RV-7 / RV-9 Aerobatics - Extra Fuel

My appologies, but I'd like to ask a couple more question on the RV 7/9 difference.

Since I passed my medical on Monday, I've given up the RV-12 idea. (Phew!)

My first question is one of aerobatics. To those RV-7 owners out there, can you give me a rough percentage of the time you use the aircraft for aerobatics? Every weekend? Once a year?

My second question is the possibility of having extra fuel on an RV9. The RV7 has extra fuel. I plan on getting the QB wings, so the mod to the fuel tanks is not an option. Is there a possibility of a baggage compartment fuel tank or wing tip tanks in the future for the RV9? Range is important.

My main "mission" is to fly cross-country several times a month, so the RV9 seems perfect. However, I get the urge now and then to push the envelope.

What I really need is a test flight in each. But how? I guess I'll wait for Sun-N-Fun in Lakeland before ordering.

Thanks,

John Edwards
Tools in place
EAA Workbench built
Ready to Order

I'm an RV-6 owner, but the -6 and -7 are virtually identical. I will tell you that I do numerous rolls, wing overs, split S's, and maybe a loop or two almost anytime I'm solo in the airplane, which is 90% of my flights.

The other 10% I'm flying cross country with baggage and/or passengers and don't do acro.

Thanks

Thanks Kyle,

That's just the input I was looking for...

John

skyfrog said:

My appologies, but I'd like to ask a couple more question on the RV 7/9 difference.

Since I passed my medical on Monday, I've given up the RV-12 idea. (Phew!)

My first question is one of aerobatics. To those RV-7 owners out there, can you give me a rough percentage of the time you use the aircraft for aerobatics? Every weekend? Once a year?

My second question is the possibility of having extra fuel on an RV9. The RV7 has extra fuel. I plan on getting the QB wings, so the mod to the fuel tanks is not an option. Is there a possibility of a baggage compartment fuel tank or wing tip tanks in the future for the RV9? Range is important.

My main "mission" is to fly cross-country several times a month, so the RV9 seems perfect. However, I get the urge now and then to push the envelope.

Click to expand...

Congrats on passing the medical exam!

If I were doing extra fuel, I'd put it in the wingtips only then derate the max load factor accordingly. IMVHO, fuel tanks in the fuselage should be avoided if at all possible.

As for RVs and acro, I cannot conceive of *any less* than 90% of my flights allowing me to look through the top of the canopy at the earth.

Wow

I did not expect a 90% acro profile...

I need to do some rethinking on my kit choice.

John

If i go alone ... upside down i go

Same choice

Hi John,

I faced the same choice, and as a newly minted PPL, I didn't have the experience to base it on. I did a demo flight in Vans RV9A, then took a ride in a friends RV6A, but couldn't tell the difference other than they were both WAY better than the C152 I was used to. So, to resolve the issue so I could get started, I ponyed up the bucks for an acro lesson and I was hooked on the first loop! While I'm still only finishing the tail and have a couple years before my QB 7A is flying, I'm already looking forward to frequent 'gentlemans' acro most everytime I'm solo.

bill
RV7A, waiting for a new trim tab hinge so I can finish the tail...

skyfrog said:

My second question is the possibility of having extra fuel on an RV9. The RV7 has extra fuel. I plan on getting the QB wings, so the mod to the fuel tanks is not an option. Is there a possibility of a baggage compartment fuel tank or wing tip tanks in the future for the RV9? Range is important.

My main "mission" is to fly cross-country several times a month, so the RV9 seems perfect. However, I get the urge now and then to push the envelope.

Click to expand...

John,

The fuel capacity difference is only an issue if you are looking a -7 & -9's with the same engine. i.e. O-320. If the -7 is powered by an 180-200 hp I/O-360 then the extra power will eat into your fuel. IMHO, the -9 has the right amount of fuel for the engine size it is designed for.

As for the acro issue, as you know the -9 is not designed for it but I do know of one local -9A that has just been looped and rolled with no ill effects. Your mileage (and pilot) may very.

N941WR said:

If the -7 is powered by an 180-200 hp I/O-360 then the extra power will eat into your fuel.

