7A or 9A?

[Tom Finch]

Ok, this is my first post and I have a question. I have been lurking on the site for a couple of weeks and reading everything that I could. What I want to know is this; what is the real life difference between the 7A and the 9A? I am considering the 7A but wonder why the 9A seems more popular when it is slower with less aerobatic and payload capability and the only physical difference is the wing. I want to make a decision at Oshkosh and go from there. I am only asking what are the differences are not implying that one is better than the other.

Thanks,
Tom Finch

[Radomir]

7's outsell 9's with a 2:1 margin (tail kits)... so not sure where this impression came from...

Originally Posted by Tom Finch

but wonder why the 9A seems more popular

[Lionclaw]

I went with the 9A because I wanted the option of using a smaller powerplant (235 or 290), but ended up going with a 320 anyway. Vans lists a slower stall speed for the 9A over the 7A. I'd imagine (just guessing) that the 9 would also have a better glide ratio. So it is perhaps a better trainer. I don't even have my PPL yet (almost done), so it seemed the right choice for me.

Eventually I may want to do acro. When that time comes I'll look into building an 8, so long as I can convince the wifey that the back seat is the cool place to be. Otherwise it will perhaps be the 7...

Anyway, that's just my reasoning.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Tom Finch

I am considering the 7A but wonder why the 9A seems more popular when it is slower with less aerobatic and payload capability and the only physical difference is the wing.

Tom,

Welcome to the VAF!

The -9 isn't really that much slower, 192 vs. 189 when both are powered by O-320's.

As for the payload, the -9's tend to be a little lighter (or should be) due to the smaller engine, thus use useful load should be very close. My -9 has a 760 lb useful load, which is more than I can even think about stuffing in it, and that is with the GW set at the Van's recommended 1750 lbs.

Do a search on the choice topic, it has come up a few times. The selection of the -7 vs. -9 really comes down to personal choice. A lot of people are looking for a good cruiser and don't care about doing acro, thus they buy the -9. Other's want speed and acro above all else.

Just remember, build what you want, not what others want you to build.

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Definitely do a search in the archives. Type "RV-7a RV-9a" or "RV-7 RV-9" in a "titles only" search with the advanced search option and that should be more than enough information to keep you busy.

There are some significant things each will do that the other cannot. You have to decide which ones matter to you. Good luck with your decision.

[terrykohler]

Tom:
Comprehensive testing of several Van's models is available on www.cafefoundation.org. You will see that the 9 has a substantially slower roll rate than the other RVs. This translates into better stability as a cruiser and as an instrument platform. Also, as stated previously, good glide (12:1)and lower stall. Tradeoff is lack of acro capability and limitation (not always followed) of H.P. at 160.
Terry

[videobobk]

To me, whether or not you want to do acro is the only real consideration. I have flown both and am happy with my choice of 9A. It does seem to make up for any speed differences higher up and I really like the low approach/stall speed. If it were ever to become a glider, I would be very happy to be in the 9A. That being said, if I had wanted acro, I would have chosen the 7.

Welcome to VAF. It's gonna cost you!

Bob Kelly

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Tom Finch

.......and the only physical difference is the wing.

The wing is not the only physical difference. The horizontal tail feathers on the -9 are quite large.
As stated before, if you want to do acro, go with the -7. If not, go with the -9. Speeds are VERY close and the low speed characteristics are much nicer with the -9. The short wing RVs start to drop pretty fast at speeds below 80 mph. Not so with the -9.
You can't miss with either.

[Tom Finch]

It sounds like the big difference is acro or no acro. At this point, I am mostly looking for a cross country cruiser for my son and I and not an acro machine. I am mostly interested in speed and useful load. I would prefer the extra hp of the O360 in a 7 but like the slower approach of the 9A. I guess I should try to get a ride in each and think about it from there. I thought I saw a 9 with a 360 but I am sure that you can build a 320 that will get more hp than 160 too. Decisions, decisions, decisions, decisions..................

[Mel]

And that's all you need! Anywhere!
You will get conflicting opinions but, I have flown an RV-6 with a tired (2500+hrs) 150 hp engine out of Leadville, CO. in the summer with no problems.