What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-7A as an IFR cruising airplane

propsync

propsync

Well Known Member
Hi Group.

I'm looking for a good cross country airplane. I know that the RV9 is supposed to be custom built for this purpose, but I'm looking to get the quickest and most efficient travel possible.

I just sold my 1976 Cardinal RG. I'm accustomed to seeing 144knots true airspeed (165mph) with the gear up on about 10gph, about 70% power (IO360 200HP). So, I'm using my experience in the Cardinal RG as my baseline. I definitely don't want to go any slower than this, I want to go faster.

I've looked at the 9, but it seems I should only expect 150-160mph TAS with it? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=84909 The vans website eludes to faster speeds for the 9.

I want the speed the of the RV7 definitely, the range is higher too with the extra fuel, but I'm concerned about IFR stability. I know a good autopilot will negate much of the work, but I definitely want to hand fly it IFR and be proficient, but what I don't want to have happen is I take my eyes off the instruments for a moment and be busting an altitude.

For reference, I've never flown an RV yet, but hoping to remediate that this weekend. Anyone with any good IFR experience in either the 7 or 9, would love to hear from you. About me, I'm airline experienced and will have a need to travel Florida to Ohio probably twice per month with just myself or 1 extra.
 
Last edited:
Cruise speeds

There are several threads about cruise speeds on this forum. Use the search
Function. 9s can cruise at 150 knots or higher (170+) mph, some on as little
As 7-71/2 gph.
Bill
 
You'll only miss the roomy interior and carrying capacity. the Cardinal isn't the most stable instrument platform but it is more stable than the RVs. Then again, that's part of what makes them fun. You'll gain at least 20kts and for the same or less fuel.
Still trying to decide if I should keep my Cardinal when I finish the 7. It's been a great plane which has taken me as far as the Arctic Circle to Key West. A three week flying trip to Alaska with the wife was the best vacation I've ever had. The Cardinal carried all of the food and camping equipment we needed plus two full sized mountain bikes in the back.
The 7 will make many trips that now take two days in the Cardinal, a one day trip.
 
RV7a

Ours is not twitchy at all. More sensitive than a certified plane but it is very stable when trimmed up at cruise speed. Fly one and i think your IFR concerns will disappear immediately. Also, with an experimental you can get incredible autopilot performance for very little investment. I think almost all 7s you find will have a nice autopilot (with altitude hold) already installed.
 
7 is fine for IFR ...

RVs require a softer touch on the controls so I'd say that for serious IFR you want to keep your proficiency up - especially if you hand fly. If your scan wanders then it's not hard to pick up or lose a couple hundred feet or 30 - 40 degrees - you may not "feel" it happening.

With that said, it's perfectly manageable to fly IFR if you are proficient.

One thing to think about is that the RVs have relatively low maneuvering speeds. If you get into some chunky weather, you will probably want to slow down - a lot. It won't be a fun ride - it wouldn't be in the Cardinal either - but, you'll probably lose a lot of the speed advantage.

YMMV

Dan
 
10gph and my -7 is 180kts.

Can't help on the IR flying answer, I like to look out the window. :D
 
I'm a cfii with one hour in an RV-7a.
It is just neutrally stable in roll - put it in a 30 deg bank and it tends to stay there. Very low stick forces in both roll and pitch make it fun to fly VFR, but more work IFR.
Do I think I could hand-fly it in IMC from Ohio to Florida? Yes.
Do I think I would be mentally tired at the end? Yes.
A good compromise would be to let the autopilot fly during cruise, you could hand-fly the departure and approach if you desired, and then arrive not totally frazzled.
Have you considered an RV-10? It is of course more expensive but would represent a real step up from the Cardinal. It really doesn't fit your mission of single person flights, but it's more stable than the -7 in both pitch and roll, and if run throttled back and lean of peak can do 160 KTAS on 10 gal/hr.

As to the turbulence question: Unless I remember incorrectly the Cardinal is just a Normal category aircraft (3.8 g) so its Va is pretty low.
 
propsync said:
...I've looked at the 9, but it seems I should only expect 150-160mph TAS with it? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=84909 The vans website eludes to faster speeds for the 9....
Click to expand...
The speeds listed on the Van's site for the -9 is accurate, same with the numbers for the -7 and the rest of the Van's family.

With the old 135 hp engine my -9 would cruise all day long at 165 MPH / 140 knots on 65% power.

The current O-360 will pull it along at 199 MPH / 170 knots.

