S

savas

Member
Hi All, this RV bug is killing me, and i have an opportunity to look at a 9A. I have flown a 7A, and REALLY liked the feel of the control responses, accuracy etc. I know the 9 is more stable, but i wanted to know from those who have flown both, is the 9 control responses similar to the 7?

thx in advance
 
re: comparrison

I have flown both.
My brother has a 9A, it's hangered at my house. I fly it occasionally. It's a very stable airplane the control response is very docile.

The 7A I flew belonged to a friend who finished it, and kept in my hanger also.
I flew it when I wanted to for rent.:) The 7A is a lot quicker on the controls than the 9A. This 7 had a c/s prop where as the 9 is f/p. the only difference I saw in the props was on takeoff. I had nerver flown a c/s before. They are both very easy handling airplanes. About the only real big difference I could see was the responsiveness, the 7 is definately quicker. And it has a higher approach speed. My brother's 9 (Dynon D10) was calibrated in mph, the 7, with a Blue Mountain, was calibrated in kts. I flew the approaches at "75" in both airplanes.
It's kind of funny, and I never could really put my finger on it, but the 7 just seemed a tad bit easier to fly & land to me.:confused: I can't explain why. Both airplanes were in my hanger at the same time, so I flew which ever one I wanted. It just seems I did a better job landing the 7.
Both airplanes are really great, A models, and you won't go wrong with either one.

Marshall Alexander
RV10 N781DM
fuse/cabin top/panel
 
9A

Savas,
Marshall is right on. The 9A is heavier on the controls, and I happen to like the well balanced feel and slow speed capabilities of the 9 wing. It is a docile and gentile aircraft that you will love to fly. However, speed management is more important in the 9, as that big wing want's to float forever. A couple of too fast finals in a 9 will demonstrate this characteristic. I hope you get a chance to fly both planes before you make the decision. Both are easy to fly, and wonderful aircraft.

Regards,
Chris
 
carguy614 said:
Savas,
Marshall is right on. The 9A is heavier on the controls, and I happen to like the well balanced feel and slow speed capabilities of the 9 wing. It is a docile and gentile aircraft that you will love to fly. However, speed management is more important in the 9, as that big wing want's to float forever. A couple of too fast finals in a 9 will demonstrate this characteristic. I hope you get a chance to fly both planes before you make the decision. Both are easy to fly, and wonderful aircraft.
Click to expand...

The 9 with a C/S prop will still do a good job of getting down fast, and stopping quick, should you desire.

L.Adamson
 
The difference between the -7 & -9 is not that great. Yes, the -9 is more stable than a -7 but when compared to a Cessna or Piper it is very quick.

After letting a friend fly my -9 he was surprised at how much it felt like his -7. He thought it was going to be Cessna doggie.

Either plane is good, the speeds when equipped with the same engine & prop are almost identical in cruise with the only difference being the stall speed.

It comes down to your mission, if you want acro, go with the -7. If you are looking for a very good cruiser, go with the -9.

Do a search on the topic and you will find this same question raised a number of times. Truth is, there is no answer, both planes are very good.

(Careful not to let this thread turn into another, ?You must put in a large engine w/ a constant speed prop? debate.)
 
If you can look at a 9A, can't you fly it and decide yourself? When I first flew in a RV4 the control responsiveness hooked me. I then bought a 6A.
 
I own a 9A and took transition training in a 7. I would say the 7 is the easiest taildragger I ever landed. I agree; the 7A may be easier to land, but both are SO much nicer than anything else that it makes little difference which you choose. Personally, I would only go with the 7A if you want aerobatics. The lower speed stall and lower sink rate of the 9 are a big plus to me.

Bob Kelly
 
I agree with previous posts. I have flown 6A, 7A, and 9A. They are all great!

At the end is your mission that determines the choice. A few points to consider:

Acro - 7

Travel - 9

Slower stall - 9. A few times I flew with Cub, Aeronca Chief, and Aerocup in the pattern and did not worry to be too slow.

Power (what do you want) - 7 designed for 160-200 hp, 9 designed for 118-160 hp

I believe that the rest are almost the same.
 
