What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Transition training, why?

ArVeeNiner

ArVeeNiner

Well Known Member
I'm not trying to get out of it but, why do we do transition training? Is this an FAA requirement? Do the insurance companies want us to do it? Is it something that is just a smart thing to do? After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
 
Insurance

ArVeeNiner said:
I'm not trying to get out of it but, why do we do transition training? Is this an FAA requirement? Do the insurance companies want us to do it? Is it something that is just a smart thing to do? After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
Click to expand...
Our insurance company asked for Transition training and 5 hours (Inculsive) . Also a differnet RV animal than the typical spam can (tailwheel or nose dragger.) :D <----RV Grin
 
Most insurance will require at least 10 hours dual unless you have some sort of super pilot with a million hours in everything known to man. The more experience you have in a similar plane might get you only 5 hours required.

At least that was my experience when shopping for insurance. One even wanted 15 hours dual.

One (a very expensive one) did not require any but the premium was double that of the rest.

After doing some dual in an RV, I would say that at a minimum you want to get at least 5 hours in these things unless you are very familiar with high performance aircraft. They are totally different than the typical rental spam can 150/152/172. Just getting use to the sink rate (this can be shocking), fast pattern speeds and manuverability will take some time.

There are those that can do it in their sleep that have never set foot in an RV but most likely they are very accomplished pilots in lots of other similar high performance aircraft.

There are those that have done it with no transition training or special skills but I concider them lucky.

ArVeeNiner said:
I'm not trying to get out of it but, why do we do transition training? Is this an FAA requirement? Do the insurance companies want us to do it? Is it something that is just a smart thing to do? After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes.. yes.. yes... proficiency..

Transistion training is really an extension of 'learning to fly'..
Practice, repetition, and constant situational awareness is what a pilot relies on when the 'unexpected' happens. The reflex action you execute can be the difference between a happy ending or, having your family receive terrible news.
And in some cases, even transistion training can't deter the outcome BUT, in most cases it increases the odds in your favor.
Transistion training... because life is all about learning, and sharing what you've learned.
 
It's worth it!

When I decided to get into RV flying I thought "it's just another airplane."
I had been flying for many years. Airline, Corporate, Military and a bunch of GA planes from cubs to Pitt's and just about anything in between. In other words, I think I was considered experienced.
I called my insurance man and he told me to get checked out in an RV. No minimum required, but to get an hour or two of dual and a sign off. When I told him I had already scheduled time with Alex DeDominici in DFW he was familiar and said that would work.

Well, the RV is a different animal. Not hard, not anything but different. Quick, light, responsive, new picture, all of the above. Didn't take long. After about an hour in the plane with Alex he said "I think you have it", and most importantly, Do you feel comfortable?.

All that being said, it was a tremendous thing to do. I had absolutely no trepidation about getting in my -8 and heading out. Worth every cent and all the time to fly to DFW and do it.

It's just the smart thing to do even if it weren't required by the insurance companies.

Just my 2 cents worth, of course, you get what you pay for!
 
Brantel said:
...They are totally different than the typical rental spam can 150/152/172. Just getting use to the sink rate (this can be shocking), fast pattern speeds and manuverability will take some time...
Click to expand...
I agree with Brian, I had approx 900 hours before stepping into my -4 cockpit, but as it was my first high performance aircraft, I definitely needed the training.

Even with that, I was way behind the airplane during my first 3-4 solo landings.
 
About 3 weeks ago I gave 5 hours to a former F-101, -102, -106, -4, -16, B-737.... 20,000 hr pilot.

The insurance company required it. But "my student" was listening and absorbing the dynamics of RV flying the entire time. He didn't ask why once.

A man's gotta know his limits. Based on my observation, if the "average" 150 hr spam can pilot straps on an RV and goes flying without RV or similar experience, the odds are 50-50 that something's going to get bent within the first 5 landings.

2 cents
 
9 different than other?

This whole thread is scaring me a little. I'm building a RV-9 because I'm a low time pilot and I'm not interested in aerobatics. I'm hoping that a 9 is a more manageable for a low-time pilot. I will certainly get some transition training.
 
