What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9 Popularity

jssaylor2007

Active Member
Curious why the 9 seems to be so unpopular? From my admittedly ignorant perspective, it seems to be the most well rounded of the entire fleet. Somewhat of a “jack of all trades” type of aircraft. So again I ask, what makes it so seemingly unpopular? Is it the 14?
 
The NON RV-9s lose no cruise speed efficiency, are stressed for standard aerobatic loads, look more sporty, are less of a kite, and only require 50' or so more runway to land...not that 99% of RV pilots have the need and/or ability to utilize that difference in any practical way.
 
Numbers don’t lie

Based on the Hobbs meter, the 14 is the least popular with only 133 finished. :p

My bias is confirmed every time I go flying. The 9 is the most popular.
 
C152

Vans started out by comparing it to the C152, because the prototype was fitted with a Lycoming O-235 engine.

I think the RV-9A is actually suitable for very many pilots and I guess that some folk who choose an aerobatic model don't end up doing much of that anyway!
 
Last edited:
Just me

I chose a 9 because it is a cruiser and a gentle flyer. I dont do aerobatics because I hate getting pelted with dirt and debris every time I roll over. The 9 suits my mission. In addition, a fixed pitch prop and Injected engine makes for a very easy maintenance schedule. More flying, less dollars and time in the service shop.
 
Just me

Other than the 12, it's the slowest..............

Turns out, top speed is not that important, I think the time difference on a cross country trip between the 7,14 and 9 is nearly irmmaterial. I dont plan to fly near VNE or fast cruise since it just burns too much gas. To me range is more important than saving 20 min on a trip. The comparison should be to driving. For the same gas as my SUV, I am there hours earlier. Now if I drive the Tesla, i am there days earlier when I count the charging stops.
 
Last edited:
Other info

To some, having a lower stall speed, ability to take off in a couple of seconds and be at pattern altitude half way down the runway, routinely get 30mpg, and not sit tail low at 15,000 feet are kinda nice things all bundled into one plane.

Yea, can’t do tail slides but then neither can the other dogs. Yea, the margins are a little smaller so only the best pilots can master a -9. The less experienced ones needs the other models and more margins, which sometimes don’t work out too well.

The -9 is vans best kept secret. Only a small group can enjoy this gem. No regrets.
 
I was shopping -9As or -7As, found a -9A with my preferred equipment list first. I didn’t care about the aerobatics, didn’t care about the extra 5 knots at fuel gulping power settings. I never thought to look into which RV was most popular, only which one worked best for me. I think I made a good choice, but I’m sure I would have been happy with a -7A too.
 
I thought the original poster was asking why the RV-9 is so much less common than the RV-9A. But I may have mis-read the question....maybe RV-9 was being used in a generic sense.
 
The lower 9 numbers compared to the 4, 6, 7 and 8 Can be partially explained by the fact that it is the newest model in this group.

I was tossing up between building a 7A or a 9A but decided on the 9A as I wanted a good cruise speed AND a slow approach speed/good slow speed control authority for my somewhat marginal airstrip

Fin 9A
Australia.
 
Agree

I was shopping -9As or -7As, found a -9A with my preferred equipment list first. I didn’t care about the aerobatics, didn’t care about the extra 5 knots at fuel gulping power settings. I never thought to look into which RV was most popular, only which one worked best for me. I think I made a good choice, but I’m sure I would have been happy with a -7A too.

I couldn’t agree more, I also like having a plane so simple to land, my daughter was landing it when she was 13. One more thing, it sure is happy up high
 
Reason

I would fathom that most people differenate the -9 and the other RV ‘s as either aerobatic or non-aerobatic (Vans states it in their sales literature) and thus they assume that the Gentleman’s aerobatic option will yield more return on their investment when its sold. Over the years I’ve run into many people who have an RV but didn’t know the benefits such as I and others have mentioned. That ignorance probably also played a role in what model they chose.

When I built my first RV-4, I though it was a +6 ,-6g plane and thus the strongest and best kit plane available. My ignorance and Vans update removed 3g’s from that plane but it’s still a great plane. I used to compare the g ratings in the annual kit plane editions years ago as a means to determine which ones was stronger and thus a better value for me. Another factor back then was the speed range. Great selling points but today, hindsight is 20/20 and I would use a lot more factors in determining what was the best plane for me. I’d still choose the -9. 😄



I thought the original poster was asking why the RV-9 is so much less common than the RV-9A. But I may have mis-read the question....maybe RV-9 was being used in a generic sense.
 
