I need advice, feedback, etc. I have been looking for a good-used 6 for a while. And now, suddenly, I started to look at the 9, aside from giving up the 6's aerobatic capability. This isn't a big deal for me anyway; I plan to do short cross-country trips (600 miles or less). What are your thoughts? And what are the load limits on a 9? I might have to roll it once in a while to make sure I keep the floor clean. Any thoughts of resale value? I'm 66 and plan to fly as long as I am safe. Please share your thoughts. Many thanks, Rick
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV 6 or RV 9
- Thread starter rick57
- Start date
If this is the case you are 6 only. No joke.
RV8JD
Well Known Member
From Van’s: https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/
"The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G). The RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12 are not designed for aerobatic flight.
The design operational stress limit for the RV-9/9A is utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G) at less than 1600 pound gross weight and is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G) between 1600 pounds and the aircraft’s design gross weight. The design operational stress limit for the RV-10 is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G).
No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit."
Many thanks for the response. I am less ignorant now than I was a minute ago. Over 400 hours of my time was in my C 120. And I have flown a Glastar for an hour. It seems to me the 9 may be a better match for me than the -6. Again, thanks. Rick
These are for the airplane. The pilot is smaller and better looking, but no longer stronger or faster!Mel....are you referring to the -6 or the -6 Pilot?
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
The 9 ages better. the flaps dont get stuck on the top skin. The gear is the same as the 7 and it can be upgraded easier to the new style front end.... Just a newer design with updated engineering....
MacCool
Well Known Member
When I was looking at airplanes 4 years ago, I was looking at whichever of the 3 models, 6A/7A/9A that I found first that met my equipment requirements, being confident that I'd enjoy flying any of them. I never did find a 6 that was relatively new nor equipped as I wanted...most were pretty rough and they were all in need of substantial and expensive upgrading to meet my desires. I found one 7A that was close, but it was the 9A's on the market back then that were much more likely to have the modern panel/engine/prop that I wanted. I'd add the caveat that in my particular search, price was a minor consideration, so maybe that has to be figured into your equation. I certainly have absolutely no regrets in the airplane (9A) that I bought nor in the way that I conducted the search.
Last edited:
I haven't yet flown any of them. Gonna get a ride in a -6 soon. To me, the -9 looks better. Most, I would guess think the wings on the -9 are too long. Personal preference. I thank you for your response. Gonna see if I can get a deal done. And yes, I have to count my pennies. But I think the -9 will hold value as well as any of the RVs as long as it is properly maintained. And it sounds like it is enjoyable to fly and won't do more or less than is asked. Like a good horse!
I have owned 2 6A's and 3 9A's of various configurations, all nice flying planes. The 9 is definitely heavier in roll, which might make for an easier transition from a C 120. Additionally, the 9 wing is the better performer above 10K feet, if that is a consideration.
blaplante
Well Known Member
Regarding 'slightly smaller', well other than the wing length, the only dimension I've been able to determine is smaller on the 6 (versus the 7 or 9) is headroom.
Unless the 6 you look at is old enough to have floor mounted pedals. I've measured a fair bit of legroom change with floor pedals vs. the later top pivoting ones.
If you are under 6' the 6 should be fine. I'm 5' 11" and there is definitely headroom to be gained if I put in a thinner cushion.
Unless the 6 you look at is old enough to have floor mounted pedals. I've measured a fair bit of legroom change with floor pedals vs. the later top pivoting ones.
If you are under 6' the 6 should be fine. I'm 5' 11" and there is definitely headroom to be gained if I put in a thinner cushion.
I'm 5'10" in the morning and slightly less in the evening. Gravity, I guess. So I am clear, suspended pedals give MORE legroom? Thanks for the response.
ChiefPilot
Well Known Member
That's only really true if all else is equal. Having a higer aspect wing, but then cooling drag due to poor baffling, airframe drag due to poor workmanship, etc. all play a part. A well built -6/6A do just fine at altitude when built right (note the 164KTAS on less than 6gph):
Also, regarding cockpit size, I fit fine in my -6A, with room for a helmet even. I'm 6'5", 200lbs.
Last edited:
blaplante
Well Known Member
Yes, I did some measurements between mine, with suspended pedals, and another 6 with floor mounted ones. Both could be moved forward about an inch (or more), but my pedals measured 1.5" more space between spar and pedal (rudder neutral position).
Converting to the hanging pedals could be done. Not the worst job in the world, but won't be much fun working down there.
blaplante
Well Known Member
Resale value is a shot in the dark.