What I think you have found on the forum is that people cruise at lower power settings than 75%. For me, I typically cruise the O-360 at 175 MPH / 155 knots (+/-) while burning 6.5 to 7 GPH.

The -7 and -9 are virtually identical. As discussed numerous times on this forum, the only real reason to pick the -7 over the -9 is the ability to perform aerobatics.

Neither airplane is as stable as say a Cherokee. (It has been 20+ years since I have flown a 177, so I can't give you an accurate comparison to that airplane.) However, either can be equipped for and flown in IFR conditions. It is generally recognized that you will want to equip your aircraft with a dual axis autopilot and redundant systems.
 
Bill you have an O360 in your 9 so I'm guessing you get much better cruise speed then the published value for the O320?
 
propsync said:
Bill you have an O360 in your 9 so I'm guessing you get much better cruise speed then the published value for the O320?
Click to expand...

That is correct. However, the O-320 numbers published by Van's are correct.

When running the higher airspeeds the O-360 will produce, the fuel is sucked down at a high rate. That is what I was trying to communicate to you.

The truth is, the only thing the bigger engine gains you is a higher climb rate and higher fuel burn.

BTW, Van's does not recommend the O-360 for the -9.
 
I think Dan and Bob have described the IFR flying with RV7 perfectly. That has been my experience pretty much. I hand fly the practice approaches but utilize the A/P in IMC conditions. The A/P coupled to my GRT EIFS (I have TT) preforms flawlessly and I can comfortably take it down to the minimum and each time I am perfectly lined up with the center line.
 
Does the cruising speed van quotes for the 9 with the O320 require a cs prop? Or can you just use a cruise prop?
 
propsync said:
Does the cruising speed van quotes for the 9 with the O320 require a cs prop? Or can you just use a cruise prop?
Click to expand...
The CS prop allows both better climb rates and cruise speeds. With a FP prop you select one prop that fits your mission. You can get a FP prop that cruises faster than the CS or climbs faster but not both.

With a climb prop, the O-320 RV-9(A) will still climb better than your C-177 and go a lot faster.

BTW, you can read about the -9's peformance on the CAFE Foundation website.
 
Last edited:
Why do people suddenly think 9's are slow? With 3 blade Catto mine easily went 1800+ fpm in climb and I cruised anywhere in the 155-165 ktas range depending on how much fuel I wanted to burn. O-320 fixed pitch prop. Power the same, a 7 is a tad faster and the 9 climbs a tad better from my experience. They are not much different in those regards. The fuselage is the same and like Bill said you really only really need a 7 if you fly aerobatics. For full disclosure mine had dual electronic ignition and 9:1 pistons which Craig Catto said should be good for 165-170 horse and the prop was pitched for that. It could easily meet or exceed all of Van's numbers from his site. Flat out down low I did four way speed runs at 200 mph.

Van's employees have said many times the 9 is the first to get picked going to Oshkosh and Sun n Fun. Might make you think when they have the option of either one and are not paying the gas bill they still choose that one. Must not be too slow compared to the others.
 
Great airplane.

Scott's dead on!

I've flown a bunch of different -9's..plain vanilla VFR up to dual GRT's and all the bells and whistles for serious IFR flight, and they're simply a joy!

Outrun that Cardinal by a huge amount! Besides, fly a -9 for a few hours and you'll be throwin' rocks at that Cessna:)

I had a -6A for 5 years and 500+ hours and often hand-flew it IFR or relaxed and let the TruTrak autopilot do a better job:)

Best,
 
AP for IFR

Others have mentioned autopilots. I take it one step further for IFR.
I consider an autopilot an absolute must for IMC. Just flying the airplane is no big deal. But when you toss in all the other IFR duties, hand flying an RV is a handful, due to the great maneuverabilty we value so much :cool:
 
Do the Van's planes have an autopilot?

I've heard the oft cited anecdote that the Van's staff prefer the 9 when they travel to shows. I have read that Van believes in building simple planes. Does anybody know if either the 7 and 9 they they have to choose from is equipped with an autopilot. It seems that a lot of this ongoing discussion assumes that the 9 is a little easier to fly cross country if it is being hand flown, and that the preference for the 9 might be influenced by whether the plane autopilot equipped?

I am still vacillating between the two, which is why I am interested in this data point.
 
