What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-9 ride/forward visibility

Tbutler

Member
Hello all,
I know there's a separate forum for nose wheel vs tailwheel, but my question is a little more specific than just that. Which is- how is the forward visibility on the 9 on the ground? I realize it's a tough question to answer, but mainly I'm wondering if it's possible to see over the glare shield. I'm 5'8", so a little vertically challenged.

My wife and I are both private, SEL and have owned a 150 for a little more than three years now. Neither of us have any tailwheel experience. We are well into building the wings of what we initially planned to be a 9A. Recently we're thinking of tailwheel though. Zero forward visibility on the ground could be a deal breaker however.

Second question- is there anyone within 200NM or so of Little Rock who would be willing to donate a ride and discuss their RV9 in exchange for a fuel donation and lunch? We would fly there to meet you.

-Travis

P.S.- no intention here of starting a never-ending debate about ground loops, nose-overs, insurance, crosswind, blah blah blah. Just want to know about visibility on the ground. ;)
 
It all depends on how high you seat your self.

If you just hop into someone elses airplane that is much taller than you and except the seating position that results from using a tall persons cushions, you will still see over the glare shield but you wont see much over the nose on the ground because of the cowl.
Set the seat up like it should be (sitting high with just enough head clearance to the canopy) and the view is quite good.

BTW, this applies to all the RV's. I see a lot of people flying them while sitting waaaaayyy to low. How do you guys see anything?
 
RV-9

I have the -9 I'm 5'11. I can barely see over while taxing and have to s turn some. Its really no big deal and with some extra cushions, you shouldn't have any problems. Over the nose visibility is excellent once the tail comes up and during flight. The -9 seems to have a bit more nose-down attitude in flight than my -6 did.

Both the 9a and -9 are great designs. However, I am slightly bias towards the -9. One unique point about the -9 is that they are the rarest of all the RV designs, including the -3. As a matter of fact, nobody knows really how many -9 are flying cause some of the early -9a were called -9. It has been speculated that there are only about 25 - 50 currently flying in the world. Who knows.
Good luck!
 
Scott,

Would there be significant differences in view in a -7, or even a -6? That would broaden his field to select from, and I'm pretty sure there are some -6s & -7s up in that area.

Travis, there's at least one -6 taildragger down here near Jackson MS. If you don't find anything closer (bound to be some in Memphis), I'll put you in touch with the owner here in Jackson.

Charlie
 
Hello all,
I know there's a separate forum for nose wheel vs tailwheel, but my question is a little more specific than just that. Which is- how is the forward visibility on the 9 on the ground? I realize it's a tough question to answer, but mainly I'm wondering if it's possible to see over the glare shield. I'm 5'8", so a little vertically challenged.

My wife and I are both private, SEL and have owned a 150 for a little more than three years now. Neither of us have any tailwheel experience. We are well into building the wings of what we initially planned to be a 9A. Recently we're thinking of tailwheel though. Zero forward visibility on the ground could be a deal breaker however.

Second question- is there anyone within 200NM or so of Little Rock who would be willing to donate a ride and discuss their RV9 in exchange for a fuel donation and lunch? We would fly there to meet you.

-Travis

P.S.- no intention here of starting a never-ending debate about ground loops, nose-overs, insurance, crosswind, blah blah blah. Just want to know about visibility on the ground. ;)


I just adjusted my seats for this before getting them upholstered ( i am 5'-8" ). You can adjust the seat height until your head is a gloved palm from the plexi and you can see just fine. A little lower will also probably work. You can see the cowling in that position but I am not sure what downward angle that is. In transition training I do not remember any concern in taxi. I landing for 3 point I ended having to look out the side, leaning my head against the side plexi - no troubles at all. A wheel landing can be done with full view. The nose is so low on the 7/9 that compared to that cessna on take-off you will be climbing like a rocket with the same sight picture.
 
