UnPossible

UnPossible

Well Known Member
Hey – I’ve got the check book ready and permission to order my tail. I’m in the final stages of deciding between a 7A and a 9A. Emotionally I want the 7A, but logically the 9A may be more practical. I’m just finishing up my ppl. I haven’t done any real aerobatics, but the stalls, steep turns, etc that we have done have been a blast.

I have read every post I could find about the differences between the two, and letting your mission pick the plane. I plan on using the plane primary for fun, with some short (200 mile) cross countries thrown on the mix. I got a ride a few weeks ago in a 6A, and I really liked how it handled.

So at the end of the day, the question I’m looking to answer before I fax in my order is; Three to four years from now at the end of the building process assuming I have a couple of hundred hours under my belt how hard will it be to transition to a 7A from the 150/172s that I’m flying now. I’d love to have the aerobatic capability, but I don’t want to spend all that time and money building a plane that makes me nervous to fly. For those that have gone this path before, I’d love to hear about your experiences transitioning from “trainer” type planes to a 7A.

Thanks for patience in helping this newbie with this difficult decision,
Jason
 
I'd build the 7a

But then again I'm biased.

The 7a is not a difficult airplane to fly..I transitioned into it at 500 hoursTT and it was easy..As long as you do everything by the book near the ground..I.e rigid attention to speen control on final etc then you should be fine.

The odd 200 mile XC is just nothing in these airplanes, either the 7 9 but if you think you might try acro then the 7a is the way to go.

These are not hardcore acro planes but they do pretty well for an all rounder

www.youtube/user/frankhinde

Frank
 
Jason,

They are both fine models. The factory guys fight over the -9A on the long cross country trips because it rides better in bumpy air. That means something when you're flying Oregon to Florida. If that's where you see your mission maybe that's a data point to take in.

As for me, I had NO formation or acro training at all when my RV-6 first took flight, and I had about 300 total time in C-150's and C-172. It was a big nothing burger to transition. 10 hours with Alex and I walked out with my tailwheel endorsement and a good feel for the plane.

What surprised me was that the two things I had no experience in turned out to be what I enjoyed (and enjoy) doing most in my RV-6. Formation and acro. Guess my point is you never really know what you're gonna like down the road - I thought I knew but was wrong.

The differences between the 9 and 7 are pretty small in the end and you'll have little problem flying either, I suspect. The -7's I've flown have been cream puffs.

When the guy flying parallel to you a few thousand feet off your wing on the way to lunch pulls up and does a roll, the urge is certainly there to do the same when he's done. My .02 is go with your gut. In the end it's your call - and that's the beauty of it!!! :)

Best always,
Doug
 
Last edited:
Like everyone says, they are both good, honest airplanes. I transitioned in a 7 and I don't claim to be a good TD pilot. The 7 made me look good. Easiest tail dragger I ever flew. I have over 100 hours in the 9A now and don't miss aerobatics a bit. I love the ride and the handling is all I ever hoped for. To me, flying is a constant pursuit of improvement. Whether it is aerobatics or sticking every landing (don't I wish!) I always have something to improve on. If you feel you will enjoy yank 'n bank, go with the 7. If not, the 9 will be more than satisfying and perhaps a little more econimical. Decide and start pounding rivets!

Bob Kelly
 
Pick One

UnPossible said:
.....I got a ride a few weeks ago in a 6A, and I really liked how it handled...... For those that have gone this path before, I?d love to hear about your experiences transitioning from ?trainer? type planes to a 7A......Jason
Click to expand...
Jason,

I can relate to your concerns and think I can answer your question. Prior to making the first flight in my -6A, fully 90% or more of my total flight time was logged in the C-150 I owned for 18-1/2 years. You say you got some stick time in a -6A and found it easy to handle. That's with good reason. Prior to making the first flight in my newly completed -6A, I logged a total of 4 hours transition training in a -6A by an RV instructor the insurance company approved of. After the sign off I went on to make the maiden flight in my -6A. Sure, the pucker factor was a bit high those first 10-15 hours or so but when that feeling passed, I discovered that in many ways the RV is actually easier to handle than a 150, and especially because of the low wing, landings. That legendary RV "responsiveness" you often hear about will become so second nature that you will likely find the handling of many production airplanes like many Cessna's and Piper PA-** series to suddenly become exceedingly ho-hum. I liken it to driving a car without power steering and power brakes. You can...but do you want to? I think not. I say this with all sincerity. If you are a cautious pilot with average skills and recent experience under your belt, you should have no problem transitioning into an RV. Just don't do anything stupid, and always remember like a Cessna 150, an RV will kill you just as dead if you don't respect it. I'm not going to sit here and advocate which RV you should build but I do encourage you to put your concerns behind you and go ahead and write that check.
 
I will let you know in a couple of months. I will be taking my transition training with Pierre Smith in Georgia. I have around 120 hours all in Cessnas and about ten hours flying shotgun in my hangar mate's RV-7.

