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 Census

Are you currently...

  • Flying an RV-9 Tailwheel

    Votes: 8 4.4%

  • Flying an RV-9A Tricycle Gear

    Votes: 37 20.3%

  • Building an RV-9 Tailwheel

    Votes: 25 13.7%

  • Building an RV-9A Tricycle Gear

    Votes: 85 46.7%

  • Planning on building an RV-9 Tailwheel

    Votes: 13 7.1%

  • Planning on building an RV-9A Tricycle Gear

    Votes: 14 7.7%
  • Total voters
    182
N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
Sorry gang, this pole is for -9 and -9A fliers, builders, and prospective builders only.

Van's does not publicly list the breakdown of NW vs. TW RV-9's so an informal poll was suggested to determine what that number might be.

I realize this might start that never ending NW vs. TW debate all over again but let's try it.

If you elect to comment, please no TW or NW bashing. In one sentence or less, describe why you selected the version you did, not why you didn't pick the other version.

(Moderators, feel free to edit or remove and TW or NW bashing posts.)
 
Last edited:
I would guess 85% NW, 15% TW.

My partner in the CT (father) and I are considering the -9A but not the -9. Like now, we plan to operate almost exclusively on paved runways, where, IMHO, the NW is easier to land and taxi.

TODR
 
Building 9A

I chose the A model because I've only flown tricycle gear in the past, and only plan to fly into paved airports. If I build a second, it will be a tailwheel and will be used for "fun" flying and "fun" destinations.
 
Same here - all my travel is in/out of (relatively) long paved runways, so the 9 just invites a groundloop for no benefit. I've got a little tailwheel time, not scared of it, I just prefer the nosewheel for easy ground ops.
 
Building a 9A. No tail dragger time. Plan to land on paved airports only.
The invitation for you to come visit still stands Bill!

Peter K
9A
 
Seems I recall reading somewhere in a Vans article or post that only about ten RV-9's had been completed (or sold?). Wish I could remember where I saw that info so it could be verified.
 
I am building the A since I have no tail wheel time and because of insurance requirements. I would need at least 20 to 25 hours of TD time to get insurance and after that the insurance still would be about $200/yr more.
 
Planning a -9 tailwheel. One sentence? Jeez, Bill. OK: For the basic tailwheel advantages of lighter weight, lower drag, simpler FWF access.


More detail: I have no TW time and previously I would not consider TW despite the above-listed advantages.

However, after much research I formed the impression that (1) RVs seem to be docile as taildraggers go, and (2) NW RVs are apparently not as "forgiving" of rough handling as a Cessna or the like. Also, my personal opinion is that the benefits of a NW (on any plane) are much diluted if it is not steerable.

So from my perspective if a steerable NW spam can is the baseline, I need additional skills/training either way for an RV. In the end I would rather deal with the TW.
 
RV-9

I fly off a turf strip and I prefer the Nine. The Nine will handle turf strip hazards much better than a "A". To me the Nine steers much better than the "A". However the "A" has much better visibility that is the only advantage.
The Nine is a great handling airplane on the ground as well as in the air.
Gerry Chancey
RV-9, N92GC
J-3 Cub, NC88583
 
I have close to 400 hours TW time out of a total of 450+ hrs. No ground loops-yet.

I am building the NW. Reason? 1. Resale value 2. Ease of landing, less to worry about with cross winds. Hard to find a grass strip around here.
 
nose wheels

Most people feel comfortable flying what they learned to fly in, including me. I built and am flying a 9A, off a grass strip(400+takeoffs and landings). No problems. Easy on the tires, brakes, and the plane. All in what you become accustomed to. (just finished and flying hours off in a 7A-- on grass) :cool:
 
I'm finishing an "A". I have less than 2 hours TW time but much grass/dirt/gravel/salt flats time in my old TriPacer (also an O-290, Bill). I like the ground handling and lower insurance rates on trikes and I like the looks of trike side-by-sides.

Thinkin' I'll build a backcountry machine next,
Steve
 
Building a 9A

1) No TW time
2) Planning paved operations
3) Lower insurance (given zero TW time)
4) However, I think the TW looks really cool!
 
