Considering a RV-6A But.......

[Mooney Fan]

I'm wrapped around the axle on whether or not to buy a homebuilt.

I know these aircraft are reliable and have an excellent safety record.

I'm not certain a risk analysis would conclude the RV6A is more likely to have issues than say a 1967 Piper Cherokee.

I need to start at the VANS forum and see what information I can find there because this plane is tugging at my wallet big time.

Only thing I can think of is gain knowledge to get past the hurdle.

((((sigh)))))

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can't help except to say that they are fun to fly and about 40 KTS faster than that Cherokee

 

[tsts4]

Everything you could want to know about RVs is here:

Van's Air Force

Doug Reeves Vans Aircraft Kit Forum Official Build Experimental RV

vansairforce.net

 

[pfarber]

Unless you REALLY REALLY want the 'experience' of building an airplane, just buy one.

I've been working on my E/AB for 5 years now and its plans built... I enjoy making the parts and figuring things out and adding my own customization... but its very daunting when I realize that I I have to build EVERY SINGLE PART.

AnPs are much 'warmer' (a little) to doing the condition inspection especially on an RV, they are such a known quantity.

 

[Lowflynjack]

RV-6 is a great plane. I've never built one, but flown quite a few. When buying one, find a builder to go with you and look it over. We have some guys in our area that have built several and know what to look for. Especially on the RV-4 & RV-6, there was no quick-build kit, so they took more skill to build and often have more build issues.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I had a few issues with my already done been built (not an RV) but nothing I couldn't fix. I would suggest getting your head underneath the panel and looking at the wiring - nice and neat? More likely a careful builder. Looks like ****? More likely the guy was more focused on getting it done.

And, fwiw, something like a T-18, Tailwind, etc. will get you similar performance without the designer label price.

 

[wanttaja]

I'm wrapped around the axle on whether or not to buy a homebuilt.

I know these aircraft are reliable and have an excellent safety record.

I'm not certain a risk analysis would conclude the RV6A is more likely to have issues than say a 1967 Piper Cherokee.

Well, I think a 10-year-old RV would probably have fewer problems than a 50-year-old Cherokee.

I looked at the Vans's accident record a couple of years ago:

Homebuilt Accidents: Focus on Van’s - KITPLANES

The RV series has an excellent safety record.

www.kitplanes.com

Coincidentally, a Cherokee owner's group had me compile the same sort of data about 15 years ago. Doing a quick comparison with the RV-6 data from my homebuilt database....

(The Cherokee data is for the PA-28-140, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, and PA-28-181)

One of the major difference one usually sees when comparing homebuilts to production aircraft is a higher rate of loss of power accidents in the homebuilt fleet. These are not just mechanical issues, it includes pilot factors such as running out of gas.

Surprisingly, the results are nearly the same for the RV-6 as the Cherokee group. 28% for the RV-6s, 25.% for the Cheroees. This is about 14% for Cessna 172s.

More instances of builder error for the RV, of course (but the result is non-zero for the Cherokee). Accidents involving maintainer error were very close, 5.1% for the RV-6, 5.2 for the Cherokees.

The Cherokee does have a lower rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents...about 40% of Cherokee accidents involved stick-and-rudder errors by the pilot, vs. 48% of the RVs. What's interesting here is that the median pilot experience for the RVs was three times that of the Cherokee! (985 hours vs. 320 hours).

About 15% of the RV accidents involved mechanical failure of some type, vs. 10% of the Cherokee accidents. For both aircraft, roughly a third of that was engine-related.

Fuel exhaustion rate for Cherokees was about three times higher than the RVs...9%, vs. 3.3%. Rate of continued VFR into IFR was also about three times higher for the Cherokee. The higher degree of pilot experience probably contributed the lower RV rate.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[kmacht]

Right now I would recommend oy buying one already done, not building one. Vans went through bankruptcy earlier this year and is still struggling through a restructuring and figuring out finances. It's unlikely they will ever just disappear but many are still having problems getting parts they ordered and most that haven't taken delivery of everything before the bankruptcy we're only given the option of paying a thousands more than agreed on in the purchase contract or risk losing it all duing the bankruptcy restructuring since they are unsecured creditors. VANs seems to be doing the best they can right now but I'm not sure I would give them a substantial sum of money right now unless you are taking physical delivery at the factory.