ArVeeNiner said:
I'm not trying to get out of it but, why do we do transition training? Is this an FAA requirement? Do the insurance companies want us to do it? Is it something that is just a smart thing to do? After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine going from my current airplane (CTSW) to a RV-4 without any transition time. It might be legal, but not smart.

Likewise, there are lots of busted LSA out there that have shown that even very experienced pilots need transition time to a new airplane. It's not all about what's a "higher performance" airplane.

If your insurance company wants it, well, you're not required to get it any more than you're required to have the insurance. Sounds like the Golden Rule applies: Those who have the Gold make the Rules.

TODR
 
Risk reduction

They want to minimize claims pay outs.

I had an RV checkout in a 10, which was less than 2 hours and then (I think) a 2 hour "solo" requirement for the 9 when I couldn't carry passengers.

The checkout in the 10 was a blast, but didn't translate that well to the 9A.

The real "checkout" was when the owner/builder was nice enough to take me up first in the right seat, then left seat.

I had over 1000 hours at the time, mostly retract/HP time. I'm confident that I'm a good enough pilot to have just studied the POH and flown the 9A away with no checkout.

That said, I appreciated the time flying with the builder which was not an insurance requirement. I did it because it made sense. It was an unfamiliar airplane, and being an experimental, not as well documented in the POH as most certified planes.

The "solo" time was a waste of time and fuel, but not long enough to complain about - too much.
 
[email protected] said:
This whole thread is scaring me a little. I'm building a RV-9 because I'm a low time pilot and I'm not interested in aerobatics. I'm hoping that a 9 is a more manageable for a low-time pilot. I will certainly get some transition training.
Click to expand...

Michael:

Don't let these guys get to you. RVs are soooo easy to fly, especially the -9. I was very low time too (still am to most folks) and my -7A is one of the easiest airplanes I've ever flown. I have flown a buddy's -9A and you are going to enjoy that airplane. The RVs land slow, have a predictable stall, are very responsive, etc. Build on.
 
After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
Click to expand...

I just talked with Mike Seager about this last week - he said that most insurance companies want you to have it within 90 days of your first flight.
 
I just finished the training over the weekend. What a wakeup call. I was so far behind the airplane that I barely was holding onto the rudder. I fly 300plus hours a year in a kitfox and this airplane is a hard one to adjust to at first. What I found was the airspeed is very sensitive with speeds able to vary on landing up or down at a moments notice. If you flair just off the runway with too much stick input you will be ballooning up and crashing back down to the runway. I will say that after 45 minutes of flying I had the airplane down real good. I went back up the next day for another 1.3 hours and had a total load of fun, with landings in some pretty narly fields. Don't kid yourself, get the training, you'll thank yourself afterwards. I also feel that a person that is use to flying Cessna's should do it before he builds, he may find that he won't like it and choose to stay with the trainer plane. I was talked into training by a fella that flies the 9 and he said the same on the landing speeds and the flair.
 
Fatalities.......

ArVeeNiner said:
I'm not trying to get out of it but, why do we do transition training? Is this an FAA requirement? Do the insurance companies want us to do it? Is it something that is just a smart thing to do? After completion, is there an "expiration date" associated with it?
Click to expand...

.....and bent up airplanes on their first flights were the reason, to answer your original question. The FAA, NTSB and EAA got their heads together around 2000 and it was the efforts of the EAA that allowed CFIs to be paid, with an appropriate waiver, for the rent of their RV's. It has since reduced the number of first flight accidents and fatalities by a big margin.

When you consider the amount of money, time, sweat and tears to get an airworthiness cert that you've spent, it's only wise to get a checkout.

BTW, for all the info on training, visit www.safeair1.com and scroll down to "RV Transition training" and click on the windsock nearest you.

Regards,
 
Brantel said:
Most insurance will require at least 10 hours dual unless you have some sort of super pilot with a million hours in everything known to man. The more experience you have in a similar plane might get you only 5 hours required...
Click to expand...
I must be good! With only 350 TT and 150 TW, they gave me three hours of duel in any side-by-side tail dragger RV. I did four hours in an RV-6 and wanted to do five but we never got together for that final flight.

