Flew in an RV-6a

simtech

En-Route
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
3,089
Location
mississippi
Display Name

Display name:
Simtech
Yesterday. Oh man the most fun a person can have! But now I'm thinking it might be too much plane to handle for a low timer like myself. I've never felt such light controls and a plane so agile. I mean that thing is so responsive! And to think I thought a 172 was agile! No a 172 is now a bus. I really want an rv-6a, oh my!!
 
Last edited:
Things are a hoot! They are wonderfully maneuverable. I don't know that I would worry that much about being a low time pilot so long as you get transition training. It is faster, but one can always throttle back.
 
Sounds like you got the $60,000 RV ride! ;)

Don't be intimidated by the responsiveness of the controls. It's just that you are used to slugging a 172 around. As you said, an RV is not super sensitive, just more responsive. Just lighten up on your control inputs and you'll be fine.

I too am a low time pilot, and after getting some transition training and learning the feel and sight picture out the window, I am very comfortable flying 782P. Some things to consider. Keep your feet on the floor except on takeoff and landing. No need for rudder input to make coordinated turns. Be ahead of the airplane on landing. You will learn that you need to slow things down a bit further from the airport than you are used to. Get your approach speed down to between 75-80 mph. Land on the mains. Land on the mains. Did I mention to land on the mains?? The nose gear is the weak link on the RV-A models and is there only to hold the nose up while on the ground. I'll pre-empt the certain post that will say. "Just put the wheel where it belongs..... In the back!". Yadayadayada..... Landing on the nosewheel is a big nono in an A.

Personally, I absolutely love my airplane. FYI, Vans has replaced the 6A with the 7A. Same fun factor, just some improvements.

Good luck! Sounds like you too have been smitten.:yes:


Jeff Orear
RV6A
Peshtigo, WI
 
....and then don't get "bright and shiny syndrome". Like this board's newest RV owner.
 
Land on the mains. Land on the mains. Did I mention to land on the mains??

At first I thought you were telling him to only do wheel landing in a tailwheel.

On a trike how else would you land, on the nose gear?

Even on a 172 you land on the mains and hold the nose off!!

This something that I forget people do, makes me cringe everytime I see some transient 172 land flat at my airport, if my 15hr fresh solo guys can manage to hold that nose off why is it hard for a licensed guy.
 
At first I thought you were telling him to only do wheel landing in a tailwheel.

On a trike how else would you land, on the nose gear?

Even on a 172 you land on the mains and hold the nose off!!

This something that I forget people do, makes me cringe everytime I see some transient 172 land flat at my airport, if my 15hr fresh solo guys can manage to hold that nose off why is it hard for a licensed guy.

It is easy to hold the nose off in a 172. Some planes are not so easy. In my plane the elevator does not have the authority to hold the nose off once the mains touch. The gear has very little travel. The tire pressure must be maintained high (typically I keep 50 psi) or upon landing they will flex on the rim and pinch a hole in the tube. The combination of these mandates a relatively flat landing to prevent porpoising and this: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm
I have been looking to buy an RV-6A but honestly have been apprehensive due to the weak nosegear on the A models. Vans issued a service bulletin for the nosewheel which may have improved it somewhat. Antisplat aero makes a nosegear stiffener for the A models. I would still feel much more comfortable if there were a much more robust solution. I would not want to end up like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998...t=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item58a3bb2625&vxp=mtr
 
It is easy to hold the nose off in a 172. Some planes are not so easy. In my plane the elevator does not have the authority to hold the nose off once the mains touch. The gear has very little travel. The tire pressure must be maintained high (typically I keep 50 psi) or upon landing they will flex on the rim and pinch a hole in the tube. The combination of these mandates a relatively flat landing to prevent porpoising and this: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm
I have been looking to buy an RV-6A but honestly have been apprehensive due to the weak nosegear on the A models. Vans issued a service bulletin for the nosewheel which may have improved it somewhat. Antisplat aero makes a nosegear stiffener for the A models. I would still feel much more comfortable if there were a much more robust solution. I would not want to end up like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998...t=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item58a3bb2625&vxp=mtr

Gotcha, proposing is more caused by a weakness in the pilot then the plane.

I'll admit I don't have much time in the RVs, I do have a good amount of time teaching folks in Grummans though, which have the same complaints, all of which can be fixed by a good CFI easier then a A&P.
 
Gotcha, proposing is more caused by a weakness in the pilot then the plane.