Last edited:
Would there be significant differences in view in a -7, or even a -6?
My understanding is that the RV-9 legs are slightly longer than the -7s and that this is needed to get the more efficient wing to be closer to stall in the 3-pt attitude (though I could be wrong on this).

That said, I'm 5'10" and have no problem seeing over the nose during taxi. I don't even s-turn generally, though I do sometimes stretch up a bit to provide better forward visibility during taxi. As mentioned above, cushions should be the answer if visibility is an issue anyway.

Finally, I had no tailwheel time prior to my -9. It has been a piece of cake to fly over the past 400 hours. Knock on wood, but absolutely never has the tail seemed to want to go around on me. I too was planning on a -9A until I ordered my fuselage. Boy am I glad I went -9! It's a LOT of fun!

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I sit up straight while taxiing my -9 and can see fine, sometimes s-turning. I agree with using seat cushions along with seat back settings and rudder pedal positioning to set it up just right for you.

I'll be at SNF HBC if you want to check out RV9 #90438.

1tr2c5.jpg
 
We chose the 9A since my wife is 5 ft. 3. Visibility is great and no stress.
I learned to fly in taildraggers in 1971 and like them very much.
For the RV, we chose the easy route and don't regret it. I would like brakes on the right side... but we just swap and she puts a booster cushion in to get closer to the pedals.
 
I agree with the others. I'm 5'-ll" and the visibility over the nose is pretty good.

Yes, the -9 is taller than the -6 and -7 but not significantly so.

That said, I did have a taxi incident a number of years ago when I crested the hill on a taxiway and hit a trailer sitting in the middle of said taxiway. I never saw the trailer until I got out of the plane.

That would have happened regardless of the RV and due to the narrow taxiway, I couldn't S-turn.

One other thing, the -9 is the best balanced of all the RV's and is truly an amazing airplane.
 
Travis my 9 is probably the easiest landing taildragger I have ever flown. It's landing manners and slow flight characteristics have saved my bacon several times when I had my head up my rear end. I love wheel landing mine it's so easy. Sure the 3 point attitude is a little blind, but is great compared to most tailwheel planes I have flown. Get some time in the back of a cub or Pitts and you'll think the 9 is perfect. Anyway I just like the stance of the airplane and the look sitting on the ground. For a fun all around plane it's hard to beat.

All that being said if your mission is to travel mostly with the plane I think the 9A is the better choice. There have been several times on trips when I have had to really pay serious attention to getting the 9 on the ground because of exceedingly strong winds. I always thought in those instances that if it was a 9A just how easy it would have been to just plop it on and not worry about what the tail was going to do.

Maybe I'll convert mine someday when I get too old and feeble. NOT!!!
 
Scott,

Would there be significant differences in view in a -7, or even a -6? That would broaden his field to select from, and I'm pretty sure there are some -6s & -7s up in that area.

Travis, there's at least one -6 taildragger down here near Jackson MS. If you don't find anything closer (bound to be some in Memphis), I'll put you in touch with the owner here in Jackson.

Charlie

Charlie, we moved up here last summer from Monticello. Flew into Slobovia once for our transponder check. Maybe I'll swing by the local EAA and see if they can put me in touch with local RVer's. If that doesn't work out, we could stop in Jackson next time we head down to visit family. Thanks!
 
Here is where I will agree and disagree with Jrskygod.

I have flown a LOT of different taildraggers and the -9 is simply the easiest I have ever flown. No question about that.

As for cross wind landings, it is simply the best taildragger I have ever flown. I do not fear crosswinds. Like any tail dragger, you have to pay attention but that is true for any plane; taildragger or trike. The strongest direct crosswind I have ever landed in was 32 knots. The plane was skipping sideways but there was enough rudder to hold it straight, which is key.

In short, I can't say enough about how the -9 flies or lands. What a great plane Van's designed!
 
Thank you

Thanks everyone for the responses and opinions. Lots of food for thought! I suppose we should both just go get a couple hours of tailwheel time logged to help make up our minds. Just a thought- cowling or VS mounted camera feeding into the Skyview? :D
 
Travis,

If you want a taildragger, build one!

