Martinejim
Active Member
What’s the build ratio of 9s vs 9As? I’m buying a 9 but there doesn’t seem to be many of these out there. Just curious why the tail dragger version is less popular. Higher insurance maybe?
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Why are there far fewer RV9s vs 9As?
- Thread starter Martinejim
- Start date
Norman CYYJ
Well Known Member
There are more people that fly nose wheel planes than tail wheel types, the insurance is higher and less training required.
Martinejim
Active Member
I sold my 4 and really miss it. But I now have a 9A and really enjoy it for being so much more docile. To improve on it, a 9 with the little wheel on the tail that lands slower than a Citabria yet cruises north of 180 mph would be perfect. Either way you cant go wrong. 180 HP would be even better lol.................................
You can't hardly see over the nose, they are difficult to taxi straight, they are a pain to climb into but the 9 just looks cool.
They (mine) are trickier to do a full stall landing with. I bounce from time to time. I'm better with wheel landings. Oh, and did I mention they look cool? I've had a tail wheel plane for over 20 years and always enjoyed them. In the end I would suppose it's all about preference. You say potato. I say tater.
danny
RV9 with IO-360 and ground adjustable Whirlwind
They (mine) are trickier to do a full stall landing with. I bounce from time to time. I'm better with wheel landings. Oh, and did I mention they look cool? I've had a tail wheel plane for over 20 years and always enjoyed them. In the end I would suppose it's all about preference. You say potato. I say tater.
danny
RV9 with IO-360 and ground adjustable Whirlwind
I chose the -9A because of comfort. I was trained in tri-gear C172's and went with what I was familiar with.
BTW, my -9A is SO easy to fly and land! Go figure!
BTW, my -9A is SO easy to fly and land! Go figure!
I would imagine the demographics of those that choose the 9 series is a bit different than the others. Those interested in light aerobatics, sport flying, etc, are more likely to also prefer the tailwheel experience. I get the feeling that a lot of us 9 builders chose it for different reasons - stable cross-country platform, easy to fly, etc. For my mission, a tailwheel would be all downside (higher insurance, worse ground visibility, more challenging crosswind landings), and I don't particularly care about subjective opinions on the "cool factor". When I finished my 9A I only had about 200 hours, and it was a fantastic plane for a newer pilot. My next plane will be a tailwheel bush plane. It's all about matching the mission to the plane.
I owned a Warrior before my -9A. When people familiar with certified GA ask what the -9A flies like, I tell them it’s a 2-seat Cherokee that does 160 knots.The A models always remind me of bubble canopy Cherokees
In fact I just told a guy this yesterday! I didn’t tell him it’s actually easier to land than a Cherokee…
Same here. And pretty much the only people who think my -9A could look more cool are RV pilots.
And I confess I am one of them! The tailwheel RVs do look better. Top three lookers would be the -4, -8, and -9.
Likewise I built my 9A specifically because of the stability and cross country capabilities, and to be my IFR trainer. I started building mine 2 months after I got my license. I now have just over 500h (hey, weekend pilot... I'm jealous of y'all who regularly crack >100h+/yr flying), and over 400 of those are in my bird. Last year I got my IFR rating in it. I don't have a single moment of tail wheel time yet, and only just now starting to think about it, mainly because of a vintage build I want to do next.
And as an anecdote, the line kids at every FBO I've gone to while traveling have always said some variant of "cool plane". Yesterday in Jacksonville, here on the way to SnF, the line kid said "damn that's a sick bird". They parked me in the hangar away from impending storms, in front of two jets and a Cirrus already parked inside that had recently arrived. Which one of us got the most attention and interest from all of the other crews? One guess. I didn't leave the hangar for an hour.
Oh and Cincinnati to Jacksonville in 4.5h on just over 30 gallons, through light to moderate IMC. I'll take it.
And as an anecdote, the line kids at every FBO I've gone to while traveling have always said some variant of "cool plane". Yesterday in Jacksonville, here on the way to SnF, the line kid said "damn that's a sick bird". They parked me in the hangar away from impending storms, in front of two jets and a Cirrus already parked inside that had recently arrived. Which one of us got the most attention and interest from all of the other crews? One guess. I didn't leave the hangar for an hour.