{Referring to the Van's Aircraft airplanes...Mod-DH}7a, 9a, and 10 all have autopilots. Or did last I saw them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SlowJoe said:
I've heard the oft cited anecdote that the Van's staff prefer the 9 when they travel to shows. I have read that Van believes in building simple planes. Does anybody know if either the 7 and 9 they they have to choose from is equipped with an autopilot. It seems that a lot of this ongoing discussion assumes that the 9 is a little easier to fly cross country if it is being hand flown, and that the preference for the 9 might be influenced by whether the plane autopilot equipped?

I am still vacillating between the two, which is why I am interested in this data point.
Click to expand...

I flew my -9 for the first 150 hours without an AP. While it is more stable than the -7, it is no 172 or PA-28 by any stretch.

Once I installed the AP I found it gave me more time to scan for traffic, eat a snack, or do whatever.

Where I really liked it was flying over the top of controlled airspace because I no longer had to worry about dropping down into one.

I still hand fly the plane on local flights and some longer ones but I like the option of turning it on and letting it at Mr. Garmin take me to my destination.

Oh, and I'm VFR only.
 
I was answering the question about the Van's planes with regard to them saying the 9 often gets picked first. Someone asked if that had to do with it having an autopilot and the others not. The factory planes 7a, 9a, 10 all have them. Cannot remember about the 8a or 9.

I am well aware the builder installs whatever they want.
 
Why do people suddenly think 9's are slow?
Click to expand...

I didn't suddenly think it.............I knew it all the time!:D

I didn't have a "7", but my 6 could always out climb, and fly faster than the 9. I also prefer the lighter feel of the controls. The only 9 advantage, is slower landing speeds. They are much the same in turbulence. In other words, the 9 is not a smoother ride. I too, believe that two axis A/Ps are the way to go, in these planes. In the groups of people that I flew with, all planes had constant speed props, for the advantage of high altitude mountain airports.

Of course it's all realitive. A friends F1 six cylinder can fly circles around my RV, speed & climb wise.

BTW--- throttled back, my 0360 could match the 9's 0320 fuel wise, when flying the same speed. Just nice to have more HP when needed.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
I didn't suddenly think it.............I knew it all the time!:D

I didn't have a "7", but my 6 could always out climb, and fly faster than the 9. I also prefer the lighter feel of the controls. The only 9 advantage, is slower landing speeds. They are much the same in turbulence. In other words, the 9 is not a smoother ride. I too, believe that two axis A/Ps are the way to go, in these planes. In the groups of people that I flew with, all planes had constant speed props, for the advantage of high altitude mountain airports.

Of course it's all realitive. A friends F1 six cylinder can fly circles around my RV, speed & climb wise.

BTW--- throttled back, my 0360 could match the 9's 0320 fuel wise, when flying the same speed. Just nice to have more HP when needed.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

You KNOW this or think this? Same power a 9 out climbs the shorter wing airplanes and they (short wing ones) are slightly faster. Both numbers are close either way. That was my experience when comparing numbers and also evident even in Van's posted numbers. The differences here are a few mph and 1-2 hundred fpm climb. The simple fact is same power they are close. So close that a 160 hp 9 (not a) and a 160 hp 6a or 7a have near equal speed numbers. Hardly a big difference. Start trying to compare different horsepower and it's not fair. The larger horsepower will win in whichever machine has it (more proof they are obviously close airframe wise).

Back to the intent of the original post. The guy was looking for a cross country machine as fast as a C177 that trued something like 140ktas if I recall. They will all FAR exceed that even if we want to argue 1-3 mph differences as a "clear" advantage of one over the other. You can make that up from one plane to the other based on baffling and fairings.

I built a 9A and loved it. Did every bit of Van's numbers and them some. Life (kids) mission changed and I sold it. I miss it. It was a fantastic airplane. If/when I personally build another it would be a 10 or one of those shorter wing 4's with a big engine.
 
Scott DellAngelo said:
You KNOW this or think this? Same power a 9 out climbs the shorter wing airplanes and they (short wing ones) are slightly faster. Both numbers are close either way. That was my experience when comparing numbers and also evident even in Van's posted numbers. The differences here are a few mph and 1-2 hundred fpm climb. The simple fact is same power they are close. So close that a 160 hp 9 (not a) and a 160 hp 6a or 7a have near equal speed numbers. Hardly a big difference. Start trying to compare different horsepower and it's not fair. The larger horsepower will win in whichever machine has it (more proof they are obviously close airframe wise).