I'll admit I don't have much time in the RVs, I do have a good amount of time teaching folks in Grummans though, which have the same complaints, all of which can be fixed by a good CFI easier then a A&P.
Prolly for less cash too.:yes:
 
It would appear in the case of the A models that while training is important, underlying weaknesses in design seem to be present.
http://www.37000feet.com/report/778...raft-nose-gear-collapsed-as-pilot-taxied-into
Too many cases of nose gear failures and planes flipping on to their back for me to think otherwise. If the nose wheel is removed and the plane is allowed to rest on the nose gears rod, it does not take much for the front of the plane to wobble like jello on that flimsy looking rod.
 
Last edited:
I agree a good bit of training would be needed. I flew the approaches but my buddy took over for the landing. The plane does not feel as stabilized and solid while landing like a 172 does. I guess the size and weight difference would make that true. He did say once you flare it's gonna drop so you gotta make sure your not too high. I couldn't tell being a passenger but all the landings felt smooth.

I was surprised about the nose gear myself. It's only purpose is to hold up the front. Can't steer it so it takes a lot of braking. Over the thing scoots like a scared dog, it was great that's for sure. I believe after some good training I'd be able to tame it.

I still can't believe how agile it was, amazing for sure!
 
On a trike how else would you land, on the nose gear?

Even on a 172 you land on the mains and hold the nose off!!


I was trying to stress that the nose gear will not tolerate abuse. Most of the flip over accidents you read about with Vans -A models are due to poor piloting skills and not landing on the mains when utilizing grass strips.

You are quite correct that even in a 172 you hold the nose off. Unfortunately, not all pilots do....

Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Peshtigo, WI
 
Yesterday. Oh man the most fun a person can have! But now I'm thinking it might be too much plane to handle for a low timer like myself. I've never felt such light controls and a plane so agile. I mean that thing is so responsive! And to think I thought a 172 was agile! No a 172 is now a bus. I really want an rv-6a, oh my!!

You need not worry about being a low time pilot and flying RV's. Just get plenty of transition training.

The nose gear weak link has been addressed with good results so far. There is an SB replacing the front fork on all 2 seat RV's except the -12. There is also an after market mod called the "Anti Splat" that beefs up the nose gear. However, 90% of flip over a with the "A" models can be traced back to poor piloting, and airmanship. These are not Cessna's, you can't drop them on the runway like a 152. :no:
 
I was trying to stress that the nose gear will not tolerate abuse. Most of the flip over accidents you read about with Vans -A models are due to poor piloting skills and not landing on the mains when utilizing grass strips.

You are quite correct that even in a 172 you hold the nose off. Unfortunately, not all pilots do....

Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Peshtigo, WI
My BiL showed me a video of a 9A that folded the nosegear and flipped when the nosewheel fairing dug into a rut in the grass after what looked like a good landing on the mains.
 
....and then don't get "bright and shiny syndrome". Like this board's newest RV owner.

Saddest thing is I'd probably do likewise if I got one. A very difficult temptation to resist. I'd just not go bragging to everyone about it.

Then again, I am the only liter sportbike owner I know who doesn't routinely stunt the crap out of the thing. Maybe I'd maintain my sanity. Who knows?

Sadly, I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to find out.
 
Just get a tailwheel 6 instead of worrying about the spindly nosewheel design.
 
Last edited:
Just get a tailwheel 6 instead of worrying about the spindly nosewheel design.
I considered this. I believe they look better. I believe they are a couple of knots faster also. Unfortunately accident statistics reflect the risks inherent to the tailwheel design.
I have been looking for a RV-6A and even made a couple offers, was highest bidder on an ebay 6A, etc. The weak nosegear concerns me though. Proper piloting technique is fine but I have been in some paved runways where I do not know if an A model RV would withstand even with perfect technique; Halls TN is one example which comes to mind (it has been years since I have been in there and maybe they have fixed it since).
 
Unfortunately accident statistics reflect the risks inherent to the tailwheel design.

Were there any injuries or fatalities with these. Mostly they are 'incidents' and not deemed accidents by the FAA. A ground loop is a low speed loss of control. Sometimes there isn't even any damage. Usually its just a scraped wing tip.

At any rate, its certainly not more risky or expensive than flying a complex airplane.
 
I considered this. I believe they look better. I believe they are a couple of knots faster also. Unfortunately accident statistics reflect the risks inherent to the tailwheel design.
I have been looking for a RV-6A and even made a couple offers, was highest bidder on an ebay 6A, etc. The weak nosegear concerns me though. Proper piloting technique is fine but I have been in some paved runways where I do not know if an A model RV would withstand even with perfect technique; Halls TN is one example which comes to mind (it has been years since I have been in there and maybe they have fixed it since).