Confessions of a -9a builder

I admit it. I have -8 envy, especially painted up like a fighter And with a smoke system. My wife has -10 envy for more room and more baggage. But I’ll keep my 9a. Bird in the hand....
 
I see a lot of WANTED RV9 Posts. Owning one I am a bit biased, but it is an awesome airplane to fly either local or cross country. Stalls like a big baby, lands very easy once you are comfortable in it. If you don't want to go upside down or need 4 seats, the 9 is awesome.
 
I always imagined the 7 as a "sports car" and the 9 as a roadster. Sure the sports car is more nimble and goes faster, but the roadster is better suited to driving 1000 miles. Both are sporty and a lot of fun, but optimized for a different mission.
 
Currently interested in the -9 also. Same reasons as several have mentioned. I have zero desire for aerobatics and just want a decent cross country cruiser. The -9 has been off and on my wish list for several years. Living in Northern MN, all my previous flying has been in high winged types, trikes, TW and Floats. This will be my first foray into the low wing speedier class of planes.

I have a grass strip on my property that's 1800' tree line to tree line and hope to keep it here.

Mainly looking towards finding a RV-9 but will consider the 9A.
 
Well, mine was the 1020th RV-9A flying, compared to an awful lot of other experimental's that's a pretty good record. It might not be the most popular choice in the RV lineup, but that's because Van has designed several different kits for specific missions, giving people the choice to build their perfect RV-x, not just "an RV that's a compromise".

Don't want to go upside down, but carry two people? Build a -9. Want to go upside down and carry two people? Build a -7. Want to go upside down, with a bit more room and oooomph? Build a -14. Can't hold a Medical? Build a -12. Have a family, here's the plans for a -10. Want to fly a turbine? The RV-13 is on the way*.

The point being, all the RV's are an excellent compromise of performance, cost, size, etc, but within that compromise are traits that allow a builder to pick the best compromise to suit their mission.

For over 1,100 builder's, that means a -9 and I love mine, it takes off and lands in under 250m & goes like a scalded cat... I just wish I'd listened to the KRviatrix and built a -10. Then I wouldn't be shopping for a 4-seater now and trying to find one that means I won't go backwards in performance compared to the RV, and it turns out there aren't that many Comanche's or similar around...:p

*Statement may or may not be true! :D
 
The NON RV-9s lose no cruise speed efficiency, are stressed for standard aerobatic loads, look more sporty, are less of a kite, and only require 50' or so more runway to land...not that 99% of RV pilots have the need and/or ability to utilize that difference in any practical way.

Above ~8,000', the -9 shines in comparison to the -4, 6, 7, 8. Landing, the difference is substantial. It'll likely be my next project after flying my -8 for the last 20 years.

What other airplane (for the money) will get you 600 miles at the speeds and altitude, then be able to land at short/relatively unimproved strips? Especially if you put a 180 hp engine with a CS prop up front. Very few.
 
Well, mine was the 1020th RV-9A flying,

Don't know which "flying" number mine was, but it was serial 91691 (1691'st kit purchased Jan 2008) and flew in January 2016 after 8 years of build time. Not what I would call unpopular...

To this day, with all the fly-in's I've been to, and all the people that I've talked to around my airplane, and all the times I've been asked about which model it was - I always answer a "RV9A" and I've never yet had somebody wrinkle their nose and say "Why? Why would you build one of those?"

I've heard "Your cowling looks different" and "Whats this prop?" and "You've got too many fuel caps" and "that's a really sweet panel!" but never any questions about why I would want to build one of THOSE.
 
Last edited:
Don't know which "flying" number mine was, but it was serial 91691 (1691'st kit) and flew in January 2016 after 8 years of build time. Not what I would call unpopular...
26th March 2016 for my first flight, so if I were to guess, you'd be around the 980-1000 mark.
 
Built my 9A as light and simple a possible. Empty weight came in at 1053 pounds. Three blade Catto fixed pitch composite cruise prop, IO320 with 9:1 compression, horizontal cold induction, James speed cowl, plennum and wheel pants. I easily cruise at 150 knots @ 2300 rpm while burning 8.5 gph. After flying a truck (PA-32 260) for fifteen years I have found my dream aircraft, and all with a Vso of 41 knots! My only problem during transition training was getting the aircraft slowed down
 
Back
Top