RV. Now I can't see not being able to do so! My 6A certainly hasn't limited my flying cross country. The freedom to see the world turn makes flying so much better!
 
Chino Tom said:
One thing to consider is the 42 gal of fuel in the -7 compared with 36 in the -9. That's an additional 1 hr with the same 160 hp engine.
Click to expand...

OPINION: It is just WRONG to put an O-320 in a 7A. So plan on O-360 (in the 7A) and some higher fuel flow so the extra fuel of the 7A has some value. In my 6A with an O-360, I have over 4.5 hours of range once I get up to cruise altitude (over 10,500'). My bladder and derriere soreness rarely allow that much time aloft anyway.

Plan on using the largest engine approved (again opinion).

Compare your aircraft/engine/prop to other RVs...not spam cans.
 
Last edited:
OK, Max...

maximillion said:
Come of guys help me make my decision, 7a or 9a. Was dead set on the 7a but things are brewing.............:confused:
Click to expand...

Heads 7A, Tails 9A.

I just flipped a penny and it is heads. Do you want 2 out of 3 or just go ahead and build the 7A?

I built a 9A. Not into aerobatics. Like cross country and being able to land a little slower. I gave up a little on cruse speed.

Kent
 
All good replys, but no one has specifically pointed out that Vans does not recommend (or support) the installation of a 180 HP (-360) engine on the -9. If the increased power available that the -360 provides is important to you, you may want to lean toward the -7. Alternatively, the slower landing speeds of the -9 may be attractive to you.

erich
 
erich weaver said:
All good replys, but no one has specifically pointed out that Vans does not recommend (or support) the installation of a 180 HP (-360) engine on the -9. If the increased power available that the -360 provides is important to you, you may want to lean toward the -7. Alternatively, the slower landing speeds of the -9 may be attractive to you.

erich
Click to expand...

That horse has been pretty well beaten to death, I think. There are enough 9A's flying with 180hp that if there were monsters in the closet, we would know it by now. Van's won't officially support it, no - but they will supply you the parts to do it and won't lecture you about it either. The only problem is watching your airspeed against Vne in a descent - which is a PILOT problem, not an EQUIPMENT problem. The throttle is just one more control in the cockpit to be used as needed to make the airplane do what you want it to do. If that's too much workload for you as a pilot, then put an O-235 in it and be happy. (Not pointed at you, Erich, just sayin' in general)

When I ordered my finish kit I wrote IO-360, 180hp on the order form, and the correct parts showed up with no Grim Reaper holding them and no nasty notes from the principals office.
 
Last edited:
my 7 cents!

I chose a 7A because I worried about hitting turbulence at speeds above maneuvering speed. I don't do acro, I routinely X-C between Pittsburgh and Minneapolis and never had an issue. The solid feeling of those stubby wings makes me feel safe. I find it a good IFR plane too. With a trutrak AP, a fixed pitch prop, I cruise at 11-12K WOT, LOP. TAS is 165-168 knots, fuel is 8.5 - 9 gph. In my opinion it lands plenty slow (but my other airplane is a Duke.....:rolleyes:)
I might even think about doing acro some day....who knows!
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
When I ordered my finish kit I wrote IO-360, 180hp on the order form, and the correct parts showed up with no Grim Reaper holding them and no nasty notes from the principals office.
Click to expand...

Well, that appears to be support of a sort, so to some extent, I stand corrected. But you -9(A) guys with -360 engines really live life on the edge and if you were half a man you would have a -7(A) :)

erich
 
Quick thought... the 7 is a good choice if undecided.

I built the 7-A and I am very glad I did.

It turns out that I like acro and formation work which I had not anticipated. I would choose the 7 again but would go for a tail wheel version and put inverted oil on it. Oil dumps out the breather straight onto the belly with any negative g or even a simple wing-over. Who knew?

If you are doing cruising, the 9-A sounds right.
 
Getting within a few months of 60 years of age, and not feeling that slow, yet..................a 9A is just to sedate for me. I much prefer my livelier 6A. Therefor it would have to be the 7A. :D

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
I have a 9a/0360 and my brother has a 7a/IO360. I have time in his and he in mine. I love the 9a for its slow speed characteristics and its high altitude efficiency. The 7a/6a is a lot of fun cranking and banking and doing acro. In smooth air on a cross country you can't tell much difference in the handling or the cruise performance. Landing speed on the 7 is about 10 mph faster than the 9 but otherwise feels the same.

As others have said, if you know you are not interested in acro and want a cross country airplane, go with the 9. If you think you "might" like acro, go with the 7. They are both great at cross country.

Either way you will have a "keeper".

Cheers,

db
 
Last edited:
erich weaver said:
Well, that appears to be support of a sort, so to some extent, I stand corrected. But you -9(A) guys with -360 engines really live life on the edge and if you were half a man you would have a -7(A) :)

erich
Click to expand...

Nah - that's what the next airplane is for - I've already decided on a Rocket. This one is my cross-country traveler.
 
Check my -9A XC numbers on

www.flightaware.com
My return flight from the NBAA convention in Atlanta to Vero Beach, FL shows up on that site. I flew at 3500 MSL. Winds were light and variable mostly from the west. I was turning my ECI w/Sensenich at 2500 rpm and leaned to 50 deg ROP.
Flightaware shows my cruise ground speed at 160 kts.
 
Actually, Charlie

rv7charlie said:
Actually, real men would lose the trailing alpha.

(sorry; just couldn't resist after the endless numeric debate)
Click to expand...

If you want to believe all the post about nose wheels, it takes a real man to fly a nose dragger.:p

Or maybe we should just go with 'it takes a real man to fly an RV'.

Kent
 
Do consider a IO-360 L2A 160 HP 2475 @160 hp. It was used in the first Skyhawks (172) in 1995 & 96 I believe. It was derated but quiter at a higher HP(160). Then the SP model 172 came out in I believe 97 with the same engine but the restricter plate removed and you have 180 HP @ I believe 2625RPMs. I might have had that 360 L2A but it was the same $ from a salvage place as as a brand new XIO 320 from Vans at the time. The used 360 L2A had 700 hours on it at that time. There is a builder in AZ with that L2A engine but I don't know if its finished yet. Ron
 
That's me

Yep Ron, I purchased the IO360L2A and plan on utilizing those additional 20 horses here at almost 6000 ft elevation by sizing the right prop. I was able to grab it through Penn Yan after some minor work and complete inspection for under 9K.

Unfortunately, I've been building a home for mamma lately, but am almost done and plan on devoting some serious time to finish. It'll be a while, but can't wait to fire the L2A up (flew the same engine quite a bit out of Cenntenial airport in CO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top