Click to expand...

Don't believe the hype. My 200hp IO-360 burns less fuel than any RV-9[A] I've flown next to at any airspeed. My "fuel guzzling" RV-7 out-climbs, out-cruises, out-economizes, and out-ranges any RV-9[A] at any speed. Don't believe the hype. Bigger engine doesn't have to translate to higher fuel consumption!

My normal wide-open-throttle cruise fuel burn is 7.2 - 7.4 gph at 170 KTAS. I continually ask RV-9[A] guys about their fuel burn and cruise speed, and it's almost always in the 8.5 gph at 155 KTAS region. And that's comparing my 200hp IO-360 to their 160hp O-320.

The only thing at which the RV-9[A] can beat my RV-7 hands down is glide ratio and stiffness of control...

You have to decide

John,
It wasn't long ago that I had to make the same decision. Since I haven't had the opportunity to fly either model, my advice is worth what you're paying for it.
I was trying to decide between a 7a and 10. I went to a little RV fly-in and looked and talked to builders. I saw a 9a and briefly talked to the the owner just to ask why he decided on this model. He told me that he had previously built a 6 and sold it. He said that the 9 was the best airplane Van has made. Before that, I really hadn't considered a 9.
So I really started thinking seriously about what i wanted the airplane to do. And the 9 fit the bill for me. I want a weekend flyer that I can take trips in. My mission includes several trips to the Bahamas, so the glide ratio of the 9 is a psychological comfort for me.
As far as aerobatics, I've done them and didn't find them such a thrill that I would be doing them every time I fly. But this is something that you have to figure out for yourself. My impression is that the hardcore aerobatics types build a 3,4,or 8 (or a Pitts). The hardcore aerobatics types with a wife build the 7 (or 6). The rest can see the merits of the 9 or 10. Having said this, I really don't think you can make a bad choice. I think you'll love whatever you build.
As for the extra fuel. I think I might also want extra fuel for my long trips. Are wing tanks safer than a fuselage tank? Probably... But I currently fly a J3 cub with the fuel between the engine and my knees. It amuses me when I hear someone worry about a fuselage tank who regularly does low passes. (This is not meant as a criticism of anyone here. I knew a pilot who died from a low pass with trees at the other end. Before you think that you're better than that, I have to tell you that he was a former aerobatic champ. It just takes one mistake. Ask yourself if you think you're perfect. I've already answered this question for myself.) So what I'm doing is building stock. Then after flying for a while, if I find that I really do want extra fuel, I'll add a removable tank in the baggage compartment. Use it for the really long trips. Take it out when I don't need it.

Dan's correct

Hi John,
I seldom do aerobatics in my 6A, well, maybe more often than that but not nearly 90% of the flights. Oh, I usually do the obligatory aileron roll to wake the little rocket up but not one after another, after another.

Dan is right on the money. I have a carbureted 0-360 and can get as good and usually better mileage than a 150 HP -9A. You have to realize that it takes me less horsepower to do 165 MPH than it does the 9A with its longer wings. I've seen some of the Rocket owners with their 0-540's claim less fuel burn than their buddies in 7's at the same speed as well.

If you're anywhere in the South, come by and I'll let you fly left seat for free!!
Where are you based?
Regards,

Just next door

Pierre,

I'm in Merritt Island, FL (KCOI). I might take you up on the offer for a test flight. I'll pay for gas.

I have a Grumman Traveler now and that would make for a nice weekend adventure. But for some reason, I think the trip home in my Traveler will be a long one. (After experiencing an RV).

John

John,
As for extra fuel. I have a "baggage" fuel tank in my RV6, 12 gallons. The tank is made from .062 aluminum and covers the floor of the baggage area. It is held in with 2 straps attached to the floor and fills from the left side of the fuselage. The tank is easily removed, 5 min. and adds an extra hour plus range.
I would be happy to provide photos and info if you are interested.
Dick J.

Please send the information

N661DJ said:

I would be happy to provide photos and info if you are interested.
Dick J.

Click to expand...

