Van's RV opinions

[FenderManDan]

I am looking to change the planes in the future and lot of RVs get my attention and mostly RV7 tail dragger.
Currently have a vanilla c172. I am not looking to build the RV since don't have the time nor space.

At my home base there is a ton of planes (Cirrus SR-22 mecca) but only one RV3 and I never saw it flying. So nobody to ask.

I googled a bit about them and found a lot of mixed information which is typical for the general search so I am just trying to tap in the experiences if you ever build/flew/owned one. I would probably go with the 180hp/VFR fun machine. Could be in any category where the hours are counted. For the IFR and long x/c I'll just buy block time on on of the many SR-22s

What are the common issues?

Cheers,

[trampbike]

I'm would also be interested in the RV7 tailwheel. Looking forward to the comments.

[patter]

Go to Aurora, Oregon and take the tour and get a ride in a 7 or a 9.
And go to a local airport where there are lots of them and ask the owners about them. They are lots of fun.

[Howitzer]

http://www.vansairforce.com

[Shiny Side Up]

In general they're nice planes to fly, good performers for their HP. Since they are home builts though, almost no two will be the same so its hard to go much farther than that. Personally I like the tailwheel version of the RV-4 the best, but that's just an opinion. Used they tend to be fairly pricy though, there seems usually to be a lot of sentimental value tied up especially if you're buying it from the builder.

[iflyforpie]

The good things about the RV Series are too numerous to list. This is why they (I believe) hold the record for the most numerous homebuilt type and command such high prices.

Most are built with Lycoming engines as per VanGrunsven's recommendations. Unless it is the O-320-H2AD or one of the other 76 Series with the high cams and dreadful single drive dual magnetos.... they are pretty much the best engines out there.

All of the guesswork has been taken out of assembly from the 7/8 onward with matched hole construction. That means you just cleco the metal together, zing the holes with a number drill, deburr, and rivet. No jigs, no bends or rolling, every RV should come out within a hundreth of an inch of each other.

Most RVs are built by perfectionists. This isn't a Legal Eagle or Bowers Flybaby where it is usually built out of scrounged parts using basic hand tools and more than a little 'redneck ingenuity'. Most are built by professional builders (either as part of a builder assistance program or built to be sold) or by meticulous amateurs who have lots of time and backgrounds in engineering, machine shop, or other types of fabrication. Almost every RV I have seen has exceeded Beechcraft's construction quality... never mind Cessna.

Then add to that the simplicity of the airframe (no more complex than a 172 if you get one with a fixed pitch prop), and the massive performance on installed power and it's no wonder people like them so much.

[Jungle Jim]

The RV's are popular planes. So much so, they are getting to be a nuisance at the airports. I found the Thorp T18 as the best value for the money a few years back when I bought mine. The perfomance is similar and the cost is about 1/2.

Jim

[Colonel Sanders]

I have done first flights, and given dual on,
and removed the "no-acro" restriction on
RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8, RV-9, tailwheel
and nosewheel variants.

I personally prefer tailwheel, but most people
like the nosewheel versions better because
they're easier to land.

Nice airplanes. Fast. Not much room. Mildly
aerobatic - must be flown very gently. Very
popular. Very high prices. Some fixed pitch
props, some constant speed props.

Go snivel some time on some.

[trampbike]

must be flown very gently.

Care to expand on that?

[Colonel Sanders]

I have to say this carefully because I get
crapped on from a great height for it ...

RV's - when you remove the "no-acro"
restriction - are legal to do aerobatics in.
Paper is great. Paper is wonderful. But
aircraft can't read.

However, IMHO, they are not good aerobatic
trainers. They are slippery and structurally
don't have much to spare. This is not a good
combination, when it comes to unusual attitudes.
Nose down with the power on, the speed comes
up fast. Ask my dead friend Andy Philips about
that.

I tell people who do acro in RV's that they can
go fast, and they can pull G, but don't do both
at the same time.

Last RV-8 that I removed the "no-acro" restriction
on, had a lifetime max of +3.9G after I was done.

This is the thing people don't understand. The
better a pilot you are, the less G you need to pull,
to perform any given maneuver.



I personally would never pull more than +4G in
an RV, and it's important to carefully observe
Van's aerobatic weight, which everyone ignores.

RV's, in the hands of an expert pilot, can do safe
aerobatics. Rolls, loops, combinations, hhead if
the guy has a clue. I tell people not to do any
aerobatics in an RV that they wouldn't do in a
172, which also does very nice rolls, loops,
combinations and hhead.

But similarly, a 172 is a very poor aerobatic trainer,
and should only have aerobatics done in it, by an
expert who isn't going to fall out of maneuvers and
overspeed it and over-gee it (and probably both at
the same time, as newbies are fond of doing).

