What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Which Plane?

aggieaviator

I'm New Here
In the continued evolution of one day possibly becoming an airplane builder I have achieved a huge milestone. My wife gave me her blessing. Up until now she affectionately referred to them as snap togethers. I wish.
Before she changes her mind I’m trying to decide on a kit.

After reviewing the mission, my experience and budget, I think I have it narrowed down but any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Simple Mission
80% - Me farting around the pattern or quick trip less than 1-2 hrs away.
20% - Wife and I flying together to airports 1-3hrs away. Occasionally venturing out on longer x-countries. She actually likes to fly with me. No kids. IFR

Experience - 1st time builder, love to learn new things and appreciates the challenge (famous last words). Never even helped to build an airplane.

Budget- After everything including paint would like to be somewhere in the $115- $125k ballpark. I’m leaning QB as mostly an assist as a 1st time builder. I’m not in a huge rush. Want a great safe plane. I’m shooting for 5 years, sooner is gravy. I currently work full time and god willing will be during the build.

I like the 14A due to it being the latest and I’ve heard good thinks about the kit.
However, budget wise, I think all said and done it would be outside of our range and we don’t necessarily require the extra room provided by the 14A.

I like the 7A, but I’m not really expecting to get into aerobatics. Could, but it’s not on the agenda. I like the idea of having the option and an airplane that can handle the extra Gs, the extra speed, however...

9A looks to provide a little bit less expensive option (cost per flight hour) with the thinner longer wing design and will go plenty fast economically. Much faster than I’m used to. Any other major considerations to be made between the 7A and 9A models? The build, costs?

What did you decide on and why? Is there anything else I should consider? What plane would you build if you were in my position?
 
I chose an RV-3B for unrelated reasons.

Sure sounds like you're looking for an RV-9A, based on what you wrote.

Dave
 
Jeremy,
I does sound to me like you're talking about a 9 or 9A. You can get it upside down with some effort, and you can fly formation in it (ask the Cards). But if the bulk of your mission is crosscountry and "putzin'", while still enjoying the build experience, I'm thinking the 9 or 9A comes closes to your list.

I finished KELLI GIRL in 4.5 years, while a full-time USAF colonel then American Airlines pilot instructor. The quick build option helped. Kelli and I fly crosscountry and hit the $100 hamburgers all around north and central Texas. She REALLY favors the side-by-side seating, so I believe your bride will probably see it the same way.
 
For me it was an RV-9

Hey, decisions decisions! I chose a -9 by deduction. I wasn't after a 10 or 14 due to the higher cost. 3,4, & 6 were out as they're older non-prepunched designs. I'm not really into aerobatics so the 7 & 8 weren't on the agenda.

I chose tip-up & tailwheel on cost (plus I do like flying taildraggers, they just need more polish on the stick & rudder skills I find). Other than that, the 9 was a good fit, I really just wanted something faster & more economical than a typical Piper or Cessna, that I could cruise around in comfortably.

I went SB the whole way, and I am really enjoying that. I've learnt so much along the way, and I personally think SB really teaches you how the structure is put together so your overall understanding is much higher. Yes there's a lot more work, but I find it rewarding too. Don't let new things bother you - I enjoy telling people the first fuel tank I ever made was for my aircraft! I never know how to spray paint or use fibreglass (not to mention riveting) until I started building. I've just gone 2.5yrs building, all mostly solo, and I'm starting to assemble the rear fuse (Emp & wings done), and for 18mths of those 2.5yrs I was working away from home during the week.

If you commit, there's so many other decisions to make, and there's plenty of good advice here on different options. Prime vs not prime, Colour schemes, avionics, antenna placement, firewall forward stuff, engine, prop, interior, not to mention aftermarket mods.

Good luck with your decision. There's a considerable time and financial commitment to see it through, but lots of fantastic advice and support through VAF to help get you there.
 
Simple

There is no question....

9a Pride of the fleet.

