I've seen a couple posts in the past related but thought I would renew to get more recent input. I am looking at either a -7 or a newer Virus SW. My mission is mainly local (within 1-2 hours) with occasional 600 miles trips. I want a tailwheel as I will be landing on a grass strip on a regular basis. I know the 7 has a 20-30 knot speed advantage and more support. The Virus is more efficient and high wing which I like. I am 6ft and 250lbs. The 7 is snug with two my size but will usually be alone with with a female guest, not another big guy. The Virus is more expensive but newer (2019) with a nice glass panel. Does anyone have any time in both that could give a true comparison? Both have fairly good safety records though the Virus has a lower stall and better glide. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-7 vs Pipistrel Virus SW
- Thread starter ipasgas1
- Start date
Ed_Wischmeyer
Well Known Member
I've flown both the -7 and the Virus, but not the Virus SW. A few points:
* The RV-7 is an airplane, the Virus SW is a glider that requires a self-launch endorsement. In other words, a written exam and appropriate transition training for a glider license. You should not have to learn to fly unpowered gliders, though;
* The Virus SW as a glider requires **no** medical at all, just you self-certifying that you're healthy;
* I flew the nosewheel Virus. From looking at the geometry, the tailwheel Virus might require better than average tailwheel skills;
* Double check what propeller comes on the Virus. I'm not sure of all the details (again), but a variable pitch prop would help a lot with the small engines that you might find on your Virus SW;
* The Virus flies like a sailplane with all those rudder coordination requirements;
* The Virus and all those that share the same fuselage have a steel tube above the seats for you to bump your head on in turbulence. Double check how much clearance you will have in normal seating positionS. More than one seating position.
* If you ever plan to fly IFR, you might run headlong into the FARs. Last I checked, IFR in a glider requires some amount of airplane IFR currency, but I'm not up to date on that. Nor am I up to date on how much this would apply to self-launching gliders;
* Yes, you can fly a Virus SW more or less like an airplane in terms of when, where, etc. No idea about the ride in turbulence;
* Virus SW should fit into a standard hangar.
I flew the Virus for a pilot report and, with just over an hour in the logbook, I paid for another hour plus of dual to get the self-launch endorsement on my glider ticket. Not hard, but different.
It's been a while since I flew the Virus, so double check everything I wrote. I, too, think that the Virus SW is a really cool bird, but I'd expect it to fly a whole lot more like a sailplane than an airplane.
I've talked to several Pipistrel folks over the years at air shows and they've all been great to talk to. Tell 'em I sent you, please.
* The RV-7 is an airplane, the Virus SW is a glider that requires a self-launch endorsement. In other words, a written exam and appropriate transition training for a glider license. You should not have to learn to fly unpowered gliders, though;
* The Virus SW as a glider requires **no** medical at all, just you self-certifying that you're healthy;
* I flew the nosewheel Virus. From looking at the geometry, the tailwheel Virus might require better than average tailwheel skills;
* Double check what propeller comes on the Virus. I'm not sure of all the details (again), but a variable pitch prop would help a lot with the small engines that you might find on your Virus SW;
* The Virus flies like a sailplane with all those rudder coordination requirements;
* The Virus and all those that share the same fuselage have a steel tube above the seats for you to bump your head on in turbulence. Double check how much clearance you will have in normal seating positionS. More than one seating position.
* If you ever plan to fly IFR, you might run headlong into the FARs. Last I checked, IFR in a glider requires some amount of airplane IFR currency, but I'm not up to date on that. Nor am I up to date on how much this would apply to self-launching gliders;
* Yes, you can fly a Virus SW more or less like an airplane in terms of when, where, etc. No idea about the ride in turbulence;
* Virus SW should fit into a standard hangar.
I flew the Virus for a pilot report and, with just over an hour in the logbook, I paid for another hour plus of dual to get the self-launch endorsement on my glider ticket. Not hard, but different.
It's been a while since I flew the Virus, so double check everything I wrote. I, too, think that the Virus SW is a really cool bird, but I'd expect it to fly a whole lot more like a sailplane than an airplane.
I've talked to several Pipistrel folks over the years at air shows and they've all been great to talk to. Tell 'em I sent you, please.
I’ve flown the Pipistrel Virus, and it had the controllable pitch prop. It was fast. I seem to recall it being equal (or very close) to RV speeds. I couldn’t believe it either, but it was very similar. The RV seems more substantial though, while the Virus felt more “toy” like. The Virus also bounced around a lot in the bumps. Two very different planes. The whole Rotax engine thing also seems very toy like to me, while the fuel thirsty ( by comparison) Lycosaurus is more what I prefer. If you are considering the LSA market over “regular” planes, then look at the Remos GX, they are larger inside than a 182, and have over 600lbs useful load! It can almost carry itself, as the Remos is under 700 lbs empty! The only problem is that the Remos doesn’t come as a tail wheel..