RV's have had wings peeled off by people who
disagree with me about this, and I'm ok with that.

Anyways, they're really nice airplanes. Just don't
confuse them with an Extra or MX2, which are built
like tanks in comparison. Hell, pull the seats out of
a Mooney and look at the bridge truss that they call
a wing. RV doesn't have that - just some bent aluminum.

[Colonel Sanders]

Also, the tandem RV's have a gotcha
wrt acro with and without pax, that
you need to be aware of.

Fortunately there is a HUGE amount of
information available, about this very
popular airplane.

[trampbike]

Makes sense, thank you.

[Shiny Side Up]

Those are some pretty RVs in that picture, those paint schemes look good on any airplane.

[Colonel Sanders]

Yeah, those are a beautiful pair of RV's.

Eric was flying lead in the Maule for the picture.

It got interesting later in the flight

[Tom H]

Somewhat off topic

Ya know Colonel

I'm sitting here dealing with municipal bureaucrats, budgets, long term planning and all kinds of things that have nothing to do with aircraft but have to be dealt with to make our museum run....

And you're out there flying pretty birds like the RVs in the picture you posted.

I'm soooooooo jealous right now

Tom H

[checkremarks]

Somewhat off topic

Ya know Colonel

I'm sitting here dealing with municipal bureaucrats, budgets, long term planning and all kinds of things that have nothing to do with aircraft but have to be dealt with to make our museum run....

And you're out there flying pretty birds like the RVs in the picture you posted.

I'm soooooooo jealous right now

Tom H

And People say money doesn't buy happiness, I call BS on that.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's working out pretty well for Justin Beiber:

Justin Bieber is a Canadian pop singer who has a net worth of $160 million

Heath Ledger did ok for cash, too:

Heath Andrew Ledger was an Australian television and film actor, he had an estimated net worth of $16 million at the time of his death

Not sure how much an engineering degree, an ATP
and an SAC cost if you try to buy them outright, but
I wouldn't be happy without them.

[AirFrame]

As someone who owns an RV and flies aerobatics in it, I concur with most of the Colonel's assessment. They're not trainers. But with good training, they are an awful lot of fun. I don't understand this statement though:

Last RV-8 that I removed the "no-acro" restriction
on, had a lifetime max of +3.9G after I was done.

Was it placarded against nothing more than 3.9G for some reason? or do you mean that the owner won't fly it over that?

RV's have had wings peeled off by people who
disagree with me about this, and I'm ok with that.

I respect your opinion, but I think if you research it a little more fully you'll find that apart from incidents where it is known that the aircraft was flown beyond design limits (+6), this has not happened in the two-place RV's. The exception is the RV-3's, which had the wings redesigned twice due to weak points that were found after it was designed.

Someone once told me that none of the RV-6's have ever experienced an in-flight breakup... I haven't confirmed that with any certainty but I couldn't find any examples the last time I looked.

[Colonel Sanders]

Sorry. After I had removed the "no-acro"
restriction, the maximum G I had pulled to
perform all the maneuvers TO THAT POINT,
was +3.9 G.

You don't need to pull +8G or even +6G
to fly a loop.

I strongly believe that people should obey
Van's aerobatic weights, and should keep
the G down on their RV's. They should never,
ever need to pull +6G's. A good pilot can
fly loops and rolls and hheads all day long,
and only see +4G on the meter.

A few years ago, a retired USAF pilot pulled
the wings off an RV-8 doing air-to-air. I am
willing to wager serious money that:

- he was too fast
- he pulled too many G

It is possible that the aircraft was damaged
from previous overloading, too.

RV's are really nice airplanes. I love their
ailerons. But they are NOT a Sukhoi, or
a Zivko, or an Extra, or an MX2. They need
to be flown gently and delicately, not brutally.

A good example is a snap roll. A brutal torsional
load on the entire airframe. I would be happy
as a clam doing +10G snap rolls in a high performance
monoplane. I refuse to do snap rolls at ANY
speed/G (even +3 or +4) in an RV and will not
sign off on them. A really bad idea.

Be nice to your RV, and it will last a long time.
Fly it hard, well ... say "hi" to my friend Andy
Phillips for me.

[Colonel Sanders]

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=39045

That's a double fatality in an RV-8.

Here's what happened:

The outboard portion of the left wing was found 0.17 miles from the crash site. The main spar had evidence of a ductile fracture due to a positive overload. The spar material met design specifications for metal composition and hardness. There was no evidence of fatigue or corrosion.

and here's why:

The maximum allowable gross weight for aerobatics is 1,550 pounds. The aircraft weighed an estimated at 1,639 pounds at the time of the accident

As I said before, no one cares about what Van
has to say about the aerobatic weight.