Oh and Cincinnati to Jacksonville in 4.5h on just over 30 gallons, through light to moderate IMC. I'll take it.
The both have their place. I prefer the TW models for two reasons, looks and better suited to grass strips which is where I mostly fly to/from.
Personally I think the TW version look is much 'sexier' (is that bad to say these days?) than the nose wheeled RV series, but hat is entirely subjective. I also feel they are a better mount for landing on grass strips than a nose wheeled version.
I realize there are gear upgrades that help, but over the years I have read about several nose geared versions collapsing/bending when landing on rougher grass strips. If I only flew from hard surface runways, whichever one I got for a fair price would be my choice. As has already been mentioned, insurance is also a consideration. TW insurance is definitely higher, but after a few hundred hours it does trend downward.
The other consideration is if I lived in a high wind area as say the Dakota's or Wyoming, I may be more inclined to go with a nose wheel. TW's can get to be a handful on landing in high winds.
This is all from experience owning both (although not RV's). But I do have a deposit on an RV-8! I just sold my 172 after owning it for nearly 40 years and now have a stable of TW aircraft. Probably will regret selling the 172 as I get older, but for now it's a TW for me.
As a final comment, the RV9/9A were my main consideration for my next plane purchase until my wife sat in one alongside the RV8. I was shocked that she preferred the -8 over the -9's! She didn't have to convince me since I really wanted a tandem but thought she would prefer the -9! 43+ years together and I thought I knew her better! LOL So, the search for an -8 was on! Found a nice one with the help of a fellow poster on here, deposit paid and now I am searching for hangar space. Hoping to get it home by the end of May.
Good Luck with whatever you decide. It boils down to whatever makes you happy!
Personally I think the TW version look is much 'sexier' (is that bad to say these days?) than the nose wheeled RV series, but hat is entirely subjective. I also feel they are a better mount for landing on grass strips than a nose wheeled version.
I realize there are gear upgrades that help, but over the years I have read about several nose geared versions collapsing/bending when landing on rougher grass strips. If I only flew from hard surface runways, whichever one I got for a fair price would be my choice. As has already been mentioned, insurance is also a consideration. TW insurance is definitely higher, but after a few hundred hours it does trend downward.
The other consideration is if I lived in a high wind area as say the Dakota's or Wyoming, I may be more inclined to go with a nose wheel. TW's can get to be a handful on landing in high winds.
This is all from experience owning both (although not RV's). But I do have a deposit on an RV-8! I just sold my 172 after owning it for nearly 40 years and now have a stable of TW aircraft. Probably will regret selling the 172 as I get older, but for now it's a TW for me.
As a final comment, the RV9/9A were my main consideration for my next plane purchase until my wife sat in one alongside the RV8. I was shocked that she preferred the -8 over the -9's! She didn't have to convince me since I really wanted a tandem but thought she would prefer the -9! 43+ years together and I thought I knew her better! LOL So, the search for an -8 was on! Found a nice one with the help of a fellow poster on here, deposit paid and now I am searching for hangar space. Hoping to get it home by the end of May.
Good Luck with whatever you decide. It boils down to whatever makes you happy!
sansoneservices
Well Known Member
The 9 is kinda gentle and easy on low time pilots. Most of us learn on a 172, Cherokee, 150.. as stated earlier taildraggers require more training and pilots with more flying hours tend to want more snappy planes (-6-8)
I am building an 9A i really like the way the 9 looks but got quoted an extra $1000 a year in insurance. Thought that was a bit much for the cool look
sansoneservices
Well Known Member
FYI: the 9a is my favorite of the van's fleet. I'm taildragger endorsed but still a tricycle boy LOL
I don’t really get the appeal of the -9 vs a -7.. the -9 is slower than the -7, even with the same engine, and both are so easy to fly.. I find the -9 stalls maybe less than 5 knots slower than the -7, yet goes 10+ knots slower on the top end. What -9 stall speeds are y’all seeing? Approach speeds feel the same to me, yet with a -7, you can loop and roll it. Plus the shorter wing fits in a hangar easier.
