What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9 vs. RV-9A

Cmarin

I'm New Here
I have made my choice to build an RV9 and would like some input on 9 vs 9a?
Little about me and my experience level.

I have a little under 1000hrs, instrument rated, high performance, complex with 25 in tailwheel aircraft.

If I was going to build the 9 it would be a slider a 9a would probably be configured as a tip up.

I don't typically operate out of short fields or grass. The main reason for a 9 tail dragger would be aesthetics. I'm not saying that I haven't seen some really beautiful 9a's, I have.

The one thing that keeps coming up in conversations is that the 9 is or could be a little twitchy in the flare.

I can hardly wait to write the check and join the fraternity.
 
Welcome!

Cmarin, here's some good news...you don't have to wait. The first two kits - empennage and wings - are the same for either configuration. No third wheel or canopy decision is needed until you order the fuse kit. So go ahead and jump in. Write the check, mail it, fax it, call 'em up, heck...go there even! Operators are standing by. I'm 11 months into my -12 build and am having SOOOO much fun with it! Love to have you join the party.
 
If you want to just fly the thing and not sweat the landings then do the trike. If you want to up the fun/skill factor do the conventional. They are both great airplanes and once in the air the gear makes no difference. I have flown both and the trike is a non event. I've got 150 or so landings in my 9 now and still perk up and pay attention during landing. Get good training, learn to wheel land and have fun.
 
Good advice from John. Just go for it. You can figure it out along the way. You'll love either configuration. If I can manage to wear out an engine, I'm thinking about converting mine to a tail dragger just for the heck of it. I almost even have buy-in from the owner.
 
The -9 is a great airplane. Landing ALWAYS requires attention. It will bite you if you let it. However, there is plenty of margin for correction. One good thing is you'll get to log two or three landings occasionally even when you only planned on one!:D

Scott, let me know if you decide to convert. I may be in the market for a set of 9a gear/mount etc. My daughter may start working on her PPL and if so, I may convert my 9 to a 9a.
 
I converted my 9A to a 9 about two years ago. 250 hours on the 9A and now about 300 on the 9. I don't find anything twitchy about the flare in the 9. Very easy to wheel land, which is what I do almost exclusively. That said, the 9A will probably handle a bit more crosswind (at least for me) and is a bit more forgiving unless you don't keep the front wheel off the ground until absolutely necessary. FWIW, I had very little TW time when I converted, and wanted to learn a new skill. I'm still learning.... and having lots of fun along the way.

Cheers,
Greg
 
...The one thing that keeps coming up in conversations is that the 9 is or could be a little twitchy in the flare...


This is a new one on me. If the RV-9 was twitchy in the flare then the RV-9A would be equally twitchy. I have not flown the 9 but have flown several RV models and none of them were anything like twitchy at any time. They do tend to be wonderfully responsive, the 9 perhaps somewhat less so than some of the other models.

I've always liked the quote attributed to Curtis Pitts "there's no such thing as a twitchy airplane - only twitchy pilots."

Maybe Curtiss was right or maybe he was wrong and there is a twitchy airplane, but it isn't any of the RVs.
 
Build the airplane you want!

Simple as that.

I have a -9 and have flown a -9A and they both flew great.

The -9 is the easiest taildragger I have ever flown and I have flown a bunch of different ones.

Cross winds are a non-event, as long as you use the proper technique. I have landed mine in some VERY strong cross winds and never worry about it. In fact, two of the pilots at the airpark where I live have mentioned that on windy days I am the only one who will fly. That should tell you something about how the -9 flies.

...The one thing that keeps coming up in conversations is that the 9 is or could be a little twitchy in the flare...
I have never heard this nor have I experienced it and have no idea where this would even come from.

One thing I will say about a -9(A) with a FP prop is that speed on final is CRITICAL! Too fast and they will glide forever! (I had an accomplished acro pilot try to land mine on a 5500' strip once and he simply couldn't slow it down enough. He did three approaches before his speed was down low enough to land.

BTW, my in laws live under the pattern at KFGU and I have had my -9 in there more than once. Next time I take the plane over, I'll ping you and you can try it out.
 
