helodriver
Member
I am still looking, and personally think a 4 would be a better fit for me. The wife on the other hand would be more comfortable in a 7/9. I was just wondering what drew you to the 9.
Terry
Terry
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Why did you build a 9 instead of a 7?
- Thread starter helodriver
- Start date
Fearless
Well Known Member
Not going to do aerobatics
Terry,
For me it was the fact that this plane has been referenced as a trainer. Its fast enough for cross country travel but has flying characteristics of a trainer. I don't need the ability to do aerobatics so it fits my mission being a low time pilot (80 hrs).
On another note thank you for defending our freedoms abroad.
Terry,
For me it was the fact that this plane has been referenced as a trainer. Its fast enough for cross country travel but has flying characteristics of a trainer. I don't need the ability to do aerobatics so it fits my mission being a low time pilot (80 hrs).
On another note thank you for defending our freedoms abroad.
I decided on the 9 because I wanted a good cross-country plane and don't have much interest in aerobatics. I was able to fly one a couple months ago and the plane is everything I was looking for. Easy to fly, good slow flight handling so it's easy to land, climbs well and blows the doors off the spamcans.
My guess is that you will be happy with any of the planes you are considereing.
My guess is that you will be happy with any of the planes you are considereing.
RE: 9 v 7
I chose the -9 because I have no interest in acro, mostly because at my age (62), it hurts and at 3g, snot runs out of my nose. The -9 is a good x-country machine with good perfomance numbers on an O-360 fixed pitch, climb 1200 fpm, cruise speed 180 mph at 10 gal/hr, and fair to meddlin' load carrying capacity. I can do 36 minutes in the pattern (6 t&g)and use 2.3 gallons (91 mogas). Nice machine overall, Dan.
I chose the -9 because I have no interest in acro, mostly because at my age (62), it hurts and at 3g, snot runs out of my nose. The -9 is a good x-country machine with good perfomance numbers on an O-360 fixed pitch, climb 1200 fpm, cruise speed 180 mph at 10 gal/hr, and fair to meddlin' load carrying capacity. I can do 36 minutes in the pattern (6 t&g)and use 2.3 gallons (91 mogas). Nice machine overall, Dan.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
I think the final decision comes down to speed and any desire for mild aerobatics.
While building my 6A, I picked up a lot of flight time in two different 9A's. One with 150HP, and the other with 160HP. Both have C/S props. I did a current BFR in the 160 HP model.
As it stands; although my 6A is somewhat livelier in "feel"; it just isn't much harder to land. Cross country flights feel pretty much the same in either machine; although the 9 might be a bit more stable in yaw, as I have the older and shorter 6 tail. My 6A with 180HP is faster than both the 9's, and I prefer that extra HP.
You'll be fine either way, as a 9 has much more spirit than a typical Cessna or Piper. However, I'd prefer the 7, just because it's faster, and really not much different ---control wise. I do land the 6A about 10 mph faster than the 9's though. The 9's I flew, used mph, and I use kts, so the landing numbers are about the same.
L.Adamson
While building my 6A, I picked up a lot of flight time in two different 9A's. One with 150HP, and the other with 160HP. Both have C/S props. I did a current BFR in the 160 HP model.
As it stands; although my 6A is somewhat livelier in "feel"; it just isn't much harder to land. Cross country flights feel pretty much the same in either machine; although the 9 might be a bit more stable in yaw, as I have the older and shorter 6 tail. My 6A with 180HP is faster than both the 9's, and I prefer that extra HP.
You'll be fine either way, as a 9 has much more spirit than a typical Cessna or Piper. However, I'd prefer the 7, just because it's faster, and really not much different ---control wise. I do land the 6A about 10 mph faster than the 9's though. The 9's I flew, used mph, and I use kts, so the landing numbers are about the same.
L.Adamson
gbrasch
Well Known Member
Ditto!
Ditto to this! Also, in my case, low or high time has nothing to do with it. Plus I have been working on my plane for so long the -9 had been out longer! Thanks for keeping us safe, and if you are a heli driver, give me a shout if you are looking for a job when you get out, the company I fly for is hiring....be safe.
Ditto to this! Also, in my case, low or high time has nothing to do with it. Plus I have been working on my plane for so long the -9 had been out longer! Thanks for keeping us safe, and if you are a heli driver, give me a shout if you are looking for a job when you get out, the company I fly for is hiring....be safe.