When I was looking to buy several years ago, I advertised here on VAF for either a 9A or a 7A. I honestly didn’t care which but a 9A that met my goals came up first. I passed over the few tail draggers that responded. I think the tailwheel airplanes look cool...very classic. I have a lot of hours in a Cub and flew glider tows in a Champ years ago. No desire to own another tailwheel airplane. Other than looks, they offer me nothing that enhances my flying experience.
Martinejim
Active Member
I found a 9 that I’m going to buy. Already finished the pre-buy and should close on it next week or so. Funny you are going with the 8. That was my first choice until I went and saw a couple of them. It was tight fit for me at 6’5” and the back seat is even tighter. We have 3 small dogs we needed more luggage room for the pups. But I love the looks and speed of the 8. Oh, and I also think TWs are sexier. I just sold a T-tail Piper Lance that I owned for 5 years. The pilots who owned them said they looked sexier on the ramp than the straight tail versions.
Martinejim
Active Member
Coming from the certified world and from a high performance/complex aircraft I can tell you the TW RV9 is still way cheaper insurance, even considering the fact that I don’t have my TW endorsement yet. I’m happy to save $700 for the first year and as I build TW time this will come down a lot more in the coming years. Not to mention the maintenance cost of an experimental vs certified. Personally I just like the looks of the TW much better and perhaps after owning the 9 for a while I’ll move to a 7…if I feel the he need to go a little faster and do aerobatics. But for now it’s mostly about short cross countries and saving money.
Martinejim
Active Member
Coming from the certified world and having no TW time, the 9 is still cheaper believe it or not. It just comes down to personal preference and that’s why I love the Vans lineup, there are so many choices.
Martinejim
Active Member
I really enjoyed flying the factory 9 when it first came out. What impressed me was the subtle and relaxed responsiveness. Still felt like an RV, light and positive in its controls. Perhaps the numbers don’t bear it out, but landings sure felt slower, “butterfly” like.
I can see the appeal. Really nice airplanes. Don’t care if it’s a tailwheel, but that’s all I have ever owned or flown since my early student pilot days. I’d be proud to own either.
I can see the appeal. Really nice airplanes. Don’t care if it’s a tailwheel, but that’s all I have ever owned or flown since my early student pilot days. I’d be proud to own either.
Martinejim
Active Member
I’m coming from the tricycle gear world as well and is all I’ve flown since I started 10 years ago. But I wanted to try something different and always loved TW planes.I chose the -9A because of comfort. I was trained in tri-gear C172's and went with what I was familiar with.
BTW, my -9A is SO easy to fly and land! Go figure!
When it was first introduced Vans only offered the RV-9A. It was to be an "easy flyer" / "cruiser" and they did not anticipate a tailwheel version. I'm guessing due to inquiries from several customers, and because the fuselage was nearly identical to the -7, and therefore already had the engine mount, main landing gear and tailwheel, they subsequently offered the RV-9.
I have not flown a 7A but I am sure it is a great plane. I built a 9A and am very happy with my choice after 1,300 hrs.
I built the 9A as I operate out of a short sometimes challenging strip and I decided the 9A would give a better safety margin than the 7A. I comfortably approach at around 55 kts which is just less than 1.3 * stall (Vans figures). The comparable figure for a 7A based on Van’s stall figures would be about 65 kts. which is too fast for my strip. Pilot reports I have read over the years suggest that the 9A is more controllable at low approach speeds. I certainly find that at 55 kts my 9A has more than adequate power in the ailerons and elevator to handle the significant mechanical turbulence and wind shear I often get on my strip.
Using Van’s figures the 9A (older style Hartzell) has a top seed and cruise about 3 kts slower than the 7A (BA Hartzell?) both using 160 hp. This could be largely due to the BA Hartzell being a couple of kts faster.
My comfortable cruise with an 0 320 (carb) is 150 to 153 kts @ 6.8 to 6.9 Us gal/hr
Fin.
9A Australia
Last edited:
I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. I mostly fly with multiple RV7s often in the past 15 years. The guys with constant speed props do, most assuredly, out climb me. As far as speed, well. . .again, those with constant speed props will be faster. I equate that to the prop, not the airplane. Honestly, the airframe differences are most notably different when incorporating altitude. Lower altitude (below 8,500 msl) the RV7(A) may be slightly faster on the same power setting. Above 8,500, the 9(A) wing comes into its own.
