For those who have flown -7/-8's AND -9's...

[Ward Johnson]

Depending on the day (or even time of day) I waffle between the -7/-8's and the -9. I am a fairly low time VFR pilot who hasn't flown for a few years (I went back to school and will finish soon). I like the idea of the stability of the -9 but am intrigued by the nimbleness of the others. Short term, obviously the -9 is a better choice for me but I intend to fly MY airplane for a long time. I have read the latest Kitplane article about the -9, but I would like some other opinions. Pls disregard slider/non-slider, prop, tri or TD options.

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Ward Johnson

Depending on the day (or even time of day) I waffle between the -7/-8's and the -9. ...

I'd try to sit in all of them, or get a ride in all of them. Also, depends a lot on the kind of flying you want to do, and if anyone will be riding with you on a regular basis.

If you're "wide" and your buddy is "wide", the side by side aircraft can get cozy. Also, two sweaty, hairy legged guys wearing shorts in a side by side can be kind of, well, uncomfortable. You and a hottie side by side can be nice.

If you have kids that you want to teach to fly, then the side by side will be a lot better. If you want to live out childhood fantasies of being a WWII fighter jock, then there is only one choice.

[Highflight]

The only quality you address directly between the models is that the 7 and 8 are more "nimble" than the 9.
So seating arrangement opinions aside, it sounds like you're mostly concerned with how you perceive that there might be a difficulty difference in flying the 7 or 8.

If that's the case, consider that learning ANYTHING new is always daunting because you're learning something that you've never done before. The time it would take for you to become comfortable flying the 7 or 8 is the same as if you started with a 9. Either way, you have to learn it's characteristics and behavior.
However, you would soon become very familiar with the aircraft (7,8,9, F-14.. no matter which) and you would probably wonder what all the fuss was about.

Look at mission most of all because if you choose for any other reason, you may regret your choice because once you're flying, you will always be on your "mission" for which you bought the aircraft for in the first place.

My mission is simple; flying with my wife on frequent cross country trips. I want it fast, she wants to sit next to me, and I want the aircraft to penetrate and handle chop well, and I live in Texas so taxiing with the canopy open is a must. Your mission may be different but I tell you mine just so you can see the thought process.

The model I chose fulfills that mission better for me than the others so thankfully, Van's offers the variety of models he does so that we all get to match the plane to the mission.

[pierre smith]

Vern thinks along the same lines as I do. I enjoy FAST cross country trips and my wife wants to be by my side when doing so (and so do I). The occasional roll or two doesn't hurt your ETE either. If you can fly/land a Skyhawk or 150, the 7A or 6A would not be any problem......in fact, you'd wonder what the fuss is about. Taildraggers are a different story but manageable with some dual. The few MPH that the 9 lands slower by is not worth the cruise speed reduction in my book and you can't do aerobatics either. I'm 6' and 188 lbs and my wife is 5'5" and 130 and have enough room on any given trip.
Pierre
ps. 202 MPH true is a given at 7500 + and under 10 GPH too, turning 2700 RPM on a three bladed Catto and 180 HP LYC. in our 6A.

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by Highflight

Look at mission most of all because if you choose for any other reason, you may regret your choice because once you're flying, you will always be on your "mission" for which you bought the aircraft for in the first place.

Vern is saying it like it is here. Your purpose for flying needs to tell you what to do. Look carefully at what you hope to do with the airplane. All of the various models are very good at what they do and all will do you justice if pressed to perform some outside its designed envelope (i.e. land on a short field, unimproved, high density altitude grass strip). You are the only one who can determine what that flying mission will be. Study the different designs and go with the one that best fits your needs or desires.

Originally Posted by pierre smith

The few MPH that the 9 lands slower by is not worth the cruise speed reduction in my book and you can't do aerobatics either.