Last edited:
The RV 9 is a great plane. My son and Grandson just came back from OSH in it last week . Its a 9 converted from a 9A early in the build stage when I bought the project. I'm about two hours south down I- 75 from you if you want to come down for a look and / or ride. It operates off a 1800 ft private grass field. About 8 miles west of Cartersville GA or KVPC .
34 05'22.64N 084 59' 13.51W in Taylorsville GA. And Yes the comment about FP and airspeed on final is CRITICAL . It will not slow down for landing on a 1800 ft strip unless you control that speed carefully.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents worth of opinion.... build the slider tailwheel RV-9 and you'll be happiest. The tailwheel RVs are pussycats to land as compared to other tailwheel aircraft. The RV-6 is the touchiest of the bunch and if I can master landing this one, you can too. Nothing beats the feeling of greasing a tailwheel RV landing and sliding the canopy back and taxiing back to the ramp/hangar with your arm hanging over the side with that huge grin on your face.
 
For what it's worth, I had some time to kill at Osh last week so I looked at all the RVs in the field behind the Vans tent. I tallied a count of trikes vs tailwheels for all the RVs and came up with about 60% being taildraggers. I'm not sure if that number is representative of the entire fleet of RVs, but that was the snapshot on that particular day behind the Vans tent.
 
build what you want...

...and you will learn to fly it well, whatever it is. the 9a lands effortlessly, the 9 easily for a taildragger. both require that you slow them down to land them. the 9 looks much cooler than the 9a, if that matters to you.
 
I am constantly amazed ...

..by how easy my 9A is to land. It nearly ignores crosswinds and flares beautifully. For comparison purposes, it lands far easier than a C172, and they have a pretty docile reputation.
Like Bill says, whether a 9 or a 9A, it will float a long ways if you don't scrub the kts off prior to short final. As a retired commercial pilot/buddy says, "Fixed pitch RVs are a bit like jets. You can scrub off speed or you can scrub off altitude; but you can't do both." Once you point it downhill, it picks up airspeed way fast.
 
EASY EASY EASY taildragger. And oh so pretty.

But, remember, people foul up landings and wreck Cessna 172's. Get a little instruction and you'll be fine.

Manage thy airspeed, lest the earth come up to smite thee
 
I too am amazed how easy my 9A is to land. I just roll it on. I tell people it's not me, it's the plane.

Even though most of my time is in taildraggers, I went with the 9A because of the possibility of lower insurance costs (mine is pretty reasonable) and the fact that I will probably grow old(er) with this plane so I wanted it very easy. That's not to say that the taildragger is hard. I've only had a single flight in an RV taildragger so I don't know but it sounds pretty docile.

I also remembered way back when I rented 172s I got very good at very smooth landings. I couldn't always do that in my Aeronca Sedan. But, this RV, oh man...EASY. It's very consistently smooooth! I also like the visibility of a NW...not that the TW version is really bad but with the NW, you have a front row seat.

As far as looks, I can honestly say that I like them both. Yes, the TW looks way cool sitting on the ground but I love how tall the tail is with the NW. Of course, my 9A is the most beautiful in the world because it's mine and I built it!! :)

Here are some things to think about:

-The TW actually has steering on the ground, the NW does not. If you lose one of your brakes in the TW, you can still steer. However, this is a very rare occurance but something that I didn't really think about. I remember once in the Aeronca one of my brakes got spongy but I felt comfortable flying home to fix it because it too had a steerable TW. I probably would think twice before doing that in my 9A. I do have to say that the large rudder ends up being effective at steering at a pretty low taxi speed.

-There have been incidences of the A models nosing over. I think with the Anti-Splat device, improved NW design, and good technique, this has been pretty much overcome. Still, I'm a bit apprehensive about landing on anything but a hard surfaced runway but A models do it all the time and in fact, I did my transition training with Mike Segar off a grass strip in a 6A. Now, an emergency off field landing might get exciting in an A model.

Either one will be a good choice. Build the plane you want and don't look back. You'll be happy with either one.
 
I too am amazed how easy my 9A is to land. I just roll it on. I tell people it's not me, it's the plane.

9A doesn't need a pilot. You just ask her nicely and she does what you want.

Wear out first engine and convert if you wish. Great idea Scott!
 
Back
Top