There are a whole lot of other differences, but none very noticeable from an ownership standpoint.
The 7A holds more fuel for better range. That's a biggie in my book.
-Marc
6A
1650 lbs gross
210 mph VNE
38 gals fuel
up to 180HP engine recommended
Shorter, non counter balanced rudder
7A
1800 lbs gross
230 mph VNE
42 gals fuel
up to 200HP engine recommended
Taller, counter balanced rudder
Supposedly 1 inch more headroom and legroom
Wrong.non counter balanced rudder
Wrong, again.before pre-punch
Wrong, again.
I had pre-punched wings and tail components on my -6, as delivered from Vans...
Like Harleys, they all different, just don?t assume
Also as a builder of early rv6 which most were like this, They had no holes punched in the skin or ribs. It was all lay it out and drill it in assembly. Now building an RV 7 big difference. The rv-14 is even one step further in the evolution and it's just basically an assembly.Most folks here references to ?pre-punch? should be ?pre-punched and matched drilled?. While some 6/6A?s had some punched skins, like HS and wings, none where ever match drilled to the ribs like the 7 and newer kits. You still had to jig the tail and wings on the 6 regardless. Pre-punching the skins wasn?t much of an advantage and many of us thought it more of a pain than a help.
The RV-7 has had several inflight structural failures
Due to exceeding Vne in all cases I am aware of.
If the 6 was that good why did Mr Vans bring out a 7?
I find the 6 really cramped, but each to their own I guess
And you assume that no 6's have ever gone above VNE. The stat is still meaningfull.
Have removed wings from 6,6A,7,7A,9A. The 6 & 6A were the easier of the bunch if they had to be rated. But overall they were all nasty.
Captain Avgas (or others), please describe in a bit more detail the wing removal bolts on an a -6A. Do the 76 bolts you refers to include the multitude of screws attaching the wing root fairing strips? I have come across several -6As I would have liked to truck home due to bad engines, etc, but was afraid to because of the reported wing removal difficulties. However, if it is a perfectly good reversible process with no undue damage or modifications, I may take on such a project.
The hand full RV-7/A accidents that involved possible in-flight break up were explained by pilot error/loss of control and exceeding limitations (speed, G force), over stressing the air-frame, one bird strike, and one was not conclusive.The RV-6 is structurally stronger as never having an inflight structural failure. However, the -6 has more variation in the build as many were built before process automation was implemented .
The RV-7 has had several inflight structural failures but the build seems to be more consistent over the -6. The -7 is slightly larger. A well built -6 is a nice plane with lots of margins. Good luck on your search!