Interesting ... I'd be curious to see info on incidents/accidents for RV-6 vs RV-6A. Have any links?
(Yes, I know I can go dig for myself. But, I'm only idly curious, hence lazy.)
 
Sounds to me like the 6A dropping its nose on the ground is more costly/frequent than a ground loop.
 
I follow the VAF forum where nose vs tail has been discussed at length and where I read that.
 
Keep your feet on the floor except on takeoff and landing. No need for rudder input to make coordinated turns. Be ahead of the airplane on landing.
So now we have airplanes so good you don't even need to use rudder? Having all of about 0 hours in an RV IDK, just asking. But it seems like bad form.
 
So now we have airplanes so good you don't even need to use rudder? Having all of about 0 hours in an RV IDK, just asking. But it seems like bad form.
Old technology...ever hear of an Ercoupe?
 
So now we have airplanes so good you don't even need to use rudder? Having all of about 0 hours in an RV IDK, just asking. But it seems like bad form.

Unless it has an aileron-rudder interconnect like the ercoupe (I have never heard of this in an RV) you won't get coordinated turns without using the rudder. You won't make coordinated climbs or descents either.

Just by guessing the relatively short Hershey bar wings and RV design probably does not produce a whole lot of adverse yaw so you can probably make gentle turns at cruising speed with your feet on the floor but that's about it.

FORANE if you like the RV6 tailwheel version - see if you can get a few hours in a citabria or decathlon from the front seat. I hear they handle similarly to an RV. Which is to say, they offer modern gear design, good visibility over the nose and are very forgiving.

http://aviatorsunlimited.us/flighttraining.html

This guy is in Abingdon and the rates are pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Old technology...ever hear of an Ercoupe?
I have....and?
Unless it has an aileron-rudder interconnect like the ercoupe (I have never heard of this in an RV) you won't get coordinated turns without using the rudder. You won't make coordinated climbs or descents either.

Just by guessing the relatively short Hershey bar wings and RV design probably does not produce a whole lot of adverse yaw so you can probably make gentle turns at cruising speed with your feet on the floor but that's about it. .
Yea you can fly about anything without rudder if you want to I guess, it will just be sloppy. I didn't think the RV had anything special that you flew-feet on the floor!

Oh..I would like to try it....hint hint anyone with an RV.
 
The weak nosegear concerns me though. Proper piloting technique is fine but I have been in some paved runways where I do not know if an A model RV would withstand even with perfect technique; Halls TN is one example which comes to mind (it has been years since I have been in there and maybe they have fixed it since).

I don't care for RV nosegears, but understand that you'd have a real hard time flipping it on pavement of any sort. The fork has to dig into something to pole-vault the airplane. All of the ones I've seen occured on turf. They are generally OK on decent turf strips with proper technique. But I've seen some flipovers that were NOT a result of bad technique...just a soft strip and an unseen uneven spot. Saw one where a guy lost a brake, ran it off the pavement into the grass and flipped. If you want a trike, get a trike, but keep in mind that tailwheel RVs are super easy (like a Citabria) on the ground.

So now we have airplanes so good you don't even need to use rudder? Having all of about 0 hours in an RV IDK, just asking. But it seems like bad form.

It is. RVs don't have much adverse yaw, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to fly properly. And keeping your feet on the floor during climbout would be terrible piloting.
 
FORANE if you like the RV6 tailwheel version - see if you can get a few hours in a citabria or decathlon from the front seat. I hear they handle similarly to an RV. Which is to say, they offer modern gear design, good visibility over the nose and are very forgiving.

http://aviatorsunlimited.us/flighttraining.html

This guy is in Abingdon and the rates are pretty good.

Thanks Randy for the link. I have heard of this guy. There is also a guy in Asheville NC who will give a BFR and tailwheel endorsement for $625: http://www.blueridgesportflight.com/ I did consider doing that. My fiance did get a tailwheel endorsement with him but does not feel comfortable with tailwheel (and the RV-6A would be for her).

I have....and?
Matt, I didn't mean any disrespect. Sorry if I came across that way.