I have a 180 hp IO340 with a catto. I would love to someday put a constant speed on it and see how it flies (all I have to do is pop the plug on the crank and install the equipment). Of course there is a weight issue that would change the W&B dynamics if I do. I honestly think I would be pretty close to flying the same as the 7s with CS.
My -9 background only consists of three -9As.. one 160 FP, one 160 CS prop, and one 180 Injected CS prop version. The 160 hp versions seem to go 150 to 155knots TAS. The 180 goes 158 - 160 knots TAS. I’ve flown them as high as 13,500 feet, WOT, and they seem to fall asleep up there. The sweet spot seems 10.5, maybe 12.5 if it’s light. Dame with the -7, but I see 165-168 knots true.
I think your 340 is a pretty sweet combination.. the CS prop seems to help them climb but I don’t think it makes it any faster, unless you have been throttling back to set RPM. I fly my -4 with a fixed pitch prop, but I use manifold pressure to set power, I don’t throttle it back to set rpm. My sweet spot for altitude is 12.5 to 14.5. I often fly as high as 17.t, but it gives up a few knots up there, although the range goes up..
What speeds do you see with your -9?
You approach at 55 knots? Is that power on and deep on the back side of the power curve? I used to fly into a gravel strip and would cross the fence at 61 knots.. I don’t think I could come in any slower, but perhaps out indicated airspeed aren’t really comparable at that low range. What Stall speeds do you get?
My stall is 44KIAS. I too will cross the fence at about 55 KIAS for short fields, otherwise about 60 KIAS. Much faster than that and it will float forever.
Chris
Ridders
Member
I fly my approaches at 60 KIAS. As chris says VS 1.3 is 55 KIAS, and likewise I am over the hedge at 55.
The stall full flaps on mine is 42-44 KIAS.
I fly from a 475m / 1556ft grass runway, with reasonably clear approaches.
Ive got an Ed Sturba and a 150hp engine. My cruise at 2000ft amsl set 2450 rpm at 15c/60f is about 142KIAS with the wheel spats/wheel pants on. I plan to get up to 8000ft or more this year on some longer distance flights as I now have my G5s configured to show TAS, and see what TAS I actually get.
Edited to say I love the 9A as I really dont have any worries on runways with crosswinds, I quite like the visibility taxing. That said, I would rather have a tailwheel aircraft. RV tailwheels look better (in my opinion!) and no need to consider the nosewheel all the time when taxing/takeoff/landing.
The stall full flaps on mine is 42-44 KIAS.
I fly from a 475m / 1556ft grass runway, with reasonably clear approaches.
Ive got an Ed Sturba and a 150hp engine. My cruise at 2000ft amsl set 2450 rpm at 15c/60f is about 142KIAS with the wheel spats/wheel pants on. I plan to get up to 8000ft or more this year on some longer distance flights as I now have my G5s configured to show TAS, and see what TAS I actually get.
Edited to say I love the 9A as I really dont have any worries on runways with crosswinds, I quite like the visibility taxing. That said, I would rather have a tailwheel aircraft. RV tailwheels look better (in my opinion!) and no need to consider the nosewheel all the time when taxing/takeoff/landing.
Last edited:
I just came back over the weekend from getting my tailwheel endorsement.............such a Blast!! I switched my forever build 9A to a 9 halfway through the build and now I am so glad I did. If anyone wants some fun excellent tailwheel instruction I would recommend Flight Fundamentals Inc out of Willcox AZ. Make a trip out of it and see Chiricahua Nat Monument, Bisbee, and Tombstone for some history. They have three 180 hp American Champion Citabrias and if you request a third day they will take you on a round robin obstacle course over mountains, windmills, deadstick landings on a narrow road, cropduster farm dirt runways, and they have a dead lake bed where you straffe for miles 6" off the ground prepping for wheel landings. Excellent.