Don't worry about the endorsement. Think of it this way, it probably took you around 10 hours to solo a tricycle and it will take you around 10 hours to solo a taildragger.

Like when you started flying, after 100 hours you will not even think about where the little wheel is.

As for insurance, mine is inline with an "A" model. Yes, it is a little more at first but even that wasn't significant.

In the end, like I said, if you want a taildragger, build one.

Good luck!
 
Charlie, we moved up here last summer from Monticello. Flew into Slobovia once for our transponder check. Maybe I'll swing by the local EAA and see if they can put me in touch with local RVer's. If that doesn't work out, we could stop in Jackson next time we head down to visit family. Thanks!

Come on down; we'll do lunch. I'm right next door to Andy, on the south end of the strip. Flying -4, & -7 in progress.

Charlie
 
Since half the RV-9's in the world have replied to this thread I guess I will too.
I do an occasional S-turn but visibility is not bad. My only issue is formation taxi with lead to my right. Man that sucks but it is equally bad in any taildragger.
 
I do have to stretch up a bit after landing because of sinking a bit in the memory foam seats after sitting for a while, but as has been said, visibility is very good for a taildragger. Rarely do I need to s turn.

That said, the visibility in the tricycle versions is much better (on the ground).

Greg
 
Wynne AR

TB
Not flying yet but I bought a 9a project and turned it to a 9 so if you stay with the 9a I have the main gear and weldments you will need for half vans price.
8&7&0,208,,381,4 cell
 
Since half the RV-9's in the world have replied to this thread I guess I will too.
I do an occasional S-turn but visibility is not bad. My only issue is formation taxi with lead to my right. Man that sucks but it is equally bad in any taildragger.

Yes, but you are tall Mark. What are you, six foot twelve, or something like that?
 
Last edited:
Mission Profile...?

My -7A started out as a -7. During the build process I got a ride in a -7, and the forward visibility during taxi caused me to re-think the little wheel question. I had read reports about highly skilled pilots taxiing into things. Then helplessly watched a -4 taxi into a runway light. After reviewing my mission profile (heavy on XC travel to strange airports on dark and stormy nights) I traded away the sexiness of the tail wheel for the predictability of a nose wheel. I "like" tail wheel, it was a hard decision, and certainly thousands of skilled pilots have thrived in tail wheel planes. But I chose to reduce the potential for mis-adventures at remote airports and inopportune times. IIRC, the tail wheel insurance was almost 80% higher...
Call me unskilled or risk averse if you must. Prefer to think of myself as a prudent pilot.
 
Yes, but you are tall Mark. What are you, six foot twelve, or something like that?

Nope a short 5'17"

I was able to add a couple of RV-9's to my list today. Greg and LD.
I am up to 19 but not all those are flying.
 
Travis, I'm based in Wichita but my wife and I fly often to BentonVILLE, AR to visit family. Mine's a 9A, so not exactly what you're looking for, but I'd still be glad to get you and your wife rides any time we're at KVBT.
 
...

IIRC, the tail wheel insurance was almost 80% higher...
Call me unskilled or risk averse if you must. Prefer to think of myself as a prudent pilot.

Urban legend. Someone with a -6A posted their insurance premium the other day and my insurance was almost $500 cheaper and I have $10,000 more hull value.

It may be slightly higher at first but once you have 100 hours in type, it equals out.
 
It all good

I'm 5'7" so I have wedges under the seat to get me up to the canopy, as Bill stated. I don't have any problem seeing.
 
I recently noticed that my head height varies with cabin temperature due to the softness of the foam seats. On a really cold day, my head was touching the canopy when I first closed it! I have the Classic Aero interiors with three pieces so I removed the small wedge.

I have no real trouble seeing over the nose except over the right corner of the cowl. We have a little joggle with a hill in our taxiways where the newer portion of the airport intersects with the old. That's the only place I've really needed an s-turn (downhill to the right).