Built a 9A, fly a 9

I built the 9A for most of the reason a low time pilot gives for building one. It was a great plane. After 250 hours, I converted to a 9, insurance was about the same and I only had about 10 hours of TW time.
 
I'm planning on the 9A because the intent of the design seems to be congruent with my skill level (where a 172S is a hot rod) and intended mission (efficient xc cruise).

I have to admit, though, the TDs are pure sex.:cool:
 
9 way too cool!

I'm building a 9 for myself and a 9-A for a friend. I don't have a lot of TW time but have flown and taxied the 9. Foreward ground vision with the tip-up isn't the best but the slider will be an improvement.

The only fault I can see with the 9A is it a long step to get on the wing, and a long way to fall off. Another fault is don't get two people on the step or wings at the same time, less you need some sheetmetal repair practice.

The -9 I flew clicked along at a respective 180 MPH with a FP prop and the 160 HP engine. Not too shabby!
 
9 vs 9a

I am currently building a 9A. I have about 600 hours of tailwheel time and love taildraggers. I decided to build the nose dragger because it seemed to me at the time (5 years ago), that the "9" was really intended as a "A" with the tw version added afterwards. This may be all a misperception, but it seemed that way to me at the time. Additionally, I am building this as a cross country machine and crosswinds are less of an issue with a NG. I still wonder if I made the right choice- especially now that I have to remove the NG for the service bulletin. I'm keeping my taildragger anyway (Aviat Husky).
Steve Johnson
Abilene, TX
RV9-A 90% done with 90% to go
 
Mostly tricycle experience and I didn't want to dread the landing when traveling cross country. If I had it to do again four years later, I would have chosen the tail wheel version.
 
9 vs 9A

I have over 2,000 hrs tt, about 1,800 in TD. I just like TD better. I do like the way the 9A looks sitting on the ramp, it looks very nice. In the air who cares, it is just on the ground where it matters to me.

I live and fly in Alaska. Some of our gravel strips, state maintained, have 2 inch rocks on them. A nose dragger is not good for that sort of mission, in my opinion.

On a 9A the prop will really suffer from rock,gravel and sand damage. The 9 will handle this type of environment much better.

Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
installing the interior and hoping to fly this summer
 
My choice

Wanted: TD.
Building: 9A due to zero TD time, maybe 120hrs TT with first flight (but not by me!)

Future: maybe a conversion to -9, or partnership in a cub/luscomb/SW/Citabria/???. I want the TD time & skills, but don't want to give up what the 9 iss!

Rick 90432 Fuse
 
Still on the fence...

I was going to go for a 9A due to the same response as many others on here... it's what I grew up flying in and where my experience is.

I do want my plane to be friendly to the non-flying types that I want to take up (my wife, as well as the friends that don't believe this will ever fly), but Im also leaning towards the straight 9 as I LOVE the way it looks on the ground and although I don't intend to do much off pavement landings, I would like to have the option to take the plane somewhere a little off the beaten path at some point.

So what does this all mean to me... well I'm still a ways out on committing to the fuse and at the moment I'm leaning towards a 9. Until I pull the trigger though its still anyones guess! :)

I just want to get the plane in the air one day!!
 
flying 9A

I have 105 hrs on my 9A. I live on a grass strip but won't fly into any unfamiliar grass strips. I love the airplane and wouldn't trade for tailwheel. I have about 300 hours TW time and decided to sell my Stinson after my second flight in my 9A.

Joe Ramotowski
N358JR
coming out of the paint shop on Friday! :)
 
Plan To Order 9 Kit At Sun n Fun

Why the 9?

Lighter and better on grass. And, when using hard surface, taildraggers tend to hold my attention span past the tire chirp.

Hey! There both terrific airplanes and neither would be a bad choice.

Tom
 
tailwheel

I built a (9) for the same reason it has a three blade prop and a Sam James
cowl. I like the way it looks.
G.P.
 