Again, Tailwheel endorsement is like an instrument rating....it only makes you a better pilot stick and rudder and you fly more coordinated because you have to. So glad I did it. One other thing is that the final approach speed on the high country citabrias is 65 Knts, similar to most all RV's, so it makes a similar learning platform and the roll and pitch rate is similar as well. Sweet birds. Makes me want to own a Phat tire something in the future and keep the RV for fast longer trips. Hit me up for the place to stay (Hotel) if interested.
Again, Tailwheel endorsement is like an instrument rating....it only makes you a better pilot stick and rudder and you fly more coordinated because you have to. So glad I did it. One other thing is that the final approach speed on the high country citabrias is 65 Knts, similar to most all RV's, so it makes a similar learning platform and the roll and pitch rate is similar as well. Sweet birds. Makes me want to own a Phat tire something in the future and keep the RV for fast longer trips. Hit me up for the place to stay (Hotel) if interested.
Last edited:
Yup. I'm telling you, only taildragger RV pilots think it needs a tailwheel.
And really little kids LOVE it. I’m constantly giving tours, and keep a bag of kids' pilot wings to give out.My numbers are exactly the same, and I can confirm the floatiness if much above 60 kts.
In ordinary circumstances, I also don't go below 70 kts until i'm straight in for final, as I've incorporated the idea of a "defined minimum maneuvering speed" into my flight habits. I configured the EFIS to turn the airspeed number red below 70 as a reminder, and this has proven to be quite handy. I've been playing around with that number; 70 kts is actually pretty generous for a DMMS, but my -9A is easy to slow down, so why not.
No throttling back on mine. Once I lift off, the throttle is full forward until descent. I do fly LOP. Well, PEAK just on the LOP side. Mixture to control fuel. Being a fixed pitch prop the RPM is, well, whatever it is! This lets me cruise around 170 mph (sorry, that would be 148 knots for all the knotheads
) burning around 7-7.5 gph. I have cruised as fast as 190 mph (165 knots) at 9,500 ft on one occasion. That was racing a storm front to get over it and in front of it. That speed I was NOT LOP, but even ROP I was still only burning 9.9 gph. In comparing the 7 with the 9, I will reiterate my previous post. Altitude is the 9s friend! If I stay down in the 4,500 to 6,500 msl range I do believe the 7 is slightly faster at similar power settings. At altitudes above 8,500 I believe the 9 will perform side by side with a 7 at similar power settings, and perhaps even a bit faster.As for the others discussing stall speed, my plane is similar to the others who have posted. On final approach around 80-85 mph (69-73 knots). Touchdown I try to get it down to 60 mph (52 knots). Stall is right around 52 mph (45 knots).
Except for the "flip over" surprise? Or has that been ironed out?
Judging by insurance rates, it's either been ironed out or not nearly the risk it is made out to be, especially on paved runways. I have had no issues on grass either, including some rather rough strips. Stick full back. ALL. THE. TIME.
Martinejim
Active Member
Good performance info. Thanks. Btw - total Vans newb question. But what’s an Ed Sturba?
Martinejim
Active Member
Those cruise numbers are pretty good. I’m hoping for closer to 155kts TAS with the 9 I’m buying. It has a 160hp and a constant speed 3 blade whirlwind prop. I’m ok burning just under 10gals/hr. That’s still 4-5 gals/hr better than the Lance I’m selling. Since I’ll be flying a TW the slower approach speeds will be helpful. I can still get in trouble with a bad landing technique but hopefully that slow I’d have time to recover.No throttling back on mine. Once I lift off, the throttle is full forward until descent. I do fly LOP. Well, PEAK just on the LOP side. Mixture to control fuel. Being a fixed pitch prop the RPM is, well, whatever it is! This lets me cruise around 170 mph (sorry, that would be 148 knots for all the knotheads
As for the others discussing stall speed, my plane is similar to the others who have posted. On final approach around 80-85 mph (69-73 knots). Touchdown I try to get it down to 60 mph (52 knots). Stall is right around 52 mph (45 knots).
9A, solo weight and smooth air, 55 kt is a comfortable sort field approach speed with “normal” approach throttle. I fly the AoA which starts beeping about 55 kt and I am careful to avoid getting slower (excessive sink rate) till just above the ground.
I agree that IAS at slow speeds may not be accurate. My solo weight stall is about 40 kt. Van’s light weight stall figure is 38 kt.
