What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Maybe Building a 9A?

Mark Dickens

Well Known Member
Patron
Now that I have the -8 done and am looking at the potential of having nothing to keep me busy this winter, I am looking a building a 9A as a cross country machine for my wife and me. The -8 is a great plane and I have no plans to sell it but it doesn't really work for the wife and me as a "go to the beach for a weekend" plane.

So, I looked at the -14...great kit that costs an arm and a leg, not to mention the 390 angle valve engine. I want something I won't feel guilty building. The 9A looks like it might be the best compromise, so I am seriously considering it. Plus I really like the idea of the O-320 and the lower fuel burn!

The Vans website claims that it's matched hole. But I've seen posts indicating that maybe it isn't completely matched hole. Which is it? Would I need to build wing and fuse jigs like I did for the -8? Not interested in doing that again. I just want to build the plane, not build the jigs.

Thoughts?
 
Maybe Building a 9A

Bought my tail kit in 2004. All 9A kits are completely matched hole. Currently working on the canopy (which isn't matched hole ;))
 
You'll need a frame to hold the wings while working on them, but not a "jig" like you're thinking of. You could build what's needed in a couple hours.
 
I know one couple that built their early-9 wings on a pair of sawhorses with no twist at all.

BTW, put the little wheel in back, you won't be sorry.
 
I know one couple that built their early-9 wings on a pair of sawhorses with no twist at all.

BTW, put the little wheel in back, you won't be sorry.

Heresy!

Quit trying to screw up the new recruits! :D
 
I know one couple that built their early-9 wings on a pair of sawhorses with no twist at all.

BTW, put the little wheel in back, you won't be sorry.

And I can build with one eye closed and one hand holding my girl friend. But why would I?
 
BTW, put the little wheel in back, you won't be sorry.
I'm really enjoying the tail wheel challenge in the -8 but the wife likes the level attitude of the nose dragger so if I go forward, it'll be a A model. I'd really be targeting her preferences in this build, since I did everything my way on the -8.
 
Just to be clear for everybody. The RV-7, 8, 9 and 10 are "prepunched" designs. Only the RV-12 and 14 are "matched hole".
 
Get a reamer or two

Mark,

You won't need a jig to put the structures together which you cleco together like on your 8 but you will need to ream the holes to final size before riveting together unlike on the 12 and 14. I love my 9A.
 
Mark,

You won't need a jig to put the structures together which you cleco together like on your 8 but you will need to ream the holes to final size before riveting together unlike on the 12 and 14. I love my 9A.

I have no problem with that. It's funny how the terminology has evolved. There's pre-punched, matched hole and now final size matched hole. Next the holes will be dimpled for you with clecos pre-installed!

The important thing to me is not having to spend lots of time constructing and truing up jigs.
 
RV-8

Mark,

I'm new to VAF and considering building a 7 or 8 or 9. But as yet, undecided on which way to go. You mentioned in your post that "The -8 is a great plane and I have no plans to sell it but it doesn't really work for the wife and me as a "go to the beach for a weekend" plane."

Could you elaborate on why the 8 isn't a "go to the beach for the weekend" plane? My understanding, albeit from Van's marketing, was that the 8 was a great cross-country aircraft.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

John
 
Mark,

I'm new to VAF and considering building a 7 or 8 or 9. But as yet, undecided on which way to go. You mentioned in your post that "The -8 is a great plane and I have no plans to sell it but it doesn't really work for the wife and me as a "go to the beach for a weekend" plane."

Could you elaborate on why the 8 isn't a "go to the beach for the weekend" plane? My understanding, albeit from Van's marketing, was that the 8 was a great cross-country aircraft.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

John

It IS a great cross-country machine, but what you don't know is that my wife is 4'10" tall and it's a process getting her in and out. Plus she doesn't like the tandem set up or the close confines, like so many other wives and girlfriends. The -8 is a great plane, lots of fun to fly, fast and for me by myself, a great cross-country machine but if I want my wife to come with me, it's going to require sitting next to me not behind me.