6 prices got depressed because everyone had to have a 7 (newer i.e must be better)
Now all anyone talks about building is the 14 it seems. I generalize, and apologize to all you 7 builders out there. (newer, bigger, i.e. must be better)
I'd say the 6 is already depreciated. In any case the big resale factors will be the ones that are putting you off: paint, interior, engine time, panel.
6 prices got depressed because everyone had to have a 7 (newer i.e must be better)
Now all anyone talks about building is the 14 it seems. I generalize, and apologize to all you 7 builders out there. (newer, bigger, i.e. must be better)
I'd say the 6 is already depreciated. In any case the big resale factors will be the ones that are putting you off: paint, interior, engine time, panel.
davidkarlsberg
Well Known Member
why not split the difference between the 9 and the 6 and get a 7? If that doesn't work for you just double it and get a 14!
Dugaru
Well Known Member
My experience was just about exactly this, although I never ended up looking at any 7As. Many 6As have probably been upgraded since my search though. A nice 6A is probably the best value in used RVs. For your mission you really can’t go wrong with a good 6A, 7A, or 9A. Except for occasional aerobatics of course, where the 9s are out.
Last edited:
MacCool
Well Known Member
I agree with this, but in my search, I found that the very few -6A's on the market that had been "upgraded" to the point where they met my goals dropped the price delta to the point where I was now looking at 7-10 year old 9A's vs 20 year-old 6A's that needed serious cosmetic attention and a new panel. The 9 year-old 9A that I ended up buying wanted some panel "tweaking", but nowhere near a full-on panel renovation that was going to be part of any of the 6A's that I looked at. Bear in mind that I'm talking about airplanes that are fundamentally sound and don't require any mechanical attention. I had ZERO interest in an airplane that had needed any component of airworthiness "rescue".
In regards to that, one thing that I did have in mind, in my search, was that an older RV design that was non-pre-punched like the RV6 might be more likely to have variations in construction uniformity. I was a bit uncomfortable with buying an E-AB airplane that required a higher level of fabrication by the builder. I was more comfortable buying an airplane where being "pre-punched" was the main construction technique.
If OP wants a "modern" go-somewhere airplane and cost is a major consideration, I think the sweet spot would likely be a 20 year-old 6A and dropping the additional $40 AMUs on the new panel/paint/etc. I didn't want to go that route, but acknowledge that it could be more cost-effective. I wanted to fly, not a renovation project.
I don't know whether Another thing to keep in mind is that there is more variability in RV-6/6A build quality than in RV-9/9A build quality, at least when it comes to structures.
Folks who built an RV-6 (or 4 or 3) had to build a jig, drill almost every hole, fabricate more parts, etc. Folks who built an RV-9 (or 8 or 7) got pre-punched holes that make for a self-jigging kit, and got more parts made by the factory. On the newer models, less craftsmanship is required, so there are fewer things to screw up. (And this is even more true on the RV-10, 12, and 14). If anything is ever damaged on an RV-9, you should be able to order a part from the factory and all the holes should line up, which is nice, rather than having to fabricate a solution.
Folks who built an RV-6 (or 4 or 3) had to build a jig, drill almost every hole, fabricate more parts, etc. Folks who built an RV-9 (or 8 or 7) got pre-punched holes that make for a self-jigging kit, and got more parts made by the factory. On the newer models, less craftsmanship is required, so there are fewer things to screw up. (And this is even more true on the RV-10, 12, and 14). If anything is ever damaged on an RV-9, you should be able to order a part from the factory and all the holes should line up, which is nice, rather than having to fabricate a solution.
Dugaru
Well Known Member
Good point. And I suspect you could create a very functional panel for less than $40K if you forego just a few bells and whistles.
One of the great and under-appreciated things about EABs is that, in general, avionics upgrades tend to be more cost effective than with certified birds.
blaplante
Well Known Member
So perhaps look for a quickbuild RV-6. Which meant that the vast majority of the wing and fuselage was built by the subcontractor for Vans.
blaplante
Well Known Member
Something like dual G5's dropped into the AI and DG holes (drop the vacuum pump), plus something like a Garmin 175 GPS - for around 10K in parts.
Ideally, but not necessarily. Over the past 13 years, I have co-owned two slow-build RV-6s (a 6A and then a 6) that were very well built. All I'm saying is; If you're buying an older-model RV, get a good pre-buy inspection!
Dugaru
Well Known Member
Exactly. If I was doing an IFR RV panel from scratch, I would look really hard at that setup, plus an autopilot and an iPad with Foreflight.
Although I have to confess that the more I fly approaches with an EFIS and synthetic vision, the more I appreciate it. So maybe something like the Gen 2 GRT Mini EFIS, or the equivalent. Two of those, plus a used EIS 4000 to generate data for the engine monitoring page would be huge bang for the buck.