Mission profile

I haven't flown the 7, but on paper there are some important differences beyond what has already been mentioned:

Fuel capacity: My benchmark trip is from my home airport in CA (now RHV) and the airport closest to my daughter's family in CO (APA). With the extra 6 gallons of the 7 I could easily make that trip. Now its either a nail biter or a fuel stop.

Maneuvering speed: 100Kts for the 9 and 120kts for the 7. Slowing down to 100kts on long cross countries is very annoying. It doesn't happen that much, but tends to happen on my longer trips because I'm going over the mountains.

It all depends on what is important to you. Personally I like it that the 9 is stable and lands slow, but I would take less stability and faster landing speeds in exchange for more fuel and higher VA.
 
Steve Brown said:
It all depends on what is important to you. Personally I like it that the 9 is stable and lands slow, but I would take less stability and faster landing speeds in exchange for more fuel and higher VA.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to pick nits with ya Steve, but the -7 isn't less stable than a -9, it simply has a higher roll rate and faster pitch response. The -7 and -9 are equally stable.

I know that you know this already Steve, but just putting this out here for clarity's sake. :p
 
Jamie said:
I don't mean to pick nits with ya Steve, but the -7 isn't less stable than a -9, it simply has a higher roll rate and faster pitch response. The -7 and -9 are equally stable.
Click to expand...

It's about the same for the 6 & 9 too.....

On a level cross country flight, they are so much the same.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I agree

Jamie said:
I don't mean to pick nits with ya Steve, but the -7 isn't less stable than a -9, it simply has a higher roll rate and faster pitch response. The -7 and -9 are equally stable.

I know that you know this already Steve, but just putting this out here for clarity's sake. :p
Click to expand...

An airplane or any control system can be stable and respond quickly. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

However, in an airplane the pilot is an integral part of the control system. Most pilots (including me) flying an instrument approach, for example, would find it more difficult to fly precisely in an airplane with more sensitive control responses.

On the other hand, an interesting data point is that I fly instruments significantly better in my 9A, than I did in my Mooney. The control response is definitely much faster in the RV, invalidating the assertion in the previous paragraph.

I don't know if this is due to less slop in the controls, or what, but it is counter intuitive for my simple brain.
 
Thanks guys, i have a very good perspective of both. I am not an acro fan, so i guess the 9 would be a good choice and im glad that the BASIC feel of the stick is more or less the same, which is what impressed me the most.
lets see how it goes with my decision.
 
I went with the -7A

For me the "A" was a given being as I don't have tailwheel endorsement. Someday....
I was torn between the -7 and the -9. Being as I had never done any aerobatics I couldn't make a completely informed decision but I went with the -7A simply because maybe I would like the aerobatics and wanted to reserve that possibility. Turns out I don't do a lot of it, but I usually try to do at least one roll every time I go up. Loops are fun, too! I just wanted to keep my options open. Which ever you choose, you won't be disappointed, especially if, like me, you flew nothing but spamcans for your first 850 hours. Like a lot of other more experienced pilots have said, "The toughest part is staying far enough ahead of the airplane to slow it down for the traffic pattern."
 
Slowing down

I guess the biggest difference I noticed between the 7 and the 9 is when it comes time to slow down in the pattern. The 7, with its lower aspect ratio wing slows down much easier. In the 9, with its high aspect ratio wing, the induced drag comes on at a much slower rate, and its very noticable if you are 20 knots faster than you want to be.

In a 7, if you are 20 knots too fast entering the pattern, you can reduce the power a couple of hundred rpms and within a few seconds can bleed off the airspeed. In a 9, you better plan ahead a little better......

The foward visibility on the ground is a little better in 7, but both are relatively good compared to other tailwheel airplanes.

Like others have said:

If you want good climb rates and acro - go with the 7
If you want slow landing speeds and good efficiency - go with the 9

Both are REALLY GOOD airplanes.

CDE
 
I think the typical 9 with a 320 engine will have a motor mount that positions the engine further forward than a 7 with a heavier 360. End result is the cowl on the 9 will protrude further forward thus obstructing your forward vision on the ground a bit more than a 7. I don't think the engine mount difference is more than a couple inches but apparently it is enough to be noticable.
 
kbehrent said:
How can the 7 have better forward visibility when it has the same fuselage and gear as the 9?
Click to expand...

