RV-7 vs. RV-9

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:45 pm

My wife and I are in the home stretch in makeing the call on which one we're going to build!

I won't share which way we're leaning in hopes that you will tell us why we should build the 7 vs. the 9 or the 9 vs. the 7! (Yes I have opinions but I would love to hear yours!!!)

Thanks!

- Peter

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:58 pm

Well, I can tell you what tipped the scales in favor of the -7 for me. Perhaps they are the same for you?

I like the stubbier wings. I have experience in the Archer/Warrior and I liked the shorter "Hershey Bar" wing for ground handling.

I also liked the fact the -7 is more aerobatically inclined. I don't plan on doing much negative stuff at all, but a barrel roll or occasional yank and bank is certainly not out of the question.

The cabin space is the same.

...and most of all, I wanted a TAILDRAGGER!

I suppose that sums it up for me.

CJ

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:16 pm

I see now that the -9 is also available as a taildragger. Is this new? Have they always been taildragger "compatible"? I was under the impression they were nosedragger only.

CJ

Post by **Spike** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:42 pm

Uh, there has been a nose dragger version for a few years buddy. Where have you been ? *snicker

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:44 am

spike wrote:Uh, there has been a nose dragger version for a few years buddy. Where have you been ? *snicker

I knew about the nosedragger one.

I think when I made my decision in 2001, there may not have been a taildragger -9 and I just dismissed it.

I still wouldn't have altered my decision.

CJ

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:32 am

Actually it's funny you would metion the Warrior...that's the plane I grew up on!

...and we fly an Arrow now which has the short "Hershey Bar" wings which have treated me well!

I too like the idea of being able to do LIGHT aerobatics if I want and the sportier handling. Heck, if you're going to build one, why wouldn't you want to be able to grow in to things you can't do in a PA28?!?

- Peter

What are the downsides of the 7 vs. the 9? Maybe I'll post this question over in the 9 forum...

Post by **Spike** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:31 am

Captain_John wrote: I knew about the nosedragger one.

Oops, Im a dope. I meant that there has been a taildragger one for a few years. Theres already a customer built one flying.

-- John

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:38 pm

I am also sitting on this exact same fence. When I discovered that an RV was in fact within my reach financially I thought the 9 would be the only way I would want to go. Then it was the 7. One day I realized that what I really wanted was an 8, tandem seating and fighter like sliding canopy and all ya know. For my own reasons I’ve been able to eliminate the 8 from the equation leaving me with the 7 or 9. Then of course it’s a question of an A model or not, this only served to confuse things further. This process hurts but it hurts so good as they say. Aerobatics? Even in a utility class aircraft with the power available on the 9 there are a lot of airbatic like maneuvers a person can do if you’re so bent I doubt there are very many of us that really would want to pull all 4gs that the 9 is stress rated for. On the other hand of course I’m not forgetting about small things like roll rates. However, I almost dismiss roll rates since I doubt I’d ever be doing snap rolls in either a 7 or a 9. For me it kind of comes down to the small issues like the power off glide ratio. The shorter deeper cord wing of the 7 has a higher sink rate than the longer shallower cord of the 9. Personally I like to float a bit on landing and be able to land at low speeds. Less wear and tear on structure and nicer on tires. Lets not forget that the landing gear are mounted on the engine mount, (obviously this guy has eliminated the A) Bending an engine mount from a fast hard landing would be a bummer. On the other hand a 7 doesn’t land THAT much faster than a 9 does it? What a dilemma. Anyone want to give me an opinion, please do. I would love to get some input also.

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:39 pm

It's a TOUGH CALL isn't it Jim!!!

You have gone through the exact process that I went through with the 8 first, then the struggle between the 7 and the 9.

Your point on the sink is a good one but I feel the exact opposite. I little higher sink rate gives me more positive control of the landing. I compare this to the Warrior (larger wings) I learned in vs. the Arrow I fly now (Hershey Bar Wings). When I can slice through ground effect a little better in a strong head wind, I am less likely to float a landing and end up 3 feet off the ground falling below stall speed.

Oh I guess I'm the only one that's ever done that!!!

Anyway, I'm still toiling over the two as well! My wife took out the idea of the 8 right away after helping me understand what it would be like to look at the back of my head vs. out the windscreen for hours on end!

- Peter

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:22 pm

Hey Peter thanks for the reply. When I was a kid (My first childhood) One of the planes my Dad taught me to fly was a Citaborea. I love tandem seating as a result. Honestly what disqualified the 8 for me is two fold. About a week ago I sat in an 8. I felt I had good side to side clearance in both the front and rear seat. However, I felt more than bit crowded face to panel wise. Also I felt that the person in the back seat was about half an arms length to close to the front seat. Also There is no place to lay things next to me if I so desire and I so desire often. On the other hand the 9 I sat in felt very comfortable face to panel wise, in fact it felt down right roomy all around. Also since I plan on touring with my plane the seat next to me would be nice to lay sectionals and food and what ever else I may want to have at hand. So that’s pretty much how I came to eliminate the 8. That still doesn’t help me with the 7 or 9 question but your point about cutting through ground effect is a good one. A few weeks ago I caught a gust in my 152 and floated rather quickly to about ten feet at just above stall speed. I added back about a hundred RPM and all was fine but dropping through a gust or not floating as high would’ve been nice. Some very good food for thought Peter.

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:01 pm

Jim -

That's an interesting perspective on the 8 and the lack of room for touring accessories! I have not had the opportunity to sit in ANY of the RV's yet and that will help me feel better about sticking with the 7 or the 9!