Daddyman58
Member
Rick,
I too am 66 and just finished building my -6A.
I have flown the -9, and I cannot tell the difference in cabin room.
It might exist, yet I can't tell.
The -9 is a newer design. It is more docile as previously mentioned. It goes a bit slower.
Being a newer design, there are some aspects which could be useful:
as a newer design, it may have fewer hours on the airframe/engine and prop
since it is not intended to be areobatic, you may find less stress on the horizontal stab and elevator attachments over time.
Frankly, it is a toss up.
Happy Landings,
Daddyman
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Just some food for thought, the 6, 7, and 9 all use the same fuselage.
blaplante
Well Known Member
Very similar but not exactly. The 6 wing spar attachment is totally different vs. the 7 (and I assume the 9 and 7 are similar/same).
They do all share the same canopy bubble.
MacCool
Well Known Member
What’s the level of fabrication required in construction of those components for those three different models ? I thought I understood that the RV9 rivet holes were pre-punched at the factory, allowing for more uniform assembly of that later-designed kit…
blaplante
Well Known Member
Let's not get too hung up on 'more uniform' assembly. https://www.vansaircraft.com/first-flights/ 2700 RV-6's have flown. It is STILL the top model by 800 units. That says something! Yes maybe it is harder to build, but that 23 years later (more or less) the 6 still outnumbers the 7 --- it must not have been that hard! Some of that is that 6 kits are still out there getting completed.
OK, to the nitty gritty. Yes, the aluminum sheets comprising the 6 kit mostly never came pre-punched. [There are some exceptions to this particularly on later editions] A large reason for the 7 was to refine the design to *allow* pre-punching. But not every hole in a 7 is prepunched either, just most of them. What does that mean when building a 6? Well if putting a sheet onto the fuselage or wing, you lay the sheet on, mark where the frame meets it. Remove the sheet, layout a line of holes for rivets & drill them. Then put the sheet back onto the plane, drill thru the holes to the frame. Now at this point forward all steps are identical if it was prepunched or not.
What does this mean for repair? Well no, a part from Van's isn't going to 'rivet right on'. But, you can go get a sheet of aluminum from Aircraft Spruce, match drill to the old sheet, and rivet that right on. The same thing as an A&P will have to do for any old aluminum plane that is no longer made. It can be much cheaper to get that sheet from a nearby location than to have Van's ship it across the country.
As others have said, a well built 6 won't be any less sound than a well built 7 (or 9). Yes you do need to look a little bit more carefully at it. But both models can suffer from a builder that didn't know how to properly rivet. This isn't hard to inspect.
If I'm not mistaken, the seats (i.e. the tops of the ribs that go under the seat) are a little higher up on the 6, which is why the 7 and 9 are said to have a little more headroom.
(I have a few hours in a 7A and a couple in a 9A, and I always add enough cushions under my butt to get my head very close to the canopy... So, to me, this supposed improvement in headroom has never made any difference).
MacCool
Well Known Member
Absolutely agree...the design of the three models is fundamentally sound, as demonstrated over the last 40 years for the RV6 and 25 years for the RV7 and 9. Even though those latter models are ostensibly easier to build, a good pre-buy inspection is obviously important. Nothing to get hung up on...just a data point to put somewhere while penciling the PROS/CONS lists for the three models. It didn't play a role in my particular search...my problem was the general relative age of the RV6 fleet and the subsequent typical equipment. Airworthiness was not an issue. Had I been really looking for a bargain and be willing to take the extra time to find the right 6, I would have had no problem going that route. As it was...a few really nice RV-9s came up first.
Last edited:
Desert Rat
Well Known Member
I got old seats from somebody here on VAF that I'm using until my interior arrives. The cushion is excessively thick and puts my head about 3" from the canopy. Yesterday I hit some turbulence and didn't have my lap belts tight enough. The result was the top of my headset leaving a scratch in the inside of the canopy and me having a headache of the rest of the day. More headroom? yes please.
JonJay
Well Known Member
My 6 would fit your description, I.e, older panel. Still glass, D100, current EMS, 496, etc….. but no big integrated screens. When you compare features to a modern panel, it falls short only on size of screens and a few secondary functions.
Yet, an upgrade to the panel would be $30k, ish. I still may do this but I could sell the 6 for $90-100k and buy a 7 , or 9, with a modern panel for $ $130-150k.
I hold the repairman’s certificate, have done every CI for 18 years, and know the machine, so, she’s a keeper, for me. Upgrading the panel would be just for me, not for resell. Anyway, you are spot on with your observations.
