[rbibb]

I'm about ready to take the plunge again. I'm fact, just ordered a set of RV-9 Prelim Plans.

I've built an RV-4, in fact built it twice as it was near destroyed in an accident, once.

This time I'm leaning toward doing two things I NEVER thought I would do:

1) Build a tri-cycle gear RV.

2) Build an RV-9.

Its all about the mission....

If money were no object I'd build an RV-10 but what I'm looking for is a cross country machine that will be IFR capable when I'm done.

The -9A seems like the best platform to fulfill such requirements. Something about the economy and performance on 160 hp that captured me. The 3 mph different top speed from the -7A on same engine made the decision easier.

As for going upside down I will keep the -4 and avoid disappointment in how the -7 flies by comparison.

Am I missing something?

Seems I'm really missing my Mooney 201 and the fun those numerous trips were and how needed its IFR capability was to completing so many of them.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

I've heard from more than one of the factory gang that seats in the 9A demonstrator are preferred when flying across country (SnF for example).

Takes bumps better, I think they said.

Maybe not now that the -10 is available <g>.

 

[nauga]

Welcome back, Richard. Some of the old guys are still around...or back again.

Nauga,
2004 RV-4 N416RV, worlds longest phase I

 

[rbibb]

Never really left but level of my profile varies with business activity level, other distractions, perception of the degree things are generally going to H***, and phase of the moon.

I've been thinking about this awhile and went from wanting a -10, to needing to build a -3, to now wanting and deciding to start a long slow build process on a -9A.

The side by side RVs look better with tri-gear IMHO even as I remain a died in the wool taildragger pilot.

The -9 will be for comfort, the -4 for letting off steam.

By the time I finish it I figure an all glass panel with HDTV option will be available for about $300.....

 

[N941WR]

Richard,

It will be interesting to read your impressions after you get your -9A flying.

No big deal building the -9A over a -9. Other than you will be missing one of the nicest tail draggers ever!

 

[rbibb]

Well Bill don't hold your breath. This is going to be a slow build project I suspect. I don't figure on even starting construction on the empennage until fall and at this point I'm not sure how I'm going to pay for the thing. But time will tell.

The nose wheel thing is a surprise to me as well. Never had much use for them before. Like I said I just think they look better on the ramp - not sure why but I just do.

I'm impressed by all I read on the RV-9 and I think it will be a better instrument platform that the other RVs. If I didn't have the -4 I'd probably build an -8 or a Rocket.

In any event I plan on using this process to do all those little things I didn't do on the -4 that, knowing what I know now I hope to make some useful additions to the RV world. Frankly I'd like to come up with some products to make for the market but all the good ideas have alrady been done so I'm hoping to find some inspiration while studying the plans, etc. Once I get to the fuselage (where all the interesting improvements in creature comfort are found) my creative juices will be in full flow. At least in theory.

I confess that when the RV-9 came out I thought Van had lost his mind. Why build a wimpy airplane to add to the stable of such thoroughbreds? Well I've matured as they say and realize that Van's genius is in being in front of demand and understanding the value of value in the marketplace. I want this plane to go places and think the -9 is probably the best of the bunch that will burn less than 10 gal an hour in cruise.

The -10 is an entirely different segment of tha market and simply beyond me for now.

So I willl get to contempalte all the decisions - slider/tip-up, CS/fixed pitch, etc that fill so much of the verbiage on this site. I have my prejudices but hope to retain an open mind.

Anyway my impressions will be noted as they formulate over time.

 

[Robert M]

Richard,

It will be interesting to read your impressions after you get your -9A flying.

No big deal building the -9A over a -9. Other than you will be missing one of the nicest tail draggers ever!

Hi Richrad!

Ditto what Bill said.

 

[carguy614]

It doesn't matter.....

Where you mount the third wheel, I am sure you will love the 9. I find my 9A to be the perfect compromise between speed, performance, and docile flight characteristics. That's something rarely found when choosing an aircraft to build or buy. Working on my taildragger 9 now. Can't wait to compare the experience.
Welcome to the 9 forum!!

Regards,
Chris

 

[L.Adamson]

The side by side RVs look better with tri-gear IMHO even as I remain a died in the wool taildragger pilot.

My final decision was based purely on looks also. I think an 8 looks better as a taildragger, because I'm always in favor of P-51s. But then I believe in taildraggers as having a real purpose such as bush/backcountry airplanes. The RV doesn't really fit the bill as a backcountry plane..... very well.

L.Adamson --- RV6A (flying)

 

[rbibb]

Oh, the tandem Rvs look better as conventional ger airplanes. Of course the -8A is the only one you can get with a nose wheel but it never did anything for me. I like the looks of the RV-4 the best and love flying mine. Its a little cramped but I'm 6'5" and have flown it all over half the country. 1000NM is about my limit though. Rear end demands R&R after about 5-6 hour days.

But eveytime I see a picture of a 9A I think the proportions just look right with a nosewheel. In the air I really won't be able to tell but I will walking across the ramp.

Who knows? By the time I'm forced to make a decision I might change my mind.