acroflyrgirl
Well Known Member
Does anyone have stats on how many of the RV9 vs RV9A are flying?
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-9 vs RV-9A builds
- Thread starter acroflyrgirl
- Start date
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.
N941WR
Legacy Member
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.
Last edited:
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
grubbat
Well Known Member
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.
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.
N941WR
Legacy Member
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.
rightrudder
Well Known Member
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.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
My first thought about Claude's comment and numbers was the same as Bill's.
I don't believe them. I think some RV-9a's are registered as RV-9's. The FAA does care with experimental. You could call it a 6-VR if you wanted.
I picked a 9 as I wanted a stable IFR platform for Cross County more than I wanted aerobatics. Then I wanted a fun plane to fly and a tailwheel is more fun for me.
I don't believe them. I think some RV-9a's are registered as RV-9's. The FAA does care with experimental. You could call it a 6-VR if you wanted.
I picked a 9 as I wanted a stable IFR platform for Cross County more than I wanted aerobatics. Then I wanted a fun plane to fly and a tailwheel is more fun for me.
bhassel
Well Known Member
Yeah I agree. In the beginning there was no 9A. My 9 kit was a 9. There was no tailwheel option by the factory so all*nose draggers were 9's.
Bob
acroflyrgirl
Well Known Member
Low numbers
I knew the 9 were fewer than the 9A but I wouldn't have thought so much so.
I recently bought a plane from a guy who just bought a 9A. He wanted a 9 but found a nice A and purchased it.
Now I'm selling the 9/9A idea to another guy at work so it got me wondering how many 9's were out there to choose from.
Thanks for the input all.
I knew the 9 were fewer than the 9A but I wouldn't have thought so much so.
I recently bought a plane from a guy who just bought a 9A. He wanted a 9 but found a nice A and purchased it.
Now I'm selling the 9/9A idea to another guy at work so it got me wondering how many 9's were out there to choose from.
Thanks for the input all.