IowaRV9Dreamer
Well Known Member
the wing is the thing
I chose the -9A because I'm not interested in acro, and I like the idea of longer, thinner wings. The -9 is a more efficient airframe (same speed on less power, or better glide) which is attractive to me. You can see that in the performance numbers on Vans site.
One thing that the added efficiency give you is the ability to use a smaller engine - burning less fuel per hour. Not many go this route (I'm planning a medium size 150HP) but it might be something to think about with the price of avga$.
As far as passengers / touring goes, the fuselages of the two are identical so there would be the same amount of room, etc.
The real difference is that long, thin wing (and big tail to go with it).
You can't go wrong either way!
I chose the -9A because I'm not interested in acro, and I like the idea of longer, thinner wings. The -9 is a more efficient airframe (same speed on less power, or better glide) which is attractive to me. You can see that in the performance numbers on Vans site.
One thing that the added efficiency give you is the ability to use a smaller engine - burning less fuel per hour. Not many go this route (I'm planning a medium size 150HP) but it might be something to think about with the price of avga$.
As far as passengers / touring goes, the fuselages of the two are identical so there would be the same amount of room, etc.
The real difference is that long, thin wing (and big tail to go with it).
You can't go wrong either way!
N941WR
Legacy Member
Terry,
Welcome to the forum.
Truth is, there is very little difference between the -7 & the -9. For me it came down to two things. 1. How much is it going to cost? and 2. Will I want to do acro?
My -9 was to be a replacement for a 65 HP T-Craft and thus I figured I would build my -9 with an O-235 and pick up a lot of speed and useful load over that BC-12/65. As it turned out, I put a slightly larger engine in it, go 165 MPH and go up around 1800 FPM (w/ a climb prop) and have a 760 lb useful load.
My engine was cheap with my total FwF cost being around $7,500 and that was with a 0 SMHO engine and Catto prop. So far so good.
At times I wish I had put a larger engine in my -9 so I can keep up with the other RV's but the truth is, within 200 miles, I'm not that far behind and they are usually just clearing the runway when I reach the pattern. So no real loss there.
The acro thing is still a question for me. There are times when I wish I had built a -7 so I can do more acro than the occasional roll. Like guccidude1, I have a bad back and anything close to 3 G's will have me duck walking, thus the answer was simple.
In addition to all that, I elected to build one of the few taildragger -9's. I did this simply because I like tail draggers, had the endorsement, and didn't want to worry about landing on grass, which I do a lot.
I did my transition training in a -6 and didn’t find it any more difficult to land than my -9. The difference is the approach speeds. Something like 80 MPH for the -6 and 70 MPH in the -9 (65 MPH solo).
Good luck with your choice. Whatever model you pick, you can't go wrong.
One other thing, some builders pick the -7 simply because it is "stronger" than the -9. The truth is, the -9 is very strong, probably stronger than a C-172 or Piper.
PS. The -9 is no trainer, don't let anyone ever tell you that.
Welcome to the forum.
Truth is, there is very little difference between the -7 & the -9. For me it came down to two things. 1. How much is it going to cost? and 2. Will I want to do acro?
My -9 was to be a replacement for a 65 HP T-Craft and thus I figured I would build my -9 with an O-235 and pick up a lot of speed and useful load over that BC-12/65. As it turned out, I put a slightly larger engine in it, go 165 MPH and go up around 1800 FPM (w/ a climb prop) and have a 760 lb useful load.
My engine was cheap with my total FwF cost being around $7,500 and that was with a 0 SMHO engine and Catto prop. So far so good.
At times I wish I had put a larger engine in my -9 so I can keep up with the other RV's but the truth is, within 200 miles, I'm not that far behind and they are usually just clearing the runway when I reach the pattern. So no real loss there.
The acro thing is still a question for me. There are times when I wish I had built a -7 so I can do more acro than the occasional roll. Like guccidude1, I have a bad back and anything close to 3 G's will have me duck walking, thus the answer was simple.
In addition to all that, I elected to build one of the few taildragger -9's. I did this simply because I like tail draggers, had the endorsement, and didn't want to worry about landing on grass, which I do a lot.
I did my transition training in a -6 and didn’t find it any more difficult to land than my -9. The difference is the approach speeds. Something like 80 MPH for the -6 and 70 MPH in the -9 (65 MPH solo).
Good luck with your choice. Whatever model you pick, you can't go wrong.
One other thing, some builders pick the -7 simply because it is "stronger" than the -9. The truth is, the -9 is very strong, probably stronger than a C-172 or Piper.
PS. The -9 is no trainer, don't let anyone ever tell you that.