RV8iator said:
...It's just the smart thing to do even if it weren't required by the insurance companies....
Click to expand...
So true!

Low Pass said:
...A man's gotta know his limits....
Click to expand...
Yep...

[email protected] said:
This whole thread is scaring me a little. I'm building a RV-9 because I'm a low time pilot and I'm not interested in aerobatics. I'm hoping that a 9 is a more manageable for a low-time pilot. I will certainly get some transition training.
Click to expand...
No need to worry. The Nine is much quicker on the controls than a 172 or Cherokee but not as quick as a short wing RV. Getting some duel in any RV will be a good thing and doing it in a short wing RV will make flying your -9A that much easier.
 
Not the point

[email protected] said:
This whole thread is scaring me a little. I'm building a RV-9 because I'm a low time pilot and I'm not interested in aerobatics. I'm hoping that a 9 is a more manageable for a low-time pilot. I will certainly get some transition training.
Click to expand...

It's not the intention of this thread to scare anyone. It's just to point out that everyone should want to get a little training in something new. There should be no ego involved in this sport. We all can use a little transition and refresher training.
Enjoy your 9.
 
Jamie said:
Michael:

Don't let these guys get to you. RVs are soooo easy to fly, especially the -9. I was very low time too (still am to most folks) and my -7A is one of the easiest airplanes I've ever flown. I have flown a buddy's -9A and you are going to enjoy that airplane. The RVs land slow, have a predictable stall, are very responsive, etc. Build on.
Click to expand...
RV's are indeed very responsive and easy flying sport planes. But as an example, you land the -9A like you land a -172 (on the nose gear) and there's a very good chance you're going to fold it and get the prop in the ground. RVs have their unique differences. Not bad or scary. Just different. Know the differences.
 
Low Pass said:
RV's are indeed very responsive and easy flying sport planes. But as an example, you land the -9A like you land a -172 (on the nose gear) and there's a very good chance you're going to fold it and get the prop in the ground. RVs have their unique differences. Not bad or scary. Just different. Know the differences.
Click to expand...

Anyone who lands on the nose gear of any airplane has not been taught the most basic of flying skills.
 
What have you been flying?

This thread has made me think about my transition training.

I certainly did not have a huge amount of experience before I flew my RV, maybe 1,500 hours in airplanes and quite a bit of time in gliders. I had had a ride in an RV-4 in El Paso and the demonstrator RV-6A at Van's so had a basic idea of how the airplane handled and it just seemed to handle honestly.

Before I started building the RV I bought a Piper Pacer to learn tailwheel flying and I think that was a wise decision. The Pacer with its pretty quick ground handling and brisk sink rate power off, along with previous experience in airplanes like the Cessna 210 with its speed made the RV-6 nothing much new when I did my transition training.

One year before I flew the RV I took transition training in an RV-6 with Mike Seager. We spent one good quality hour and at the end of that hour I had confidence that I could fly the airplane. The RV was certainly easier than the Pacer although different in a few ways, like speed. I kept flying the Pacer until shortly before the first RV flight and I think that was important in keeping the skills up.

It seems that things have changed with the insurance companies. I was fully insured, at a reasonable price, from the first flight, with the one hour of transition training a year before.

I think the cautions need to be evaluated. If your time is almost all in Cessna 150s/172s and Piper Cherokee types, it is different. If you have recently flown a wide variety of light airplanes of different speed ranges, wing loadings and landing gear configurations, I think it is really a straightforward transition, nothing to be afraid of at all. It is the most natural flying airplane I have had the privilege of flying.
 
pierre smith;247608BTW said:
www.safeair1.com[/url] and scroll down to "RV Transition training" and click on the windsock nearest you.