What a 7 wishes it could be. :eek::D
You cant go wrong with any. Enjoy
 
7A

9 or 7 VFR can be done with that budget but QB and IFR would push it.

Sweetie wanted side by side. I wanted robust G-load in a cross country capable machine.
Back then, 7 was the only option. I wanted to build so SB was the choice. Happy with it. Working FWF. I am prepping the engine now and thinking about the final expensive purchases like Prop and Avionics.
If money was no object, I would probably build a 14A.
 
Jeremy,

Congratulations on obtaining the go-ahead to build.

From your mission profile, I agree with others that it sounds like an RV-9 may be your best fit.

Since you live in The Woodlands, I suggest you check out our EAA 302 chapter (www.eaa302.org) which typically meets at the Conroe airport. While we meeting virtually during the pandemic, there are still a lot of builders in the group who are happy to provide you with advice and support. I'm not sure if we have any RV-9s in the club, but we certainly have a lot of RVs of various models, including 8, 10, 12, & 14 that I can think of off the top of my head. Also I think there may be a 6 or 7, but I'm not sure about the 9. Suggest you get in touch with our President Joe Waltz as he has a better knowledge of the planes based at Conroe than I do. His contract info is on the chapter website.

Cheers,
 
Second the Conroe group, really good guys with a ton of experience. Go see some airplanes and take rides. I considered a side by side before I compared the two; glad I went tandem. Probably not in the cards for you, but you might decide you like something more in a 7 versus 9 or 14; once you spend the money on a kit you are committed.
 
What about a 12?

Your situation sounds a lot like mine. I was leaning heavily toward the 9 and as I thought about it more, the 12 really started checking more boxes. It would fit your budget really well and from my research, is an easy kit to build (pulled vs. bucked rivets). It won't cruise at 150 kts but is still very efficient. I haven't started yet but hope to have the emp kit on order by the end of the month.
 
^^^ Consider RV-12

Ditto for considering an RV-12. It is an ideal airplane for fun local flights as well as occasional longer trips.
Visibility is probably the best and operating costs the lowest.
Construction time will be a lot quicker and you can do more of it on your own due to the pulled rivets.
The cruise speed should be equal to or better than what you might have flown (C150, C172, Cherokee etc.) and the handling and climb performance will be much better.

I chose to build a 6A because the options at the time were more limited. I currently hire a 9A and own a Rotax 912 powered high wing LSA. If I built again, I would choose the RV-12 because of the quicker construction time and the Rotax engine because it is so easy to live with.
 
Consider the RV4. I think you wold find it the nicest to fly, just great for short flights, but capable of comfortable longer flights. Good value for money. I don't know how much time the lack of pre punching adds, but the building is easy.
 
Jeremy, your entire post cries out for a 9/9A. The difference in cost between 7 and 9 is absolutley marginal for identical equipped aircraft (the 9 with 320 and 7 with 360). Build times and complexity are the same.
 