It appears to me that there are an awful lot of budding aerobatic champions out here flying RVs. By far the largest complaint I hear about the RV9 is that it cannot do aerobatics. Well, as for me, I am building a 9 because it is not designed for aerobatics. I am not built for aerobatics myself and because of that I have absolutley zero desire to do aerobatics in my plane. Of those I talked with who are actually flying RV's, everyone told me the difference in speeds for the RV9 compared to the other RV's is not worth mentioning. In some cases the 9 ended up being faster than other RVs. So I stuck with making my decision on the type of flying I would be doing. My desire is to go cross country fast and comfortably without having to worry constantly about keeping the airplane upright and on course. The 9 fills that need very nicely.

As others have said before: Just get after it. Order what you want and get busy building it. After that it will just be a matter of time (ok, it is a matter of money also) before you will be able to do more than just talk about it. You will actually be able to finally fly your own airplane that you built instead of sitting in front of a computer screan dreaming about flying (voice of experience speaking here as I have flown many a flight dreaming in front of this computer screen ).

RVBYSDI
Steve

[Ward Johnson]

In other words, fish or cut bait....

I think I am pretty much decided on the -9 to be honest. Unfortunately it will be a few months before I can order the first kit so I have too much time to second guess my self. Knowing me, whatever kit I do order I will quickly become an fanatical advocate of THE best plane offered.

Until then, more computer screen flying I reckon.

Thanks for the advice guys.

[praterdj]

I think there are folks that would prefer the 9 over the other models. Apparently Van?s does too?.that?s why he designed and manufactured it.

Personally I wouldn?t make the decision to by a 9 solely because I didn?t intend on doing aerobatics. I?m sure a lot of people have flown the other models without doing aerobatics. Just because it?s designed for it doesn?t mean you have to do them.

The only reason I say this is because I would like the comfort of knowing my plane was designed for a certain amount of aerobatics when I?m in the chop on a hot Texas day.

Just my opinion. I?m sure the 9 is a great plane. If that?s what you want go for it. I?m building an 8 myself and I?m sure many people can give reasons why they wouldn?t build an 8. I just like everything about it.

Donald
RV-8 Empennage underway
N-284DP Reserved

[Scott DellAngelo]

Ok I will reply because I fit the criteria "For those who have flown 7, 8 and 9". I'll add 6 and 10 in my case. I'll give you my take, but each person has to decide what they want and what is important to them.

I am a low time pilot, just shy of 200 hours. I ruled (wait my wife ruled) out a tandom so an 8 was no factor for me. I would have loved to wait for the 10 to come out at the time and build it but I knew in my heart of hearts that it would just be too expensive for me. I would like to earn and use ("lightly" I bet) an IFR rating in my airplane along with local cruising, breakfast flights, cross countrys, maybe some formation stuff someday, etc. The IFR rating for the proficiency and ability to pop up through or down through a layer more than anything. I read in the RVator, or somewhere, that when Van's left for airshows that the 9's were the first choice ride by most if not all. To me that means a bunch because going from Oregon to Florida or Wisconsin certainly classifies as long cross country. They could have taken the larger engined machines (I assume they didn't pay the gas bill out of their pocket either) and instead they preferred the 9. If you want to do any amount of aerobatics then the choice is simple. On the same power a 9 climbs and goes just as fast as a 7. If you want big power, then the choice again is simple. A 9 is designed for 4.4 g's which is more than beefy enough, though I suspect many build the 7 with no intention of doing aerobatics just because it is "stronger". I suspect some of them have probably also never pulled 4.4 g's to realize just how much of a push it is? Having done serious aerobatics as a passenger in an S-2B Pitts a couple of times I assure you, 4.4 G's is a serious pull. In fact we did some wild stuff and never exceeded about 4.5 until I asked to get 6 pulled to see what it was like. If you want to do serious aerobatics then I would suggest you build a Christen Eagle or Pitts or something like that.

