What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Difference in RV's

jongurley

Active Member
Hey guys , I am currently looking into buying a RV,, don't know whether I want a side by side or tandem, but I noticed that RV6's can be picked up very very reasonable,, my question is, what is the differences in the RV6 vs. RV7, I have flown in a buddies RV7 and landed it and all. just wondering is there any noticeable flying and or other differences, thanks.
 
What is the differences in the RV6 vs. RV7

Hey guys , I am currently looking into buying a RV, what is the differences in the RV6 vs. RV7.

The RV-7 is basically an RV-6 with RV-8 wings! The RV-7 has a few refinements but is almost a clone of the RV-6 as far as performance and feel.
IMHO if you really want a side by side RV, I'd suggest (because of price) going with the RV-6, "there ain't a chew of tobacco difference" in the two airplanes!

Hope this helps,
 
Head room

I also understand that the 7 has more head room than the 6. If you're tall that might be a consideration.

Tom
 
I also understand that the 7 has more head room than the 6. If you're tall that might be a consideration.

Tom

The floor is lower - and the gap between the instrument panel and sub-panel is bigger so messing with the avionics and instruments is easier.

Jim Sharkey
RV-6
 
Head room

I also understand that the 7 has more head room than the 6.

According to the Specs on Van's web site, The 7(A) has 41" and the 6(A) has 39.5". BUT, they are measured from different points! Apples and oranges? Who really knows?? I've flown 6's, 7,s and 9's and IMHO you really can't tell the difference!

Hope this helps,
 
There are two significant usability differences: the 7 carries four more gallons than the 6, and something I think is quite important, Vne for the 7 is 230 MPH vs 210 for the 6. That's TAS, so it's real easy to blow through Vne on a quick descent from higher altitudes in the 6.

The 7 is a 9 fuse with 8 flying surfaces. The 9 fuse is a tad bigger than the 6.

John Siebold
 
I live in NC also. I would be glad to give you a ride in a six. I will send you a PM with my number.

George
 
It also seems like the -7 can do aerobatics with 2 adults whereas the weight for aerobatics in the 6 is much lower so solo aerobatics seem to be all you can do within the limits.

I was looking at both the -6 and the -7 before I went family with a -10. Because of the weight limit, I was focused on -7.
 
Hey guys , I am currently looking into buying a RV,, don't know whether I want a side by side or tandem, but I noticed that RV6's can be picked up very very reasonable,, my question is, what is the differences in the RV6 vs. RV7, I have flown in a buddies RV7 and landed it and all. just wondering is there any noticeable flying and or other differences, thanks.

This matter has of course been dealt with ad infinitum and is well documented in the archives. Go to the search button at the top of this page and search for "RV6 vs RV7".

The truth is that the RV7(A) is a completely different beast to the RV6(A) and is quite different in dozens of crucial features from the empennage forward. Beware of defensive RV6 owners who tell you differently. ;)

The fact that the RV7 has a bigger wingspan, completely different structural wing carry-through, significantly higher gross weight, larger fuel capacity, and is designed for a more powerful engine, should immediately suggest that the difference between the models is very real.

The RV7(A) is also fully computer pre-punched compared to the RV6(A) which had only prepunched skins. All things being equal, this makes it easier for builders to achieve a higher level of alignment of componentry during fabrication which (once again....all things being equal) generally results in a noticeably superior finish.

And the large market price difference reflects all of this. However the RV6(A) is still a lovely, well balanced aircraft to fly and in many cases the significant used price difference makes them very good value indeed.
 
The main reason the -6 costs less than the -7 on the open market is that it seems to be considered ?Last year?s model?.

Besides the increase in fuel capacity for the -7, the -7 has significantly higher gross and acrobatic weights.

The GW is the big issue, 1600 (1650 for the -6A) vs. 1800 lbs for the -7.
The acro GW for the -7 is 1600 lbs and 1375 lbs for the -6.