Jeremy, it looks like the side by side seating is decided for you, but the question you really need to be asking yourself is do you want to do a bit of upside-down action? If most of your flights are screwing around for fun, then I'd have a good hard think about a 7. I didn't think I'd be doing many aeros, in fact I didn't even have my aero indorsement before I finished my aircraft even though I'd been flying for 20 years. I mainly build my machine as an A to B ride. Now I've found that many of my flights are a "hey, I just [washed/fixed/serviced etc] my aircraft and I need to take it up for a quick flight", and you can't but help including an aileron roll or two somewhere along the line. Although I have a rating, I'm not into hardcore aerobatics by any means, but a sneaky positive G aileron roll never ceases to put a smile on my dial, or anyone else's that chooses to come with you (yes, they will be lining up once you have it finished, especially if they know it can do a bit of upside down action). Some gentle aeros are like an amazing drug you never get a hangover from, and it never gets old. From a MPG perspective at the same speeds, there's nothing in it between the 7 and the 9 at the altitudes we normally cruise at (assuming you spend most of your time below 10,000'), although the 7 holds 16% or about 45min more fuel. From a "stable platform" perspective, this is an issue from the early 1900's, which has been resolved with this invention called an autopilot (Garmin G3X with an autopilot is an awesome combination). The RV-7 is a "stable platform" with the press of a button (I have the wings level/recovery button on my stick) but it's a point and shoot fighter aircraft when you need it, which is why you want an RV anyway and not your grandfather's Cessna. The 9 is a noticeable amount slower on approach/landing, and according to book values pulls up 50ft shorter, but I regularly fly into 1200ft runways no problem. If I was always looking at flying into short runways, I'd probably get myself a RAN's S21 or wait 6 months until Van's announces their competing bush plane. Just ask yourself, "do I ever plan on rolling it upside down" and if the answer is yes, then you know which one you have to pick.
Main thing is, keep it light during the build (it makes it so much more fun to fly). Don't get your wants and needs confused (first world problem I know, and we are talking about an aeroplane here). Watch the CG of the 7 (there are plenty of posts on this, but basically you want the IO-360 engine with the longer IO-320 motor mount if you are going to use any type of composite prop otherwise you will limit your baggage capacity) and realize that the QB kits are amazing value for money (I built a SB and it took 3 years full time work, but I got my wants and needs confused). QB easily knocks 1,000hrs off the build time, and likely closer to 2000 for the slower, more conscientious builder types. It greatly improves your chances of finishing it and not being one of the countless individuals that realize they've got themselves in over their heads timewise. It is a massive time commitment. On a final note, if you ever plan on taking trips to the coast, prime it, otherwise you won't be able to sleep at night when it's sitting out in the inevitable salt spray, which is finding its way into the lap joints, where it will sit forever, gnawing away at you and the airplane. If you're only going to pull it out on fine days and putt around the patch in an Arizona climate, don't bother. Just be sure that if you do, use a non chromated primer so you don't have to sacrifice yourself in process.
Good luck.
Tom.
 
I have never heard a -7 builder say they wished for a -9, but I have heard upon several occasions a -9 builder state the opposite.

I have never heard someone say that they wished they couldn’t do aerobatics in their plane.

Judging by the market, a -7 will sell for more than a -9.

I have read hundreds of threads on here and never heard a compelling argument for the existence of the -9. They always end with something like “if aerobatics are not desired and a smaller fuel burn is desired....”. The thing is, physics and flight data will tell you that a -9 with a 320 will burn about the same fuel per mile as a -7 with a 360, pulled back.

Cheaper engine? I have watched the classifieds for years and 320’s are not significantly cheaper than 360’s.

I realize that many folks love the -9 but if slower flight, lower sales price and inability to do aerobatics is the best sales pitch, why not just do a -7 and choose to keep it dirty side down? For a builder the cost is virtually the same.

As to the -12, it is not even it the same boat. Much lighter wing loading. Much slower and resembles a bulgy-eyed frog. However, much easier to build and COULD be built cheaper.

You can easily build a -7, -9, -8, -12 for well under $100,000. WELL under. Ask me how I know...

Side by side is the only option if your wife likes you! 😁 Very few people enjoy the back seat of a tandem plane. My wife wants to snuggle and hold my hand. Can’t do that from way back there!!!

These are my OPINIONS - don’t get angry all you -9 drivers... 😎
 
My two cents:
9 with a 360. It will do lots of fun stuff, even some aerobatic maneuvers like lazy 8's rolls, even loops, but that takes some care. Great cross country, great cruise, and great short field. IMO the best balance of the fleet.

Tim
 
Bear in mind that any aerobatic maneuver is completely outside the operating limitations of an RV-9's airworthiness certificate. One's insurance won't cover anything related to aerobatics.
 
My mission is pretty much the same with the exception of wanting to do aerobatics and formation. I chose the RV-8. I think my wife will like her giant elbow room and own space in the back. The -7 is pretty cozy up front.. hope your friends like to snuggle as much as your wife does!
 