Touring is the main thing I/we plan to use the plane for and I have never flown a tandem seating plane. Now that you say it, I use the seat next to me A LOT and would hate to give that up!

Do you have your tools or your workspace set up yet? I'm shopping for my compressor and tools as we speak!

- Peter

PS - Adding that 100 rpm's on the guest was just plain good flying!

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:42 pm

Well Peter I do have a shop although I don’t have the tools required to work with sheet metal yet. As I’ve said on other posts here I have been a professional woodworker for over thirty years although I’m not practicing that line of work presently and perhaps never again. I am drawing close to the time I will drive up to Aurora and pick up a empennage possibly sometime during January 05. My shop is 24X32 with way high ceilings I feel this may be enough space but I have to do a major clean up and reorganize everything before starting anything. My compressor is five horse power and was used originally to spray paint cars. It runs full time so I’ll be modifying it to pressurize a large tank and have the standard pressure switch for a shut off. My compressor is fairly quiet and it’s in its own room but even at that I don’t want to listen to it run all the time. I am using my time now to make the 7 or 9 decision and deciding what power plant to use. I’m fairly impressed with the Subaru conversion by Eggenfellner but need more info before getting too excited about that.

P.S. Unless I’ve totally blown my power management I always add a little RPM. After I pull back to idle over the numbers and get that sink rate going. Once you get that nice nose up flare stabilized just add a touch of power to really soften up the touch down. Then if you do balloon from a gust you’re already working the power. Really ought to carry more speed on a gusty day though. I learned this technique and whole lot more about power management on final from an airline pilot that moonlights as a check ride instructor. He liked soft landings.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:23 pm

Jim -

Sounds like you've got the ultimate workspace!!! I am strugglling with either which car/cars will be out in the snow or how much I'm willing to pay for another hangar while I build. (certainly won't be my wife's car!!!)

Did you do the training kit or are you going right in to the tail kit? I'm thinking that because I'm yet to hit a rivet that I'll start with the training kit and bring the Emp. kit home from our trip to Aurora this spring.

- Peter

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:26 pm

It would be cheaper for me to rent another hanger and build my plane there. The draw back for me is I can’t paint in any of the available hangers (county codes and all). Monthly my shop costs $270.00 a T hanger with power about $145.00 a month. Also I am committed to having a shop for myself before and after building a plane. No I haven’t done the training kit. Aside from a little riveting work on the cowling of the 152 I haven’t done any riveting all. My son and I are going to sign up for a class in order to get as much hands on info and guidance as possible, that should leave us both well equip for this task. I’m going the route of QB since I want to fly a whole lot more than build a plane. I’m looking at this project going more like a job and spending months rather than years in the process delivery times not withstanding. A solid 8 hours a day at least 5 days a week with part time help is hoped for. Four to five months perhaps. Have you ever wanted something so bad you could taste it? I do not envy you Peter having to make a choice of which car to leave in the snow. Perhaps you could find a corner of a warehouse that could be rented cheaply? Industrial parks sometimes have small areas of the size needed for our type of project. To all you guys that have understanding wives my hats off to you, Not a one of mine have been!

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:31 pm

$145?!? That would work for me!!! T-Hangars are topping out at $225 plus heat and electric now... Even if I break records and finish her off in 3 years that's an extra $8100 just for rent on the project.

That could be my second GNS430!!!

I may just go the garage route when I take delivery on the QB fuse and wings. If I keep the picture of N200PF in my mind each morning I go outside and scrape the ice off my ride I think I'll be OK. Maybe I'll put my paint scheme mock ups on the inside of the front door so I se them each morning I leave! (THE PAINT SCHEME IS FINALIZED!)

I have that job thing to mess me up during the days but my goal is to put in a minimum of 1 hour per day during the week and 10 hours each weekend. I think this is realistic with a job, no kids and a wife that's anxious to get it finished! At this rate with 2000 hours total build time this is 33.3 months. I should be able to do a QB in 2000 hours!

What do you think about the math? Am I nuts or is it realistic?!?

- Peter

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:54 am

I'm just going by the hours claimed on their web site for my time estimation. Even if they are low how wrong can they be? http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/kit-qb.htm

Post by **Spike** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:52 am

All Im going to say is that you should be happy with a Hangar rate of $225 per month

-- John

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:32 pm

Jim -

I am basing my estimate on other project estimates that I have worked with from my house to cars repairs. Maybe (probably) it's just me but I can usually double or triple the time the projects estimate out at...

It seems that I always run in to things that delay delay delay the final result! I don't know what those will be on an airplane but on everything else it seems like it's a missing part (there goes another day) to a new tool that I don't have (there goes another day) to ripping out and redoing part of the job (there goes another day) to waiting for help on a certain section (there goes another day).

I am also sort of anal about doing it right, even if it takes two or three tries. (That's what I bought a "sawsall" for when remodeling my home!!!)

Spike and others what do you think? Am I nuts for estimating 3 years to complete a QB?

- Peter

Post by **Spike** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:44 pm

I dont think your nuts. As a matter of fact Im planning on 5 - 10 years for the 9A standard build kit.

-- Spike

nightflyer · Post by **nightflyer** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:05 pm

Peter, NO WAY are you nuts for taking the estimated time-to-build and factoring it up! When I bought my house, I told my fiancee at the time that I could renovate the old barn in six months. It took more like 10 years! I still have the house; someone else has the fiancee

.
Try not to put too much pressure on yourself to get 'er done in X months; enjoy the process!