Yes,

I'd like to see that. Did you make the tank yourself, or was it purchased?

That seems like an ideal solution. I'd only need the extra range occasionally.

John

Slow down boy, I say, slow down !

What's all this aerobatics stuff you colonials are talking about ?

If we Limeys want to aerobatics, we need to find a suitable aeroplane, or even an airplane to do such things in.

We cannnot turn our SBS RV's upside down at all, the 4 and the 8 are OK but the 6 and 7 would absolutely fall apart in UK airspace if we even got them beyond 60 degrees !

Also, we can't fly them through a cloud or fly them when the sun goes down.

Oh to live in the land of the free and the brave

Tank Photos

skyfrog said:

Yes,

I'd like to see that. Did you make the tank yourself, or was it purchased?

That seems like an ideal solution. I'd only need the extra range occasionally.

John

Click to expand...

I'd also like to see the tank photos/details.

C'mon over

mike newall said:

Also, we can't fly them through a cloud or fly them when the sun goes down.

Oh to live in the land of the free and the brave

Click to expand...

And you're still staying there?? Just who in the h*** tells you that you can't roll or loop a 6 or 7 when Van says that you can? Big Brother?

Sheesh, do they peek in your bedroom window too?

I'd hafta leave...

Pierre,

Unfortunately, we are regulated by the PFA, the UK equivalent of the EAA only about 50 years behind the times.

We cannot fit extras to RV's, nor can we modify them in any way unless we get a mod cert from them. This may take drawings, calcs, etc etc.

Our lot say that the SBS RV's are not suitable for aero's because Van won't expressly sanction spinning in writing. Also, they want a full load assesment of the airframe, particularly the tailplane.

We have only just got the 8 cleared for aero's after one builder did all the spadework and then a full set of spin tests which were published in the RVator a short while ago.

Now, as you so rightly say, they cannot watch us all the time so I would hazard a guess that plenty of unusual attitude work gets done.

On another subject, the UK's first and only Sonex is nearing completion. Up until about 6 months ago they were not permitted to be built as our head of PFA engineering considered them longitudinally unstable.

You boys have all the fun

Rudder Authority

but the -6 and -7 are virtually identical.

Click to expand...

Nothing personal but I wouldn't spin a 6. I spin my 7A alot.

mike newall said:

Slow down boy, I say, slow down !

What's all this aerobatics stuff you colonials are talking about ?

If we Limeys want to aerobatics, we need to find a suitable aeroplane, or even an airplane to do such things in.

We cannnot turn our SBS RV's upside down at all, the 4 and the 8 are OK but the 6 and 7 would absolutely fall apart in UK airspace if we even got them beyond 60 degrees !

Also, we can't fly them through a cloud or fly them when the sun goes down.

Oh to live in the land of the free and the brave

Click to expand...

Are we going to have to come over there and show you chaps......Again?

What, we need help again after, Flyboys, U471 and Saving Parts of Brian - oh, he was one of yours wasn't he

It is a frustration but it helps us keep our upper lips stiff and enables us to fully understand irony as opposed to you guys having to ask the Canadians to explain it.

On the flip side, a whole bunch of aeroplanes like Cub's, Champs etc fall under the PFA as well and we can do lots of work on them without field approvals 337's etc, we do have some breaks.

Happy Saturnalia !

(It's what we used to celebrate before religion was invented)

Mike,
Sat in Jeddah, bored, waiting for my next rotation of Hajj flying when I could be pounding rivets

Oh, dear, the next flame war has been lit!

dan said:

The only thing at which the RV-9[A] can beat my RV-7 hands down is glide ratio and stiffness of control...

Click to expand...

I can see it now...for years, builders will be putting washers, sand, and glue into their control linkages, and bragging about how "My controls are stiffer than Dan's! How stiff are yours?"

Are you a student pilot or experienced pilot?

skyfrog said:

My apologies, but I'd like to ask a couple more question on the RV 7/9 difference.

Since I passed my medical on Monday, I've given up the RV-12 idea. (Phew!)

