What's new
Van's Air Force

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

-7A vs -9A

coopGT

Member
-7A vs -9A for Low Time Pilots

After lots of research, thought, discussion with my wife, and the oh so important input from VAF, we have narrowed it down to the -7A or -9A. I understand there is not too much of a difference other than aero and non-aero, engine specs, and wing dynamics. Our mission is weekend fun, short cross countries (with the exception to a few long XC to FL and SC). Aerobatics is low on my list but want the option to be there. However, as a low time pilot my question is.. is the -9A that much more stable than the -7A? The plane will have IFR panel but will not be primarily used in IMC. Some will say the -9A is an easier transition for us 172 pilots. Any truth to this? My heart is set on the -7A but do want what’s best for my low time transition.
 
Last edited:
W&B added question

Also, any W&B differences? Vans site claims -7A full fuel and 2 passengers, how about the -9A? I know it depends a lot on what’s is added etc but just a general consensus.
 
If it makes any difference, I started transitioning into my dad's RV-6 at 19, with 50 or so hours in C150s. It took a little while because I wasn't able to fly often, I was learning to handle a taildragger, and Dad was teaching me a lot of other stuff about flying, too. Overall it took about 30 hours before he'd let me run off with his new airplane, but by that point I'd done spins, aerobatics, tailwheel transition, a little formation, and learned quite a bit of other stuff that I didn't get from the flight school CFI.

With a good instructor you should be able to transition to either one just fine. Your insurance won't be cheap at first and the transition may take a bit longer than for someone with more experience, but it's certainly doable.

I've never flown a -9/-9A, but I knew aerobatics were part of my mission set and wife vetoed a -4 or -8. So, -7 it was.
 
Your comments are leaning you toward the 7.

Slightly more usable carrying capacity (luggage weight)
W&B issues can be managed with engine/prop choices, slightly heaver combo means more forward CofG, more luggage weight.
7 has slightly higher Max Gross. Suggest you get some example W&B calculation sheets to see how YOU folks factor in there. (Vans has Build Manuals on their condensed Plans sets, USB sticks for $10 ea. Get them for each model & you will answer many more questions yourself)
7 has slightly larger tanks, but you dictate your max endurance with the throttle knob...
Transition (get proper transition training when that time comes!) between the 7 & 9 would be basically the same, same issues to address.
 
Slightly more usable carrying capacity (luggage weight)

Agree with everyone above, except for this one statement. The baggage area in the -9/9A is rated for the same 100# that the -7/7A is. Van's has confirmed this by email and it has been confirmed in previous threads here on VAF. Although early Van's documentation indicated 75# for the -9/9A, that was because their W&B originally allowed for only 75#. If you keep your weight forward enough, you'll be able to carry the same payload. I have a 7# crush plate on my fixed Catto composite prop. With that there is almost no way I can get out of CG (with or without 100# of baggage) assuming reasonably average pilot weight.

Again, though, since you say you want to keep the aerobatic option open, sounds like the -7/7A would be more appropriate.

I transitioned easily enough into Van's RV-7 with Mike Seager at about 200 hours TT. Don't think it would be all that much different with 75-100.
 
Last edited:
...However, as a low time pilot my question is.. is the -9A that much more stable than the -7A? The plane will have IFR panel but will not be primarily used in IMC. Some will say the -9A is an easier transition for us 172 pilots. Any truth to this? My heart is set on the -7A but do want what’s best for my low time transition.

I was also a low time pilot (about 70 hours) when transitioning to the -9A, it took about 5-6 hours of dual before being let loose. I struggled a bit at first, partially because I wasn't current in anything, but also because the -9A with fixed pitch propeller is slippery and doesn't want to slow down in the circuit if the pilot isn't ahead of the airplane.

The wing loading of the -9A is a bit lower than the wing loading of -7A, so it feels less solid in turbulence (in my experience, having also flown in a couple of -6s, which handle similar to the -7).

Either way, with proper transition training I think you will be fine, these airplanes respond precisely and quickly to pilot inputs, which you can learn to manage.
 
I have time in both airplanes. My brother has an RV9A and I had a friend finish his RV7A in my hangar. My brother's -9A stays in my hangar now, the -7A is gone, but the deal was I got to fly either one of them when I wanted since they stayed in my hangar, rent free.:)

My brother's -9A is fixed pitch prop, the -7A had CS. The only time I could really tell any difference in the two was on landing. I seemed to be able to make better landings in the 7 than the 9. I don't think it was the prop that made the difference, I just made smoother landings in the 7. I FEEL like they both handled the same.

Oh, and I own a 150, 172, and a Rans S6S Coyote. I don't make very good landings in any of them either.:D
 
Long cross country to FL & SC ??? 7/9 - its an RV. those are morning flites. do em often. now California, Washington - thats a LONG cross country. done this 3.5 round trips. once u have the RV u will learn to fly it easily. u wont care about a 172 or the other RV. either will be fairly easy. and pulling it out when u want to fly without thinking about scheduling - awesome.

7 twitchy - nah. if it is to some then its good for instrument flying training.

i did the 7A for potential aerobatics. been flying almost 4 years now, 670 hours, and yet to do aerobatics. BUT, i have that option when i get around to it.
 
Operating Cost

The 9A will be less expensive to operate in most cases. The 9A approved engines range from 118 to 160hp. The 7A range from 150-200hp (215hp?). Horsepower takes fuel, and fuel is expensive. Also, smaller engines cost less to buy and maintain. Price out an O-320 from Van's compared to a 200hp IO-360 as extremes. A used O-235 will be even less money and can be used in an -9A

On average, most RV-9(A) are equipped with 150 or 160hp. The average 7(A) is equipped with 180hp.

