M

myrv6180

Active Member
What is the real reason Van discontinued the RV-6 and came up with the RV-7. I have never flown a 7 but I couldn't ask for a plane that has been any better than my 6.
 
Far as I know, the 6 is not discontinued, is is still available. At least it is still shown for sale on the factory website.

Here is how I understand it;

When Van decided to go with the prepunched efforts, it was a good time to update the design. It is a lot of work to re-engineer the design to include the prepunching into the 6, as well as any more changes/updates/improvements to the design. It was only a small (relatively) additional effort to make a new airframe that incorporated all the newer design elements. Thus the 7 came about.
 
Last edited:
Why is it better? That depends on how you look at it.

I built an early RV6 and flew it for well over 2000 hours. Then I built a 7A and have now flown it for 700 hours so here is how I look at it:

From a builder's point of view the 7 is much easier to build because the whole kit is match hole punched. No jigs required and a much better chance of ending up with a straight airframe. Many more parts are already made speeding up the building process and ensuring a better conforming final product. That is not to say there are no top quality RV6's out there, I have seen a few but overall the newer kits lead to better quality airplanes on the whole.

Why did Van's drop the 6 for the 7? Evolution and parts commonality! The RV9 Was the first match hole kit and it was CAD designed. It only made sense to use the same fuselage from there on for the 6 replacement. The RV8 wings were also match punched so it made sense to use them too. The Rv9 vertical tail and rudder made up the rest of the kit and so the new 6, now logically called the 7, was born.

Does one fly better than the other? There are differences but they are subtle. They mostly stem from the fact that the wing span on the 7 is 2 feet greater, it has a higher gross weight and a higher vne. My very light 6 with an 0-360 and cs prop was a joy to toss around the sky and climbed like a home sick angel but it was not as stable in level flight as the 7. It did not handle as well the the 7 with a heavier load in the baggage area and it had a more abrupt stall behaviour. My 7 with an IO-360 and a cs prop is a better long distance airplane because it can carry more and has greater range (4 more gallons). With the same hp it has a slightly lower roc but is faster at altitude (larger wing area?).

So there you have it from my vantage point. I wish I could have kept them both.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
EAA technical counselor
 
Mike S said:
Far as I know, the 6 is not discontinued, is is still available.

Here is how I understand it;

When Van decided to go with the prepunched efforts, it was a good time to update the design. It is a lot of work to re-engineer the design to include the prepunching into the 6, as well as any more changes/updates/improvements to the design. It was only a small (relatively) additional effort to make a new airframe that incorporated all the newer design elements. Thus the 7 came about.
Click to expand...

Mike pretty much sums it up right there!

Additionally, in the interest of efficiency and working to keep costs down, the redesign effort also focused on introducing parts commonality as much as possible. This is why the majority of the RV-7 wing has RV-8 parts, and a large percentage of the fuselage uses RV-9 parts (the RV-9 was actually designed before the RV-7)

One clarification... the RV-6 kit is still supported in the context of any kit that had been previously started before the RV-7 was introduced.
If you call up Van's on Monday to order an RV-6 kit, you will be sold an RV-7.
 
To follow on to Mike's post and simplify the though process- the 7 was not neccesarily a 100% new clean sheet desinged kit. The fuselage is an RV9 which already previously developed (both punched and QB) and the wings were done for the -8 (prepunched and QB). Put the RV8+RV9 and you get an RV7. Simple as that!

We've built multiples of both, have lots of hours in both and I can say each has their benefits. From my own personal perspective, the 7 with the large tail is nice (less tail wagging and more authority in Xwinds) and overall I think the 7's land nicer. I think the 6 handles slightly better in the air. The 7 has a wee bit more room, the 6 has the steel plates holding the spars together. The 7 is WAYYY easier to build than the 6, but overall I couldn't give you a reason to get one over the other. There is a long list of differences, but in the end I enjoy both.

Cheers,
Stein
 
SteinAir said:
From my own personal perspective, the 7 with the large tail is nice (less tail wagging and more authority in Xwinds) and overall I think the 7's land nicer.
Click to expand...

