Why a 9?

[Av8torTom]

What made builders here decide on building a 9?

Thanks,

Tom

[dlomheim]

"What made builders here decide on building a 9"?

Please clarify your question..."9" as in tail-dragger, or "9" in a generic sense as opposed to building a "6" or "7"?

Doug Lomheim
90116

[7AlphaMike]

If you don't plan on "wringing it out" the 9 is a great choice. The low end performance is great without sacrificing too much, speed-wise, over the other RV's. The wing is great, the 9 and 10 style wing, outperforms the conventional RV wing hands down. HP being equal of course.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by 7AlphaMike

If you don't plan on "wringing it out" the 9 is a great choice. The low end performance is great without sacrificing too much, speed-wise, over the other RV's. The wing is great, the 9 and 10 style wing, outperforms the conventional RV wing hands down. HP being equal of course.

FYI - The -9 and -10 do not share the same airfoil. The -10 uses a 23000 series airfoil, same as other RV's, except for the -9, which has a one-off Roncz airfoil.

As for why a -9, it is a great plane, as are the other RV's, slow speed, fast speed, good useful load, strong, easy to build, etc. Bad back can't take the acro, so why build a plane that will only hurt me more.

As for why a TW vs. NW -9, different question. I had my TW endorsement so why not? I think TW's look better. I wanted to visit friends with grass strips and not worry about NW problems. They are ever so slightly faster. They can take a smaller engine and still go faster than my old T-Craft.

The question is kind of like asking, why buy a Toyota vs. Nissan vs. Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge. Even the worst car or truck you buy today is light-years ahead of anything you could have bought 10 to 20 years ago.

[Jeff R]

Why a 9 compared to something else?

Compared to a 7, I am a low time pilot who has never flown a complex airplane (idefined as CS prop in this case) and who doesn't have an overwhelming desire to do acro. I liked the slower landing speeds (more survivable in the event of an off airport landing) compared to the 7. It has more speed and climb performance than anything I have ever flown so the better high speed performance of the -7 series was not a major consideration.

As for easy to build, well, I think it is not significantly different from a 7, so if you are comparing the 7 to a 9, that is not a factor.

Compared to an 8? I wanted side by side. You give up some speed, but you don't have to compromise on your instrument panel and you have more room if you typically fly alone.

Compared to a 10? Couldn't get insurance without a bunch more hours! Much more expensive to build and operate, and I would rarely fly with more than a single passenger.

Compared to a 12? The 12 wasn't out when I made my selection. But, even if it were, I wanted better performance.

Compared to a non-RV? The RVs have about the best builders support network out there. You can ask a question and might literally have an anwer in minutes.

[drycreek]

I decided on the -9 because the slow speed handling appealed to me. I also don't have any plans for doing acro. I went with the TW because I will be flying off of grass. Plus, the RV-9 has to be the best looking RV.

Originally Posted by N941WR

The -9 and -10 do not share the same airfoil. The -10 uses a 23000 series airfoil, same as other RV's, except for the -9, which has a one-off Roncz airfoil.

While the -9 and -10 don't share the same airfoil I don't think the -10 uses the 230 series airfoil. From Van's site about the -10,

With a custom-designed airfoil section, we hope to achieve a somewhat wider range of laminar flow than with the NACA 230 airfoils we have been using.

[bgaston]

4 years building, 2000+ hrs. building, 340+ hrs. flying, no regrets or second thoughts on the model choice. Great airplane!!!

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by drycreek

...While the -9 and -10 don't share the same airfoil I don't think the -10 uses the 230 series airfoil. From Van's site about the -10,

The -10 airfoil seems to be a bit different than the others. Based on this from Van's site:

Originally Posted by Van's

... Two-seat RVs (the RV-9/9A excepted) use the proven NACA 230 series airfoil. These are turbulent flow airfoils with very low pitching moments. They do not require perfectly smooth surfaces to achieve good performance, so they remain almost unaffected by bugs and rain. The low pitching moment allows cruise trim drag to be kept to a minimum. The RV-9/9A uses a new Roncz airfoil design with a slightly longer wing span, shorter chord and slotted flaps for better low speed performance. The RV-10 uses a similar wing, but with a slightly different airfoil.

Based on that, I'm not sure if they are saying "slightly different than the Roncz or 230 series. For some reason, Van's has not been forthcoming with the -10's airfoil.

Not that it really matters, both the -9 and the -10 fly great with their wings.

[apkp777]

I agree with all of the reason's listed for choosing the -9. I am not "in to" aerobatics (maybe someday), I really wanted a well handling cross country machine that I could use to get my kids their private. I also wanted a plane that could operate out of short, unimproved grass strips. I wanted something economical and with good performance. The -9 was a good choice for me.

I think a fair question is, "why did you build a -7 instead of a -9?" I am surprised more people don't choose the -9. Especially the tail wheel -9. I think it is an amazing airplane.

[vlittle]

I'm going to be a contrarian here.
I love my 9a. When I built it, I had visions of long cross-countries over the mountains, and it's perfect for that.

It has the low-speed handling and glide ration that makes it easy to fly.

What I discovered, however, is that when I became part of the RV community, most of the others were 7's or 8's (both tail and nose dragger). Quickly, I discovered formation flying and most of my hours are in formation now.

Sooo, I kinda wish I had built a 7 or 7A to fit in speed-wise (landing is the issue) with the other RVs.

So now I'm building a Rocket!

V