David Paule
Well Known Member
Haven't flown a Virus but I sat in one and decided that the visibility was so bad that in the local crowded airspace, I would not feel safe flying one. I refused the offered demo ride.
Don't get that sense in the RVs.
Dave
RV-3B building
Cessna 180 flying
Don't get that sense in the RVs.
Dave
RV-3B building
Cessna 180 flying
Dan 57
Well Known Member
Recently took part in a 3 RV & 1 Virus SW (nose gear handicapped) formation flight... surprised at the Pipistrel’s speed. But re speed, it sure wasn’t similar or close to RV speed (on the same power setting). It was doing about 135KTAS, so no problems for rejoins... or intercepts 
Not sure about the xwind capability of the plastic toy though...
Not sure about the xwind capability of the plastic toy though...
Recently took part in a 3 RV & 1 Virus SW (nose gear handicapped) formation flight... surprised at the Pipistrel’s speed. But re speed, it sure wasn’t similar or close to RV speed (on the same power setting). It was doing about 135KTAS, so no problems for rejoins... or intercepts
Not sure about the xwind capability of the plastic toy though...
Did the pipistrel have a controllable prop? That's where the speed came from I believe. I seem to recall 160 mph, and the RVs to compare it to had O320s
The one I am looking does have the constant speed prop. They say 145 knots is expectable with a fuel burn of under 5gph. It does seem they would bounce a bit more due to the wing / weight. I sat in one years ago and I don't remember the view being too obscured as it is a high wing with plexiglas doors and skylight. I am curious if the SW is registered only as a sailplane / glider as I would like an IFR certifiable.
Ed_Wischmeyer
Well Known Member
There's a good chance that it is registered Experimental Exhibition and as a glider. But why are you asking here, and not asking the seller nor Pipistrel?
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
RV-14 (based on RV-10) will fit you better, bigger cockpit than an RV-6/RV-7.
Google says the Pipistrel is $80k to $187k USD. I don't get the wide price range and not motivated to research it. I will assume it is closer to the $186K end. You can build (or at least I did) build a RV-7 for under $60k 10 yrs ago. if you do it yourself, a RV-14 would be under $100K or even under $80K if you don't go nuts with avionics, and do not hire people to do paint, upholstery, wiring. The RV-14 uses a more expensive angle valve engine than the RV-7. CS prop is almost mandatory on the RV-14. You can have a nice RV-7 with a O-320 and fixed prop for even less.
The Pipistrel is powered by a Rotax 912 (100HP), the RV7 is 180-200 HP Lyc 360. The Pip is very light at about 640 lbs empty, RV-7 is 1060 to 1110 lbs.
It is up to you. Based on your mission a C-180 would be good. Experimental Kitfox or similar would be good. RV-7 are soft field planes but not OFF FIELD or not ROUGH FIELD. The Pipistrel is not either. Your 1-2 hr local +600 mile trip can be done in a C-172.
Frankly based on your comments a C-182 would be ideal for you. I know you want a tail dragger? OK C-180. However those command more money and insurance. How many Tail wheel hours do you have. Insurance companies will jack your rates up even if you are a tail wheel guru.... This is assuming you insure the hull. I assume the Pip is not aerobatic? The RV-7 is.
Two totally different planes. So up to you.
Last edited:
I actually just asked the Pipistrel USA dealer, so waiting on a reply. The owner has never flown the plane and only knows it is an experimental. It's an interesting mess as the owner apparently has not flown in 20 years and cannot get a rating or instruction due to his obesity and a mental disorder…it's quite an odd story, to be sure. It will be slower but it has long range tanks so can out distance the 7, though that's not a deciding factor for me. The main reasons I am considering it over a 7 is the efficiency, the factory build, and grass strip utility. I know the RV can do grass but the strip near my daughter is not overly smooth and the Pipistrel allow includes tundra tires (not currently installed) though not sure I would need that option but may not want wheel pants on with either...
Wow, my broker just got me quotes for the Pipistrel. Only two of the 15 he uses would quote…one was $4200 and the other was $6500 based on $160K hull value. My RV-7 is $1700. Huge difference. While the Virus is more efficient, it may not save me $3000/yr in fuel to make up the difference in insurance...
