RV-9 vs RV-9A builds
 

Does anyone have stats on how many of the RV9 vs RV9A are flying?

I fly a RV-9 and since they are so rare I started a list a few years ago.
I believe the list of RV-9's is up to 20. I am sure there are more but that is what I have found in 4 years of VAF and fly-ins.

Are they any more rare than an RV7 compared to RV7A?

Just counted registrations in US and Canada, total of 801 registrations (there's 1035 on the hobbs meter so this is a good portion of them). There are 9 RV-9 registered in Canada and 77 in the US. A little less than 11%. So if that ratio holds true for the rest of the world, there's about 111 finished RV-9 out there.

These numbers are probably pretty close. When I first flew mine in 2007, I think I was the 8th flying.

Here is a list by first name that I can think of: mine, Mark's, Bruce's, Craig's (brand new), Kameron's (since sold), Ken's, Tony's, Greg's (9A to 9 conversion), Kurt's diesel -9, and a few others.

Much more rare than a -7. Most -9's are built as "A's" for some reason. Yet the -9 is a much better flying machine then the -7, more balanced in its controls.

Those numbers aren't even close. The reason is that there are many -9A's registered as -9's.

One the flip side, some of the -9A drivers are converting their's to tailwheels to become -9 pilots.

Anyone have an opinion on why the ratio of RV9/RV9A is so much lower than the ratio of RV7/RV7A? I have never understood this.

I think pilots looking to do acro are more likely to prefer a tailhweel. Also, the flying characteristics of the 9/9A may draw more newer pilots (myself included), with no tailwheel experience. Like many others, I built my 9A mostly for comfortable and safe cross-country flying. A nosewheel just makes more sense for many of us looking for the most practical airplane and not trying to "look cool" ;)

Chris

Flying
 

Having had a -3 and a 6a, my -9 is absolutely the best flying and balanced RV I've flown. It's Vans best kept secret. With the IO360 and CS prop, the climb is the second best thing about it. Once I get my shark teeth on the nose, well, then it will be perfect. Of course, there may be a tad bit of bias here too. :)

I think Chris hit it right on the head.

For me, it was never a question of looking cool but rather that I had a good bit of tailwheel time and never considered an "A" anything.

I have time in a lot of different airplanes, mostly tailwheel, and I have found the RV's are easy tailwheel aircraft to fly, almost cheating. The -9, with its lower stall speed, is the easiest of them all. Cross winds are a non-event because like all RV's, they go where you put them and you can come down on final in a stiff cross wind and put the plane where you want it. (My personal limit is about 25 knots but I have landed, one time, in a 32 knot direct cross wind.)

When deciding where to put the little wheel, don't let the stories about ground loops, high insurance, etc. dictate your selection. Build the plane you want, learn to fly it, and you won't have any issues with ground loops or insurance.

Good explanation. I wanted a non-acro RV that was reasonably quick, but emulated my DA-20 trainer as much as possible and landed at a slow speed, so the -9A fit the bill perfectly. I have no real desire to fly a tailwheel model, but I think it's great that Van's offers the option of building the -9 either way.