As you can see I have a ways to go but I think it will be in the air in a couple of months. I have convinced myself that the RV-7A is the right one for me.

dsc00280.jpg
 
Just Do It

For me, a 150 driver from late 99 until mid 06, the transition was easy. The transition training was in a 6 and the tailwheel gave me some issues, but my 7A is a dream to fly and to land. Everything above that the others said is really true. If I can do it you can do it. I'm a non-aerobatic pilot and will stay that way. I built it for XC and for fun. I kept it simple (FP prop) because that's my comfort level. You can fly a 7A or a 9A, once you know how to fly, easier than a 150 or 172. Many years ago I was in a club that had Archer II's. They were great XC airplanes and very easy to land in a crosswind. The 7A is a sportscar to the family sedan Archer. Or Cheetah/Tiger. It's really more like a Tiger with some real performance. You can do it. You can do it safely. You will enjoy it.
 
No problemo..

Buddy of mine did his PPL from 0 hours in his RV7A after building it. Just need an instructor thats up on the ship. His primary instructor is building a 9A and the CFII likes the 7A, too.
 
RE:RV7A ... RV9A

Jason

Plan each plane on paper.....Mission profile/available budget to use for build/panel needs/engine needs.... you get the idea.
You will be satisfied with either. Read all those great links on the Van's site.
Check out this thread for some good advice on preparing yourself to fly your newly built aircraft

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30503&highlight=landing

Frank @ 1l8 ......RV7A....last 989 details...........
 
easier than I thought

I am a new pilot. Got my PPL this past December. I am 50 yrs old and had never flown before. Learning to fly was one of the harder things I have done but also one of the most rewarding. I trained in a 172. I knew I wanted a rv for all of the reasons seen on this forum. I did not have the time nor inclination to build so I watched for the right 7a. I found it and bought it. Afterwards I was worried that perhaps I had bitten off more than I could chew. With trepidation I scheduled with Mike Seagar for transition training. After the two days of training I felt I could safely land the 6a but I felt I still needed help so I asked Mike to help me ferry the plane from WI to WA. At the end of the ferry I was still a little nervous so I pressed my CFI into duty. After a few more training sessions and strong cross wind landing practice I was feeling much better. I have been flying over 50hrs since picking the plane up in the middle of March. I must say I really think it is easier to land than the 172. I seem to get better landings, I just have to work on slowing it down in the pattern, it wants to fly at 140mph even at low settings. I have flown it on several 600mi each way trips and it is a great traveler. I was thinking of getting a rv10 but the cost was too high, insurance too high for a low time pilot and the operating costs too high for most of the flying I would be doing with just myself or my wife and I. At this point I would say that I was perhaps more worried that I should have been about being able to handle the 7a over the 9a. The 7a comes in a little faster but really seems not that bad once you have been in it for a bit. I am not a natural pilot and have had to work at it. If I had to do it again I would still get the 7a. I don't really plan on acro but you never know. I will put a autopilot in it for trips in the future.
Floyd
 
Learn to "drive" the C150 on the runway.

I had 180 hours in a C150, transitioned 2 hours in a 7A, then flew my 9A on its first flight and 61 hours since. While you're still flying the 150, learn to land by "driving" the airplane to the ground rather than full stall landings typically taught in the 150.

Fly the 150 with a buddy and have him tell you precisely how far off the runway you are during landing. My friend and I used to joke that he'd hang out the door with a tape measure until I nailed the procedure.

That practice paid off. Within 30 minutes in the 7A, my instructor told me I had become "one" with the airplane. Plan on working at longer runways during the initial flights of the 7 or 9 (whichever you choose) till you're comfortable. Also start in calm wind days too and then gradually work into more adverse conditions as your skill improves.

I'm as old as Moses & so if an old man like me can do it, you young whipper snappers can too. BTW, we completed the 9A in 18 months. When you don't have a lot left on the Hobbs, you gotta make it all count.
 
apples and oranges---

flying a c-150 or a 172 is like driving my Explorer- it isn't exciting but it gets the job done. I completed a 9A in 2003, and it is like getting behind the wheel of a Corvett, compared to the Explorer. Fun to fly, very stable, corners and climbs with a touch of two fingers, and is very forgiving. After 350 hrs, still exciting and very satisfying to fly. AT 160kts, it holds its own very well, doesn't suffer speed envy, and is very easy to land. It is a very capable and comfortable XC airplane.

I completed a 7A qb a couple months ago (with a partner), with all the bells and whistles. Very similar flying qualities, just happens faster. Lighter touch on the controls, and it begs to be rolled and looped. (just got 40 hrs flown off). Requires a little more attention, but is still a pleasure to fly. Either plane will make the owner proud, and make the decision tough.

To get the most out of either airplane, you will probably spend more money on the 7. (more horsepower, speed= more fuel). What ever rings your bell.
 
Hey - I just wanted to thank everyone that took the time to respond to my question. The decison between the 7 and the 9 has been much harder than I expected. After a ton of consideration, and chatting with some 7 and 9 owners, I've decided to let the little devil on my shoulder win and order the tail for the 7 tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.