Back to the intent of the original post. The guy was looking for a cross country machine as fast as a C177 that trued something like 140ktas if I recall. They will all FAR exceed that even if we want to argue 1-3 mph differences as a "clear" advantage of one over the other. You can make that up from one plane to the other based on baffling and fairings.

I built a 9A and loved it. Did every bit of Van's numbers and them some. Life (kids) mission changed and I sold it. I miss it. It was a fantastic airplane. If/when I personally build another it would be a 10 or one of those shorter wing 4's with a big engine.
Click to expand...

It was a 160 HP C/S 9a versus my 180 HP C/S 6a. Van's recommended engines for these two planes. The 9a owner, actually prefers the lighter control feel of my 6a. I do too, and know that I'd prefer a 7 over a 9. My 6a can do about 20 mph faster than the 9. I AM NOT a fan of 9's, and never will be.

L.Adamson
 
Two things i've noticed about the -9 (A model, as it happens, but I don't think it matters) vs my -6 or the -7's i've flown. The -9's roll rate is lower, and it takes significantly longer to get it to descend at the end of the flight. That wing on the -9 is very efficient. If you really don't care about ever doing aerobatics, and you want to go across country in the most efficient way possible, then the -9 series is the way to go. You will burn less fuel for the same mileage travelled, although you may be a few mph slower enroute than a similarly equipped -7.
 
Snowflake said:
Two things i've noticed about the -9 (A model, as it happens, but I don't think it matters) vs my -6 or the -7's i've flown. The -9's roll rate is lower, and it takes significantly longer to get it to descend at the end of the flight. That wing on the -9 is very efficient. If you really don't care about ever doing aerobatics, and you want to go across country in the most efficient way possible, then the -9 series is the way to go. You will burn less fuel for the same mileage travelled, although you may be a few mph slower enroute than a similarly equipped -7.
Click to expand...

A C/S equipped 9, will also descend rather fast, if thats a preference. It will also drop through a flare, if you don't watch it, as the C/S bleeds airspeed quickly. I prefer this feature of the constant speed.
 
Hogwash...

I owned the Mighty Cessna, our 172, for 16 years before completing My Beast, our RV7, and say this talk about stability and cross country travel is hogwash. The RV is a much more stable platform in all phases of flight and is far superior for cross country comfort. As far as the 9 vs 7 the most notable difference beyond allowable G loading is roll rate... I would welcome even more roll rate ;)
 
L.Adamson said:
It was a 160 HP C/S 9a versus my 180 HP C/S 6a. Van's recommended engines for these two planes. The 9a owner, actually prefers the lighter control feel of my 6a. I do too, and know that I'd prefer a 7 over a 9. My 6a can do about 20 mph faster than the 9. I AM NOT a fan of 9's, and never will be.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Is this thread really about YOUR opinion though? Fine you don't like them. Your opinion probably should not influence what others decide. The original poster wanted a cross country plane that could exceed a C177 and was specifically asking between 7s and 9s.
 
Last edited:
I do the same

Bavafa said:
I think Dan and Bob have described the IFR flying with RV7 perfectly. That has been my experience pretty much. I hand fly the practice approaches but utilize the A/P in IMC conditions. The A/P coupled to my GRT EIFS (I have TT) preforms flawlessly and I can comfortably take it down to the minimum and each time I am perfectly lined up with the center line.
Click to expand...

I got my IFR ticket in the 7a and its definately more challengng to fly than the C172 for example. It took me 55 hours to go from a 500 hour VFR pilot to IFR ticket.. Longer than average but hey, this was my airplane..I.e the one I was going to fly so there was no point in learning in anything else.

Once you get proficient the 7a is a delight to fly, It will get hairy in really bad turbulence but if your sharp its quite managable.

Adding an autopilot makes life much more enjoyable.

Frank
 
Hi Group, just thought I would report back. Today I viewed and flew in my first Van's airplane.

First, I wanted to thank Jim W. who bases his RV9A at South Lakeland Airstrip in Florida for the ride and pleasant afternoon. In fact, I'm not sure if he frequents this website or not.

Anyways, I thought I would relay my first impressions while still fresh in my mind.

Jim's RV9A is about 8 years old. It has the 0320 engine with fixed pitch prop. It's a slider canopy. I sat right seat for the flight. I thought the cabin room was good, I'm 6'1" and 225lbs. We took off on the grass strip, and it was off the ground pretty quick. The field is very dry and the grass very low and level, probably not much different than launching off of pavement honestly. It's hot today, about 90 in the sun. Jim flys it pretty gingerly and smooth, we did a reduced power takeoff and was off the ground in roughly 500 feet. Nice leisurely climb, about 700' per minute under reduced power, roughly 2300 rpm. It's a little bumpy today as you might imagine in the heat.