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
Use the search engine and you'll find a TON of threads on this topic.
For me it came down to (once I decided I didn't need aerobatics):
1. Engine out sink rate is almost half that of the short-wing models. Gives you almost twice the time to decide what to do (and then do it) if your engine fails.
2. Glide ratio is 12:1 rather than 9:1 = 77% larger area from which to select forced landing spots. (In the mountains this can matter. Probably doesn't matter in Iowa.)
3. Stall speed is 7mph better with the longer wing--survivability in crash is almost exponentially connected to speed on impact. Related, when I originally chose the -9A model, I figured it was better to be able to land slower since there were so many nosegear/tip-over issues on the -A models. Not sure if that matters anymore with the redesigned nosegear, but slower speed can only help.
(The numbers above were independently derived by www.cafefoundation.org, but they are off the top of my head, so check them if you're interested.)
Since I fly in and around the mountains, these things were a little more important to me than the other (equally important) benefits the -7 would have provided. Like Bill, there are days when I wish I could do the aerobatics the -7 can, but everything is a trade off.
Good luck.
For me it came down to (once I decided I didn't need aerobatics):
1. Engine out sink rate is almost half that of the short-wing models. Gives you almost twice the time to decide what to do (and then do it) if your engine fails.
2. Glide ratio is 12:1 rather than 9:1 = 77% larger area from which to select forced landing spots. (In the mountains this can matter. Probably doesn't matter in Iowa.)
3. Stall speed is 7mph better with the longer wing--survivability in crash is almost exponentially connected to speed on impact. Related, when I originally chose the -9A model, I figured it was better to be able to land slower since there were so many nosegear/tip-over issues on the -A models. Not sure if that matters anymore with the redesigned nosegear, but slower speed can only help.
(The numbers above were independently derived by www.cafefoundation.org, but they are off the top of my head, so check them if you're interested.)
Since I fly in and around the mountains, these things were a little more important to me than the other (equally important) benefits the -7 would have provided. Like Bill, there are days when I wish I could do the aerobatics the -7 can, but everything is a trade off.
Good luck.
Last edited:
tc1234c
Well Known Member
For me the mission is cross country flight without aerobatics. So I pick 9A for the stability it offers. The slower stall speed is also a big plus for surviving an emergency landing.
So far I have 526 hours in my 9A and I don't regret my decision. I have done 6A first flight for a friend and flown 7A a few times. The control of 9A is not as sensitive as other shorter wing RVs. Without AP, on a long cross country it is not as tiring flying a 9. I have quite a few hours doing single pilot IFR (just did one yesterday). AP really help. I would not do it without one.
As for landing, I actually find 9A more difficult. Primarily due to the fact that it tends to float. I always pull idle abeam the number. If I make a closer pattern, I will have to slip it down. Again, not really a problem. In a 6 or 7, just reduce the throttle the airplane will come down quickly. Of course, it is not a problem landing a 9. Just you have to pay more attention to energy management. On the other hand, if and when engine quits on you, a 9 will glide further and you will have more options to land.
Define your mission first then you can make the best decision.
So far I have 526 hours in my 9A and I don't regret my decision. I have done 6A first flight for a friend and flown 7A a few times. The control of 9A is not as sensitive as other shorter wing RVs. Without AP, on a long cross country it is not as tiring flying a 9. I have quite a few hours doing single pilot IFR (just did one yesterday). AP really help. I would not do it without one.
As for landing, I actually find 9A more difficult. Primarily due to the fact that it tends to float. I always pull idle abeam the number. If I make a closer pattern, I will have to slip it down. Again, not really a problem. In a 6 or 7, just reduce the throttle the airplane will come down quickly. Of course, it is not a problem landing a 9. Just you have to pay more attention to energy management. On the other hand, if and when engine quits on you, a 9 will glide further and you will have more options to land.
Define your mission first then you can make the best decision.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Even the 7 with a fixed pitch prop will tend to float, if the approach speed isn't planned far enough ahead. The 6,7, & 9's with constant speed, can all come down rather quickly when the blue knob is in forward pitch.
FWIW ---- get too slow in a 9 in the flare, and it will drop out from underneath you, just like my 6 can. I didn't use to believe that, but I now "know" as fact..
L.Adamson
IowaRV9Dreamer
Well Known Member
Sure it does - then you can select if you want to land in beans, or in corn
Although I've not yet flown in a 9 (Pete H. where are you??) I believe that you won't be disappointed. It's not like it is a weak airplane because it isn't acro rated - the structure seems very strong and comparable to my Beech Skipper (Utility Category).