Regards,
Click to expand...

pierre, i guess your it . i'll see ya soon. ;) how much extra is it if you come up here? just kidding
 
I bought my RV-6 in early spring of 2004. I had been flying tailwheel airplanes since 1955. Most of my time has been in Cessna 120s and 140s. When I took the demo ride in the RV-6 I wound up buying, I flew it from the right seat. I did not do a good job in it. I wasn't ready for the bootfull of right rudder required on takeoff, and was all over the runway. I loved the control harmony once we were flying. A few stalls with and without flaps down, and we came back for a few landings. They were again, not too good, but keeping it straight on the runway was not a problem. Getting the landing attitude right was, but I felt I'd learned alot about the airplane on that flight. I made the deal and purchased it the next day.

The weather had turned bad and I couldn't fly it home right away. It sat for a couple of weeks before I could go get it. When the day came, I just strapped it on and flew it home. When I got near my home field, I messed around with some slow flight and getting the feel of the airplane at pattern speeds. After doing some stalls, I picked 80 mph for my approach speed with full flaps, with 70 mph across the numbers. Basically, I still use those speeds. Getting the landing attitude right was the biggest challenge for me. I had one bad landing where I threw the power to it and went around to get set up again. After a dozen landings or so and thinking about it between flights, things started falling into place. I have about 300 hours in my RV-6 now. I am very happy with it.

Would I recommend my self checkout to someone else? Depends on what you've been flying and how much you really understand about the mechanics of flight. The short answer is no. If you are short on experience, the answer is definately, no. These airplanes represent too much investment to risk bending them. Before purchasing my RV-6, I'd read about a few accidents on the builder's first take off in his new airplane, and wondered how that could happen to an experienced tailwheel pilot. On one of my early take offs in my plane I got behind it. I saved it, but found out just how these accidents happen. The forces involved are real and the pilot had better be there.
 
I do ferry...

cytoxin said:
pierre, i guess your it . i'll see ya soon. ;) how much extra is it if you come up here? just kidding
Click to expand...

....for $100 an hour to your place but right now I'm pretty busy spraying and my training will resume around the end of October. I could however, squeeze in some time on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday after Church.

Thanks,
 
hngrflyr said:
Anyone who lands on the nose gear of any airplane has not been taught the most basic of flying skills.
Click to expand...
or is developing a bad habit. But you're missing my point. Many people, generally newer pilots, will at some point land their spam can on the nose gear and get away with it. The odds of getting away with it on an RV are much less favorable.
 
SPAM CAN?

I keep seeing Cessna's and Piper's called "SPAM CANS". The construction of my RV 8 is the same as the so called "SPAM CAN" Cessna and Pipers. The term spam can came from the tube, fabric and wood airplane guys!

Does this mean my RV 8 is BETTER than my 450 powered "SPAM CAN"
Cessna 195?

What am I missing?
 
Production lines.

The term "Spam Can" comes from the fact that they are stamped out on a production line, each one being just like the previous one. Our RVs are individually built to our own individual standards. Hopefully these standards are at least as good as spam cans and preferably better.
 
Low Pass said:
The odds of getting away with it on an RV are much less favorable.
Click to expand...

You are right about that. I saw a video the other day showing a Cherokee landing hot and flat and bouncing. The bounces got progressively worse, until the nose gear departed from the airplane, and it slides to a stop with the tail sticking high into the air. I had to chuckle.

I have a friend who is a CFI and does lots of BFRs. He says 80% of the pilots can't fly. I thought he was kidding. Maybe not. There is an airport nearby where lots of training goes on. One school's students land the airplanes correctly. Another set if students wheelbarrows the airplanes onto the runway, with the CFI aboard, no less. That's what I mean about being taught the most basic skills. The bar of performance has certainly been lowered over the years. There are CFIs who can't fly.
 
[email protected] said:
This whole thread is scaring me a little. I'm building a RV-9 because I'm a low time pilot and I'm not interested in aerobatics. I'm hoping that a 9 is a more manageable for a low-time pilot. I will certainly get some transition training.
Click to expand...

Be not afraid, The RVs are not difficult, just different. If you have no background in light fast responsive airplanes you need some transition training. With a little training the light will go on quickly and you will be fine.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
The good news for the new RV pilot is, the airplane is responsive to your control inputs. It will do what you ask, but you do have to ask. I've been flying tailwheel airplanes since I was 13 years old. I'm 66 now. Over all, my RV-6 is likely the easiest tailwheel airplane I've ever flown, once you understand a few things.