When I was looking for RV's, I decided on either a -9A or a -7A and I was completely indifferent one vs the other. Price was not an object. As it happened, the first plane that came up that met my requirements was a -9A. I did see a couple of -7A's that were nice, but not as well equipped or capable as that -9A so I snapped it up. That plane has met my every expectation.
 
My mission is pretty much the same with the exception of wanting to do aerobatics and formation. I chose the RV-8. I think my wife will like her giant elbow room and own space in the back. The -7 is pretty cozy up front.. hope your friends like to snuggle as much as your wife does!

I recently flew to Missouri with a buddy in his Mooney Bravo. Nice plane but THAT is close quarters. Made my RV feel like a Skywagon.
 
Get some rides

I bought a 6a unintentionally. Long story. Expected to sell it. Flew it a few hours and couldn’t part with it. Sat in both 14 and 14a (check my name above) and bought a partially built kit. Later got short ride in both a 9a and a 14a and now I’m willing to sell the 14 project. The fun factor in the control forces is just not the same as a 6. 7 and 8 are very much like the 6. Admittedly the 9 and 14 are more stable (they were designed for cross country) but that isn’t the fun part of an rv. Personally I like the a as i think my wife might get it on the ground and live through the experience and I doubt she would with a taildragger. I have flown several conventional gear airplanes and they are fun but not much fun in a crosswind. I landed my 6a in a 24 knot gusting to 35 once. Got my attention but very doable. Back to my title GET SOME RIDES! Most rv people love to show of their planes.
 
I built a 9a and flew 230 hours in just the first year. I live in Louisville Ky. In the first year it went from Wisconsin, to Colorado, Utah, Seattle, Texas, Gulf Coast and many place in between.

My wife has 25 hours of instruction in it as well.

If aerobatics is for sure not in the future the 9A is a very forgiving wing and easy to fly, likes to go high, smooth cruising.

Before you make that decision on aerobatics I would find a way to try it just in case. You will either know for sure its not for you, or move to the 7 side. Both planes are great.
 
for the 7 v 9 argument people seem to forget what the design goals of the 9 were. it was to be a aircraft that could live up to the vans legacy with a 235 on the front end. as designed, van hit it right on, however, he underestimated the public again. the first thing that people did was put bigger motors on it and made it heavy and lumbering. the only thing that came out of it was that the wing on it is fantastic at higher altitude cruise. the bit about slower stall, ect is just smoke as all RVs have great slow speed characteristics. as far as im concerned the only reason to build a 9 is if you do a lot of cross country at higher altitudes, thats where that wing really shines. if that is not the mission, then build a 7. you get aerobatic capabilities, a better handling aircraft and you don't get that ugly rectangular horizontal stab. as you can see, im not going to lecture you about putting the seats in the wrong locations. I also didnt mention A models as nobody puts training wheels on airplanes.
 
+1 n82rb :cool:

Call me stupid, but the popularity of the -9 variants always surprised me. It was supposed to be an economical cruiser...
Installing 320s, 360s (any higher bid?) in a -9 beats the purpose of the design, and reduces the safety margins :eek:

Sport flying, aeros, big engine, speed? Go for the -7, -8, or -14 :cool:
 
This seems to have turned into yet one more 7 vs 9 debate. There are so many already in the archives that I hesitate to add to this one as well. That said, there are at least a couple important items that have not been offered above that should factor into one's considerations if you are making a list of pros and cons for each:

1. The -9/9A has both a substantially better glide ratio and a lower power-off sink rate. Check the CAFE Foundation tests for confirmation. If you at all fly over inhospitable terrain, this could become advantageous.

2. The -9/9A has approach and stall speeds that are 15-20% slower than a -7/7A (48mph vs 58mph per Van's website). If you look at a chart showing survivability of impact relative to velocity, that 15-20% is potentially a pretty big deal (as in its not a direct relationship). Slower speeds also decrease the likelihood of the plane flipping.