With the extra power comes extra performance. Is the extra performance and associated cost worth it to you? Going further into the performance discussion, lets assume the airports are 300nm apart. The stats on Van's Aircraft website list the RV-9A with 160hp and 75% power goes 160kts, so takes 1:53 hours. Same for the RV-7A with 200hp and 75% goes 177kts, so takes 1:42 hours. Is that 11 minutes worth the the cost to you?
 
Choices!

I have built and owned both an RV9A and now an RV8, but I did all of the test flying on a friend’s RV7. They are all excellent aircraft. I was very impressed with the 9a, very straight forward and comfortable to fly. I don’t think that the 7 is the slightest bit twitchy, but as you describe your purposes, I would recommend the 9A. The control harmony of them all is very good, but I think that perhaps the 9A Ishtar be marginally more comfortable for cross country trips. Mine was fully upholstered with sound deadening material fitted. It was very fully equipped for instrument flight, with a good autopilot. Early in the test phase I was faced with an engine out landing with a 20 kt direct crosswind. There was absolutely no drama the aircraft felt so solid, except for the embarrassment of having to call for a tow to get my beautiful new aircraft off the taxiway.

In my opinion you just can’t go wrong with either model. By your comments, I think your choice of an A model is a good one. My only other comment would be that regardless of Van’s quest for lightness, these designs are so good that I wouldn’t be concerned about one that is well equipped, but a little heavier than some.

Finally, choose the best one in your price range and enjoy it.....CHECK YOUR INSURANCE FIRST!

Good luck with the search, Brent
 
To clarify...it's not that the RV-9A can't do aerobatics, it's that the RV-9A isn't approved for aerobatics. They are specifically prohibited as part of the operating limitations.

Also note that the RV-7 / 7A is approved for aerobatics only if the plane is at 1600 lbs gross weight or less.
 
Just Me

Two comments:
The 9A is not approved for aerobatics, and none should be attempted because the G rating of the wings is only 4.4Gs. Possibly bent if aerobatics turns out bad.

But the 9A makes up for lack of aerobatics in high altitude cruise, or so people say.

From what i have read on the forums, most 7 drivers cruise at 8K, and most 9A drivers cruise at 12K or higher. The higher the cruise altitude, the less fuel burn.

I am curious from those who have flown both cross country, is it true the 7A tends to cruise tail low at altitude?
 
Last edited:
.....CHECK YOUR INSURANCE FIRST!

What exactly do I need to be looking for and concerned about with insurance? I understand it is not cheap, but hey that’s the hobby.

Will I have trouble getting insurance being a first time builder with just over 200 hours?
 
What exactly do I need to be looking for and concerned about with insurance? I understand it is not cheap, but hey that’s the hobby.

Will I have trouble getting insurance being a first time builder with just over 200 hours?

I have a post about an insurance quote that I received. Check it out, similar data points to what you would need. Wasn’t going to be an issue to get insurance and was around a 2 grand a year premium.
 
What exactly do I need to be looking for and concerned about with insurance? I understand it is not cheap, but hey that’s the hobby.

Will I have trouble getting insurance being a first time builder with just over 200 hours?

Insurance questions here will net you a lot of anecdotes and opinions, but only in a general way might it be directly applicable to you. There are a LOT of variables that the underwriters take into account, and I suspect a certain amount of arbitrariness. I'd recommend directly asking those questions of an actual aviation insurance broker. Leah Ringeisen ( LRingeisen ) posts here a lot -- send her a PM, or call of email. She also answers her phone, will call you back, and does respond promptly to email. She is knowledgeable and helpful, and specializes in insurance policies for Van's RVs. She would likely be far more able to answer questions about the effects of things like hours, experience, ratings, and type of aircraft. As a broker, she has access to many different insurance companies, all of which have different policies, different costs, different interpretation of the level of risk that YOU pose to their company. You'd want to know the effect of 200 hours TT in an Experimental airplane in which you'll be doing some aerobatics. My insurance rates for my -9A are reasonable, but I know that aerobatics was a big question that the underwriter had and is a specific exclusion on my policy. My policy is $1500/year. So far....
 
Last edited:
Last month I got my RV9A insured. It hasn't flown yet, hope to do the first flight this week. 1 mil liability, 80K hull was $1100.00 through Traverse Aviation Ins. They also have my 150 and 172 ins.
I have 40 hrs RV9A time in my brother's -9A, 1100 hrs TT. I did not have builder's risk insurance.
 
RV-9A, 100K hull, $1000 thru Gallagher. 44 yrs flying, no accidents, claims or any aircraft damage. now I'm jinxed.
 
Last edited:
After lots of research, thought, discussion with my wife, and the oh so important input from VAF, we have narrowed it down to the -7A or -9A. I understand there is not too much of a difference other than aero and non-aero, engine specs, and wing dynamics. Our mission is weekend fun, short cross countries (with the exception to a few long XC to FL and SC). Aerobatics is low on my list but want the option to be there. However, as a low time pilot my question is.. is the -9A that much more stable than the -7A? The plane will have IFR panel but will not be primarily used in IMC. Some will say the -9A is an easier transition for us 172 pilots. Any truth to this? My heart is set on the -7A but do want what’s best for my low time transition.

So what did you end up with? 7A or 9A?

I am in the same predicament. Transition to RV planning and looking at the same.
 
Back
Top