Since it sounds like you will be looking to buy rather than build, pay close attention to the empty weight. It is very easy for an RV-6, 7, 8, or 9 to exceed 1100 lbs empty.
 
The GW is the big issue, 1600 (1650 for the -6A) vs. 1800 lbs for the -7.
The acro GW for the -7 is 1600 lbs and 1375 lbs for the -6.

It's not the big issue. It's very common to see 6 gross weights set at 1800-1850. Very few are set at Van's conservative weight, which was set when few constant speed props were used. No 6 wings have fell off yet. And the 6's far out number the flying 7's, both in count and years.

A few will argue about gross weight limits. A few will argue which plane has the stronger spar. I'll go for the 6 spar, that meets in the center of the fuselage....... with around 56 bolts holding it together.

When someone argues gross weight facts, then fine, have them prove it.
Besides, the 6 with it's slightly shorter wing, fly's a bit on the sportier side...

L.Adamson
 
There is no single Apple to compare with the Orange

This matter has of course been dealt with ad infinitum and is well documented in the archives. Go to the search button at the top of this page and search for "RV6 vs RV7".

The truth is that the RV7(A) is a completely different beast to the RV6(A) and is quite different in dozens of crucial features from the empennage forward. Beware of defensive RV6 owners who tell you differently. ;)

The fact that the RV7 has a bigger wingspan, completely different structural wing carry-through, significantly higher gross weight, larger fuel capacity, and is designed for a more powerful engine, should immediately suggest that the difference between the models is very real.

The RV7(A) is also fully computer pre-punched compared to the RV6(A) which had only prepunched skins. All things being equal, this makes it easier for builders to achieve a higher level of alignment of componentry during fabrication which (once again....all things being equal) generally results in a noticeably superior finish.

And the large market price difference reflects all of this. However the RV6(A) is still a lovely, well balanced aircraft to fly and in many cases the significant used price difference makes them very good value indeed.

Many changes were going on during the long production life of the 6 before it was taken off line. You would be much better off to study the workmanship, documentation (like wiring diagrams/schematics, etc.), history of the engine and major components (new, used, overhauled, etc), system design (separate from the airframe) and so on and pick the best quality airplane you can find than think that an RV-6 or an RV-7 will automatically be a better airplane than the other. For what it's worth my RV-6A has 55 gallon fuel capacity, it has the short tail with no rudder counterbalance, pressure recovery fairings on the main gear and the older flat side on the on the nose gear, the green honey comb core cowl as opposed to the earlier cowl and the current "pink" cowls, and my kit had ZERO prepunched or drilled holes in the skin or anything else. With the same power the short tailed RV-6 is the faster airplane because the equivalent flat plate area is less. HOW'S THAT FOR DEFENSIVE?

Bob Axsom
 
If you are the *gurley in Cary, then send me a PM and I can get you some seat time in my 6A. There are several 6's and 7's here in the local area and in our local EAA Chapter 1114, still at Cox Field.
 
Hey Noel, I live in Goldsboro,, I might could take the 150 over there one day and grab a seat, after christmas of course sometime.
 
RV6 vs. RV7

This topic will pull much good info from good RVer's.

I have owned both a RV6 and a RV7. As owners said, there are many differences.
One not mentioned was that the RV7A has a taller and stronger landing gear design than the RV6A. This option allowed clearance for a larger prop to be used with the larger engine on the RV7 than a RV6.

Van has been quoted as saying the RV6 has the stronger wing and he is the engineer. Also, it was actually tested. The RV7 wing is more manufacturing efficient and cost effective to build parts for in the factory, per Van's. Understandable in designing a new model as they are trying to make a profit.