These airplanes are not as popular as they are without reason. They are honest straight forward airplanes with no real vices. very delightful to fly.
 
CE196 said:
I keep seeing Cessna's and Piper's called "SPAM CANS". The construction of my RV 8 is the same as the so called "SPAM CAN" Cessna and Pipers. The term spam can came from the tube, fabric and wood airplane guys!

Does this mean my RV 8 is BETTER than my 450 powered "SPAM CAN"
Cessna 195?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
How about we call them beer cans? ;)
 
CE196 said:
I keep seeing Cessna's and Piper's called "SPAM CANS".

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you haven't devoted a significant amount of time, determination and sweat into creating something that most people can't.

There are builders and then there are buyers. I'm sure buyers can appreciate the effort builders put into assembling a kit but I think only builders can appreciate the art of the creation.

Yes, your RV is probably better than your Cessna in one way. The RV has a bit of the builders soul (and probably a bit of DNA) riveted into it and he or she flys along with you. Your Cessna was simply put together by guys that happen to need a job and showed up for work.

Build one and you'll understand.
 
Not a bad idea to get some stick time in another RV before flying your own and you may need it anyway for insurance purposes but...

People sling the phrase "high performance" around here... ahem. An RV flies like a Grumman Tiger with a stick, a better rate of climb, slightly lighter and more responsive controls and 30-40 knots more on the top end. Not really high performance in my book. Pretty darn viceless, stalls pretty slow, easy to land and a pleasure in overall control harmony- total performance rather than high performance.

On the other hand if you can't land a Cherokee or a Grumman properly, you're going to have problems in an RV too. If you are building a TD, certainly get some RV TD time but I think you will find it easier than say a Citabria.

RVs are not hard to fly or land at all, just pay attention to the basics and you'll be fine. The only thing that RVs will really teach you is how terrible most production airplanes feel by comparison! Getting back into a 172 after a few hours of stick time in an RV will probably have you laughing out loud at its wallowing, pitiful control response.
 
rv6ejguy said:
RVs are not hard to fly or land at all, just pay attention to the basics and you'll be fine. The only thing that RVs will really teach you is how terrible most production airplanes feel by comparison! Getting back into a 172 after a few hours of stick time in an RV will probably have you laughing out loud at its wallowing, pitiful control response.
Click to expand...

When I first began flying my RV-6, I flew it exclusively for about four months, then It was time for the condition inspection. After I got the airplane apart for the inspection, I found that I needed some stuff from Van's. I got into our Cessna 120 to fly the 80 miles to Van's to get my supplies. The first few minutes in the air, it felt like the control yoke wasn't connected to anything except maybe a bucket of mud. After a while, it felt normal enough again. You don't fly the same airplane for nearly 40 years without it growing on you.
 
hngrflyr said:
When I first began flying my RV-6, I flew it exclusively for about four months, then It was time for the condition inspection. After I got the airplane apart for the inspection, I found that I needed some stuff from Van's. I got into our Cessna 120 to fly the 80 miles to Van's to get my supplies. The first few minutes in the air, it felt like the control yoke wasn't connected to anything except maybe a bucket of mud. After a while, it felt normal enough again. You don't fly the same airplane for nearly 40 years without it growing on you.
Click to expand...

I had the "pleasure" of going up in a 172 last year to do some circuits with my Dad. I had not been in a Cessna product since spin training back in 1978 in a 150. I took the controls of it for a minute or so and was actually laughing out loud. You could go stop to stop with ailerons quickly and the thing would barely flinch. In my RV, you'd have gone 45 degrees of bank either way with that kind of movement. It was really worse than what I remember flying a DC3 a long time ago but at least you expect a big heavy plane like that to handle somewhat ponderously.

You do get used to what you fly for sure. I declined the offer to land the 172- absolutely very little fun to fly after the RV.

