RV-6A or RV-7A or RV-9A IFR?

[Gbright]

Hi From Rainy Georgia,

New to the forum, been reading a while.

I followed the discussions back in 2010 about the differences, but I still have a characteristics to figure out.

Been flying 4500 hours with a few ratings. Have had bunch of Bonanzas. Just sold a 285 hp. Someone with an RV-6a for sale, told me "It handles just like a Bonanza."

Planning on buying a built model 6, 7, or 9.

I don't mind "tail wag," flown in front of that for lots of hours

Concerned about rough air handling, IFR platform, and short field take off.

Thanks, Grant

[Mike S]

Grant, welcome aboard the good ship VAF

[Jesse]

I haven't flown a Bonanza, but I can't imagine they handle anything like a -6A. In fact, the only plane I've flown that handles like a -6A is a -7A. Very docile, extremely light on the controls (especially roll) and very responsive.

The -9A is much more docile and much slower in roll, but extremely easy to fly and very forgiving (in regards to getting slow).

All 3 have pretty much the same nose gear weakness, so you need to keep the stick back when on the ground and not brake any more than you need to. Basically, you need to be a little gentle with the nose wheel.

If you want any aerobatics, the -6A or -7A are for you. If you want a good stable cross country fuel-sipper, then the -9A may be best (or the others with a good auto pilot).

If you want a tailwheel, take the A off.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Jesse

The -9A is much more docile and much slower in roll, but extremely easy to fly and very forgiving (in regards to getting slow).

Personally, I would characterize it as slightly slower.

Do a max input roll from 60 deg left to 60 deg right with a passenger not accustomed to aerobatics and/or flying in RV's and they will be grabbing for something to hold onto... I have seen it happen numerous times.....

[N941WR]

I have flown an F33 and they fly like a truck compared to any RV, even the RV-10.

It comes down to your mission, the -6 & -7 fly very similarly and with the shorter wing and symmetrical 23000 series airfoil they are designed for gentleman acrobatics and cross country flight.

The -9 has a longer wing and a custom airfoil. This allows the -9 to fly the same speeds, given the same engine, as its short wing brethren; however, it can land around 10 mph slower.

As for how it handles, it feels more balanced than the others and is still much quicker on the controls than most factory built airplanes. (Pitts and other acro birds need not apply.)

The -9 was designed for cross country travel and really shines up high. I have had mine up to 17,500+ DA and it was still climbing at 500 FPM (where I had the auto pilot set) and I was able to true out at 160 KTS while burning 5.2 GPH at 43% power and I wasn't full in as I was running LOP with my carb. Here is a picture of my EFIS during that flight.

Good luck figuring out which one you want!

BTW, don't shy away from a tailwheel RV. It will take you about 10 hours to get your endorsement and after 100 hours in type there is virtually no difference in insurance costs. As for crosswind landings, the RV's have so much control authority, they go where you put them, thus cross winds are not a concern.

[BobTurner]

2nd try at posting.
As others have noted the RV-7 (I haven't flown the -6 or the -9) has much less roll stability than a V tail, which makes them a handful IFR. It can be done but it requires constant attention. I would guess most long IFR trips in these planes are done on autopilot. The -10 is probably between a -7 and a V tail in this regard.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

Personally, I would characterize it as slightly slower.

Do a max input roll from 60 deg left to 60 deg right with a passenger not accustomed to aerobatics and/or flying in RV's and they will be grabbing for something to hold onto... I have seen it happen numerous times.....

Comparing either to a 172 may put them at slightly, but getting comfortable in a -9 then doing your test in a -6 or -7 and they will be grabbing for something to hold onto.

Either way, I am sure they are nothing like the Bonanza.

[terrykohler]

Grant:
We all tend to be biased toward the aircraft we built and fly. That said, my experience in Beechcraft is limited to about 500 hours in an A36. My 9A now has over 900 hours on it. The wingspan of the 9 is 5 feet longer than that of the 6 and 3 feet longer than a 7, so it has a much slower roll rate. Some would call that less responsive, others would call it more stable. My brother is an ATP, and he really uses the autopilot in his 6 when he's IMC. I prefer to hand fly my 9A while on the gages.
In any event, if you'd like to do aerobatics, stick with a 6 or 7. All 3 can be flown in instrument conditions. None are like a bonanza. Try them all out, if you can.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

[Rupester]

I would characterize the RV7 vs RV9 discussion as follows:
- the 7 has VERY light control effort, the lightest I've found in any airplane. The 9 has control effort somewhere between a C172 and and RV7, but toward the lighter side
- the 9 is a better glider. When you pull the power back, it glides. When you pull the power back on a 7, it heads for the barn.

To be a bit uncharitable for a moment, anyone who compares the flying qualities of an RV with a Bonanza doesn't know what they're talking about, and must have almost no time in one or the other. Like Bill said, it's essentially a small sports car feel vs a truck.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Rupester

To be a bit uncharitable for a moment, anyone who compares the flying qualities of an RV with a Bonanza doesn't know what they're talking about, and must have almost no time in one or the other. Like Bill said, it's essentially a small sports car feel vs a truck.

Well, I think you need to leave some room at the top for 182's! -