I also agree that a few less knots in a forced landing can make a significant survivabiliy difference.
petehowell
Well Known Member
Minnesota
Dave - I'm up in Minne watching the vikings, but I did sneak out for a cold run with Alex P and Bernie over Lake Pepin after lunch. It was chilly outside!
Dave, come on up any time and I'd be happy to take you up. Maybe we can meet over in Ames at Grandma's.
Dave - I'm up in Minne watching the vikings, but I did sneak out for a cold run with Alex P and Bernie over Lake Pepin after lunch. It was chilly outside!
Dave, come on up any time and I'd be happy to take you up. Maybe we can meet over in Ames at Grandma's.
I have about 120 hours in my 9A and a few in the 7 (transition training.) The 9 isn't any easier to land, but it is so easy, who cares? If you fly those heli's, anything Van's makes will be a piece of cake.
The only things I see that you lose by going with the 9 is aerobatics and the ability to do overhead approaches. Doing an overhead, I end up too high as it just doesn't slow down or sink. I gave up aerobatics years ago for reasons others have mentioned.
You gain a bit of efficiency and some stability. The lower landing speed is a big plus, especially if the big cooling fan stops. I do like the look of the longer wings, but that is not much of a reason to decide on one or the other.
The "secret" to getting a 9 in short and limiting float seems to me to be keeping engine idle rpm WAY down. Mine is smooth at 400 (on the ground) and slows down better than most. You can't go wrong with either the 7 or 9.
Bob Kelly
The only things I see that you lose by going with the 9 is aerobatics and the ability to do overhead approaches. Doing an overhead, I end up too high as it just doesn't slow down or sink. I gave up aerobatics years ago for reasons others have mentioned.
You gain a bit of efficiency and some stability. The lower landing speed is a big plus, especially if the big cooling fan stops. I do like the look of the longer wings, but that is not much of a reason to decide on one or the other.
The "secret" to getting a 9 in short and limiting float seems to me to be keeping engine idle rpm WAY down. Mine is smooth at 400 (on the ground) and slows down better than most. You can't go wrong with either the 7 or 9.
Bob Kelly
I guess I must be the only guy building a -9 for back country use.
I sold my -6 last year to a friend that had to have it. I fly an 8GCBC with bushwheels and while I love where it can take me, it is just too slow for the frequent cross country trips I make.
The -6 was always on the ragged edge and way behind the power curve getting into places I like to land. I hope that the -9 with its little slower landing speeds combined with a few gear mods, will be a good compromise between the 8GCBC and the -6
Floyd
I sold my -6 last year to a friend that had to have it. I fly an 8GCBC with bushwheels and while I love where it can take me, it is just too slow for the frequent cross country trips I make.
The -6 was always on the ragged edge and way behind the power curve getting into places I like to land. I hope that the -9 with its little slower landing speeds combined with a few gear mods, will be a good compromise between the 8GCBC and the -6
Floyd
helodriver
Member
Thanks
Thanks to everyone that replied.
Thanks to everyone that replied.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Floyd,
This was also a thoaught when I built my -9 but so far it really hasn't worked out that way.
Have you been in touch w/ Mike Ice about his gear leg mod? He is based in AK and you might want to talk with him. Search the forum, you will find some of his posts.
n2prise
Well Known Member
Economy and no aerobatics for me
Like so many others here, I chose the RV-9A after sitting in all the demos at Van's booth at OSH 2002. I like the Roncz airfoil for its better performance up high at 10,000 to 12,000 MSL. The longer wing span slows down for landing better than the aerobatic models.
I built it with a 160 HP O-320, carb, constant speed prop, with one Slick Mag and one Lightspeed Plasma III with crank sensor. The result, plenty of power for short fields getting out, and with the CS prop, it also gets into short fields nicely.
There is always somebody out there with more power and less drag, so keeping up with them is not my concern. During phase 1 testing, I pushed the bird to the limit and got the 194 MPH at 1000 MSL published in Van's specs, but it was pulling in over 11 gallons per hour to do that. On long cross country trips, I get up high and lean to equal EGT's and it usually trues out at 160 MPH at 5.5 to 6 gallons per hour.
When I am down low, I set the prop at 2300, push the throttle and lean the mixture to 6 GPH and usually end up at 150 MPH.
As for the extra space around me, that is why I chose the wide-body, not an RV-8 or -8A. And I like the visibility of the RV-9A over the nose compared to the tail draggers.