There are a lot of great reasons for a -7/7A too. I might even concur in the resale value argument. All in all, though, after having flown one for 9 years, to my mind it still comes down to what Van's suggests it does. If you want to have an aerobatic plane, get a -7/7A. If not, you might be just as happy with a -9/9A.
 
Last edited:
The -7 is pretty cozy up front.. hope your friends like to snuggle as much as your wife does!

Modern experimental pilots are so spoiled! 😁 I have a Cessna 140 that I am currently flying - an RV-7 is SPACIOUS compared!!!

I have been in all the 2 seater RVs except the -14. They all have space trade offs. The -8 has more elbow room per person but you are extremely restricted in what you can do with your feet in the back seat. The -7 (-9, -6) gives more options for your legs but not as much elbow room. The -4 is just plain tiny for a 6’-4” 200lb person.

For the OP, who wants to build, I would recommend the -7. It is the perfect do-everything plane, reasonable cost to build, great return on investment, all the options are open for the future, lower insurance than the -8 (potentially)...just can’t go wrong.

The advice to fly each one is the best advice ever. Only you can know which one will fit your needs. Van’s site explains why to pick which one and everyone likes their choice best but you need to fly them and decide what benefits are most appreciated and what limitations you can live with.
 
... Very few people enjoy the back seat of a tandem plane.

This false sentiment is thrown about by side-by-side owners and builders more than the the -9x crowd insist that theirs is better than the -7x .

I've never have someone complain about getting a ride in the back seat of my -8, and I've had quite a few passengers. Most comment how great the visibility is. My 25,000 hour 6'2" 82 year old Dad has probably spent a couple hundred hours back there, and my SO nearly as much. Here are some of my passengers enjoying the ride:

IMG_4163.JPG

Friend Annie

IMG_3875800x600.jpg

Sister

IMG_0540800x600.jpg

Significant Other

IMG_3867800x600.jpg

Dad

DSC_2179800x600.jpg

Back Seat

Do you think Tom Cruise and company would have preferred rides in the right seat of Intruders instead of the back seats of F-14's and F-18's? I think not!

Skylor
 
Well, there are lots of ‘choose what I chose’ posts by now. But unless I missed it, no one mentioned ifr other than the OP. No Vans’ airplane is a great instrument platform. ‘Fun to fly’ and ‘easy to maneuver’ are the opposite of ‘highly stable’. However, a competent instrument pilot can fly a -7 or a -9 on instruments. You’ll find the -9 - with its longer wings - a bit less fatiguing. If that’s a concern.
 
Sorry to hit and run, I've been lurking my own thread since I posted my question and have really enjoyed and appreciate the feedback so far.

There doesn't seem to be a 'right' answer. I have to consider what I foresee as meeting my mission and wants in the relative near term. I was leaning 9A, now I'm somewhat back on the fence with the 7A. Decisions...decisions. As others have said, I'm just going to have to fly in both to know.

I see some folks mentioning the Conroe EAA group. I had previously reached out to Joe and did the virtual meeting a couple of Saturdays ago. I tried to meet up with Joe but things didn't go as planned. I'm interested in meeting other RV owners in the Houston and surrounding areas. Please shoot me a DM if you're in the area. Again, thanks for the feedback.
 
Sorry to hit and run, I've been lurking my own thread since I posted my question and have really enjoyed and appreciate the feedback so far.

There doesn't seem to be a 'right' answer.

From all the folks that responded - There doesn't seem to be a 'wrong' answer.

From your posts, you prefer a SBS airplane so that means choosing between a 6 - 7 - 9 - 14 model. Flying characteristics between them is nominally different and easily mastered. Your choice of equipment can make any of these models fit any roll you want it to do. Really, all you need to do is flip a coin, choose a number & you will be on the way to getting that coveted 'Vans Smile' award!
 
Back
Top