If your wife or GF is tall and/or skinny (my wife is neither) and doesn't mind sitting in the back under an acrylic bubble, you're golden. There's a reason Vans quit designing new tandem planes and focused on side by side designs, and I'm sure this is one of the contributing factors.
 
My wife told me if I expected her to look at the back of my head while we're flying, she would just stay home! Made the tandem versus side-by-side decision easy for me! :)
 
I would add that if your primary mission is cross country flying without any aerobatic capability, it's hard to beat the -9 with its Roncz airfoil and longer wing. Very efficient design for that mission profile.
 
My wife told me if I expected her to look at the back of my head while we're flying, she would just stay home! Made the tandem versus side-by-side decision easy for me! :)

I've had a view of the back of my head and it's not a pretty sight!
 
Excellent cross country airplane

Complete my 9A in 2006, and have flown many cross country trips (200 to 800 miles). With the O320, 160 hp, it is a great machine. Go for it, you won't be sorry. BTW, it is a prepunched kit.
 
It IS a great cross-country machine, but what you don't know is that my wife is 4'10" tall and it's a process getting her in and out. Plus she doesn't like the tandem set up or the close confines, like so many other wives and girlfriends. The -8 is a great plane, lots of fun to fly, fast and for me by myself, a great cross-country machine but if I want my wife to come with me, it's going to require sitting next to me not behind me.

If your wife or GF is tall and/or skinny (my wife is neither) and doesn't mind sitting in the back under an acrylic bubble, you're golden. There's a reason Vans quit designing new tandem planes and focused on side by side designs, and I'm sure this is one of the contributing factors.

Thanks, Mark! I'm glad I asked. You taught me to consider this decision with my wifes perspective in mind. As much as I know that I'd enjoy the 8, I think a side by side is right for me.
 
I started a 9 in a previous life and still am thinking about finishing it. The 14 is sweet as well and yes it's much more expensive. Having said that the kit on the 14 is really advanced over what 9 kit is.

The 14 plans are integrated like the 12. So the steps of the build have the drawings for the step with them. You have no idea how much better that is. The 9 plans were the best at the time, just like many of the construction techniques. The 14 is the king right now. That's why it's build time is soooo much less than that of a 9.

I still like the 9 and its a plane I can afford to build. Because of that I'm dusting my emp off, but I sure wish it had some the build features of the 14 (pull rivets, holes already the final size, planes, canopy, etc.). It's just not going to happen. So onward and upward with the 9!

Bob
 
I started a 9 in a previous life and still am thinking about finishing it. The 14 is sweet as well and yes it's much more expensive. Having said that the kit on the 14 is really advanced over what 9 kit is.

The 14 plans are integrated like the 12. So the steps of the build have the drawings for the step with them. You have no idea how much better that is. The 9 plans were the best at the time, just like many of the construction techniques. The 14 is the king right now. That's why it's build time is soooo much less than that of a 9.

I still like the 9 and its a plane I can afford to build. Because of that I'm dusting my emp off, but I sure wish it had some the build features of the 14 (pull rivets, holes already the final size, planes, canopy, etc.). It's just not going to happen. So onward and upward with the 9!

Bob
My RV-8 kit was the old kit. No matched hole and drawings that are primitive in comparison to the -14, but I didn't find it hard to follow them. Since I don't plan to sell my -8, keeping costs down is important, so the -9 seems to be the right choice.
 
I hear my -9(A) in the overhead right now. It only has about 2000hrs on it. The only thing I wish for is an IO-360 simply for time to climb to FL180 where the fun really begins. I've been really eyeing that beautiful Barrett IO-360 sitting on the shop floor for some time now...
 
"Pre-punched" vs. "matched hole"

Just to be clear for everybody. The RV-7, 8, 9 and 10 are "prepunched" designs. Only the RV-12 and 14 are "matched hole".