 

[Tools]

Good airplane. One of the few homebuilts that will keep its value.

Relatively easy to inspect. There are guys who specialize in pre buys for them.

No red flags here.

It is nice to buy from the builder, but hardly necessary. Like ANY equipment, the closer to original, the better.

 

[catmandu]

I like to buy cool tools and turn wrenches on machines I own. Being able to do that on an EAB airplane was a huge draw. But I also know what I don’t know. So I first dipped my toes into the owner assisted MX world on the Arrow we were partnered in, up to and including an engine change. That gave me confidence, and I settled on RV’s as the plane of choice. But I also realized (via Van’s Air Force) there were smarter folks out there to guide me through a purchase. I had a broker of sorts help me weed through the planes for sale, and even though I wanted an RV-8, he convinced me to purchase an RV-6a that met 90% of my criteria. As suggested above, we had a very experienced builder (but not a mechanic) local to the potential plane check it out, and subsequently purchased it. I spent six years flying, maintaining, and upgrading the plane. I was careful to always walk over to the MX shop and ask “am I doing this right?”

That was how I got over the hump. So much so, that when the time came three years ago to swap the -6a for the -8 I wanted in the first place, I felt confident enough to evaluate the plane myself prior to purchasing.

 

[midwestpa24]

The Cherokee does have a lower rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents...about 40% of Cherokee accidents involved stick-and-rudder errors by the pilot, vs. 48% of the RVs. What's interesting here is that the median pilot experience for the RVs was three times that of the Cherokee! (985 hours vs. 320 hours).

I'd wager that difference is due to difference in capabilities of the two aircraft. The RV being higher performance and aerobatic capable has led to at least a few accidents when pilots exceeded either their own or the aircraft's capability. I know of several RV accidents that were the result of "showing off".

 

[hindsight2020]

welcome to fight club, fellow 6a shopper. no hits below the belt, but hair pulling and sissy scratching is allowed. May the odds be forever in your favor. *cracks knuckles*

 

[jsstevens]

[snip]

[context-references running out of gas]
Surprisingly, the results are nearly the same for the RV-6 as the Cherokee group. 28% for the RV-6s, 25.% for the Cheroees. This is about 14% for Cessna 172s.
[snip]

Ron Wanttaja

I wonder if having to switch tanks in the Cherokee vs Skyhawk accounts for the difference in those two? Fuel exhaustion va starvation?

 

[wanttaja]

I wonder if having to switch tanks in the Cherokee vs Skyhawk accounts for the difference in those two? Fuel exhaustion va starvation?

I do track starvation (fuel still in aircraft, not configured to feed the engine) differently from exhaustion (no gas left).

2.2% of the RV-6 accidents were starvation, vs. 3.8 for the Cherokees and 0.8% for Cessna 172s.

However, this does depend on the wording of the NTSB report, so there could be some error. Also, the fact that the fuel has to be managed could affect exhaustion as well (thought there was still fuel in the other tank, etc.).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Dana]

The Cherokee does have a lower rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents...about 40% of Cherokee accidents involved stick-and-rudder errors by the pilot, vs. 48% of the RVs. What's interesting here is that the median pilot experience for the RVs was three times that of the Cherokee! (985 hours vs. 320 hours).

That may (just speculating here) just reflect the experience level of RV owners in general. I'd guess that low time pilots / first time aircraft owners are more likely to buy a standard certified aircraft. My first plane was certified (Taylorcraft), but every airplane I've owned since then has been experimental.

 

[jcurry]

+1 for the RV6! I think experimental is the best way to go. It affords you many options in regards to maintenance, parts, powerplant, avionics....

 

[ateamer]

The Cherokee does have a lower rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents...about 40% of Cherokee accidents involved stick-and-rudder errors by the pilot, vs. 48% of the RVs. What's interesting here is that the median pilot experience for the RVs was three times that of the Cherokee! (985 hours vs. 320 hours).