My first question is one of aerobatics. To those RV-7 owners out there, can you give me a rough percentage of the time you use the aircraft for aerobatics? Every weekend? Once a year?

My second question is the possibility of having extra fuel on an RV9. The RV7 has extra fuel. I plan on getting the QB wings, so the mod to the fuel tanks is not an option. Is there a possibility of a baggage compartment fuel tank or wing tip tanks in the future for the RV9? Range is important.

My main "mission" is to fly cross-country several times a month, so the RV9 seems perfect. However, I get the urge now and then to push the envelope.

What I really need is a test flight in each. But how? I guess I'll wait for Sun-N-Fun in Lakeland before ordering.

Thanks,

John Edwards
Tools in place
EAA Workbench built
Ready to Order

Click to expand...

Not sure are you new to flying, because of your just passed the medial comment.

I ask because I don't want to be presumptuous, but have you ever done aerobatics? I love it my self and why I have a RV. I also like doing X-C as well. The main reason for going up and flying locally most of the time for me is get some acro time. May I suggest you go up and get some dual aerobatics if you have never done acro. It is addictive: loops, rolls, stalls and combos there of. You don't need inverted fuel for, barrel rolls, aileron rolls, point and hesitation rolls, loops, Cuban 8, lazy 8, immelman, chandelle, split-s, clover leaf, wing over and so on. It's a challenge to do them well and maintain headings and make them symmetric and even. I will be working on them for the rest of my flying career.

There is a chance you will not love acro. However when you get your dual make sure you are the one flying. A demo flight where the instructor just shows you how great they are is not going to give you the experience of doing acro. I really dislike acro as a passenger. I don't mind teaching and keeping my hands off the controls for instruction, but for you to get a feel of acro and your tolerance and joy level, you should be manipulating the controls. Plane on 3 flights of 30 min. Don't go up for hours. You will be tired after 10 min. Acro is a learned skill and you gain tolerance and comfort doing it more.

Cross country wise, for you I don't know, but both planes are plenty good. Again I don't want to presume your experience or the X-C mission you have in mind. You know as a VFR pilot, getting to your destination is an added bonus. You have to expect to land and wait for weather, that is if you want to live. You may be a IFR pilot, I am just not sure so sorry if I am off there.

Also bladder can be an issue. Not sure if you are a relief bottle kind of guy, 2.5 hour leg guy or go as far as you can guy. Again both planes are fine and range is not a real issue for normal flights. However that little bit more range might make the difference in some point A to B flight you might have in mind.

I have heard new pilots with some very unrealistic expectations of the performance and mission they think they can pull off in a light single engine plane. The RV7 or 9 are very capable planes. The big diff is Acro and engine choice. The RV9 is 118-160 HP which is plenty. The RV7 is 160-200 HP. HP = climb rate, shorter takeoff and more altitude and payload capacity. However for the HP the RV9 is no slouch.

If already have a deal on a 160 HP engine or O235 on hand than the RV9 is nice plane. If you want a 180 HP engine than the choice is made for you, the RV7 is the plane for you. You will be blessed with a little more sporty flying qualities. What is sporty? A little faster (top end and approach speed), a little more climb rate. As far as feel I suspect the RV7 has more roll rate and a different feel, but not having flown both I can't say. Call Van and ask them about the feel. There is this thing called the "RV feel" which is hard to quantify, especially for a new pilot. Having flown different planes I can say the RV-4, 6 and 7's fly (feel) better than any plane I have ever flown. Light, responsive, well balanced between pitch and roll with fast response but not twitchy. I am going the guess the RV9 is a little more mild, but still with the "RV feel".

Re: plane usage

Hi,

I fly about 80% acro (usually solo), 20% cross country with my wife. This percentage acro is way higher than I expected while building, I just found out that I dig it.

In fact, with the winter it has been a real bummer because of the 3000' ceilings that roll over the bay area. I don't really enjoy just going up and puttering around anymore and the ceiling is too low for me to have my personal minimums for acro.

Yup, I'm a newbie

gmcjetpilot said:

Not sure are you new to flying...

Click to expand...