I don't care for RV nosegears, but understand that you'd have a real hard time flipping it on pavement of any sort. The fork has to dig into something to pole-vault the airplane. All of the ones I've seen occured on turf. They are generally OK on decent turf strips with proper technique. But I've seen some flipovers that were NOT a result of bad technique...just a soft strip and an unseen uneven spot. Saw one where a guy lost a brake, ran it off the pavement into the grass and flipped. If you want a trike, get a trike, but keep in mind that tailwheel RVs are super easy (like a Citabria) on the ground.
There have been cases on pavement also. I do not know the forum rules regarding posting links from other forums but I could easily provide that. Here is one from the pilot:
My 9A was already on the paved runway, engine at idle, the front wheel was already rolling, the wheel pant was not mounted to crimp the tire, but this was the result as I passed over the intersection of two runways.

bentgear.jpg


Once we fork lifted the airplane onto my trailer, two of us bent the front gear a little straighter with a pipe wrench to assist with the long ride home.

gearlegafterwebentit.jpg


I'm no engineer, but I'm not a weight lifter either. The fact that two of us could bend the gear straighter with a pipe wrench is worrisome to me. Perhaps once it was bent, un-bending was easier, but later on we had the leg tested for hardness and it passed.
 
It is. RVs don't have much adverse yaw, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to fly properly. And keeping your feet on the floor during climbout would be terrible piloting.

If you will read my post where this subject was presented, I believe I did mention using rudder on take off and landing. So much for terrible piloting.

Unless you are yanking and banking, yes, you can make turns with the ball centered with no rudder input required. This has nothing to do with "sloppy airmanship" or "not flying properly.". It's just the nature of the design. Course what do I know. I just have 200hrs in type....

I guess I better go check my turn and bank indicator. It must be broken......sheesh..:dunno:
 
I can only comment on the RV-8 and the -8A, having not flown the 6A, but here are my impressions after two months of fairly intensive flying.

- Nosewheel vs. Tailwheel. The accident rate of the -8 vs. the -8A is reflected in the insurance rates you pay. I got the -8A for two reasons: (1) My wife (also a pilot) wanted the nosewheel, and (2) insurance was WAY cheaper.

That said, the nosegear is obviously not as robust as a trainer's. Land on the mains, keep the weight off of it, and it's fine.

- Responsiveness. There is no comparison between an RV and a Cessna/Piper/Beech/Cirrus spam can. I flew the first several hours using ONLY my thumb and forefinger on the stick, because if I held it with my hand I would over-control.

Once you've grown used to this handling, however, (as you noted) everything else feels like a truck! When I flew the Pathfinder after 30 hours in the -8A, I actually thought something was broken! It just would not turn! :D

- Harmony. I don't know what Van did, but through some aerodynamic and structural magic, he made a plane that flies just like my Suzuki sport bike. If you think it, it will do it, in perfect harmony. It is a sheer delight to fly, and I literally hate to land, because it means I'm done flying for the day!

- Landing an RV. Soon after starting transition training, it became evident that landing the -8A was WAY easier than landing my Pathfinder (Cherokee 235). On my very first landing, I made the first turn, which had me mentally "high-5ing" myself -- until I realized, a hundred landings later, that I was ALWAYS making the first turn!

Again, through some aerodynamic magic pixie dust, Van has created an aircraft that is incredibly easy to land.

- Performance. Our RV-8A, with a 180 HP Lycoming, with the same fuel burn as a Cherokee 180 or Skyhawk, scoots us along at 160 knots. If I want to burn more, we will see 170.

That's 200+ mph, for you old-school guys. :D

Want to climb straight up a thousand feet? It will do it, effortlessly -- along with "gentlemen's aerobatics" like loops, rolls, etc. Want to come down right NOW? It slips effortlessly and beautifully.

- Comfort. This isn't something that is often mentioned, especially with the -8s, because they are harder to get in/out -- but once you are in, the plane is VERY comfortable, with more shoulder and hip room than my Cherokee.

Better yet, you are sitting more down IN the plane. Combined with a wider seat, and a five-point harness, you feel like you're wearing the plane.

-Turbulence. One area that Mary was very concerned about was how the RV would handle the bumps. She HATES turbulence, and we both thought that the light RV would be worse in rough air.

We were wrong. In the Cherokee, you are sitting extremely upright, with your eyes and inner ear well above the horizontal plane. There is nothing to keep you from getting moved around, especially when seated on slick leather seats. Unknown to us, this magnified the effect of turbulence.

Now, thanks to the lower seating position and secure harnesses in the -8, your sense of turbulence is actually reduced, even though the plane is getting moved around just as much, or more.

I honestly have not found a single negative thing to say about this aircraft. Now that we no longer need to haul kids from one end of the country to the other, it is our perfect airplane.
 
