I'm in the process of getting my license so I could spend more time with the family because of work and been looking at the 9A but in keeping the cost down I could fly out of a grass strip a lot closer to the house and was thinking a taildragger would suit this better. So to build a 9 or 9A? This build I was thinking of 2 to 4 years.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
9 or 9A question
- Thread starter Mike20xdc
- Start date
Welcome to VAF.
Are you training in a tailwheel plane? If no, call an insurance agent (I recommend Gallagher) specializing in RVs and ask how much tailwheel training/time they will require for a new pilot. These numbers change all the time but you don't want to be taken by surprise. This may influence your choice.
Are you training in a tailwheel plane? If no, call an insurance agent (I recommend Gallagher) specializing in RVs and ask how much tailwheel training/time they will require for a new pilot. These numbers change all the time but you don't want to be taken by surprise. This may influence your choice.
Being the owner of a RV9 I can assure you that it is one of the easiest most forgiving tail wheel aircraft I've ever flown. I have over 2900 hours in 14 different tail wheel models from a J3 to a DC 3. With that in mind I assure you that given your experience level you will be better served with the 9A. Your training will go much faster and you will fly the 9a on days you would not even consider taking the 9 out.
After you get the insurance quote you'll see they don't think it's such a good idea either. As for the grass strip, not a problem for the 9A, just ask Vlad. He collects then routinely.
After you get the insurance quote you'll see they don't think it's such a good idea either. As for the grass strip, not a problem for the 9A, just ask Vlad. He collects then routinely.
Last edited:
I've flown before a friend of mine has a Cub and several Seaplanes I've taken off and landed both it's just been about 6 years. I have more time in seaplanes. I should have gotten my ppl but just didn't have the funds to do it but I do now. In landing I found it was harder to land the seaplane than the cub. The only thing I was concerned about was the nose wheel on the grass.
Last edited:
Michael welcome! Bill Repucci has a nice signature line - build aircraft you want not what others tell you. So we are a bit biased here. 
I built my 9A before I had pilot license and I chose "the training wheel". I sometimes go to some unimproved strips my buddies don't even think of landing their TW there. Recently I gave a ride to a foreign guest who bought an RV7 but never flown an A model and he was pleasantly surprised. He said he might think of losing some appearance and convert. Or so he said...
I built my 9A before I had pilot license and I chose "the training wheel". I sometimes go to some unimproved strips my buddies don't even think of landing their TW there. Recently I gave a ride to a foreign guest who bought an RV7 but never flown an A model and he was pleasantly surprised. He said he might think of losing some appearance and convert. Or so he said...
Greg Arehart
Well Known Member
You can convert from the 9A to a 9 later in life if you so decide. Will cost you about $3k to do the conversion but you can recoup some of that by selling the parts. I converted mine at about 220 hours, now have almost 800.
Greg
Greg
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
The nose gear on grass is NOT an issue. My 9A lives on a 3K' grass strip. Going on 6 years now with at least one landing of every flight on grass. The plane doesn't know the difference. The pilot is the factor when landing on grass. Learn the in's and out's of landing your aircraft in any environment and you will be fine whichever way you choose to go.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
one more option
all good ideas; since you are building, you can prepare for an easy conversion to tailwheel if that's your eventual goal.
I think some TD training and the insurance should be tolerable after you have 100 hours on type.
Why not build the 9A, with 10 gear? Quite a few folks have put larger main tires ( 6.00x6") and the -10 nose yoke with a 5.00x5" tire/wheel.
There aren't too many places you can't go with those.
I'd lean towards a constant speed prop so you can get full takeoff power from a 180 hp to get OUT of those soft, short strips that you so easily go IN to!
all good ideas; since you are building, you can prepare for an easy conversion to tailwheel if that's your eventual goal.
I think some TD training and the insurance should be tolerable after you have 100 hours on type.
Why not build the 9A, with 10 gear? Quite a few folks have put larger main tires ( 6.00x6") and the -10 nose yoke with a 5.00x5" tire/wheel.
There aren't too many places you can't go with those.
I'd lean towards a constant speed prop so you can get full takeoff power from a 180 hp to get OUT of those soft, short strips that you so easily go IN to!
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
Get your license, then an hour or to two in tail wheel aircraft, THEN decide what YOU want. You don't have to commit until you order the fuselage... That may be a while.
Insurance shouldn't be significantly more once you have your tail wheel endorsement hours plus your transition training in a tail wheel RV, the latter I did with Mike seager in his RV 7. That's all the tail wheel hours I had, about 14, and only about 200 hours overall.
Like someone else said above, the -9 is a piece of cake to fly, it has NEVER wanted to go a round on me. But it's just challenging enough to make every landing more fun than than it used to be on nose wheel aircraft. It's added a new dimension to my flying, in other words.