I don't think it has the same gear. The 9 sits at a considerably higher angle on the ground than the 7. Parked side-by-side, its very noticable. I believe the gear legs are several inches longer on the 9.

CDE
 
cropdusterengineer said:
I don't think it has the same gear. The 9 sits at a considerably higher angle on the ground than the 7. Parked side-by-side, its very noticable. I believe the gear legs are several inches longer on the 9.

CDE
Click to expand...
This is correct. The only thing that is different is that the -9 has significantly longer gear legs than the -7. From what I understand, this is necessary in order to be able to get the airplane to stall in a 3-point landing (since the -9's wing generates so much lift).
 
alpinelakespilot2000 said:
cropdusterengineer said:
I don't think it has the same gear. The 9 sits at a considerably higher angle on the ground than the 7. Parked side-by-side, its very noticable. I believe the gear legs are several inches longer on the 9.

CDE
Click to expand...
This is correct. The only thing that is different is that the -9 has significantly longer gear legs than the -7. From what I understand, this is necessary in order to be able to get the airplane to stall in a 3-point landing (since the -9's wing generates so much lift).
Click to expand...

They are both correct. This is for the -9, not the -9A.

Still, the -9 has very good visibility over the nose. In fact, it is really a non-issue.
 
I'm really not buying the low-speed landing argument for the -9. In my -7A I come down final at 65kts, across the fence at about 60. If I do a full stall landing (which happens at about 44kts) the nose is so high that I can't see the runway in front of me...it's just about like landing a taildragger in the 3-point configuration.

In other words, my plane lands at almost the same exact speeds as a 172. I can certainly do slower than that, but the slower you go, the more difficult any crosswind is to handle.

Don't get me wrong, the -9 is a fantastic airplane, I just don't see the low-speed landing thing as any sort of benefit in real-world flying. Shorter landings you say? Well, for whatever reason Van says the -9A lands 100 foot longer than the -7A for the same engine configuration, and we all know how anal Van is when it comes to numbers.

If you don't believe me, check out the specifications on Van's site.
 
Jamie said:
I'm really not buying the low-speed landing argument for the -9. In my -7A I come down final at 65kts, across the fence at about 60. If I do a full stall landing (which happens at about 44kts) the nose is so high that I can't see the runway in front of me...it's just about like landing a taildragger in the 3-point configuration.

In other words, my plane lands at almost the same exact speeds as a 172. I can certainly do slower than that, but the slower you go, the more difficult any crosswind is to handle.

Don't get me wrong, the -9 is a fantastic airplane, I just don't see the low-speed landing thing as any sort of benefit in real-world flying. Shorter landings you say? Well, for whatever reason Van says the -9A lands 100 foot longer than the -7A for the same engine configuration, and we all know how anal Van is when it comes to numbers.

If you don't believe me, check out the specifications on Van's site.
Click to expand...

Jamie,

The specs I see on the Vans site show for 160 hp, the 9/9A landing in 300' solo and 450' gross and the 7/7A landing in 350' solo and 500' gross?? Admittedly not much difference and possibly not worth arguing about. I have never flown in a 7/7A so I can't say anything about their landing/slow speed performance. I built a 9A with a Hartzell C/S prop as I considered it the aircraft best suited to operating off my somewhat marginal airstrip. The airstrip is 1,350' long at 4,300' altitude and with approaches that make it very difficult to be able to touch down before about 350' to 400' beyond the threshold. My solo standard approach speed is 55 kts and there is always plenty of aileron and elevator control available for moderate crosswinds and adequate airspeed remaining to give lots of elevator control in the flare. I have done approaches at 50 kts with no problems. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that a 7/7A may be inclined to develop a nose high, high sink rate and thus be less controllable at these approach speeds??

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Fin:

You are right about the numbers. Mea culpa. I don't know what I was looking at before...I guess I was getting the number crossed up.

Anyway...the gist of my post is I don't want people to think that the -9/-9A is easier to land than a -7A, because certainly that isn't the case. My -7A is probably the easiest plane I have ever landed -- yes IMHO easier than any of the Cessnas or Cherokees I have flown. The ailerons are so responsive in slow flight that it's ridiculous. I believe that's one of the things that makes the airplane so easy to land.