I shake my head when people buy brand new 172s after getting their PPLs. These poor souls just don't know any better because that's all they've ever flown I guess.
 
There is a caveat...

....to these little machines. They'll bite you if you get sloppy. So far, two of my transition training students have had "incidents" happen. The last one happened on a cross-country home from Osh. He told me he landed fine then while on the ground, for some reason, pulled the stick back and became airborne, stalled kind high, smacked the ground and folded the nosegear under. Fortunately, it didn't go over and nobody's hurt but the wallet.

You gotta finesse these babies, just like you're caressing your favorite lady....gently and softly does it best. I advocate landing them nose high but not stalled, as you would a Bonanza or Lear.

Regards,

Regards,
 
DA-20-C1 vs RV9A

I'm currently learning to fly a DA-20-C1 and find it more responsive & easier
than a C-150.

I was wondering how my RV9A will fly compared to the Diamond?

Anybody here flown both?

Daver
 
I gotta question your conclusion :)

rv6ejguy said:
You do get used to what you fly for sure. I declined the offer to land the 172- absolutely very little fun to fly after the RV.

I shake my head when people buy brand new 172s after getting their PPLs. These poor souls just don't know any better because that's all they've ever flown I guess.
Click to expand...


I still think that any day I get to fly anything is a GREAT day..
Granted, some put a bigger grin on me that others, but they are all great..
 
Flying IS great but since this is an RV site, I prefer to extol the virtues of RVs over most production aircraft. My reply was really to make others realize how much better the flying experience is in an RV than a 172 for instance. We are lucky to be flying such nice handling aircraft.:)
 
RV's fly great the landings are the hard part

Hello,

I think whether or not you get transition training depends on who you are and where you are.

I live in Alaska and to get transition training would have been very difficult for me. I have had experience in lots of other aircraft and do have many hours in tail draggers.

I treated my first flight with respect and was very careful. Take off was pleasant not as much pull to the left as a Cessna 180/185. Flight charateristics were/are very nice, responsive, easy to fly. I circled the runway for about an hour trying to get the engine to break in and then did a couple of full flap stalls and some slow flight. The airplane handled the stalls and slow flight very well. I then alerted the ground crew that I was going to land and did so.

I have/had been told to do a 3 point landing so i was going to try that although they are not my favoite. When the mains touched I gently applied back pressure on the stick to get the tail wheel down and the RV-9 flew again, interesting but not horrible. I suppose it could have induced a bouncing situation but I just feathered the throttle and let it settle in and then just released back pressure on the stick and the airplane landed and tracked straight down the runway.

Do I think you should fly your RV-9 like I did. Probably not but I just wanted you to know that these airplanes are very nice little units.

Now I just fly in over the numbers at about 80 and let the airplane settle down onto the runway and when the mains touch just release a little back pressure and th landing are a non-event. I suppose they would be called wheel landings but I really do like them best anyway. With wheel landings I have a better sight picture and the weight of the airplane is over the brakes where the maximum effectiveness takes place anyway. Years of landing on gravel bars has me convinced that is best for me.

You will like the RV-9, you will even like it more as you fly it.

Unfortunately for me the P mag took a dump yesterday so my test period is now cut short. 25 hours out of 40.

Mike Ice
 
Last edited:
transition training from a low time guy perspective

I've got about 90 hours total, with about 60 of them 30 years ago. Of course the good thing about the old training was, X-wind, gusty full stall landings, slips unusual attitudes and such,... at least understanding the airplane a bit. It helped when getting back into flying at the local airport, where a cross wind can make for an exciting time, as it rolls off the trees and onto the runway, of course there are no trees on final,.. just down the runway, one should not be asleep at the controls when landing.

Last month I went out to vist the professor, Mike Seager, for a bit of transition training, with his C/s trigear. Well,... I spent the first day trying to hang onto the tail tie down and not be totally left behind by the airplane, and trying to adjust the gain on my control inputs,.. heck I was tring to find where to make them with throttle, prop and etc in different places.. and obviously the 172 inputs were not the proper calibration. A real piece trying to get sorted out was the final decent angle and altitudeTHROUGH the numbers. Just seemed like you rode that high speed elevator into the asphalt, before thinking about "increasing the pressure" on the stick,...heck if you moved it,.. it was about time to call cross wind if you weren't careful,...