I voted -9A, but am not committed yet. Who knows by the time I'm ready to order the fuse kit I may have changed my mind. And, yes, I'm old school; its conventional and tricycle, not conventional and tail dragger!
 
k5wiv said:
And, yes, I'm old school; its conventional and tricycle, not conventional and tail dragger!
Click to expand...
Jack,

I couldn't agree with you more but ...

Most people don't know what conventional gear is. It makes me wonder if they had the same arguments when they started using a tail wheel in place of a tail skid. ;)
 
N941WR said:
Jack,

I couldn't agree with you more but ...

Most people don't know what conventional gear is. It makes me wonder if they had the same arguments when they started using a tail wheel in place of a tail skid. ;)
Click to expand...

Ever notice that all modern military/ commercial/ and biz jets have nosewheels? :D How come?

L.Adamson --- who thinks --- Aviat Husky's are "manly" taildraggers! :)
 
90404 Will Have A ...

... Tailwheel.

I like the way Van starts us building all those parts designed to keep people away from that all-important wheel. ;)

Andy
-9 tail kit in progress
 
TW

"Cuz I gotta!!"
after several years of flying a Luscombe nothing else feels right.
i give TW's a very high "cool" factor.
danny


still....it's not "what" you fly.
 
L.Adamson said:
Ever notice that all modern military/ commercial/ and biz jets have nosewheels? :D How come?

L.Adamson --- who thinks --- Aviat Husky's are "manly" taildraggers! :)
Click to expand...

A great post from several years ago on the nose/tailwheel debate from Cam in So Cal stands out in my mind. At least I think it was him and he was discussing his grandfather who flew everything military going way back. His grandfathers comment on taildraggers, "They fixed that problem a long time ago." I remember laughing when I read that in its original post because it just fit so well into the debate.
 
Bryan Wood said:
A great post from several years ago on the nose/tailwheel debate from Cam in So Cal stands out in my mind. At least I think it was him and he was discussing his grandfather who flew everything military going way back. His grandfathers comment on taildraggers, "They fixed that problem a long time ago." I remember laughing when I read that in its original post because it just fit so well into the debate.
Click to expand...

It was my long time Air Force uncle who talked me into the nose gear. It solved a lot pf problems! :) IMO, taildraggers certainly have their place, and that's with "bush/backcountry" machines. I'm a fan of the Aviat Husky's as mentioned before; and a great looking Super Cub with large tundra tires is being built in the hangar across from mine.

Low wing RV's with wheel pants just don't cut it for gravel or worse....

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
TW

Dad's building a TW -9. Flying off 2000 ft grass. We've already got a -7 and the TW seems to handle the bumps better. And looks cool, which is most important. Just keep the pointy end forward:cool:
 
Love the look of tail dragger, prop in air when taxi (less sand blasting), larger wheels for grass strips, easier to climb in and out, and like someone said, chicks love 'em-----:D Have 90 + hrs tail time on rag planes so RV 9 should be no problem:rolleyes:
 
NW because...

I'm building with my father who is a low time pilot . He wants a nose dragger due to ease of landing. As we anticipate a year or two operating from local paved airports with minimal back country destinations in our travels, that works for me.

Considering our plans to eventually move operations to a grass farm strip, we may or may not regret that decision. As we move from wing to fuselage construction we will be paying special attention to any provisions that will facilitate converting from a -9a to -9 in the future.
 
Interesting...

Interesting numbers. I am not so sure how accurately we can judge the first data set of flying 9's vs. 9A's. 1:4 ratio. I am pretty sure there are way more 9A's than 9's out there from what I have seen and heard. If you look at the "Building" set, the ratio moves to 1:3 (roughly). Looking at the "Planning" numbers, it isn't even 1:2. It would appear that more and more folks are building or planning to build the 9 as a tail-dragger as time goes on.

Just numbers... not sure what the interpretation should be. I think one possibility is that the original design of the plane and many of the folks that built it MAY have been a bit more conservative... and they also felt better about having the nose wheel. As the reputation of the 9 grew -turning out to be such a great flyer... and with its slow flight/stall characteristics, it is proving to be a bit more desirable for those that want to land off-pavement. A tail-dragger version of the -9 just started to make sense to more and more folks.