We leveled off at 2000' and I took the controls. Altitude was pretty easy maintain, even in the bumps. Not to much wing rocking, but some. I've only flown a stick airplane one other time. What I notice though, with a stick, it's probably a little harder to keep wings level in turbulence. In my view, this has nothing to do with the airplane, the wings, the ailerons or anything like that. What I think it has to do with is you have one hand on the stick. With a yoke, you can put two hands on and keep the yoke from turning left or right in turbulence. I suppose you could figure out a way to fly the stick with 2 hands and achieve the same result. I hope I am conveying my idea here, what I'm trying to say is with 2 hands on a yoke, you can keep the wings level rather easily in turbulence. Although, it all might just be learning a new technique to keep a tight control on the roll for me.

Anyways, I think the 9 can make a fine IFR traveler, even hand flying it for great lengths in smooth IMC.

One thing that was a pure treasure is the airplane holds heading very easily! My old Cardinal would easily wander from heading, even with the wings level. always lots of fidgeting with rudder trim. I suppose that is likely to be expected from a 40 year old airplane, over time, they just are not as square anymore.

So, cruising along at 2000MSL @ 2250 RPM, we were indicating ~150 mph. Didn't need to go any faster than that down so low, a little too bumpy.

Also, a nice bonus to me is that it is bigger than I thought it would be on the outside as well.

After our one hour flight, my left knee was a little bit stiff, probably from not being able to stretch my legs fully. Since I don't believe the seats adjust forward and backwards, does anyone know if adjustable rudder pedals are an option? I would love to be able to stretch my legs more straight.

I'm going to look for a ride in a 7 next for comparison.

Tom
 
propsync said:
...After our one hour flight, my left knee was a little bit stiff, probably from not being able to stretch my legs fully. Since I don't believe the seats adjust forward and backwards, does anyone know if adjustable rudder pedals are an option? I would love to be able to stretch my legs more straight.

I'm going to look for a ride in a 7 next for comparison.

Tom
Click to expand...
The seats can be adjusted but you have to be out of the plane to do it. When building there are three positions for the rudder pedals but it takes a wrench to move them, if the builder drilled the extra holes.

When on long trips, I pull the rudder pedals up with my toes and stretch out.

Bummer you couldn't jump out of the -9 right into a -7 and good for you trying out both. Either way, you can't go wrong as they are both RV's!
 
ten4teg said:
Can somebody provide a list of the major differences between the RV6 and RV7 and which is preferred. There must be a reason that Vans developed the RV7 which is so similar to the RV6. I assume the larger tail is one. Thanks
Click to expand...
Please don't duplicate requests in multiple forums, nor hijack other threads with your questions. You posted a standalone question asking this, and you're getting good answers. You would get even more useful information by using the "Search" link. This question has been asked many times before.
 
Best and record breaking rv 7 from uk

The best ifr rv 7 has already proven itself in the uk with 14 hrs endurance and world record breaking performance

See website cape challenge and rv7 G-iiXF (. Record breaking run from London to South Africa and back)
The Garmin set up was the best yet I have seen.

Hope this helps you choose

Steve p from uk


I'm looking for a good cross country airplane. I know that the RV9 is supposed to be custom built for this purpose, but I'm looking to get the quickest and most efficient travel possible.

I just sold my 1976 Cardinal RG. I'm accustomed to seeing 144knots true airspeed (165mph) with the gear up on about 10gph, about 70% power (IO360 200HP). So, I'm using my experience in the Cardinal RG as my baseline. I definitely don't want to go any slower than this, I want to go faster.

I've looked at the 9, but it seems I should only expect 150-160mph TAS with it? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=84909 The vans website eludes to faster speeds for the 9.

I want the speed the of the RV7 definitely, the range is higher too with the extra fuel, but I'm concerned about IFR stability. I know a good autopilot will negate much of the work, but I definitely want to hand fly it IFR and be proficient, but what I don't want to have happen is I take my eyes off the instruments for a moment and be busting an altitude.

For reference, I've never flown an RV yet, but hoping to remediate that this weekend. Anyone with any good IFR experience in either the 7 or 9, would love to hear from you. About me, I'm airline experienced and will have a need to travel Florida to Ohio probably twice per month with just myself or 1 extra.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top