IMHO the practical reasons for building a -9A over a -7A are:

1) Glide ratio.

And hmm...that's about it. But hey, I'm not claiming I'm not biased. ;)
 
For a 7/A or 9/A using the same engine and propeller (compare orange to orange) I found 7A easier to land. For us 9/A pilots, we need to be a little more careful with the speed (energy) in the pattern (in relative terms). However, the slow stall speed (51 mph for 7 and 44 mph for 9, solo) of 9 does have it advantage during emergency and when following a slow airplane at flyins. We are really talking about subtleties. Either airplane is great.

Actually, one more difference, 9/A airframe costs more (a few hundred dollars) :D.
 
tc1234c said:
However, the slow stall speed (51 mph for 7 and 44 mph for 9, solo) of 9 does have it advantage during emergency and when following a slow airplane at flyins. We are really talking about subtleties. Either airplane is great.

Actually, one more difference, 9/A airframe costs more (a few hundred dollars) :D.
Click to expand...

One thing for sure, at least with two people aboard; even the 9 will drop right out from underneath you, if you let it get a hair too slow.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
One thing for sure, at least with two people aboard; even the 9 will drop right out from underneath you, if you let it get a hair too slow.
Click to expand...

Even with one person aboard, it will drop if you fly too slow. Just the "too slow" is a little slower for 9.
 
Ted is right...

The sink rate gets pretty high on either plane if you get them too slow. It is a little more manageable in the 9. It is to note that the sink rate is not really a bad thing if you manage your speed. With a fixed pitch plane like mine, I have learned to use it to my advantage. At gross, you may be suprised at how much more airspeed you must carry to arrest it. I fly a slightly tighter pattern at full gross. The truth is, as others have stated, there isn't really much difference in the landing on either nosewheel plane if you are managing your speed. The 9 floats and floats if you are fast in the flare, and that is most notable if you have flown both planes. The 9 is more stable and responsive on the ailerons in slow flight, I suppose due to the longer wing moment. To me, the balance between elevator and aileron stick forces are better matched, but an hour in either plane, and you probably won't notice it any more. The feel in cruise is the same.
It may be just my perception, but the ride in my 9A seems a little smoother in rough air. But lets face it, thats a hard stat to measure.
As most have stated, the differences are subtile in most cases.
If I were to name the most notable difference in the planes, I would have to say it was stick force, and I suspect 7 pilots doing a little acro would probably appreciate the lighter forces those planes possess.
I will say, if you compare a short tail 6 to the 9, you will find them quite a bit different indeed!! I took my transition training in a 6A, and although it was easy to jump right in my 9a afterwards and fly it confidently, the differences were quite notable.
The good news....they are all a joy to fly, and it's hard to find anything negative about any of them.
Sure would like to try an 8 someday!!!

Regards,
Chris
 
carguy614 said:
The sink rate gets pretty high on either plane if you get them too slow. It is a little more manageable in the 9.
Click to expand...

That's a better way of saying it, than I did. But that's certainly the point!

It may be just my perception, but the ride in my 9A seems a little smoother in rough air.
Click to expand...

I think it's your perception :), although I'm comparing to a 6A, as I have no RV7 time. We've been bounced around rather roughly in both the 6 & 9.

I took my transition training in a 6A, and although it was easy to jump right in my 9a afterwards and fly it confidently, the differences were quite notable.
Click to expand...

I went the other way. Low hours in a 6A and around 50 in a 9A. The most notable difference for me, is much more rudder for the last third of throttle on the takeoff roll, with my short tail 6A. Both these planes are C/S. The 6 is somewhat more responsive on the stick, but not twitchy at all. In comparison to Cessnas and Pipers, both the 6 & 9's feel lighter and more responsive.....control wise.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Jamie said:
Anyway...the gist of my post is I don't want people to think that the -9/-9A is easier to land than a -7A, because certainly that isn't the case. My -7A is probably the easiest plane I have ever landed -- yes IMHO easier than any of the Cessnas or Cherokees I have flown. The ailerons are so responsive in slow flight that it's ridiculous. I believe that's one of the things that makes the airplane so easy to land.
Click to expand...

carguy614 said:
The sink rate gets pretty high on either plane if you get them too slow. It is a little more manageable in the 9. It is to note that the sink rate is not really a bad thing if you manage your speed. With a fixed pitch plane like mine, I have learned to use it to my advantage. At gross, you may be suprised at how much more airspeed you must carry to arrest it.