Do you have stats on tri-gear vs tailwheel RV miscontrol mishaps? I could see that while the RV pilots have more time, many of them are probably moving to a tailwheel after years of flying trikes. Also, anything on recency of experience, and how long they’d had their RV?

 

[Walboy]

RVs are hot. Don’t underestimate how uncomfortable it could get even with the shades.

 

[Daleandee]

RVs are hot. Don’t underestimate how uncomfortable it could get even with the shades.

I have a bubble canopy Sonex and it also has that E-Z Bake Oven thing going on ...

 

[wanttaja]

Do you have stats on tri-gear vs tailwheel RV miscontrol mishaps? I could see that while the RV pilots have more time, many of them are probably moving to a tailwheel after years of flying trikes. Also, anything on recency of experience, and how long they’d had their RV?

I don't record the recency of experience. I do have the total time in the type of aircraft, but from what I can tell, the NTSB only records the last 90 days/last 30 days data regarding total time, not just in the accident aircraft.

Also have no convenient way to identify how long they'd owned the RV. I do estimate whether the airplane is owned by the builder vs. a purchaser based on the aircraft total time vs. time in type.

Breaking down RV statistics into taildragger vs. trigear has its problems. Vans' standard is that the trigear RVs are -A models. The NTSB does include the landing gear type as a separate entry. Out of my 101 entries for RV-6/RV-6A aircraft listed as having tricycle gear, 26 them are listed as RV-6 (e.g., no "A"). So if you do your own analysis, don't rely on the RV-6/RV-6A convention.

Anyway, out of 272 total entries, 168 are tricycle gear, 101 are taildraggers. The rest had blanks in the "landing gear" column; two were RV-6s, one was an RV-6A. In both cases, the percentage of aircraft that were owned by subsequent owners was about half. (Note that this determination is a rough one, based on the aircraft having more time than the pilot's time-in-type, with a bit of margin granted to reflect ground-testing time.)

Pilots of the tailwheel varieties had almost twice the number of hours as the tricycle-gear pilots. Median of 1,532 hours total time, vs. 800 hours.

Both types had roughly the same percentage of Pilot Miscontrol accidents... 47.5% for taildraggers, 48.2% for the trigears. However, the type of mistake showed some interesting variations...


(Note that the percentages don't add up to 100% as multiple events could occur during the same accident)

This seems to correlate with experience level. The taildragger pilots are more experience, hence they have fewer accidents involving stalling or bouncing. However, they DO show a greater occurrence of loss-of-directional-control accidents, both on landing and on taking off.

Keep in mind that percentages are deceptive in these types of analyses...one factor having a much higher percentage is naturally going to reduce percentages in other categories. So more occurrences of landing or takeoff directional control issues will result statistics that show fewer stalling cases.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[kmacht]

Did Vans ever fix the issue with the nosegear? I remember a few years back there were a rash of them flipping nose over tail during rollout after landing. I know a few outside companies had fixes but not sure if Vans ever issued a service bulletin or a kit to keep it from happening. If they did it's something you will want to consider when shopping for one.

 

[Noah Lorang]

Did Vans ever fix the issue with the nosegear? I remember a few years back there were a rash of them flipping nose over tail during rollout after landing. I know a few outside companies had fixes but not sure if Vans ever issued a service bulletin or a kit to keep it from happening. If they did it's something you will want to consider when shopping for one.

Van's released a new nosegear design for the 7A and 9A and made it the default for new orders placed after 2019 -- it adds an elastomeric damper, and I believe it uses a larger diameter nose gear tube. https://www.vansaircraft.com/2019/0...-gear-option-for-rv-7a-and-rv-9a-finish-kits/

I'm aware of one 6A that has used the new design. It required some modifications to the supplied parts to work.

 

[ateamer]

Did Vans ever fix the issue with the nosegear? I remember a few years back there were a rash of them flipping nose over tail during rollout after landing. I know a few outside companies had fixes but not sure if Vans ever issued a service bulletin or a kit to keep it from happening. If they did it's something you will want to consider when shopping for one.