The "Enterprise" has 269.5 hours on the Hobbs meter as of today. I have enjoyed the ride since June 9, 2005.
Like so many others here, I chose the RV-9A after sitting in all the demos at Van's booth at OSH 2002. I like the Roncz airfoil for its better performance up high at 10,000 to 12,000 MSL. The longer wing span slows down for landing better than the aerobatic models.
I built it with a 160 HP O-320, carb, constant speed prop, with one Slick Mag and one Lightspeed Plasma III with crank sensor. The result, plenty of power for short fields getting out, and with the CS prop, it also gets into short fields nicely.
There is always somebody out there with more power and less drag, so keeping up with them is not my concern. During phase 1 testing, I pushed the bird to the limit and got the 194 MPH at 1000 MSL published in Van's specs, but it was pulling in over 11 gallons per hour to do that. On long cross country trips, I get up high and lean to equal EGT's and it usually trues out at 160 MPH at 5.5 to 6 gallons per hour.
When I am down low, I set the prop at 2300, push the throttle and lean the mixture to 6 GPH and usually end up at 150 MPH.
As for the extra space around me, that is why I chose the wide-body, not an RV-8 or -8A. And I like the visibility of the RV-9A over the nose compared to the tail draggers.
The "Enterprise" has 269.5 hours on the Hobbs meter as of today. I have enjoyed the ride since June 9, 2005.
my $.02
The 9A is a comfortable, efficient and fast cross country cruiser. I'm FAA average height and weight. I'll outrun my friend's Mooney burning 2 gph less than him. And I still don't have my gear leg fairings installed yet. At the other end of the speed spectrum, I fly the pattern 10 mph slower than I did in a 6A and another bud's 6. The plane is rock steady at all speeds. I've flown the 6A for transition training and even rolled it but wasn't comfortable doing that so acro has zip appeal to me.
134.9 hrs so far,
Steve
The 9A is a comfortable, efficient and fast cross country cruiser. I'm FAA average height and weight. I'll outrun my friend's Mooney burning 2 gph less than him. And I still don't have my gear leg fairings installed yet. At the other end of the speed spectrum, I fly the pattern 10 mph slower than I did in a 6A and another bud's 6. The plane is rock steady at all speeds. I've flown the 6A for transition training and even rolled it but wasn't comfortable doing that so acro has zip appeal to me.
134.9 hrs so far,
Steve
Robert M
Well Known Member
Ditto!
I had also read (somewhere on this forum) that the best thing to do is build the RV that best suits the type of flying you do. My $.02
I had also read (somewhere on this forum) that the best thing to do is build the RV that best suits the type of flying you do. My $.02
carguy614
Well Known Member
6,7, and the -9
I agree with Bill R. on most everything, but I take issue with his statement that the 7 and 9 are almost the same. The planes share many similarities, but the 9 is a much more stable bird in slow flight, and a much less sensitive aircraft on the controls. I find the planes to be very different in control force, and pitch sensitivity. Both are easy to land, but the 9 will really float long if you don't get the approach speed down. That takes some practice. The sink rate is dramatically less in the 9, Which in some cases is a slight drawback. I agree with Bill, the 9 is no trainer. Easy as pie to fly and land, but it's lightweight gear excludes it from the trainer category. I think the best thing to do is get a ride in both before you make a decision. I will say that I could not be happier with the way my 9A flies. It is a delightful plane, gentile and predictable, and seems to do everything really well. Push it around a little, and the performance becomes evident. As with all 9 owners, It's hard to get us to say anything negative about the plane. We just love them. Listen carefully to Bill about building light. Believe me, the lighter the plane is, the better you will like it!!
Bottom line, if acro is not on the menu, I recommend the 9 or 9A. Call Vans and talk to Ken K. He will give you some insight as well. BTW... The folks at Vans love the 9's. I've been told they are the favorites to fly amongst the staff....
And, oh yeah, I am building another 9....This time with a tailwheel.
Regards,
Chris
I agree with Bill R. on most everything, but I take issue with his statement that the 7 and 9 are almost the same. The planes share many similarities, but the 9 is a much more stable bird in slow flight, and a much less sensitive aircraft on the controls. I find the planes to be very different in control force, and pitch sensitivity. Both are easy to land, but the 9 will really float long if you don't get the approach speed down. That takes some practice. The sink rate is dramatically less in the 9, Which in some cases is a slight drawback. I agree with Bill, the 9 is no trainer. Easy as pie to fly and land, but it's lightweight gear excludes it from the trainer category. I think the best thing to do is get a ride in both before you make a decision. I will say that I could not be happier with the way my 9A flies. It is a delightful plane, gentile and predictable, and seems to do everything really well. Push it around a little, and the performance becomes evident. As with all 9 owners, It's hard to get us to say anything negative about the plane. We just love them. Listen carefully to Bill about building light. Believe me, the lighter the plane is, the better you will like it!!
