RV-7/7A vs. RV-9/9A

[KatanaPilot]

I have been in the market for an RV-9A for a little while. So far, I haven't found anything that is suitable. I've expanded my search to include the RV-7A since there appear to be a few more of them available. I've now added the straight 7's and 9's to my search as I would like to work on my tailwheel flying skills.

What I don't understand is the 50-100% premium the 7/7A seems to demand over the 9/9A. Yes, I'm aware of the likelihood of an O or IO-360 vs a -320 and possibly a CS prop, plus the strengthened airframe - but other than that I'm having difficulty in seeing the "value". The kit prices are basically the same, so I can understand $10-20K for the engine and prop upgrade, but the 7/7A asking prices are much higher, even with comparable avionics.

So does anybody have a good explanation other than "that's what the market will bear"? Thanks in advance.

[RickWoodall]

I am not sure agree with the price diff you quoted?

I enjoy checking over the for sale listings and have seen many 9 or 9a's get pretty close to what the 7s get. I will say that there have been some amazing 7s on here for sale over the years commanding a very good price but from paint to interior trim level and avionics and engine prop combos...they were just amazing birds.

There have been a few 9s on low side price wise, and they seem to sit but my guess is that they are likely a little rough on the build quality and in skimming the pics...often very basic on trim etc. Home made seats, old steam or gen 1 mini glass panels, smaller and often used older engines, wood fp prop, home painted etc.

I am certainly no expert on the prices but think that if two equally equiped and equal quality built/finished birds came up...think the price would be close. The dream of aeros might add a few bucks but cant see it being 10%. Hope you find you dream plane, they are all awesome and you will never be sorry whatever you end up with.

[BCP Boys]

Life is all about choices and our selections usually come down to one answer, "It depends" Mainly on your mission.
I did not build mine but was lucky enough to find a plane that was built WAY BETTER than I could ever build one. When I was looking to buy/build and move into the Experimental world I looked at some of the things that you are looking for in order to decide which model is right for me. Vans has some information on their website about the difference so that's always a good place to start. You can even call them and discuss it with one of their experts as well.
In my book what mattered was my mission : The main difference between a -9 and a -7 was the wings/Spar and the ability to do aerobatics with a -7 and not a -9. The -9 has larger wings and it cruises beautifully cross country. Not to say that the -7 doesn't cruise well but it does have shorter wings and more responsive. The fuse is either the same or very similar I'm not sure and don't want to say one way or another because I have not built a -9.
The pricing difference that you mentioned is real. I'm not sure if it's 50% as you stated but it is there. I always tell my friends who are looking to get in to the RV world to budget around $75K for a well built -7 and around $80 for a well built -8. There is about a $10K to $15K delta when you look at which engine, with engine options such as injected, inverted fuel and oil, etc. and which prop. Then you start adding other extras like the paint and avionics.
- Add $5K for a decent paint job and $10K for a professional paint job. Add between $10K to $30K for the Avionics and interior.

So my point in giving you these ballparks is not to say I'm some price expert (because I'm not), but it's to ensure that you are looking at all aspects when comparing a non aerobatic plane vs one that is designed from day 1 to be one. Things like constant speed prop, prop governors, fuel injected, inverted oil, inverted fuel and better avionics can add between $20K to $40K to the cost of a -7 but when looking at a -9 you generally are looking at carbureted, fixed pitch plane that is designed to be light and go fast. Of course you can always find a nice -9 with a great paint job and up to date glass panel in the high $80's and low $90s but there are not that many of them out there.

This is just my experience in the short time that I've had my RV grin on and have been fortunate enough to be part of this incredible community.

Good luck with your search. I'm sure whatever you decide you will wear your RV Grin proudly.

Best of luck to you

[Jesse]

I didn't read both replies, but my experience has shown that an RV-7(A) equipped exactly like a -9(A) demands about $10-15,000 more in the market. Also, the -6(A) is another $10-15,000 lower yet. With the -6, it's age of design, looks, size and supply/demand that drives it, IMHO. With the -7/-9 difference it is aerobatics and demand (supply seems fairly equal on the used market).

With the same engine and prop, interior, paint, panel and age, the cost to build is roughly the same. The -9's are only supposed to go up to -160HP, but I regularly see them with 180HP and C/S props.

For training in, I would certainly recommend the -9A, especially for IFR training.