Yes, I just got my PPL a year ago, so that's why the questions. I'm not sure if I will progress into acro. However, after lurking the experimental market for a couple of years, I'm convinced an RV is in my future. So, I'd like to start building within a few months.

My current "mission" is flying X-C about 125 miles each way on weekends (9A). I'll eventually go IFR for those cloudy weekend, so the extra fuel means added reserve (7A). I fly a Grumman now so I'd probably like similar landing qualities in my RV (9A). On the other hand, it would make sense to build something strong (7A). Economy would be nice (9A/160), but power is also nice to have and you can always throttle back (7A/180). I only see myself doing some "gentleman acrobatics" on occasion (9A???), but that is a vague term, and I don't think a Cuban 8 would fit that catagory (7A).

I'm soooo confused...

I think I'll just hang around until Sun-N-Fun so I can figure this out. I'll try an acro lesson before then.

John

Let me help

John,
There's no need for confusion. Just yesterday, I flew down to Ft Pierce Fl running around 209-212 MPH with a little tailwind, the occasional roll to stem the long cross country boredom. 400 miles in 1.9 hrs is not too shabby! Picked up a friend and rode home bucking a headwind in 2.3 hrs, still knocking out around 173. You can't do that or aero in a 9. Dropped him off in South Carolina and came home by nightfall. Right at 1000 miles and we only started at 10:15 AM and had a one hour lunch. Do the -7, you'll never regret it.
Regards,

Pierre...("You can't do that or aero in a 9").

I have to question that statement as your numbers seem to fall pretty much within the 9's specification envelope, acrobatics aside. I believe both designs to be excellent planes and closer in performance than most perceive. Acro is the real decision point, not cross country performance.

To your specific remarks, the 9 cruises at 186mph and can fly every bit as well with a tailwind as the 7 does. The 9's have no trouble with an occasional roll albeit at a slower rate and slightly more resistance on the stick.

At gross cruise weight, the 7 is rated 1.5% (or 3 mph, 189 vs 186) faster with the same 160hp engine... I'm not so sure that that difference is significant. Add 25% more power to the RV7 with the larger/heavier 180/200hp engine, the plane provides only 8% (11/15mph) higher cruise speed. One would have to answer the question here whether the added speed, with the initial and operational costs related to the larger engine(s), are worth such a small benefit.

Now, the real question to me, given minimal interest in acrobatics, is what would a 200hp RV-9 be capable of? FWIW, it is not particularly difficult to get 200 peak HP from the O-320 class engine weight Van designed the 9's around. A high powered RV9A should provide the best of both worlds- higher cruise speeds, faster climb rates, higher ceiling, etc, provided care is taken to keep flight speeds safe. I personally agree with VAN that the 9 is his best design overall, and probably the ideal plane for most of us. It is more efficient, more stable, and easier to fly (but not by a large margin ).

skyfrog said:

Yes, I just got my PPL a year ago, so that's why the questions. I'm not sure if I will progress into acro. However, after lurking the experimental market for a couple of years, I'm convinced an RV is in my future. So, I'd like to start building within a few months.

My current "mission" is flying X-C about 125 miles each way on weekends (9A). I'll eventually go IFR for those cloudy weekend, so the extra fuel means added reserve (7A). I fly a Grumman now so I'd probably like similar landing qualities in my RV (9A). On the other hand, it would make sense to build something strong (7A). Economy would be nice (9A/160), but power is also nice to have and you can always throttle back (7A/180). I only see myself doing some "gentleman acrobatics" on occasion (9A???), but that is a vague term, and I don't think a Cuban 8 would fit that catagory (7A).

I'm soooo confused...

I think I'll just hang around until Sun-N-Fun so I can figure this out. I'll try an acro lesson before then.

John

Click to expand...

Cuban 8 fits "gentleman acro" or Cuban fitting with a 7(A)?

First of all something about the term "gentleman" that is odd. But whatever. I call it light acro - positive, less than 4 g's. And an RV-3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 are perfectly suited for light acro, to include Cuban 8's, IMVHO. RV-9 - similar, just a little less so.