Last edited:
If you will read my post where this subject was presented, I believe I did mention using rudder on take off and landing. So much for terrible piloting.

To me, T/O and landing means the time the airplane is on the ground. I wouldn't consider the entire duration of a climb to several thousand feet to be the take-off phase. And you might need a little left rudder during descents to keep the ball centered.

Unless you are yanking and banking, yes, you can make turns with the ball centered with no rudder input required. This has nothing to do with "sloppy airmanship" or "not flying properly.". It's just the nature of the design. Course what do I know. I just have 200hrs in type....

I've got about 300 hrs in various RVs, so I'm very familiar with how they fly. Yes, there is very little adverse yaw, but it still exists, and can still be detected on the ball and in your ass if your aileron input is anything more than an extremely slow and shallow input. Still takes very slight rudder coordination to do it perfectly. It's good practice and technique. But stick and rudder technique is what I like about flying and acro, so being lazy in the cockpit really doesn't suit me. Can you fly feet on the floor? Of course. But I wouldn't recommend it to folks, or call it good practice.
 
To me, T/O and landing means the time the airplane is on the ground. I wouldn't consider the entire duration of a climb to several thousand feet to be the take-off phase. And you might need a little left rudder during descents to keep the ball centered.

.



I've got about 300 hrs in various RVs, so I'm very familiar with how they fly. Yes, there is very little adverse yaw, but it still exists, and can still be detected on the ball and in your ass if your aileron input is anything more than an extremely slow and shallow input. Still takes very slight rudder coordination to do it perfectly. It's good practice and technique. But stick and rudder technique is what I like about flying and acro, so being lazy in the cockpit really doesn't suit me. Can you fly feet on the floor? Of course. But I wouldn't recommend it to folks, or call it good practice.

Well, I guess we disagree in the duration of take off. I guess I should have originally said take off and climb? As a footnote, a significant amount of right rudder is required on takeoff roll and climb

I guess the style of flying I do...no acro, touring stuff, is more suited to no rudder input in cruise for course changes etc. I wouldn't call it being "lazy". If I see that I am in a coordinated turn without rudder, I'm certainly not going to input any just because I can.

One other note....My use of "feet on the floor" was more a description for not inputting rudder. I do keep my feet on the rudder pedals, just that I'm using them for foot-rests...:)

Now, I'm going to sulk back into my corner again and treat these flame wounds.......:redface:
 
Last edited:
And you might need a little left rudder during descents to keep the ball centered.

One of the finer points of flying that rarely gets any attention.

There are reasons why. It does not affect performance - and in some aircraft, is barely noticeable.
 
One other note....My use of "feet on the floor" was more a description for not inputting rudder.

10-4. The problem with internet chat is that all we have to go on are the words as written. :) Because, assuming the airplane actually does trim out in yaw, there's only ever one airspeed/power setting where you could truly fly feet on the floor with the ball centered. Any other speed/power setting will require a slight bit of pressure on one side or another, turns or no turns. I think you understand all this and not much disagreement here with what you've clarified.
 
I once had a CFI (USAF CFI, owned an RV-4 and liked tailwheels) remind me those things under my feet were not footrests...
 
Unless it has an aileron-rudder interconnect like the ercoupe (I have never heard of this in an RV) you won't get coordinated turns without using the rudder. You won't make coordinated climbs or descents either.
No interconnect needed. Look up "Frise ailerons". I've only had about ten or fifteen minutes actually flying an RV, but the ball did stay pretty well centered during turns with no rudder input. Obviously the rudder is used when needed.
 
No interconnect needed. Look up "Frise ailerons". I've only had about ten or fifteen minutes actually flying an RV, but the ball did stay pretty well centered during turns with no rudder input. Obviously the rudder is used when needed.

There's nothing about the Frise aileron that eliminates adverse yaw. Tons of airplanes have Frise ailerons. Cessnas have them. Aileron differential is mostly what helps minimize adverse yaw. RVs have a good bit of aileron differential (down-going aileron moves less than the up-going aileron). The short wingspan of RVs also contributes to the minimal adverse yaw...but it still exists. And yes, if you're making really easy aileron input, it's not very noticeable - but still there. You can also make OK turns in a Cherokee without using the rudder. It all depends on your standards and how you fly. Not sure what's so special about not having to use much rudder. If I wanted an automatic airplane, I wouldn't fly taildraggers, I'd fly an Ercoupe...or a Cirrus. :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top