I had a -9A and loved the way it flew. I hated to sell it but had to. Short version, that same engine/prop combo went into my 1999 -6A. Speeds were roughly the same, although the -9A seemed a little more comfortable at higher altitudes (above 11,000). Short version, I am now in the market for a new airframe to put this same engine/prop combo on. Torn about -6A or -7A. Decided -6A because the project is substantially cheaper. The resale difference would more than make up for the extra cost, but for me it's strictly a cost issue. I love the way the -6 flies, and that's good enough for me.

[KatanaPilot]

My search so far has found RV-9A's in the $50K to high $60's range and RV-7/7A's starting in the $80's and as high as $130K.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found a 9A that has the build quality I had hoped for and the 7/7A's seem to be priced in the stratosphere. To be fair, I have not gone and looked at any 7/7A's yet, primarily because I can't yet justify the price premium being asked for.

Either the 7/7A or 9/9A would meet my "mission" requirements. However, the aerobatic capability of the 7's is very appealing to my son who will end up with the plane in a few years when our 10 is (hopefully) completed.

I just need to find a well built plane, equipped and priced appropriately.

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by KatanaPilot

My search so far has found RV-9A's in the $50K to high $60's range and RV-7/7A's starting in the $80's and as high as $130K.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found a 9A that has the build quality I had hoped for and the 7/7A's seem to be priced in the stratosphere. To be fair, I have not gone and looked at any 7/7A's yet, primarily because I can't yet justify the price premium being asked for.

Either the 7/7A or 9/9A would meet my "mission" requirements. However, the aerobatic capability of the 7's is very appealing to my son who will end up with the plane in a few years when our 10 is (hopefully) completed.

I just need to find a well built plane, equipped and priced appropriately.

Why not look at a -6? They fly pretty much the same as a -7 (at least to me) and though you maybe give up a bit of payload, the purchase price is likely much more reasonable...

[N941WR]

I think the biggest disservice Van's ever did for the -9(A) was to compare it to the Cessna 152. Ever since that article came out, the RV community looks at the -9(A) as a trainer RV, thus there is a bias that it is less of an airplane than the -7(A).

When in fact that the people who fly it understand what a great plane it really is. In many ways it out performs the -7(A) on the same power and some who have flown the entire line of RV's prefer the -9(A) over the other two seat planes, as long as acrobatics are not part of the mission profile.

The assumed inferiority of the -9(A) is why I believe the prices are depressed.

[grubbat]

The best value is the used -6. They are a joy to fly and you can buy them cheaper than you can build. The -9 has a better safety record than the -7 since there have been some highly publicized -7 accidents with the tails separating for whatever reason. However, that hasn't seemed to hurt the -7 value. I think the "option" to do limited aerobatics in the -7 seems to be a primary reason it brings a higher resale value over the -9's. It's no Pitts but it gets the job done for most. My personal preference is the -9 as I like the slower side of envelope. My -6 would not get on the step till about 100mph and at 85mph the -6 is descending. The -9 performs better at those speeds.
No matter what you choose, all the RV are just fine machines.😄

[BillL]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I think the biggest disservice Van's ever did for the -9(A) was to compare it to the Cessna 152. Ever since that article came out, the RV community looks at the -9(A) as a trainer RV, thus there is a bias that it is less of an airplane than the -7(A).

When in fact that the people who fly it understand what a great plane it really is. In many ways it out performs the -7(A) on the same power and some who have flown the entire line of RV's prefer the -9(A) over the other two seat planes, as long as acrobatics are not part of the mission profile.

The assumed inferiority of the -9(A) is why I believe the prices are depressed.

Yeah - that is what I thought too when choosing the 7. I did want aerobatics, but still kinda looked down on the 9. No more. That wing makes it a jewel, a real sleeper. I knew a longer wing made a better altitude flyer, but had no idea it exceeded the 7 above 10k (or so, not exact) with lower power.

Going cross-cty a Vans team member said they choose it to get there first (like Bill said)! Pretty impressive.

[bruceh]

The kit cost of the -9 also is higher than the -7 by about $500. I guess there is more aluminum in the longer wing and bigger HS. The fuselage is essentially identical.

Car analogy - the -9 is more Grand Touring (cruising at high altitudes efficiently) and the -7 is more Sports Car (aerobatic and higher HP).