Full flap?
I delete my post.. I need to go back out and fly it again to verify.. I seemed to recall the stall speeds were close to -7 numbers, but now you guys have me second guessing myself.. The -9 really is a sweet little machine, I just prefer the additional sportiness of the -7..
Last edited:
My reasons for a RV-9 are about the same as most.
Since I was building and not buying I could build what I wanted.
IFR capable for mostly CC flights as this is a more stable plane for IFR than a RV-7. I would not get my wife in the back of a RV-8 so the 9 was a good fit.
Flying is about travel but mostly for me about fun. The tailwheel is more Fun.
Since I was building and not buying I could build what I wanted.
IFR capable for mostly CC flights as this is a more stable plane for IFR than a RV-7. I would not get my wife in the back of a RV-8 so the 9 was a good fit.
Flying is about travel but mostly for me about fun. The tailwheel is more Fun.
Ridders
Member
It might help if I spelt it correctly lol. Sorry Ed. Its Ed Sterba - the propeller manufacturer. Its a fixed pitch wood propeller, 68 x 78. (two blade).
Last edited:
Wow, glider tows in a Champ. Must have been an experience! I did the TW endorsement in a Champ, and flew a Pawnee with 235 hp towing gliders for a few years. When it came time to choose an RV model, I wanted to build a -14. Definitely some disadvantages like insurance but for me, more fun, which is my main mission.
Last edited:
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
Mike Seager taught RV9 stall numbers are basically RV7’s minus 10. My experience confirms that. Full flap stall for me solo is about 39-40KIAS. I aim for 55kts on short final, always power off (if I’ve done my intended approach correctly). Any more airspeed than that and I’m floating forever or bouncing the landing with those long -9 mains.
Back to original post… I concur the idea mentioned above that generally those who are drawn to the -9A probably have less interest in aerobatics, are first attracted by the advertised docility of the -9 series and then mistakenly assume that the -9 is not an extremely docile tailwheel and/or they’ve never flown a tailwheel. Thus they choose the 9A. I was drawn to the -9 primarily just because I have found that landing tail wheels just adds a whole lot more fun to my flying. (And, from what I’ve seen, insurance is no more—or at least not significantly more—expensive once you have a a few hours under your belt. At least that’s been my case but I carry liability only, GNIM coverage. YMMV)
Last edited:
Huh? Did you think that you didn't need to fly coordinated before you got your TW endorsement?
If you weren't already flying coordinated it says more about your flight instruction than it does about where the wheels are mounted.
True, and to be fair you can't blame the student too much. You gotta learn. Usually you get it somewhere down the line.
Mine came from flying gliders and tailwheel aircraft, that's where I picked up an innate sense for coordinated flight. And flying with more experienced pilots at the controls.
Some pilots get it early on through family or good instruction, so it might seem abnormal that to them that someone might not know. I think there are a lot of instructors out there that only hit the minimum, although the certification standards emphasize maintaining coordinated flight for all area of operation.
But back to the topic, tailwheel operation is less forgiving and everyone knows it, so nosewheel aircraft predominate for newer kits.
Hahaha. Touche'. Well I think it reflects more on my piloting skills or lack of than anything. At cruise, I don't think most planes like a cirrus or RV need much rudder input, but I found that maneuvering the 180 horse citabria in steep turns or even cruise flight needed constant attention and pressure to be flown coordinated.
But I mainly meant that on final its critical for tailwheel gear aft of CG to be straight longitudinal with the runway on touchdown. Yep, likely like many, guilty as charged for being lazy on the rudder in trike gear because you can get away with more.
What you noticed in the Citabria is a real thing, but it still has nothing to do with being a tailwheel. This is one of the misunderstandings that props up the myths about tailwheel pilots. The Citabria has more adverse yaw than whatever else you have experience in. This comes from the design of the aircraft wings and control surfaces, not where the wheels are mounted. The most common aircraft used for tailwheel instruction also happen to have more adverse yaw than the rest of the training fleet, leading to this poor correlation.
I think you'll find your RV with a tailwheel to be an aircraft that you should fly coordinated like any other, but it won't require nearly the busy feet that the Citabria does.