I would only caution those that are studying this issue to make your decision based on YOUR true needs and experience. Unfortunately, there is a lot of macho bravado that surrounds this issue. Don't get sucked into any hype. :rolleyes:

I live an a very windy area. I KNOW that a tricycle makes more sense - for me. However, just to build my own pilot skills, I recently spent a couple days over at Santa Paula (KSZP) learning to do the tail-dragger thing in a nice little Decathlon. It was not only my first taildragger PIC, but also my first time with a stick vs. yoke. I LOVED flying that plane! :) It makes a 172 really seem like a truck! :eek:

Build what YOU need!

DJ
 
Bryan Wood said:
A great post from several years ago on the nose/tailwheel debate from Cam in So Cal stands out in my mind. At least I think it was him and he was discussing his grandfather who flew everything military going way back. His grandfathers comment on taildraggers, "They fixed that problem a long time ago." I remember laughing when I read that in its original post because it just fit so well into the debate.
Click to expand...


That was me. My grandfather was a bit upset when I converted the plane over to a tail wheel. I do get a new tail wheel story every week or so from my grandfather sense I made the conversion. I think it has brought back a lot of memories of his early flying career.
 
Phyrcooler said:
...I think one possibility is that the original design of the plane and many of the folks that built it MAY have been a bit more conservative... and they also felt better about having the nose wheel. As the reputation of the 9 grew -turning out to be such a great flyer... and with its slow flight/stall characteristics, it is proving to be a bit more desirable for those that want to land off-pavement. A tail-dragger version of the -9 just started to make sense to more and more folks.
Click to expand...
I know of at least one local builder who wanted a -9A but because of all the flip over issues with the A's, he going with a -9.

Phyrcooler said:
Build what YOU need!
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree with you more. If you are going to spend thousands of dollars and a few years, build what YOU want!

Pugslycat said:
...As we move from wing to fuselage construction we will be paying special attention to any provisions that will facilitate converting from a -9a to -9 in the future.
Click to expand...
Just put the tail spring bracket in when you build up the tail section. Then if you change it over, you will only have to replace the engine mount. One word of caution be careful with your W&B a A's tend to be tail heavy because the main gear is behind the CG.
 
W&B on 9A

Couldn't disagree more that 9A's have are tail heavy because the gear is aft of CG.

The CG is further aft than the 9 because the 9's gear is well forward of the CG. The gear on the -A is ON or very close to the CG.

There is absolutely NO loading configuration where the CG in my 9A is either forward or aft of the CG range, including zero fuel and 100 LBS in the baggage compartment.

I built the -A due to the mission (mostly cross country) and resale. I have more than 1000 hours in TW aircraft, Cubs to Beavers.

BTW, chicks dig airplanes - period!
 
ksouthar said:
Couldn't disagree more that 9A's have are tail heavy because the gear is aft of CG.

The CG is further aft than the 9 because the 9's gear is well forward of the CG. The gear on the -A is ON or very close to the CG.

There is absolutely NO loading configuration where the CG in my 9A is either forward or aft of the CG range, including zero fuel and 100 LBS in the baggage compartment.

I built the -A due to the mission (mostly cross country) and resale. I have more than 1000 hours in TW aircraft, Cubs to Beavers.

BTW, chicks dig airplanes - period!
Click to expand...

I have a Sensenich prop and never had any trouble with W&B on the 9A. One thing though. Did you use Van's numbers or actually calculate your own moments? I found Van's numbers off quite a bit. They assumed you put your baggage as far forward in the baggage area as possible. I put two cases of oil against the far aft side of the baggage area to calculate the aft baggage moment. I got a moment 14 inches aft of the Van's numbers. I think that's a more realistic loading situation.
 
RV- VS. RV-9A

I caculated my own moments based on baggage in the center of the baggage compartment.

I am using a Catto 3-blade composite prop, 0-320, James cowl/plenum. My finished weight and balance is a near duplicate of Vans reference numbers.
 
I chose the -9A so my wife would feel comfortable flying. She is letting me build it so she had a vote on which one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top