Spent the night trying to figure out how to unlearn some actions,.. decided that the old shooting trick of wedging an arm or elbow somewhere was a good idea, .. and slowly got the stick movement down the next day. Morning of the second day was better, it was a bit easier to fly,.. riding in the seat instead on hanging onto the tiedown,..still trying to fine tune that "sight picture" for takeoff and landing (rollout) and linkage to the stick,... flying, nose up, nose down,.... man, it sure could move quick if you even tried to make something happen.

Then in the afternoon,... CLICK,... things fell into place,... wow, what a fun plane,.. of course the 30 odd TO/LDGs, and ongoing feedback by Mike probably helped the grey matter to connect.

So,.. would I recommend transition training,.. YEP,.. you betcha
 
'Bout a week ago I bought a Toyota--first front wheel drive in about ten years. Today I realized half way through a curve on gravel it wanted to point at the fence instead of swinging it's tail out like the Sube or MB. Heck, I need transition training even on the ground!

The question isn't why, it is is there REALLY a reason not to have xtion training. Mike Ice had a good reason and handled it well. So did a few others. I get the feeling some just got lucky. With about a thousand hours in everything from C-150's to 185's and sailplanes to ultralights, I really wanted some RV time before my first flight. I know I was safer by doing it. That is all that counts.

Bob Kelly
 
Transition Training

It's just a safe way to get a comfortable first flight mind set before going off solo. The plane flies in a very conventional manner. The only thing that requires special attention is the nose gear on "A" models. Keeping the "A" model nose gear off of the ground goes way beyond the normal concern for this action. Make darn sure you set the breakout force properly and check and retighten it periodically until it stops loosening up. The plane goes exactly where you put it and is very easy to control.

Bob Axsom
 
Do transition training, it's worth it so you aren't scared out of your mind when you get on upwind and realize you have to land this thing.... or else.

I flew a Glasair I RG for 5 or so hours in the right seat, then the owner threw me the keys and told me to solo it. I must say the flight time helped, but still having never landed it, it was a little daunting. I'm probably about as current as it gets, CFI with ~1000TT and at least 200 SEL hours in the last year. Still was a eye opening situation :).

On 'spam cans' I find the terminology akin to calling RV's "homebuilts". Commen, but in poor taste. Some poor mechanic spent his/her time, sweat, and DNA keeping that Cessna in the air, and that deserves just as much respect as a guy building a RV. Trust me, a rebuild of a Cessna is MUCH more difficult than building a Prepunched RV.

I'm just as proud of my family's Cessna Cardinal as I am of my RV projects, mainly because I keep it running and i've been able to make it a truely outstanding airplane for it's mission.
 
Seems lots of people here are worried about landing on the nose gear of A models. If you're that worried about your skills, you need more training and should get it before you bend something.

I just make sure I can't see the runway straight ahead before touch down. This gives a safe margin from touching down nose wheel first.

One experienced RV guy PM'd me a few weeks back saying he wasn't getting much consistency in his touch downs. I suggested to stop using full flaps and trying half flaps instead. Problem solved.

RV 6s and 7s land much nicer without full flap down IMO. I only use it when I need it. In fact, I land clean most of the time. Of course you can do greasers with full flap but I find it easier to do 10 greasers in a row without them.
 
I would just like to add, transition training makes sense for all of the above reasons. The most important for me is that I intend to take family members for a ride, wife, son"s and grand son's. So for them I will seek every advantage to safe flying.
 
Things my Cherokee didn't have me ready for to fly a 9a.

1. Take off and landing technique required for the nose dragger RV's
2. Free Castering nosewheel.
3. Flying a constant speed prop
4. Turning departure stalls with the power stuffed all the way in. The view and sensation was like no Cherokee I ever flew.


The RV is a pussycat, but there were differences from my smam can that were nice to be able to learn without having to manage a possible emergency at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top