"Charlie" wrote in message
.. .
Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)


Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

I guess Van is going to get a check after all. I did read somewhere
exactly what Charlie said - the RV9 is the most stable platform that
Van has offered, great for IFR (even though that's not my intent for
now). So, time to bite the bullet, fatten up the piggy-bank and face
the inevitable - although that's not too onerous 8-)...

Thanks again!

Bill - Probably a future RV9 builder.................