Yes, the RV7 has a higher gross rating in acro as well as normal. This is great, especially on a FAA ramp check or for big big guys. This will be very important to someone that wishes to take dual acro training in their RV. As some one else mentioned, the RV6 has a smaller weight allowance that almost makes a solo limitation on acro in the 6. Personally, I loved my RV6. It was a very fun airplane in all regards. My dual acro was in a citabria and an RV7, not my RV6. I am a big guy.

There is the tail issue between the planes that is not as big of an issue as many make it out to be, of which I realized the reality of after hearing it from Van. Again, another discussion, (6 Tail vs 7 Tail.)

The visibility is improved on a RV7 due to the cowling design being lowered compared to the RV6. The panel is closer on RV6. This gives the RV7 more cabin room than the RV6.

Head room is better on the RV7. I am 6'2" and I notice the diff. Although either plane works for me.

Bottom line:
IMHO, RV7 has some upgrades over the RV6, such as (11) square feet of additional wing to make a higher designed gross weight on the data plate.

The big issue: COST! If money is an issue, save your self $20K to 40K, average, and get a well built RV6 or RV6A. You will be able to do most everything an RV7 or RV7A will do. The RV6 will carry around 100 lbs less. 36 lbs of that will be in fuel that you won't need compared to the RV7, with your smaller engine.

Many RV6's are data plated with 1800 lbs gross weight. I fly a RV7 now and love it, but I miss my RV6 and the $30+K for the additional upgrade. If money is no issue, get a P-51.
 
...

A few will argue about gross weight limits. A few will argue which plane has the stronger spar. I'll go for the 6 spar, that meets in the center of the fuselage....... with around 56 bolts holding it together.

When someone argues gross weight facts, then fine, have them prove it.
Besides, the 6 with it's slightly shorter wing, fly's a bit on the sportier side...

L.Adamson
No need to argue, just ask the designer what the weights are, or look them up, as I did. Someone's assumption that one wing is stronger because it has more bolts and thus more holes may be a bad assumption.

Since Van's does not release the engineering data it is anyones guess as to which is stronger.
 
As Bob mentioned, there are far more differences between individual builds in both equipment type and quality than you will ever find between the models. Don't get caught up in arguing which airplane is "better". That topic belongs in the never ending debates.
 
No need to argue, just ask the designer what the weights are, or look them up, as I did. Someone's assumption that one wing is stronger because it has more bolts and thus more holes may be a bad assumption.

Since Van's does not release the engineering data it is anyones guess as to which is stronger.

And on the other hand........

Jon Johansons RV4 (with 6 type wings) made it around the world numerous times, with a takeoff weight, that's 136 % gross.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/jj-plane.htm
 
It's very common to see 6 gross weights set at 1800-1850.

It's not the big issue. It's very common to see 6 gross weights set at 1800-1850. Very few are set at Van's conservative weight, which was set when few constant speed props were used. No 6 wings have fell off yet. And the 6's far out number the flying 7's, both in count and years.

A few will argue about gross weight limits. A few will argue which plane has the stronger spar. I'll go for the 6 spar, that meets in the center of the fuselage....... with around 56 bolts holding it together.

When someone argues gross weight facts, then fine, have them prove it.
Besides, the 6 with it's slightly shorter wing, fly's a bit on the sportier side...

L.Adamson

A few years ago, I saw an RV-6A at OSH with a 2250 lb GW on the data plate. Gee, that's only 600 lb over Van's recommended GW! :eek:
 
Most posts are fairly accurate, but the details behind them are a little bit different than people sometimes assume. The interior sizing differences between the 6/7 aren't just because the 7 is "bigger". Realize that the floor of the 6 has dihedral at the spar to match where the spars come together straight in from the wings whereas the 7/9 fuse has a flat bottom to match the separate spar carrythrough. The spar carrythrough bulkhead on the 6 protrudes almost an inch further inboard on each side than the 7. The seat ribs of the 7 actually lower your position in the fuselage over the relatively flat lower seat ribs in the 6 (they are quite different if you put the two ribs side by side to compare).

