When did you decide?

[Joe Parish]

I only have @ 75 hours all in a Cessna 172 and I plan on building a 9. I feel TW training will make me a better pilot over all, no matter what one flys every day.

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by David Z

All the "cool" airplanes have the wheel in the back, so mine will to.

I would use more then "cool" as a reason to build something. After all you hate to spend all that time building and then not like the way it flys/handles.

Originally Posted by Joe Parish

I only have @ 75 hours all in a Cessna 172 and I plan on building a 9. I feel TW training will make me a better pilot over all, no matter what one flys every day.

I built a 6A because I did not have tailwheel time when I started. During the build I bought my Cessna 140 to have something to fly. Love the tailwheel and totally agree it made me a better pilot. I have no regrets in building the 6A and even now that I have hundreds of hours of tailwheel time, I made the right decision for me to build the A model. I think the desicion needs to be based on each individuals planned use for the RV (grass, pavement, racing, etc) and his flying style/experience.

[Dave Cole]

I didn't make a decision about the landing gear, I just knew what I wanted. In fact, if the RV's weren't available as taildraggers, I wouldn't have given them a second look.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by plehrke

I would use more then "cool" as a reason to build something. After all you hate to spend all that time building and then not like the way it flys/handles.

When I built my 6A, the "Eights" were not in production yet. The Four was a bit small, and I wasn't thrilled with the look of the Six in taildragger mode. It's pudgy wings showed too much, and didn't have the sleekness in looks of a tri-geared Glasair or Lancair. IMO, the Glasair looked great as a tri-gear, but not so hot as a taildragger.

Never the less, I was on the fence with the decision for months. Then the Pitts S2B I had been taking a aerobatic course in............hit a plane hauling tractor that had run out of gas on the ramp. The sun was in the pilots eyes, while S-turning. It was damaged enough to require disassembly & shipment back to the factory.

In the meantime, my uncle, who had been in the Airforce full time since WWII, suggested that the tri-gear was better for the "mission". After all, it's the reason most military aircraft are now with nose wheels. Better forward visibility, improved crosswind behavior, and much less chance of ground loops.

So.............I finally went with the 6A. Had the "8" been out, I probably would have bought one, as I'm a P-51D Mustang fan. It would have been a tail wheel. If I ever get another aircraft, it will be a back country bush plane. And it would be a taildragger & most likely tube & rags.

Still, my 6A looks sleeker on the ramp, and I like the forward visibility. I have no regrets in building the tri-gear version. To be honest........RV's really look better as retractables! And the taildragging RV's are certainly not real "bush" planes either...

L.Adamson -- RV6A

[Jaypratt]

The decision was not even close for me. The tail wheel RV6 was my only thought when I started building A RV6 in 1995.
Had 1528 hours in my log book when I finished my RV6, all in C172, P35 Bonanza, Piper PA 32-300. No Tail wheel time.

I taught my self tail wheel by taxing around the airfield. The RV6 is so easy it is not an issue. I do not recomend teaching your self but I would do it again. It was too easy.

Now I am flying a tandem RV8. I like the vis over the RV6