FYI, I also had no T/W experience. I got an ~6hr T/W endorsement in a J-3 (talk about bad visibility!), and did ~8hrs with Mike Seager in the RV-7. My insurance was much less expensive than I expected ~1800.

PS Mike's heavy RV-7 is slightly easier to 3-point than my light RV-9. When you flare slightly high in the -7 it sinks to the runway. When you do so in the -9 it stays there until you stop flying and then bounces.
 
Two more

Nope a short 5'17"

I was able to add a couple of RV-9's to my list today. Greg and LD.
I am up to 19 but not all those are flying.

You can add two more here from Spain, one of them is mine. (EC-XMV)
I had other taildraggers before, Kitfox, Cup etc. and the 9 is no comparison. You forget its a taildragger its so easy.


Jorg
 
RV-9 Only Club

Mark,
The official -9 tailwheel club has 19? I was thinking it was around 10 to 15. Glad to know it's growing annually more are learning about Van's best kept secret. Hard to imagine, that out of Millions, there remains but only 19 of these rare jewels. Nice.

Nope a short 5'17"

I was able to add a couple of RV-9's to my list today. Greg and LD.
I am up to 19 but not all those are flying.
 
Mark,
The official -9 tailwheel club has 19? I was thinking it was around 10 to 15. Glad to know it's growing annually more are learning about Van's best kept secret. Hard to imagine, that out of Millions, there remains but only 19 of these rare jewels. Nice.
Due to their rarity, I think anyone thinking of selling theirs should add a $40K premium to the asking price.
 
I was pleasantly surprised with the forward view on my -9A slider, and the amount of head room. The glare shield is low compared to a 172's (which to me has a seated-in-a-bucket feel) and I can see over it and a good portion of the cowling too while still being able to put my fist between the top of my headset and the canopy. I'm about 6'3" with longer legs and a shorter torso.

On the trike/conventional gear thing, the debate is as old as the hills, but I love the taxiing visibility. I trained on a trike gear, and while I'm sure I could easily learn to fly a tail dragger, the idea of having to "fly" the plane while on the ground seems antiquated, and ground looping/dicey taxiing in high winds are other minuses that turned me off.

That said, if I had to land on rough grass strips all the time, I'd be tempted by conventional gear, but I'm an asphalt-only guy.

Here's a side-view pic to show you the head room:

 
Doug, the issue isn't inflight visibility but on the ground, with the tail down: can you see over the nose?
 
Last edited:
snipped

That said, if I had to land on rough grass strips all the time, I'd be tempted by conventional gear, but I'm an asphalt-only guy.

That's a shame; you're missing quite a lot. Some of the best flying and the best times are to be had by visiting grass strips. BTW, you should know that 'rough' isn't a required adjective before 'grass', and often needed before 'asphalt'.

Charlie
Slobovia Outernational (MS71)
 
rightrudder;1145415[URL=http://s251.photobucket.com/user/ex914/media/IMG_2999.jpg.html said:

If you like to land flat like that, realize the nosegear is holding you back....sorry. :D
 
I would like to add my 9 to the list. I also believe that It is the easiest taildragger to master. My experience includes J3, C140, Citabria and a couple of Rv6's. I have around 250 hours in mine and have loved every minute!
I am just shy of 5'6" and had Abby make an extra cushion and can see over the cowl if I stretch a little. I do S turns when taxing because it is tough to see the right side. My landings are typically 3 point and visibility is excellent. Quite simply the best kept secret to come out of Vans Aircraft.
 
Nope a short 5'17"

I was able to add a couple of RV-9's to my list today. Greg and LD.
I am up to 19 but not all those are flying.
Robert Morrison is building one in Rockhill, SC. He should by flying sometime this summer.

I have no idea who influenced him. :rolleyes:
 
Nope a short 5'17"

I was able to add a couple of RV-9's to my list today. Greg and LD.
I am up to 19 but not all those are flying.