Regards,
Chris
Click to expand...

The ailerons being so responsive in slow flight is what also makes RV's hard to land...for some pilots. Pilots that really know what is going on, and can read what an airplane is telling them (regardless of what airplane they are flying) generally feel that RV's are really easy airplanes to land (and they are). I think that for some pilots this makes an RV harder to land than a typical Cessna or Piper because they are literally screaming at you, telling you that you are too slow. RV's have such good low speed control ability that if the pilot doesn't learn all of the ques they can get fooled.
Many short wing RV's have been landed hard enough to drive the main wheels into the bottoms of the wings because the pilot was sitting there fat, dumb, and happy on short final, going slow with a horrendous sink rate and not enough energy to arrest the sink rate in the flair. I think this is a lot less likely to happen in an RV-9 (though still very possible).
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Many short wing RV's have been landed hard enough to drive the main wheels into the bottoms of the wings because the pilot was sitting there fat, dumb, and happy on short final, going slow with a horrendous sink rate and not enough energy to arrest the sink rate in the flair. I think this is a lot less likely to happen in an RV-9 (though still very possible).
Click to expand...

We were purposely making the landings slower and slower in the RV9A to see how slow it could get. And then it dumped about four feet off the ground. Basic minimum landing speed mindsets went up after that. And then I actually was...........fat, dumb, but slightly irritable once... No damage, though

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
L.Adamson said:
We were purposely making the landings slower and slower in the RV9A to see how slow it could get. And then it dumped about four feet off the ground. Basic minimum landing speed mindsets went up after that. And then I actually was...........fat, dumb, but slightly irritable once... No damage, though

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

Similar thing happened to me the first time I landed on my strip (described in post #22). My airstrip is sheltered at ground level and is very prone to wind shear. At the time my AoA indicator was inoperative and there was absolutely no warning when it dumped.
Lessons learned:
Do not attempt slow landings without some sort of accurately calibrated AoA/stall warning.
Constantly check airspeed.
Maintain approach speed right down to just above the runway before flaring. This way it will not have far to fall.
The undercarriage (including the nose strut) is a lot stronger than it looks!!

Fin
9A
 
speeds and sink rates

You guys are right about what the plane tells you. Our planes do provide a strong measure of feedback in slow flight. Although I have not explored this as much in the short wing examples, I can say that the 9 needs the energy to get a good flare. In phase 1, I was practicing some slow approaches and some short field technique and discovered what others have posted in regards to lack of that much needed energy to flare properly. At least for me, it seems a real safe and short field entry is better with just a tad more speed than you might expect. At gross, you will obviously need even a little more speed to arrest in the flare. I am purposely not posting my speeds, as I believe each individual pilot and ship will be slightly different in negotiating these maneuvers. For instance, my 9A stalls 4 MPH faster than Vans' planes do. All part of learning your plane.
As for sink rate, I see that as my primary speed check indicator. It is the first thing I notice if I get too slow for the approach path I will use to hit the numbers. Still well above stall, just a touch of power will arrest it. Pull that knob out a touch and use that sink if you need it. Think of it as a bit of a slip if it were a 172. Hard to put into words for me, but be assured you will easily discover these really nice characteristics of the ship as you learn to master it.
All in all, I think an RV is by far the easiest aircraft I have ever flown. Very easy to land, and it's complex response to different airspeeds, flap settings, etc. gives us a chance to really master our skills negotiating the "best part"...landing it just exactly like you planned.
One approach I like is the floatin' screamer, as one of my pilot buddies has called it. I use it a lot in calm evening air. Approach at 80 mph, and flare low. Bleed off all of the airspeed while the big 9 wing floats you down the runway. When the mains kiss the pavement at stall, raise the flaps to keep the nose up, and roll out with the stick in your belly. No brakes till I turn out at the end, and not much taxi to the turnout. Nose goes down at about 24 or so. Eats up a bunch of runway, but it's fun, and I think easy on the plane.
Gets me out of the way in a hurry.
I have never seen me do it....But the crowd likes it.
Regards,
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.