RV-7 vs. RV-9
It’s interesting to see the posts on this thread. We all are getting a great deal out of our individual process. It doesn’t matter for many of us how long building takes. For some of us years even if it stretches into double digit years aren’t too much time to spend. Many years ago I built remote control planes and loved the process of building them but really didn’t enjoy hanging out at the field and flying them. These days I live to have air under me and building is only a means to a desired end. I can allow myself time but can’t allow too much of my life to go by for the building process. Since my 40th birthday ten years ago my eyesight has gotten poorer my weight is harder to keep at the level I desire it to be and my reactions are slowing a bit. I see these as good reasons to get the job done sooner rather than later. Most of the posts I have placed on the subject of choosing the RV7 or RV9 have been under the RV7 link. This doesn’t mean I had favored the 7 over the 9 it’s just where a dialog caught. At some point I believe I also said the A model was out for me. The last 48 hours have been a personal eye opener. I have done much investigation and have come to the conclusion that the best personal choice is to build an RV7A. The question of insurance cost was a very central issue in the decision for tricycle rather than conventional landing gear. I wish that weren’t so but it were. Now on to the engine, I’m leaning toward Subaru conversion. However Lycoming is coming out with roller cam followers. Perhaps if this is the case they have addressed the inadequate lubrication and cooling to the valve guides issue also. Still looking for more info.
-
Guest
WOW JIM!!! 
It sounds like you have seen the light! (or at least the insurance quote!) Congratulations on making what looks to be a very well thought out, lucid choice on the 7A!
You bring up a GREAT point in that this process seems to mean something different to all of us! The one common denominator is that VAN'S is the place to be and I'm yet to have anyone convince me otherwise...although a few have tried!
I wish I could say Beth (my wife) and I have made our choice but we need to see them both in the air, over the clouds and on final first. However, we're still leaning straight 7.
By the way, what was the difference your agent gave you from Tri to Tail-Gear? You can give me a percentage rather than a number...
- Peter
It sounds like you have seen the light! (or at least the insurance quote!) Congratulations on making what looks to be a very well thought out, lucid choice on the 7A!
You bring up a GREAT point in that this process seems to mean something different to all of us! The one common denominator is that VAN'S is the place to be and I'm yet to have anyone convince me otherwise...although a few have tried!
I wish I could say Beth (my wife) and I have made our choice but we need to see them both in the air, over the clouds and on final first. However, we're still leaning straight 7.
By the way, what was the difference your agent gave you from Tri to Tail-Gear? You can give me a percentage rather than a number...
- Peter
OK, back to reality... 
Jim -> It's so cold that the fishing has turned off until the ice is thick enough to walk and/or drive on. Not much to do up there but get away from everything and rest.
On the way back in to town we flew in to an airport near SGS (21D) and looked at a Cessna 310B that was for sale by a local doctor for $55,000. I wanted to see what a 1958 twin that cost about the same as a base RV would look like. All I can say is OUCH! The inside of that plane looked worse than any NYC taxi cab I have ever been in! The paint was nice but his annuals run 12K to 25K and he estimates at 150 hours a year it costs him about $200 to $225 an hour to run. All that for a 4 place plane that will cruise at 230kts (on 28 gallons an hour!)
I'll call this on myself:
...but I had to tell you, for the same money, a hot new RV is the right answer!!!
- Peter
Jim -> It's so cold that the fishing has turned off until the ice is thick enough to walk and/or drive on. Not much to do up there but get away from everything and rest.
On the way back in to town we flew in to an airport near SGS (21D) and looked at a Cessna 310B that was for sale by a local doctor for $55,000. I wanted to see what a 1958 twin that cost about the same as a base RV would look like. All I can say is OUCH! The inside of that plane looked worse than any NYC taxi cab I have ever been in! The paint was nice but his annuals run 12K to 25K and he estimates at 150 hours a year it costs him about $200 to $225 an hour to run. All that for a 4 place plane that will cruise at 230kts (on 28 gallons an hour!)
I'll call this on myself:
...but I had to tell you, for the same money, a hot new RV is the right answer!!!
- Peter
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
Hey Jim,
How many tailwheel hours did your insurance agent consider adequate to evenly insure you in the -7 as compared to the 7A. I am getting (verbal) quotes in the vicinity of 50 hours. That isn't much and you can get that quite easily with the local rental units. I am.
CJ
How many tailwheel hours did your insurance agent consider adequate to evenly insure you in the -7 as compared to the 7A. I am getting (verbal) quotes in the vicinity of 50 hours. That isn't much and you can get that quite easily with the local rental units. I am.
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
CJ -
Here here! It seems that our insurance PIRATES (I mean agents) are working from the same tables. I can not even get coverage under 20 hours dual and 50 hours total time in tail wheel.
I have found a few options for rentals but nothing that easy to get to.
What are you flying for your tail-wheel hours?
- Peter
Here here! It seems that our insurance PIRATES (I mean agents) are working from the same tables. I can not even get coverage under 20 hours dual and 50 hours total time in tail wheel.
I have found a few options for rentals but nothing that easy to get to.
What are you flying for your tail-wheel hours?
- Peter
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
I have a nice Citabria GCAA (150hp, no flaps, fixed pitch) at my disposal. It is here at KPYM at the FBO for all to use. It goes for something like $75 per hour. Not a bad gig, really. I love it!