If I were going to be landing on grass every day, I would be much more comfortable doing it with a tailwheel, though others have shown that the nose wheel versions, with or without the antisplat nose gear mod, can generally handle grass just fine too with proper technique.
Again, though, finish your ppl, get a couple tail wheel hours, then decide. Good luck.
Last edited:
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
I am going to politely disagree with this idea. Constant speed ads a considerable amount of weight on the nose gear. Landing on soft fields with a nose gear RV is NOT going to be the same as landing on soft fields with a nose gear Piper/Cessna. That extra weight the constant speed prop brings ads considerable risk that, in my opinion, is detrimental to repeatable successful soft field landings.I'd lean towards a constant speed prop so you can get full takeoff power from a 180 hp to get OUT of those soft, short strips that you so easily go IN to!
On another note about
Again one does not fly these RV's as one does a Piper/Cessna. That includes the notion that being under powered for takeoff is a similar issue to address. The power to weight ratio of RV's is much better with the RV. If one has a 180 hp RV with a fixed pitched prop appropriately configured for such an engine and airframe combination I will opine there will be no issues with getting OUT of a soft, short strip. To use my 9A as an example. I have a 180 hp engine with a fixed pitched Catto prop. Just this past Saturday on a 92 deg 80-90% humidity day and DA at 3500', I was able to take off and climb at 1400 fpm on initial climb out.
Constant speed props are very nice to have but there most definitely are some drawbacks to operating them. Weight on the nose is one of those drawbacks that must be considered when evaluating continued use of the airplane on soft, short field runways.
My .02.
Live Long and Prosper!
As a reference, I did a poll a couple of years ago and asked:
Did you build an A-model or Tailwheel?
Would you do it again?
Do you want to change it?
Did you change it?
1) The bottom line was that 50% are built as A-models, 50% as TW
2) 10% that were A-models either wish they had a TW or actually changed to a TW
3) Only one TW owner wanted to change to an A-model and did.
So, they are 50/50 as built, and 60/40 TW to A-model if all owners had what they wanted. The total response population was 132.
This is not a commentary on what is better, or for sure it is not a commentary on what you should do, but is just info about what is out there today along with owner's preferences.
HTH
Tim
Did you build an A-model or Tailwheel?
Would you do it again?
Do you want to change it?
Did you change it?
1) The bottom line was that 50% are built as A-models, 50% as TW
2) 10% that were A-models either wish they had a TW or actually changed to a TW
3) Only one TW owner wanted to change to an A-model and did.
So, they are 50/50 as built, and 60/40 TW to A-model if all owners had what they wanted. The total response population was 132.
This is not a commentary on what is better, or for sure it is not a commentary on what you should do, but is just info about what is out there today along with owner's preferences.
HTH
Tim
agirard7a
Well Known Member
9a-9
I'm building a 9 that I converted from a 9a. Having flown
A tail dragger 3 for 250 hrs, personal preference to the tail wheel.
With the right technique keeping the nose wheel off the ground as much as possible, you'll be fine, however, I do like the look of the tail dragger. You don't want to come in hot and 3 point a nose wheel!! Hold the plane 6" off the runway, nose high, disapate energy and touch down on the mains only, all the time!
I'm building a 9 that I converted from a 9a. Having flown
A tail dragger 3 for 250 hrs, personal preference to the tail wheel.
With the right technique keeping the nose wheel off the ground as much as possible, you'll be fine, however, I do like the look of the tail dragger. You don't want to come in hot and 3 point a nose wheel!! Hold the plane 6" off the runway, nose high, disapate energy and touch down on the mains only, all the time!
Last edited:
PerfTech
Well Known Member
... I see some things here that are not exactly correct, so I will input my opinion. Firstly, I have had many many props on our RV-9A starting with the F/P Sencinitch at 45.3 lb. with spacer and spinner. We now have the Whirlwind 200 RV 40.2 lb. with spinner. That is a 5.1 lb. reduction in weight, with tremendous performance increases. We plan just over 200 mph for cross country, and usually are 207 mph. With full fuel and pilot our initial climb rate is 2,700 fpm and have 1,300 fpm at 10,000 ft. We routinely operate out of a 500 ft long runway and only require 50% of that for take off. These numbers are virtually unachievable with a F/P propeller. Catto is a very good friend of mine and we worked together playing musical propellers on our RV-9A as well as some others, to get the best combo of climb and speed. His prop was actually faster, but didn't have the climb performance and required a higher rpm to achieve the speed. As for 9A or 9, The A model is more forgiving on landings and that is very nice when trying to get in on very short fields. I compete in a lot of spot and short landing contests with our 9-A and find it a joy to win with (personal best, shortest landing 197 ft). To us, the A models with a few little mods offer a safer more versatile little airplane. This from a guy with over 3K tail wheel hrs. Thanks, Allan..