Also, if you're low time I *highly* recommed a few hours of acro dual (with spins) before strapping on your own RV. Not to be proficient at spins and acro, but to be comfortable with a spinning horizon and keeping your composure while it's occurring.

And if you're wondering why - other than to just be safely proficient in a moderately high performance light plane, you mentioned flying IFR. You need to be very comfortable with the plane upright and upside down if taking an RV into IMC.

2 cents

CFII/MEI, 975 hrs RV

Occasional Roll?

cobra said:

The 9's have no trouble with an occasional roll albeit at a slower rate and slightly more resistance on the stick.

Click to expand...

I was going to ask what light aerobatics the 9's can do, however I found another thread on this topic and I think it answered that question. (If you want acro, build a 7).

Considering fuel, handling, economy, speed, landing characteristic, etc, etc, etc., the two are very similar. It really comes down to the simple question of whether I ever plan to do aerobatics. At the moment, I don't know.

Thanks for all the input, I appreciate the information. I will give credit to the 7 pilots/builders out there. Three months ago I was 90% certain I wanted a 9A. Now it's about 50/50. Hmmm...heads or tails?

John

Glide ratio, minimum sink rate, and stall speed.

skyfrog said:

Considering fuel, handling, economy, speed, landing characteristic, etc, etc, etc., the two are very similar.

Click to expand...

First, this topic has been covered many times before; here is just one previous thread on the subject:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=6766

There should be a difference in glide ratio (though I don't know precisely how much!) and minimum sink rate that should have an affect on takeoff, landing, and engine out scenarios. Likewise there is a difference in stall speed (58 mph for the RV-7/7A and 50 mph for the RV-9/9A for same configuration). Lower stall speed translates to greater probability of survival since the kinetic energy of the 7 is ~34% greater than the 9 at stall speed.

The CAFE Foundation measured the following glide ratio for the RV-9A [1]:

* Best glide ratio, idle power, coarse pitch, 1738 lb, 95 mph CAS: 12 to 1
* Min. sink rate, idle power, coarse pitch, 1725 lb, 81.7 mph TAS: 664.2 fpm

I don't know what the comparable numbers would be for the RV-7A, but the CAFE Foundation had the following numbers for the RV-6A[2]:

* Maximum lift to drag ratio (glide ratio): 11.39
* Minimum sink rate: 749 fpm

The 6A numbers are computed, not directly measured, and of course can only hint at what the numbers are for an RV-7 or 7A. Engine out best glide ratio in any of the RVs is presumably worse than at idle; according to one source[3] it is between 6.75 to 1 and 7.5 to 1. Dan Checkoway measured 7.84 to 1 during some tests of his RV-7[3].

If you intend to do more of X than Y with the plane, build the plane that does X best and try to rent a plane capable of Y when you want to do Y. If you don't know which you will be doing more of than the other, than I think you may be making a premature decision.

[1] http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf/rv-9a.pdf
[2] http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf/RV-6A Final APR.pdf
[3] http://www.rvproject.com/20060507.html

Worth noting is that my engine was SHUT DOWN for those tests. No fuel flowing. Not closed throttle...literally CUT OFF (purge valve open). This was a REAL engine-out scenario, not simulated. Were the CAFE tests done that way? I don't know the answer to that.

How would an RV-9[A] glide with the engine's fuel supply truly cut off?

dan said:

Worth noting is that my engine was SHUT DOWN for those tests. No fuel flowing. Not closed throttle...literally CUT OFF (purge valve open). This was a REAL engine-out scenario, not simulated. Were the CAFE tests done that way? I don't know the answer to that.

How would an RV-9[A] glide with the engine's fuel supply truly cut off?

Click to expand...

The CAFE Foundation report seems to state that the glide tests were done at idle power throttle setting, so their numbers are not directly comparable to your tests. I'm pretty sure the measured glide ratio in 9/9A with engine shut down would be worse than the amount measured at idle power.

The wing areas differ by about 2.5% (121 vs 124), the wing aspect ratios by 22% (5.17 vs 6.32), and airfoils (NACA 23013.5 (?) vs Roncz something?); all factors that should give an edge in glide ratio to the 9/9A. But I have no idea how big that edge is.

