When did you decide?

[chaskuss]

Originally Posted by ryanturner

I have decided to build an RV-7 or RV-7A and am having trouble deciding which to get. I would like to get some feedback on when other builders made the decision. It looks like I don?t have to decide where to put the third wheel until I order the fuselage kit. Did you know when you started your project or did you wait until you were forced to make a decision?

Ryan,
Vans will tell you that the decision needs to be made before ordering your wing kit. That's not exactly true. I started out building an 8 (same wing) but switched to an 8A later on. The only reason Vans requires which end the third wheel will be located on (for the wing kit), is because the fuselage's main spar center section and main spar bulkhead are included with the wing kit.
The 7 and 7A wing spar center sections only differ in the number of rivets holding the main spar center section together. The A models omit 20 rivets on this area. These rivets are omitted to allow the steel main gear mounting weldments to be bolted to the forward side of the spar center section.
The 7's main gear mount to the motor mount, so the spar center section gets those extra 20 (3/16" diameter) rivets.
If you order a 7 wing kit and change your mind, you will have to drill out 20 large rivets. If you order a 7A wing kit and change your mind, you will have to install and rivet those 20 missing rivets.
I figured that installing rivets is easier than removing them, so I ordered an 8A wing kit. I decided to stick with the 8A because it is:
1 5 lbs lighter than the 8 (this is not true of the 7 vs 7A)
2 The 8A is slightly easier to build (no gear leg mounting towers. Another non factor for you)
3 The 8A has more leg room (important when you are 6' 4")
4 Lower insurance rates for tricycle gear aircraft

So you really don't have to finally decide till you order your fuselage kit.
Hope this helps
Charlie Kuss

[allbee]

I have over 1200 hrs in the tail wheel in the last 4 years. Yup, this guy flies every day. With that being said, I'm still glad the 7 is an A. Why, because I wanted one. I read a post the other day that someone put in a statement that the A model pilot is not skilled, that is why he has one. Well I guess when I fly the A model I will be underskilled. At least when I fly my tailwheel I'll be skilled. What a bunch of ****.

Build what you want, fly what you want. Take out the Mocho. It's you that is paying the bills here. There is so many veriations, slider, tipup, engine size. Makes your head spin. You know the kind of flying you do, and the type of people you hang around. If you want statis, you better go with the people you hang with. If that doesn't matter, than you have your own criteria.

I do know that the person that says, I don't care about weight and speed of the aircraft, either never has flown a light aircraft with power, or they already made a bad decision and are trying to justify what they did.

Don't make a bad decision for YOU, do what is best for YOU.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by allbee

I have over 1200 hrs in the tail wheel in the last 4 years. Yup, this guy flies every day. With that being said, I'm still glad the 7 is an A. Why, because I wanted one. I read a post the other day that someone put in a statement that the A model pilot is not skilled, that is why he has one. Well I guess when I fly the A model I will be underskilled. At least when I fly my tailwheel I'll be skilled. What a bunch of ****.

It is a bunch of ****

For my "A" model, I have to go all out with elevator and rudder to keep the nose wheel light; and rudder to stay on the center line. Unlike a sedate Cessna 172, my 6A gets rather torqued, and must have a nice propeller slip stream, which wants to aggressive pull to the left, as well as roll. In other words, I'm always thinking rudder, at least until I'm slowly idling on the taxiway.

But for all I know................it could be that shorter "classic tail' of the early 6A's that's the problem. It's just far better looking (kind of like the early P-51's) , but a bit harder to use, I suppose!

L.Adamson -- RV6A

[frankh]

That I wanted an A.

Reason is because I wanted to go IFR and the thought of dealing with a tricky crosswind landing after popping out of the clouds at 200 feet (especially after a long X country) sealed the deal.

remember that ILS (precision approaches) usually are only available on one of the runways...So if its a 25kt cross wind to that runway..Tough, you either land it of go somewhere else.

Frank

[agough277]

Originally Posted by llavalle

Still undecided....

My emp is almost done... I'm leaning toward a -9A... I'm a low time pilot (~100h).. all of this was on C172...

For TW :
The look of a tail dragger is way better...IMO
I've sit in a RV-6 and the visibility is good for a TW.
I also like the fact that you actually steer the rear wheel...
Easier to get on the wing, harder to get in the plane because of the weird angle
Slightly faster (not really an issue for me... I'll be going nowhere anyway)

For NW :
Lower insurance cost
Bigger step to get on the wing but easier to get in
The look is OK
I can't get TW endorsment in any local airport
I've flown them before

In my case the bigger question is Slider VS Tipup...

Tip ups are good for visibilty if you don't put a sun shade on the canopy but are a bitch to get out of if you flip over as are most off field landings. The roll bar in a slider is something else to consider. Never had a concern for more visibility in my sliders.

[hngrflyr]

I learned to fly in tailwheel airplanes in the 1950s. I doubt that I have accumulated 25 hours in nosewheel airplanes in the past 40 years. It was never a question for me. I purchased my RV-6 flying. I was having a problem finding a suitable airplane. I considered an RV-6A to convert back to conventional gear, but found my airplane before that happened.

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by chaskuss

I decided to stick with the 8A because it is:
...
2 The 8A is slightly easier to build (no gear leg mounting towers. Another non factor for you)
...

It is quite true that the original RV-8 fuselage kit had some significant issues with the landing gear boxes. I spent many hours figuring out how to resolve the various interference issues that I ran into. But, the current matched hole RV-8 fuselage kit is significantly improved. A local RV-8 builder fully completed his landing gear boxes in fewer hours than I spent scratching my head trying to puzzle out solutions to the problems I had with mine.

With today's kits, I would not use the landing gear boxes as a reason to pick the -8A over the -8.

[osxuser]

Before I had flown either one, and now I have flown both (as well as 600 more TT, and MANY more types) and still TD it is .

[L.Adamson]

This pilot could have used one!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7859807.stm

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

[Low n Slow]

Originally Posted by L.Adamson

This pilot could have used one!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7859807.stm

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

This one not!