The nose strut isn’t the strongest, but almost all flipovers are caused by improper landing technique. Land at minimum speed (62 knots on final in an RV-8); 1.3 Vso on final, slow down crossing the fence, power to idle, flare and hold it off until the wheels settle onto the ground, hold full aft stick all the way to the chocks. When guys come in hot and try to force it down, and/or land in a three-point stance instead of nose high is when problems occur.

Do a soft field landing every time and you’ll be fine.

 

[painless]

I absolutely love my 6A. Was fun to build and even more “funner” to fly. Only trouble is it’s spoiled me rotten. So easy to fly that it’s made my tw transition a bit of an eye opener.

Pull the trigger on buying one. You won’t regret it.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

What's your mission?

 

[Warmi]

The nose strut isn’t the strongest, but almost all flipovers are caused by improper landing technique. Land at minimum speed (62 knots on final in an RV-8); 1.3 Vso on final, slow down crossing the fence, power to idle, flare and hold it off until the wheels settle onto the ground, hold full aft stick all the way to the chocks. When guys come in hot and try to force it down, and/or land in a three-point stance instead of nose high is when problems occur.

Do a soft field landing every time and you’ll be fine.

You build a product for real life users not “do the right thing every time and you will be fine” users …

 

[FORANE]

There's a guy selling a nose gear leg stiffener. I put one on our 9a before they offered the new version. Always felt a little uneasy about the nose gear leg. It was a good aircraft though. Easy to fly until you got into strong gusty winds on landing.

 

[ateamer]

You build a product for real life users not “do the right thing every time and you will be fine” users …

You build a product for real life users not “do the right thing every time and you will be fine” users …

Keeping weight off the nosewheel is Aviation 101. If they passed their private checkride, they’re capable of landing an RV-A safely and competently every time. May as well also limit all planes to 30 knot stall speed, put 20 hours of fuel on board, and limit turns to 30 degrees bank.

 

[kyleb]

The nose strut isn’t the strongest, but almost all flipovers are caused by improper landing technique.

I think in many cases a poorly designed nose wheel axle and/or bearing caused the wheel to seize, resulting in a cascading failure that took out the nose strut. Owners with upgraded nosewheels don't seem to have nose gear failures unless they do something abusive like taxiing through a ditch. Here's one example of the mod. There are several approaches.

Nose Wheel Bearing Mod RV6A, RV7A, RV8A, RV9A – AntiSplatAero

antisplataero.com

 

[Warmi]

Keeping weight off the nosewheel is Aviation 101. If they passed their private checkride, they’re capable of landing an RV-A safely and competently every time. May as well also limit all planes to 30 knot stall speed, put 20 hours of fuel on board, and limit turns to 30 degrees bank.

It is indeed aviation 101 , I am well aware of that , but we like to build generous margins of safety in everything we manufacture and nose wheels should be no exception - we all have slightly off days and I prefer planes that let me have an occasional day like that without having to shell out tens of thousands of dollars ….
VanGrunsven himself has been know to mention that nose wheels in his planes are for taxing and not for landing - he also said that his planes don’t need BRS cause “are being flown by real pilots” - pretty arrogant imho but ultimately it is his design, his choices …

 

[rockwoodrv9a]

I built my 9A and love it. A friend and mentor did the phase 1 for me so I could finish up my training. I did about half of my lessons in my plane including my check ride. I got my license about 2 years ago and have almost close to 300 hours in my plane. It is a blast to fly and very true to what I want in a plane. If it was a couple inches wider, that would be nice but not necessary.

I almost didnt buy the kit because of the nose wheel issues. Once I flew in one I was a little more comfortable. I got the AntiSplat nose gear stiffener and good instruction. Now I see how long I can hold the nose wheel off the ground when I land.

There is a new engine mount with a dampened nose gear that if I ever have to take my engine off I will change at that time but feel safe the way it is. Im sure a 6 or 6A would be very nice and you wouldnt be disappointed.