Then there are us 6 owners who prefer the looks of the shorter six "classic" tail. That "classic" description was coined by someone on this forum, who appreciates good looks! :)

L.Adamson
 
RV-7 is better for tall pilots

I am 6' 1" with a 34 inseam. I have flown in several RV-6's and own an RV-7A. In the RV-6 with a minimum seat cushion and the seat all the way back touching the fuselage cross frame I typically have to fly with my head tilted to the side so that I don't hit the canopy. Especially if I wear a non-inner ear headset.

In my RV-7A I have at least 2" inches of clearance above my head and never a problem with having to tilt my head. That is a significant difference.
 
I am 6' 1" with a 34 inseam. I have flown in several RV-6's and own an RV-7A. In the RV-6 with a minimum seat cushion and the seat all the way back touching the fuselage cross frame I typically have to fly with my head tilted to the side so that I don't hit the canopy. Especially if I wear a non-inner ear headset.

In my RV-7A I have at least 2" inches of clearance above my head and never a problem with having to tilt my head. That is a significant difference.
Click to expand...

As a 6 owner, I've got to counterpoint this one...

I'm also 6' 1" with a 34 inseam. My rudder pedals are as far forward as possible. I use a Classic Aero leather seat with no seat pan cushions. The 7 & 9 have seat pans that are 1 1/2" lower, I believe. I have minimal time in a 7, but lots in 9's.

However, I do use a Telex headset which has ample padding. My head never hits the canopy, and I certainly don't have to tilt my head. But I must mention, that my son, who is about the same height, complained after his first ride in the 6. Turns out, his head was tilted the whole time. After getting out, we realized that the four inches of seat pan pads, that my wife uses, was still in place...

L.Adamson
 
Since the -7?s are built with the match hole tooling, everything is straight; the fuselage, the wings, etc. It is very difficult to build one of the new kits crooked. Next time you are at a fly-in, notice how many -6?s have trim wedges attached to the rudder vs. the -7?s.

Other attributes of the -7 you should consider are the -7 is designed for engines up to 200 hp, which is probably one of the reasons for the longer fuselage.

Besides having a higher design GW the -7 also has a higher aerobatic GW than the -6. (Any pencil whipped GW is just a guess on the part of the builder.)

As mentioned earlier, Van?s does still support the -6 builders out there by providing kits but they will not issue new builder numbers (AKA serial numbers) by selling any new tail kits for the -6.

The -6 is a great plane and if you can get a good deal on one, grab it. However, keep in mind it is a bit like buying last year?s car model when the manufacture upgraded it for the new year. You will spend just as much finishing a -6 as you will a -7 (all things being equal) but the -7 will be worth more.
 
Hello Gooch

:DI was in the 210th with you years ago (I was in the Murphy unit). I remeber you telling me about building your 6 and saw it once at Andrews-Murphy.

I am curently building a 7 so thanks for the time and information many years ago.

John Johnson
 
N941WR said:
Since the -7?s are built with the match hole tooling, everything is straight; the fuselage, the wings, etc. It is very difficult to build one of the new kits crooked. Next time you are at a fly-in, notice how many -6?s have trim wedges attached to the rudder vs. the -7?s.
Click to expand...

The wedges or trim tabs "usually" have nothing to do with the airframe being built crooked. The 6's have a vertical stab that's built straight with the fuselage center line. The 7's are built with a offset (crooked) vertical stabilizer to compensate. Either way, it's a bit of drag.

L.Adamson --- RV6
 
N941WR said:
Besides having a higher design GW the -7 also has a higher aerobatic GW than the -6. (Any pencil whipped GW is just a guess on the part of the builder.)
Click to expand...

Not hardly. We had a lot more info, than guesses..... :(
BTW---- I'll take my 6 spar, in which the spar joins in the center of the aircraft..........anyday..

L.Adamson --- RV6
 
From the prospective of someone who wanted to buy an already-built side-by-side RV and do regional traveling, here are a couple of conclusions I reached about the difference (with a lot of help and feedback via PM and email from some of you folks):
--much cautioning about -6 build quality, for the reasons stated above. A good pre-buy, including the involvement of an experienced RV builder, was a given...but many times I heard that there were more significant build issues among the -6 fleet to be detected than is true of the -7's.
-- many times I was cautioned about checking whether a given -6 actually offered the payload we needed given our travel plans, and in fact that's one of key reasons I gave up on a -6. Both the 'baggage' area itself and the payload offered by most -6's I considered were a bit inadequate. The 7's I looked at could handle the payload, altho' the form factor of the baggage area might still have been an issue.
-- perhaps it was the luck of the draw, but when shopping I found a higher percentage of 6's had conventional (tail wheel) landing gear when compared with 7's and 9's I found for sale. I was looking for a -6A and found very few.