There is also the issue of control feel in comparing the two, which is another factor people seem to consider when deciding between the models.

Presumably if the only significant difference between the 7/7A and 9/9A were that one could be flown aerobatically and one could not, there is a serious question of why anyone would ever opt for the non-aerobatic version - or why Van's would continue to sell both. After all, why should a buyer give up something (aerobatic capability) in exchange for nothing? Are all the 9/9A purchasers mistaken in what they think they gained by choosing that model?

(I bought the 9A preview plans but haven't made any sort of final decision, so I'm not emotionally or financially bound to any model - or even to any manufacturer.)

"After all, why should a buyer give up something (aerobatic capability) in exchange for nothing? Are all the 9/9A purchasers mistaken in what they think they gained by choosing that model?"

1) Aerobatics do not interest me. However, I could roll my plane if I wanted to, after proper instruction, but I get plenty of thrills yanking and banking. Sure I only have about 200hrs TT as a pilot but the thrill of flying safely and successfully is about all I need. You are right, that is not a justification to go with a 9 vs 6,7,8.

2) It is not a money issue, any RV can be built as cheaply or as expensive as you want.

3) For me, the wing is the thing. I like longer wings. I have a few hours in an RV6 and my 9 is much more "stable", relaxing, enjoyable, comfortable, not quite sure how to phrase it. Kinda like cruising around in a big car that smooths out the bumps in the road. Yea, the stick force is a little stiffer, but hey....longer wing, duh.

4) Still very sporty and has elegant lines.

5) Speed is not my thing, nor am I enthralled by the latest glass displays and all the nanobits of info they provide. My plane is simple perhaps because I am simple. I just want to enjoy the journey and not worry about being first in line at the BBQ.

6) Something about the 9 "called" to me and, in the end, that might be all the justification anyone needs.

Flame on

bsacks05 1) Aerobatics do not interest me. However said:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4083/fog002hl6.jpg[/IMG]

Click to expand...

I think these are all very valid and fair comments. I'm building an RV7A but if I was starting again I'd be thinking more seriously about the 9. I'm planning on flying a lot of IFR and I have no doubt the 9 would be a better platform...less twitchy...better glide.

I keep bumping into all these +55 builders who are building a 7 "because it can do aerobatics". And the truth is that very few of them have even got an aerobatic rating. Possibly a couple of barrel rolls and a loop and that will be the end of their aerobatics.

Captain Avgas said:

I'm planning on flying a lot of IFR and I have no doubt the 9 would be a better platform...less twitchy...

Click to expand...

With an autopilot, it's all the same.

And get real about how much IFR flying you'll REALLY do. Less than 3% in my case. In the past 12 months, I flew 12.7 hours actual instrument (flying solely by reference to instruments) out of 437.6 hours. 16 approaches. That ain't much, and I fly a LOT, and I do commute under IFR for business.

Anyway, everybody needs to GET REAL about how much IFR flying they will do in their RV. -7 or -9.

John-
This issue has been debated to the point that it is definitely one of the "never-to-be-settled" topics akin to primer and tip up vs. slider, nosewheel vs. tailwheel, etc. I won't restate my opinion here, but will say that Van's wouldn't have invested the time and money in the -9 if it didn't have a significantly different set of advantages. The -7 is good for what it does and the -9 is good for what it does. Despite what anyone above might say, you can't make a -7 fly like a -9 and you can't make a -9 fly like a -7.

Aside from going through all the threads on this topic you can find, I'd encourage you to try fly in both, try talk in person (not in a forum like this) to those who fly one or the other (preferably both), and do whatever it takes to honestly assess whether aerobatics are going to be much of your future. I had to give up a little desire to do the latter, but haven't regretted it one bit, especially after talking to those who have spent much time in a -9(A).
Good luck with your decision.

I haven't chimed in much here. But as always it does depend on your mission.

In my case, I have my A&P, so options are very different for me, I always do my own maintenance. The reason I love the Rv's i've flown is the light stick forces, the yanking and banking, and the speed. I don't think that compromising the very things that attract me to the design is a good idea for me.