In the end we've built/flown both numerous times and I think in the end you'd be happy with ANY Van's RV aircraft. You can't beat a well built light 6 for doing wifferdills in the sky, but the 7 sure lands nice and the extra couple gallons can be nice. The 6's with the original small tails can waggle a bit in bumpy air and is good looking on TD's, but the larger tails on both the later 6's (and either version of the 7 tail) are nice for aggresive slips and xwinds.

Panel position and cowl positions are pretty much the same relative to the canopy deck rails as is the position of the engine. If you take a 6/7 put them nose to nose things are pretty much the same - though the different seating positions in the cockput may induce you to think otherwise and the extra 1" to the rudder pedals is nice for us tall folk.

The 7 is infinitely easier to build (and fix) as it's from a standardized pre-punched package, where many of the 6's were jig built.

In the end, it's like everyone says....any of them are great. There are some real bargains out there on 4's and 6's right now (barely over the cost of the FFW and systems) so if they were built good/straight/light you'll be happy with it.

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
You are the builder, remember that.

A few years ago, I saw an RV-6A at OSH with a 2250 lb GW on the data plate. Gee, that's only 600 lb over Van's recommended GW! :eek:

My 7A is certified and dataplated at 2000 pounds gross. The inspector did not ask about that since gross weight determinations are legally within the discretion of the builder, nor did he comment or question my designation as 1800 lb utility category operation and 2000 for normal category operation.

Van's educated and informed engineering commentary on gross weight selection is right on the money. My selection of an increased weight is not intended to challenge his engineering. Its was, as much as anything, a regulatory decision. I'm a aviating aviation lawyer, not an aeronautical engineer. I have never flown the plane above 1800 lbs, but I'm not going to set myself up for a violation, particularly a paperwork violation when I control that paperwork, with the FAA.

A prudent lawyer might advise Vans that any and all variations from his specific design act to reduce his (already minimal) exposure to tort claims. This would be particularly true of significant mods such as gross weight or "unusual" powerplant selections. That could ultimately make all of our creative variations from his well documented, blueprinted, and manual-specified build materials actually good for the company. We have all heard of planes so changed from the plans that reportedly Van's says, simply, "Its not an RV-3" (or 6, etc). (Following the same logic, the original builder might increase their exposure from a subsequent operator or owner of that same plane if they don't well document variations from the plane and/or call out the change(s) in some way that the other party is on notice.)
 
Most posts are fairly accurate, but the details behind them are a little bit different than people sometimes assume. The interior sizing differences between the 6/7 aren't just because the 7 is "bigger". Realize that the floor of the 6 has dihedral at the spar to match where the spars come together straight in from the wings whereas the 7/9 fuse has a flat bottom to match the separate spar carrythrough. The spar carrythrough bulkhead on the 6 protrudes almost an inch further inboard on each side than the 7. The seat ribs of the 7 actually lower your position in the fuselage over the relatively flat lower seat ribs in the 6 (they are quite different if you put the two ribs side by side to compare).

In the end we've built/flown both numerous times and I think in the end you'd be happy with ANY Van's RV aircraft. You can't beat a well built light 6 for doing wifferdills in the sky, but the 7 sure lands nice and the extra couple gallons can be nice. The 6's with the original small tails can waggle a bit in bumpy air and is good looking on TD's, but the larger tails on both the later 6's (and either version of the 7 tail) are nice for aggresive slips and xwinds.

Panel position and cowl positions are pretty much the same relative to the canopy deck rails as is the position of the engine. If you take a 6/7 put them nose to nose things are pretty much the same - though the different seating positions in the cockput may induce you to think otherwise and the extra 1" to the rudder pedals is nice for us tall folk.

The 7 is infinitely easier to build (and fix) as it's from a standardized pre-punched package, where many of the 6's were jig built.

In the end, it's like everyone says....any of them are great. There are some real bargains out there on 4's and 6's right now (barely over the cost of the FFW and systems) so if they were built good/straight/light you'll be happy with it.