And for our budget, we could just afford a -6 but definitely not a -7. (I think this is in part because the 7's had lower-time engines and more expensive panels than the 6's). I don't think I read about 'cost' in any of the above posts but, if shopping as a buyer rather than a builder, it can be another significant factor.

Jack
 
Quite simply.

To answer the OP simply.

The -7 is NOT better than the -6. It's different.

I just did several hours of transition training in a -7A and it wags its tail just like my -6A did, in turbulence.

Best,
 
Pierre hit it on the head

pierre smith said:
To answer the OP simply.

The -7 is NOT better than the -6. It's different.
Click to expand...

After the seven came out I felt abandoned by Van's but after a talk with them at "Osh" I found out the 7 was developed purely by economics. I was told by Van's staff that Van himself personally preferred the 6 because it was a clean sheet design while the 7 is basically made of mostly common parts from the Van's aircraft line. The factory was only so big so they had to do something to make it more efficient. The 7's are better in a sense since the quality of construction doesn't depend as much on the skill of the builder. Those match holes must be awesome. I think the 7 tail does look a little goofy and the wings are bigger but it does have a tad more stability so I guess that's good for pilots with less experience. I've heard that the 6 is like a sports car while the 7 is a little more like supped up family car. I don't want to offend any 7 guys out but I can't afford a new 7 and it makes me feel a little better about what I have. Either way Van NEVER abandoned us 6 owners and parts will always be available. At least they have as of today.:)
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
To answer the OP simply.

The -7 is NOT better than the -6. It's different.

I just did several hours of transition training in a -7A and it wags its tail just like my -6A did, in turbulence.

Best,
Click to expand...

I always tell people that '7' is just one more (different) than '6':

It is prepunched.
It allows for a taller pilot.
It allows for an IO-360 engine.
It carries more fuel :D Rosie
 
6 or 7

pilot28906 said:
:DI was in the 210th with you years ago (I was in the Murphy unit). I remeber you telling me about building your 6 and saw it once at Andrews-Murphy.

I am curently building a 7 so thanks for the time and information many years ago.

John Johnson
Click to expand...

Glad to see you joining the ranks of RV builders. You will really enjoy your 7. Just remember"Don't ever give up".
 
3 different RV-6A same head height issue

L.Adamson said:
As a 6 owner, I've got to counterpoint this one...

I'm also 6' 1" with a 34 inseam. My rudder pedals are as far forward as possible. I use a Classic Aero leather seat with no seat pan cushions. The 7 & 9 have seat pans that are 1 1/2" lower, I believe. I have minimal time in a 7, but lots in 9's.

However, I do use a Telex headset which has ample padding. My head never hits the canopy, and I certainly don't have to tilt my head. But I must mention, that my son, who is about the same height, complained after his first ride in the 6. Turns out, his head was tilted the whole time. After getting out, we realized that the four inches of seat pan pads, that my wife uses, was still in place...

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly in the three RV-6A's I have flown in the seat cushions were minimize and the seat was all the way back against the cross bar and I still had head tilt issues. I don't know how reclined the seats were (hinge attach location) but I have my RV-7A seat minimally reclined and no head tilt issues at all. And no I don't have a big head.:D

If you are a tall pilot, 6 foot plus I would recommend the 7.
 
Pmerems said:
If I recall correctly in the three RV-6A's I have flown in the seat cushions were minimize and the seat was all the way back against the cross bar and I still had head tilt issues. I don't know how reclined the seats were (hinge attach location) but I have my RV-7A seat minimally reclined and no head tilt issues at all. And no I don't have a big head.:D

If you are a tall pilot, 6 foot plus I would recommend the 7.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've had several 6'3 people in my airplane and they have never said a word about head tilt.
 
Last edited:
I'm 6'2" with a 34" inseam and have 450 hours on my -6. I put the rudder pedals as far forward as I could, have the seat back without the spacer against the crossbar, and used the Van's foam cushion kit as the basis for my seats. I've never had a problem with canopy clearance (slider). I also use Zulu's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.