If the "9" was only "pre-punched", I don't think I would have bought my tail kit back in '99 (kit number 116). I saw the "matched hole" RV-9A (no tail dragger initially offered) kit at OSH in 1999, and it was on display at the VAN's booth all clicoed together right out of the box, which was amazing to see! Seeing that convinced me that VAN's new "matched hole" technology would save me much time and fussing over the RV-6A, which was labeled as having "pre-punched" wing skins (but not the ribs).

So, has the official definition of "pre-punched" and "matched hole" changed recently?

Doug
RV-9A Mazda 13B/ FWF
RV-3A / O-290G (sold)
 
It sounds like things may have changed since I bought my emp kit. It was an RV-9 tri-gear. There was no dragon tail yet.

Bob
 
Last edited:
It sounds like things may have changed since I bought my emp kit. It was an RV-9 tri-gear. There was no dragon tail yet.

Bob

I waited to order my -9 tail kit until Van's came out with a dragon tail version. Even then, one person on the helpdesk did his best to try and talk me out of putting the little wheel in the back.

The -9 is one of the easiest taildraggers I have ever flown!

Truly an amazing aircraft!
 
I'm really enjoying the tail wheel challenge in the -8 but the wife likes the level attitude of the nose dragger so if I go forward, it'll be a A model. I'd really be targeting her preferences in this build, since I did everything my way on the -8.

Our wives must be in the same club. Exactly the same situation here. I've always been a tailwheel guy (including my -8), but the -14A is for her comfort. Whether she winds up doing any more flying (or any more non-complaining flying) remains to be seen...
 
I hear my -9(A) in the overhead right now. It only has about 2000hrs on it. The only thing I wish for is an IO-360 simply for time to climb to FL180 where the fun really begins. I've been really eyeing that beautiful Barrett IO-360 sitting on the shop floor for some time now...

Do it - you'll never look back.
 
Do it - you'll never look back.

Oh, man, don't tempt me. Our wing is just so happy up there and a joy to watch the miles just tick away at almost no fuel flow while sucking O2, eating a sandwich (always tastes better at altitude), above "some" of the summer puffies. A lot of other RV pilots don't know what we know :).
The mixture adjustment up there with the O320 is a micro turn between happy and very un-happy engine :). And, man, passing through 15k' in the climb, more HP please! I'm a "pilot", I can manage the power just as well as any other professional that can over speed their airframe too.
There, I said it, I feel better :).

Let's see, N4822C, V.2 - new panel, tail dragger conversion, IO-360. Mission: Long haul, high altitude, 2-up... I think I even have a plan sold to the CFO. Other ships available for all the other down low stuff.
 
Oh, man, don't tempt me. Our wing is just so happy up there and a joy to watch the miles just tick away at almost no fuel flow while sucking O2, eating a sandwich (always tastes better at altitude), above "some" of the summer puffies. A lot of other RV pilots don't know what we know :).
The mixture adjustment up there with the O320 is a micro turn between happy and very un-happy engine :). And, man, passing through 15k' in the climb, more HP please! I'm a "pilot", I can manage the power just as well as any other professional that can over speed their airframe too.
There, I said it, I feel better :).

Let's see, N4822C, V.2 - new panel, tail dragger conversion, IO-360. Mission: Long haul, high altitude, 2-up... I think I even have a plan sold to the CFO. Other ships available for all the other down low stuff.

If I'm solo with full (standard) fuel, I'm just dialing the autopilot back from 500 fpm to 400 fpm holding about 95 knots in the climb as I'm coming up on 17,500.
 
Truly an amazing aircraft!

Ditto what Bill said. I had never flown a dragon tail until I built my -9, (except for the tail wagger endorsement). Great flying plane with good visibility over the nose using the Van's tail wheel. Perfect plane to get me and my spousal unit anywhere, quickly, economically and comfortably.

Slightly, slightly less expensive than the -9A.

Robert
 
Back
Top