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

Excellent post, Stein. This was the first time I recall seeing the differences in spar boxes/bulkheads being described and how they impact seat ribs.

Bottom line when shopping for an RV.....base the decision on the individual build quality and equipment, not whether or not it is a -6 or -7.
 
Yes!

Most posts are fairly accurate, but the details behind them are a little bit different than people sometimes assume....Stein

Excellent post, Stein....Bottom line....base the decision on the individual build quality and equipment, not whether or not it is a -6 or -7.

One thing is for certain. This perennial subject can be counted upon to generate a lot of verbage and some of it is obviously partisan in nature. While there is nothing wrong with any proud builder expressing personal preference, Stein and Sam took an entirely dispassionate approach. As far as I am concerned, these two talented builders covered just about everything that ever needs to be said about design differences and they conveyed the information with uncommon clarity. Thanks guys.
 
Gurley mon! You can't hover an RV! :D You been following my build on the Giants?

Helicopters don't fly. They beat the air into submission. But I must admit that a max performance takeoff in an H53 is relatively impressive. Got the pilot in trouble, but he thought it was worth it.
 
If the wing is stronger in the -6 than the -7 (and I have heard that also), what is it about the -6 that would limit it's acro gross weight so much more than the -7?
 
If the wing is stronger in the -6 than the -7 (and I have heard that also), what is it about the -6 that would limit it's acro gross weight so much more than the -7?

You can do a search on this topic to nausium.(sp).
Basically, I don't think anybody knows which is stronger, even the factory. There where a lot of conservative numbers placed on the earlier RV's to account for build variables. The newer designs leave a lot less for the builder to do, so they are less prone to builder variance.

Those conservative numbers fit just fine with the then much lighter builds and still produced a very useful useable load. But, the poor 6 has gotten much fatter over the years. Someone needs to retest it at a current more average empty weight. I bet tests would prove it to +6 -3 at much higher gross weights than originally published. However, that is just a guess and no, you can't have my wing to test it. I use it too much!
 
Helicopters don't fly. They beat the air into submission. But I must admit that a max performance takeoff in an H53 is relatively impressive. Got the pilot in trouble, but he thought it was worth it.

I'm talking about RC. Jon knows.
 
I'm talking about RC. Jon knows.

Sorry. I had a senior moment, going back to my time in CSAR with the only experience I've had with hovering. Our 130 pilots and the helo pilots would go back and forth. We had a couple of F15 drivers who transitioned to helicopters and you would have thought they had been emasculated or something.

And I'm not going to go forward with the -8 vs -3 thing, either. Judging by the posts here, it won't get much traction.
 
I'm talking about RC. Jon knows.

Whats up Ryan, Yeh I have been peaking at your thread every so often, my buddy just sold his RV-7, the blue white one I posted in your build thread early on,, I wish I could have bought it, but I got to sell this nice Cessna150 I have before I can buy anything..
 
The increase in gross weight and VNE doesn't make much sense. Shorter wing, beefier spar with more overlap simply seems more conducive to better load carrying and integrity. I read elsewhere on this forum that someone had asked folks at Vans as to why they increased gross weight on the 7 and they were told it was because of so many folks successfully doing it on the 6 without issues. Is the VNE increase simply a result of more comfort level at Vans due to Long term side by side experience which didn't exist when the 6 debuted?
 
The increase in gross weight and VNE doesn't make much sense. Shorter wing, beefier spar with more overlap simply seems more conducive to better load carrying and integrity. I read elsewhere on this forum that someone had asked folks at Vans as to why they increased gross weight on the 7 and they were told it was because of so many folks successfully doing it on the 6 without issues. Is the VNE increase simply a result of more comfort level at Vans due to Long term side by side experience which didn't exist when the 6 debuted?

Thats sounds like a popular theory.
 
Back
Top