Bottom line, if acro is not on the menu, I recommend the 9 or 9A. Call Vans and talk to Ken K. He will give you some insight as well. BTW... The folks at Vans love the 9's. I've been told they are the favorites to fly amongst the staff....
And, oh yeah, I am building another 9....This time with a tailwheel.
Regards,
Chris
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
A different perspective
To add to the confusion, I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine.
He has built two 9A's, and his current 9A is equipped with dual Dynons, 0320 & Hartzell C/S prop. It has a great looking paint job, workmanship is exceptional, and it's about 50 lbs. lighter than my 6A, which he as also flown.
Now the kicker is..................as his comment to this thread was:
"Did you tell them,..... that I'd rather have a 7A?"....
P.S. --- I think I mentioned it before, but a 9 with a C/S prop will come down quick if required, and is very manageable for landings, thanks to the C/S.
L.Adamson
To add to the confusion
, I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine.He has built two 9A's, and his current 9A is equipped with dual Dynons, 0320 & Hartzell C/S prop. It has a great looking paint job, workmanship is exceptional, and it's about 50 lbs. lighter than my 6A, which he as also flown.
Now the kicker is..................as his comment to this thread was:
"Did you tell them,..... that I'd rather have a 7A?"....
P.S. --- I think I mentioned it before, but a 9 with a C/S prop will come down quick if required, and is very manageable for landings, thanks to the C/S.
L.Adamson
N941WR
Legacy Member
Did he say why he would rather have a 7A?
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Yesterday, he read this thread, and asked why I didn't mention the reason...
Then as our EAA Chapter president, he told the whole audience last night at our banquet, as we were getting our "first flight" awards. My 6A simply outclimbs and outruns both 9A's. He'd just like to be somewhat faster, is all. However, in ecomomy cruise, his 9A does very well. I doubt I can match that.
L.Adamson ---- RV6A/ 0360/ Hartzell CS
N941WR
Legacy Member
Of course your 180 HP CS -6A it would out run a 160 HP -9A, same as if he had an O-320 power FP -6A vs. your 180 HP CS -6A. As they say, "there is no replacement for displacement".
I suspect if your friend had put an O-320 with a FP prop in a -6 or 7 he would have the same issue.
However, with the same engine the two planes perform close enough as to call them a wash. 191 MPH for the -7 vs. 188 MPH for -9 and 1,400 FPM for both the -7 & -9 at GW. (FWIW, the -9 has a higher ceiling than the -7 w/ the same engine; 19,000' vs. 18,500'.)
The big difference is the stall speed, 58 MPH for the -7 vs. 50 MPH for the -9. That seems to be the only significant performance difference between the two models.
This brings it down to what do you want to do with the plane? Cruise is 8 MPH faster for a 180 HP -7 over its 160 HP brother. If all you are ever going to do is get in and take long, long trips and do acro enroot, get the -7.
If you you are going to take a number of long trips, it might impact you, but not by very much.
Say a 160 HP RV-9 and a 180 HP RV-7 are going on a 600 mile trip. Using Van's GW cruise numbers of 188 vs. 199 MPH, the RV with the 20 HP advantage should land 10 minutes ahead of the RV-9.
This does not take into account handling characteristics, comfort, etc. but comes back to the original issue, if you want to do acro go with a -7. If not, then you will be very happy with a -9.
Either plane will keep putting smiles on your face for a long time!
Last edited:
Bill is right.
If you are going to compare performance between different models (at least as it directly relates to teh effects of it being a different airplane) you need to do it with the same engine HP, prop, and at the same weight.
If you compared a 160 hp RV-9 to a 160 HP RV-6 or 7, and with the same prop and at the same weight. The 9 would have shorter takeoff and landing distances, it would have a higher rate of climb (particularly at gross weight), it would have about the same top speed and 8000 ft 75% cruise speed, but it would be faster at 12,500 and above (that's were the higher aspect ratio wing starts to really make a difference).
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
N941WR
Legacy Member
Hahahaha...This guy would NEVER install an FP prop on an RV!
L.Adamson --- RV6A C/S
I was wondering what you were going to come back with.