Anyways my flight impressions. The stall on a 6 woke me up as there was a large pitch change. The stall on my 9 you could sleep through, and cannot remember stalling any of the others. I wanna say I stalled the 8 and it was also a total non-event but I just do not remember as that was a while ago. The 6, 7, 8 were all a bit more responsive, the 10 a bit less. To me, not much more responsive. In the 6-8 it seemed like you just thought about it and it happened. In the 9 you have to not only think about it but also touch the stick. The 9 might be considered the "trainer" of the Van's fleet but I assure you it is 99% RV and 1% trainer. I think it is easy to fly and land don't get me wrong, but then again I thought the 6, 7, 8, 10 were too (I didn't actually land the 7 or 8). The speeds, climb rates, and so on put all of them far away from any trainer airplane I ever flew.

Those who are deciding need to decide what they want and what really matters. They are all fantastic. I still have this stupid grin that started back on March 17. I would have the same grin I bet if there was a 7 or 8 or 6 or 10 or 4 or 3 (you get my drift) sitting in the hanger.

As for me, I wonder if someday I will want to do rolls and loops but then again perhaps after some training I will do them in mine anyways (certainly wouldn't be the first as a few 9's get sent upside down on purpose). I suspect that if I had a 180 or 200 horse 7 bumping around working on my 40 hour flyoff like I am now, that I would be poking along at the same powered back 170 mph that I have been in my 9 lately trying to save a few bucks at the gas pump.

Scott
#90598 - N598SD Flying - 23 hrs

[jclark]

Originally Posted by Ward Johnson

Depending on the day (or even time of day) I waffle between the -7/-8's and the -9. I am a fairly low time VFR pilot who hasn't flown for a few years (I went back to school and will finish soon). I like the idea of the stability of the -9 but am intrigued by the nimbleness of the others. Short term, obviously the -9 is a better choice for me but I intend to fly MY airplane for a long time. I have read the latest Kitplane article about the -9, but I would like some other opinions. Pls disregard slider/non-slider, prop, tri or TD options.

I believe that this is a decision that involves both logic and emotion.

My **opinions** follow.

Logically, you can put the 6/7/9 in one category (side-by-side) and the 8 in another (tandem). If ya gotta go tandem then case closed. BUT, if you want Side-by-Side then logic (and other factors) says build a 7 or 9.

Now it gets tough. Fact, the 7 is "stronger" than the 9 (+6 vs + 4.4 G's etc.) . But the 9 is probably strong enough for 99% of pilots. So unless you REALLY plan to do a lot of loops and rolls, then the 9 is still in the running.

So now how do you decide??? Beg, borrow a RIDE in both!!!

I have flown the 6/7/8/9/10 (and was a paasenger in a 4) and there ARE differences! They all have that "RV Feel" but they are all different. Not better or worse ... different.

[Note: I know that the construction will make a difference in the feel but I mean beyond that.]

Summary comparision from MY perspective of the 7/9.

- The 7 feels more "responsive" (but our 6 feels even more so. :-) ).

- The 9 feels more "stable" (subjective comment there).

- The 9 departs terra firma at an even slower speed and stays aloft at a slower speed (than the 6/7).

- The 9 takes even LONGER to slow down! It wants to glide on the least of air! :-) (During my RV checkout some years ago, the instructor always reminded me that in the RV it is hard to both "slow down and go down" at the same time and boy is that ever so true with the 9. I mean this in a POSITIVE manner.)

- You must get SLOWER in the 9 to reach flap extension speed .. thus more planning on the slowing down.

- The 9 responds like a 6/7 in the first "10%" of stick movement (what you will use MOST of the time) but builds up in the stick forces as you try to say bank hard. This helps (I think) give it that more "stable" feeling.


Sooo... again, go find a ride and after all the logic, let the emotion of the moment tell you which one fits **YOU**.

James

[hevansrv7a]

I chose the 7A over the 9A afer much fussing. The areas I eventually deemed decisive - for me - were:

• Shorter wings - easier to hangar
• Able to take 180 hp or even 200
  
• Stronger - better reserve strength in turbulence or over time
  
• About 100 miles greater IFR range at comparable speeds
• Uses RV airfoil as opposed to Roncz's - better known.

h