N908DR is now a 9, kit originally purchased from van ( by someone else) as an A but converted to a 9 during my build. I found out after the purchase that the main gear legs are longer on the 9 than the 9A . Also converted over to a slider canopy during the build. This nine now has 500 hrs on it since 2008, 160 HP 0320 D2J with Prince P tip prop.
 
9a-9

Converted my build from a 9a to a 9. Flying a 3 and like
the tail dragger. Hope to be flying this summer.
 
If you like to land flat like that, realize the nosegear is holding you back....sorry. :D
That was my very first landing in the -9A, and it was flat-ish, but the mains did touch first and I held the nose off afterward. But thanks for the snide comment. :D
 
That's a shame; you're missing quite a lot. Some of the best flying and the best times are to be had by visiting grass strips. BTW, you should know that 'rough' isn't a required adjective before 'grass', and often needed before 'asphalt'.

Charlie
Slobovia Outernational (MS71)

Not many grass strips here in the Pacific Southwest, so I'm really not missing anything. Depends a lot on where you live. If I were going to a grass strip that I knew was well maintained and smooth, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Look at Vlad, for chrissakes!!!
 
I now have 26 on the list however at least 4 are still building.
On another thread a couple of weeks ago there was a comment that someone looked on the FAA registration site and found over a hundred.
I found that very doubtful so I checked a few by Googling the tail numbers of a few to find pictures and low and behold there were many more.
I was busy at the time so I did not get a chance to add them to my list. The over a hundred number got debunked as all the early RV-9's were nose draggers since they had not developed the tail dragger version yet.
Added:
Jorg, other Spain builder, Al, Dennis, Ben, LD and Robert.
 
OK so I had a little time yesterday so I browsed the web.
Between the FAA, EAA, Jetphotos and Van's I found a few more.
Very large amount in Europe.
My list now has 41 state side and 14 in Europe.
Many on the FAA list as RV-9's had not pictures on the web so I could not verify that they were indeed tailwheels.
I is amazing to me that so many people fly under the radar. No pictures on the web and no flight data. There were probably 20 I could not verify with a picture.
 
My list now has 41 state side and 14 in Europe.
Many on the FAA list as RV-9's had not pictures on the web so I could not verify that they were indeed tailwheels.
This sounds more accurate, Mark. When I started building in 2005 I had also collected pics of RV-9s. I can't find that folder now, but I'm pretty sure I had at least 8-10 then, so there must be way more now.
Steve
 
Last edited:
OK so I had a little time yesterday so I browsed the web.
Between the FAA, EAA, Jetphotos and Van's I found a few more.
Very large amount in Europe.
My list now has 41 state side and 14 in Europe.
Many on the FAA list as RV-9's had not pictures on the web so I could not verify that they were indeed tailwheels.
I is amazing to me that so many people fly under the radar. No pictures on the web and no flight data. There were probably 20 I could not verify with a picture.

Sounds about right.... When people ask me my guess has always been somewhere between 50 - 70 built as tail draggers.
 
Philippe,
I have now added you, thanks.

I found a Tim Donham that thinks his was the first RV-9 N9TD.
His was completed in Jan. 2004. Seems like Van's would have been the first.
I forget, was Van's started as a A then converted or the other way around?

Bill,
I have N119TJ in SA maybe that is it.
 
Philippe,
I have now added you, thanks.

I found a Tim Donham that thinks his was the first RV-9 N9TD.
His was completed in Jan. 2004. Seems like Van's would have been the first.
I forget, was Van's started as a A then converted or the other way around?

Bill,
I have N119TJ in SA maybe that is it.

The original RV-9 prototype was purpose built as a tail dragger.
First flight was January 2002. No Tail dragger finish kits were sold/shipped prior to its flight testing.
 
I am 6'2 and have to stretch a bit to see clearly. It's on par with other tail wheel airplanes I have flown. I have the Bell style tailwheel which sits a bit taller than the stock Van's one. That helps a bit. You will have no trouble. Just don't assume there is nothing in front of you. You will need to clear the area by stretching or by S-turning.
 
Back
Top