PerfTech
Well Known Member
...Hello Paul
Yes that is TAS! We usually are high 10,500 to 14,500 but the interesting thing is the airspeed is always the same and the fuel burn goes lower with altitude. At 9,000 about 8 gph and at 14,500 about 7.1 average. My plane is very clean and we changed the rigging around a bit. It weighs 1,002 lbs, and I always try to run with as much aft c/g as possible. Regards, Allan..
grubbat
Well Known Member
not so fast you -9 drivers.....
Now Allan,
You know that the -9 is the weaker vessel of the Van fleet and we shouldn't be sharing those speeds with the general population. We don't want them to get any ideas that the -9 is the hidden jewel of all the Van's designs.
Seriously, thanks for sharing the numbers Allan. Hope I am able to get some respectful speeds after I retrofit tundra tires on my -9 build......
Now Allan,
You know that the -9 is the weaker vessel of the Van fleet and we shouldn't be sharing those speeds with the general population. We don't want them to get any ideas that the -9 is the hidden jewel of all the Van's designs.
Seriously, thanks for sharing the numbers Allan. Hope I am able to get some respectful speeds after I retrofit tundra tires on my -9 build......
... We plan just over 200 mph for cross country, and usually are 207 mph. ..
bret
Well Known Member
...Hello Paul
Yes that is TAS! We usually are high 10,500 to 14,500 but the interesting thing is the airspeed is always the same and the fuel burn goes lower with altitude. At 9,000 about 8 gph and at 14,500 about 7.1 average. My plane is very clean and we changed the rigging around a bit. It weighs 1,002 lbs, and I always try to run with as much aft c/g as possible. Regards, Allan..
Care to share your changes, engine offset angle? HS incidence?
PerfTech
Well Known Member
Could you please elaborate on this. I didn't think putting -10 nose gear on a 9A could or had been done.
flyboy1963
Well Known Member
search? for ???
not sure how you'd search for it, but try 'Bevan' on here, he's done it on his 'big nose' -7a.
not sure how you'd search for it, but try 'Bevan' on here, he's done it on his 'big nose' -7a.
N941WR
Legacy Member
First, build the plane you want, the rest will sort its self out.
My -9 started life as a taildragger 730 hours ago and never once did I wish I had a -9A.
I have time in 80+ different makes and models, many of them taildraggers and the -9 is probably THE easiest taildragger I have ever flown. To the point that I don't worry about crosswind landings because it flies like an RV and you can put it where you want it and hold it there. The strongest wind I have landed in was a 32 knot direct crosswind and that was pretty much the limit.
Insurance will not be an issue, after you get about a 100 hours in type, which should happen in the first year. After that, it will be pretty much equal to a -9A.
Don't fear the TW endorsement. Look at this way, it probably took you around 10 hours to go from zero to solo. It will take you about 10 hours to go from zero TW time to TW solo and who among us couldn't use 10 more hours of instruction. Heck, do it as part of your flight review.
My -9 started life as a taildragger 730 hours ago and never once did I wish I had a -9A.
I have time in 80+ different makes and models, many of them taildraggers and the -9 is probably THE easiest taildragger I have ever flown. To the point that I don't worry about crosswind landings because it flies like an RV and you can put it where you want it and hold it there. The strongest wind I have landed in was a 32 knot direct crosswind and that was pretty much the limit.
Insurance will not be an issue, after you get about a 100 hours in type, which should happen in the first year. After that, it will be pretty much equal to a -9A.
Don't fear the TW endorsement. Look at this way, it probably took you around 10 hours to go from zero to solo. It will take you about 10 hours to go from zero TW time to TW solo and who among us couldn't use 10 more hours of instruction. Heck, do it as part of your flight review.
I don't have to worry about a short field it's 3900'x125'. I've only landed a tail wheel once but taken off a few now I've got about 500 hours in a seaplane with a friend and landed and taken off numerous times under his guidance. My concern was just the strength of the nose wheel but it looks like that could be a non issue but I would have a year or two to make that decision.
...The most effective changes we did wouldn't work for the RV-7..
Well I'd like to know myself since I have a 9A with a 160HP. Now mine weighs a little more (1068) and it will make just over 200MPH but that would be tough in cruise and certainly not at 8GPH. Granted I have a CATTO prop. But I fly the altitudes you do also.
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
+1. Flying a 9A and always looking for potential for increasing efficiency.
I would also like to understand your take on flying so close to Vne (210 TAS) at those speeds. Have your mods altered structure in any way?