I'll be honest, any RV isn't an IFR bird, and pretending that IFR flying is an actual build consideration for me was ludicris. If i'm planning for IFR, I'll fly my Dad's Cessna Cardinal. If it's unplanned IFR, the RV will be equipt for it, and will handle it fine.

I enjoy hand flying airplanes. I have hand-flown almost every one of my rather meager 500ish hours, and don't plan on autopiloting much of the next 500ish . X-countries will be shorter in the RV than the Cardinal (135kts max), therefore the extra sensitivity will be made up for by shorter trip times, and I'll have the occational roll thrown in throughout the trip .

I don't plan on much real acro, rolls and loops maybe, but I do a ton of yank and bank stuff, and the -7 just seems to go where I think, which is what I want out of my aeroplane... What it comes down to everyone has to anaylize and make their own decision. No one can say the -9 is a bad bird, to me it compromises what the RV is all about. Everyone will have to determine what is important. For me, I'd rather build a Glastar, a Whitman W10 Tailwind or a Glasair IIRG. They reflect my philosphy in experimentals much more. The RV-9 could probably be certified... think about that.

alpinelakespilot2000 said:

John-
This issue has been debated to the point that it is definitely one of the "never-to-be-settled" topics akin to primer and tip up vs. slider, nosewheel vs. tailwheel, etc. I won't restate my opinion here, but will say that Van's wouldn't have invested the time and money in the -9 if it didn't have a significantly different set of advantages. The -7 is good for what it does and the -9 is good for what it does. Despite what anyone above might say, you can't make a -7 fly like a -9 and you can't make a -9 fly like a -7.

Click to expand...

Yeah... agreed... but the problem is too many want their cake and be able to eat it too!! I have spent my life in emergency services - and as a Battalion Chief for the past 12+ years get sent to the biggest and best examples of human error, death and destruction. I LIKE the long wing, better glide, slower landing/stall speed of the -9. BUT - I'd also like to do the occasional roll and loop. It isn't an answer that resolves easily.

I've seen thread after thread of folks trying to justify "Gentleman's" aerobatics in the -9. Personally, I won't do it unless the designer says he has designed the aircraft to that capability. Now - if we can get Van's to strengthen the spar, add some ribs... or whatever else needs to be engineered into the -9 to make it designed to fly upside over... There'd be one less thread for Doug to monitor arguments and bad language!

Fortunately, my plan is to do a QB-RV-12 before I start my 5 year rivet pounding project. So I have lots of time to vacillate between the 7,8 and 9!

Not interested in aerobatics and all RVs are fast enough for me. My RV will be based on my short farm airstrip so I am more interested in low touchdown speed and good control feel/response at low speed. The only hard decision was between the 9A or the 9.

Fin 9A

Incidentally, this is why we eventually (albeit a little late in the game) decided to switch from the -7 to a Bearhawk. Really, none of the RV's are good aerobatic mounts to be honest. They're too clean and they don't snap very well. Loops, rolls, point rolls, hammerheads....things like that work well. What makes the RV's so wonderful is they're compromises that exactly fit what most people want to do with their airplane.

So for us, we decided that we didn't want to compromise and we would throw out aerobatics and top speed. That's how we decided on the Bearhawk. It's just a more usuable airplane for the kind of flying we like to do (back country, land anywhere and get there reasonably fast, haul anything etc...). When I want to do acro, I'll go rent a Pitts and REALLY have some fun (or heck, I'll just build one. A Model 12 would be nice).

I'm sure the people buying the -9's have the same thought. It's more stable, and has easier landing characteristics...it's just an easier plane to fly overall and it does it on a small engine. You have to throw out aerobatics to get this.

This isn't to take anything away from the -7, -8, -4 etc etc etc. They're ALL great flying planes and there's enough choices that you can optimize for your own personal mission, not someone else's concept of what "better" performance is.

As far as designing the -9 so that it's also designed for Acro, Vans has already done that, it's in production and you can order one today. Download the "RV-7" order form and you're on your way.

It's all about compromises...