The Engine Management System nonvolatile memory readout provided data points equivalent to 191 mph in level flight. Maneuvering speed under the same conditions was 142 mph

CAUSE: the intentional or unintentional sudden application of aft elevator control by an undetermined aircraft occupant that exceeded the design stress limits of the aircraft.

Everyone thinks Van is an idiot, when it
comes to the aerobatic weight. Everyone
thinks I am an idiot, when I say to keep
the speed and the G down.

I don't mind that. But it's annoying to watch
people around me kill themselves, after they
do things I told them not to.

I guess that makes me the idiot, and I'm ok
with that.

Regardless, fly your RV smoothly and gently,
and it will last a long time.

[BKerns]

The diesel DeltaHawk engine seems like a good alternative to the 100LL options for the 7 and 10.

[FenderManDan]

Thank you for the info guys. Yeah I heard about the diesel, but wanted to fly it a little bit more than straight and level.

The RV's are popular planes. So much so, they are getting to be a nuisance at the airports. I found the Thorp T18 as the best value for the money a few years back when I bought mine. The perfomance is similar and the cost is about 1/2.
Jim

Where are you? Pm me. YKZ has one maybe two and not flying.

In general they're nice planes to fly, good performers for their HP. Since they are home builts though, almost no two will be the same so its hard to go much farther than that. Personally I like the tailwheel version of the RV-4 the best, but that's just an opinion. Used they tend to be fairly pricy though, there seems usually to be a lot of sentimental value tied up especially if you're buying it from the builder.

I see RVs for sale in the US have a lot of "experimental" designation. What does that mean when I import it and re-register to Charlie reg? Prices are in line with c172. I would love Extra 300 FLUGZGBBLAHBLAH, but to keep the Extra it needs to be a money maker. I don't see that as a pleasure machine.

[AirFrame]

@Colonel: thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I agree that people seem to be blissfully ignorant of the aerobatic limits in RV's. That being said, Vans hasn't been completely consistent with their responses to requests for information.

For example: a number of builders have been told by the factory that fuel weight is not included in the aerobatic weight, as it is carried in the wings and counteracts the G-forces. The factory also used to issue letters to builders authorizing increased gross weights, but they stopped doing that at some point.

To paraphrase the lottery corporation ads... Know your limit, fly within it.

[AirFrame]

@FenderManDan: all us amateur-built aircraft are marked Experimental. On import you have to remove the Experimental text from the airframe, so hopefully it's on there with a sticker.

[Schooner69A]

"...The factory also used to issue letters to builders authorizing increased gross weights, but they stopped doing that at some point..."

There was a time when, as builder, you could set your own limits; however, this practice was queried by the MD-RA. The upshot was that TC will now buy an increase in GW if Van's will approve it. As opined by a rep from Van's: "Not a snowball's chance in hell...". So, now, the limit is what Van's says it is for each model.

Regarding the "g" limit: it is high for this type of aircraft; +6/-3. However, here is what Van's has to say about aerobatics:

Aerobatic capability has always been important in any true sportplane. While aerobatic flying provides valuable unusual attitude familiarization, its main purpose is simply fun. It may be the ultimate expression of the uninhibited joy of flight. By virtue of their wide speed range and relatively low wing loading, the RVs are quite good aerobatic aircraft. Roll rates are in excess of 140 deg/sec for the RV-4, RV-7/7A, and RV-8/8A and just slightly slower in the RV-14/14A. There is practically no adverse yaw - beautifully smooth rolls can be done with feet flat on the floor. The high inertia and low drag of the RVs permit nice loops at very low G-loads. It is possible to perform a series of aerobatic maneuvers at cruise power, not exceed 3 or 4 G, and gain altitude at the same time.

Although RVs are capable aerobatic aircraft, we do not recommend them for serious competition aerobatics. Their high speed is not suited to the restricted competition zones. In order to stay "in the box’’ they would have to fly slower and lose the benefit of inertia, or keep the speed up and pull too many Gs. Because of their low stall speed, the maneuvering speed (maximum full control application speed) is in the 135 mph range. Thus, aerobatic safety in the RVs is highly dependent on pilot technique.

The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G). The RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12 are not designed for aerobatic flight.

The design operational stress limit for the RV-9/9A is utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G) at less than 1600 pound gross weight and is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G) between 1600 pounds and the aircraft’s design gross weight. The design operational stress limit for the RV-10 is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G).

I think it to be a magnificent aircraft; able to do modest aerobatics yet capable of serious cross-countries. However, it is not for everyone; I know of one low time pilot who re-sold his beautifully finished RV-6A because "it went too fast". At the time, I thought that a more representative reason may have been because it was too much aircraft.

For those who have never flown in one; do so at your earliest convenience, you will enjoy it. But, beware: that trip may cost you a lot of money...

John