CJ
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
CJ -
I'll have to look a little more to find something worth flying. All I found for rent that's close is a Champ for $89 /hr.
A Citabria would be GREAT! I've seen one a few hangars down but I don't think he would even let me stand in the hangar with it let along pay him for some time...
...well it's off to Florida for a few days of work and then back to Minnesota by mid week. At least it will be warm...
- Peter
I'll have to look a little more to find something worth flying. All I found for rent that's close is a Champ for $89 /hr.
A Citabria would be GREAT! I've seen one a few hangars down but I don't think he would even let me stand in the hangar with it let along pay him for some time...
...well it's off to Florida for a few days of work and then back to Minnesota by mid week. At least it will be warm...
- Peter
-
Jim
7 or 9
My choice (so far) is the -7A. I like having some space beside me for charts, cameras, etc. Just be careful in turbulence. I was fortunate to be able to fly the F86F back in the 50's. It was like a sports car and wonderful to be in an airplane that would do most anything. Once you've done some aerobatics, straight and level with easy turns is a bummer. Aerobatics are not scary (with proper instruction), they are a release from the hum-drum. Don't you ever feel like you want to sometimes let it all hang out instead of dozing in a rocking chair all the time?
EXACTLY!!! That's one of the main reason we're leaning 7 rather than 9! I don't want to call it until we have flown them both out in Aurora this spring but we're 90% on the 7!
I must admit, the idea of hard core aerobatics doesn't turm me on but the occational departure from level flight would be a nice option...especially when flying my non-pilot buddys around!
- Peter
I must admit, the idea of hard core aerobatics doesn't turm me on but the occational departure from level flight would be a nice option...especially when flying my non-pilot buddys around!
- Peter
-
Bob Barrett
- Class C
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Sartell MN
You chose the plane for the mission. I hope to eventually do some limted areobactics with my RV-6A. My understanding was that Van didn't want people doing areobactics in the the 9's. On the other hand the 9 was desighned as primarily training airplane. That is not to say that you can't learn to fly in a 7 and I hae 7 grandchildren that I hope will learn to fly in my 6.
Hey Peter, I have a sort of funny story for you about work space. I recently relocated to Colorado for a new job. Prior to do so, the wife and I started looking for homes that were already under construction so we could move in as soon as possible. We contacted a builder in the area. They had several available, but only one had a 3 car garage. Needless to say, it didn't take long to make that descision. Sure hope the rest of the house is nice. 
Bill Murrish
N929BM (reserved)
Bill Murrish
N929BM (reserved)
-
Spike
- Chief Rivet Banger
- Posts: 4013
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
- Contact:
You mean it doesnt?
http://www.rivetbangers.com - Now integrating web and mail!
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
Gezz, I'm glad I started my RV in '95. All I had to choose from was the 3, 4, 6, and 6A. I knew I wanted the tail wheel, the 4 was to narrow for me, the 3 was only a single seat, so that left the 6! I don't know what I would do today. Actually, I do, I would go with the 7.
I like side by side seating for trips. It helps new flyiers, like my wife, feel more comfortable when we can look directly at each other while talking. Also, it aids a great deal in workload managemnet when sitting next to the person helping with charts, radio settings..... you get the idea. It helps lessen the CG worries over the tandem seating. Bla Bla Bla
Bottom line, I love my 6. If I was going to be flying solo most of the time, I may pick an 8. I have not flown a 9 so I can not comment on handling. I do know the 4, 6, and 8 all fly very similar. Gentle enough to be comfortable for anyone, but responsive enough to satisfy the sport freak.
I like side by side seating for trips. It helps new flyiers, like my wife, feel more comfortable when we can look directly at each other while talking. Also, it aids a great deal in workload managemnet when sitting next to the person helping with charts, radio settings..... you get the idea. It helps lessen the CG worries over the tandem seating. Bla Bla Bla
Bottom line, I love my 6. If I was going to be flying solo most of the time, I may pick an 8. I have not flown a 9 so I can not comment on handling. I do know the 4, 6, and 8 all fly very similar. Gentle enough to be comfortable for anyone, but responsive enough to satisfy the sport freak.
Golf Delta
-
Guest
RV-7 vs. RV-9
7 vs. 9 is a simple decision. If you want to do aerobatics, you must go with the -4, -7 or -8.
If you side by side seating, it's the 7.
If you want tandem and best fighter-like performance and you don't care about passenger comfort (or all your passengers will be small) and are willing to do a little more work for lower cost, it's the -4.
Otherwise it's the -8.
If aerobatics are not in the picture, then here is what you need to know. Tom Green, Van's general manager told me before the -10 came out that if any of the factory people were going somewhere and they had their choice, they ALL chose the -9. These are folks who have flown them all, the -3, -4, -6, -7, -8 & -9. So go with the nine unless you want to fly upside down.
Isn't that simple?
Richard Scott
RV-9A
Wings
If you side by side seating, it's the 7.
If you want tandem and best fighter-like performance and you don't care about passenger comfort (or all your passengers will be small) and are willing to do a little more work for lower cost, it's the -4.
Otherwise it's the -8.
If aerobatics are not in the picture, then here is what you need to know. Tom Green, Van's general manager told me before the -10 came out that if any of the factory people were going somewhere and they had their choice, they ALL chose the -9. These are folks who have flown them all, the -3, -4, -6, -7, -8 & -9. So go with the nine unless you want to fly upside down.
Isn't that simple?
Richard Scott
RV-9A
Wings