I would use more then "cool" as a reason to build something. After all you hate to spend all that time building and then not like the way it flys/handles.
When I built my 6A, the "Eights" were not in production yet. The Four was a bit small, and I wasn't thrilled with the look of the Six in taildragger mode. It's pudgy wings showed too much, and didn't have the sleekness in looks of a tri-geared Glasair or Lancair. IMO, the Glasair looked great as a tri-gear, but not so hot as a taildragger.
Never the less, I was on the fence with the decision for months. Then the Pitts S2B I had been taking a aerobatic course in............hit a plane hauling tractor that had run out of gas on the ramp. The sun was in the pilots eyes, while S-turning. It was damaged enough to require disassembly & shipment back to the factory.
In the meantime, my uncle, who had been in the Airforce full time since WWII, suggested that the tri-gear was better for the "mission". After all, it's the reason most military aircraft are now with nose wheels. Better forward visibility, improved crosswind behavior, and much less chance of ground loops.
So.............I finally went with the 6A. Had the "8" been out, I probably would have bought one, as I'm a P-51D Mustang fan. It would have been a tail wheel. If I ever get another aircraft, it will be a back country bush plane. And it would be a taildragger & most likely tube & rags.
Still, my 6A looks sleeker on the ramp, and I like the forward visibility. I have no regrets in building the tri-gear version. To be honest........RV's really look better as retractables! And the taildragging RV's are certainly not real "bush" planes either...
L.Adamson -- RV6A