Some help understanding the RV-6 choice, please...

I've made a bit of a pilgrimage here at VAF and have surely benefited greatly by the advice so far...and now I find myself here on the '6' forum.

I originally came to VAF because of my interest in building a RV-12, after a great introduction by Mitch Locke. However, I've been troubled by its low value equation (cost + effort vs. the size, payload & level of performance provided). That led me in turn to the RV-9. (We have cross-country plans and, aside from my Navy son who can meet his need in other ways, no one has aerobatic aspirations). I was again provided a very pleasing intro flight in a 9A (beautiful 779RV based at CRG) but, on reflection, both the total kit cost and the build time are higher than I'm willing to accept. And so...we now find ourselves (Patricia is also a pilot) looking at 6's & 6A's out there on the For Sale lots. But other than the Vans website and some unproductive lurking here, we really don't have a feel for what we'd be accepting (relative to the 9 and 7 series) if going with the older design and the no-CNC kit build.

I'm no doubt missing some key topics...but could I please ask some of you to address the following Q's that we have?
-- is the 6 more 'twitchy' (one notch past 'responsive', let's say) than the later side-by-side models? (I realize the 9A I tried on isn't quite like a 7).
-- for those of you who are familiar with the later SxS models, is the 6 noticeably smaller and/or with a less functional luggage area? are there any significant differences in the form factor (e.g. range of seat adjustment, wing loading, slow flight characteristics)?
-- we don't have tailwheel endorsements; just how much more of a handful is a 6 than a 6A in crosswinds, assuming the training is good and the students are capable?
-- and perhaps our main concern: how much more variability in build quality might exist in a 6 model (vs. the later CNC-punched models), and so more of a risk if the pre-buy isn't as thorough as we thought we would be getting?

If there are some other topics worth considering, we'd surely welcome hearing about them. And many thanks for your patience and coaching as we (continue to) climb the RV Learning Curve.

Jack

As to being twitchy, I'll just say that the 9 is more sedate. I prefer the control feel of the 6. It's not tough at all, once you realize it takes less input than a Cessna 172. If riding across country in either.........they feel much the same..........smooth air or turbulence. The 9's advantage is a 10 mph slower landing speed. In most cases, the 6 will climb faster, and fly faster than the 9, when the 9 is running a 160 hp versus the 180 for the 6. The 180 HP 6 can be as economical fuel wise, as the 9, when throttled back. Room and baggage wise, the difference is so little, that you won't notice.

BTW--- my 1996 RV6A kit, had pre-punched wing skins. The spar was also professionally built, as many were, as an option.

L.Adamson

Jack Tyler said:

I'm no doubt missing some key topics...but could I please ask some of you to address the following Q's that we have?
-- is the 6 more 'twitchy' (one notch past 'responsive', let's say) than the later side-by-side models? (I realize the 9A I tried on isn't quite like a 7).
-- for those of you who are familiar with the later SxS models, is the 6 noticeably smaller and/or with a less functional luggage area? are there any significant differences in the form factor (e.g. range of seat adjustment, wing loading, slow flight characteristics)?
-- we don't have tailwheel endorsements; just how much more of a handful is a 6 than a 6A in crosswinds, assuming the training is good and the students are capable?
-- and perhaps our main concern: how much more variability in build quality might exist in a 6 model (vs. the later CNC-punched models), and so more of a risk if the pre-buy isn't as thorough as we thought we would be getting?

Click to expand...

1. The responsive/twitchiness of the plane will probably vary from plane-to-plane as much or more than from model-to-model. As a low time (~350 hours) pilot when I bought my -6, I thought of it as slightly twitchy, but no more. Certainly more responsive than the -9, tho.
2. The -6 is tighter and carries a little less luggage than the -7. Significant? Maybe. But, the price difference is also significant. I'd judge the price difference more significant than the other issues. I don't have experience to comment on the flight differences.
3. It was certainly a challenge to learn the tailwheel as I had less than 2 hours in TW. But, good transition training took care of that issue. I expect I spent an additional 5-7 hours in training because of it, however. Then again, I haven't bent a front fork or flipped over the nose.
4. Variability in build quality is a great question. Yes, from what I have seen, -6s commonly have much greater variability. But, there are duds in all models, so I wouldn't purchase without a thorough pre-purchase inspection. After six years of ownership, I continue to judge the build quality on my -6 as excellent.

I don't have any experience riding in/flying either the 9 or the 12 but can offer these comments/opinions.

The 6 and 7 have almost the same exact interior "elbow room" to me. The 7 (and 9 since same fuselage) has better headroom, legroom, and baggage area... and bigger fuel tanks too. Neither the 6 or 7 feel especially "twitchy" to me. The RV-4, I thought, felt more responsive than either the 6 or 7. The RV I've got the most hours in, is an RV-8 and it's got by far the "twitchiest" response of the bunch.... which I've grown to absolutely love

However, when compared to any brand C or brand P spamcan, all the RVs models seem twitchy as heck . After flying for nearly 1000 hours in a Cherokee, I'd developed plenty of bad habits, and learning to fly RV's (first 25 hours in an RV-4) was almost like learning to fly an airplane all over again.

I'd already had my tailwheel endorsement (Cub, Supercub, Citabria, C140) and to me the RV is even milder-mannered tailwheel than those 4... especially the RV-8, it's a piece of cake. The RV-6 lands just about like an RV-4 except since you're not sitting on the centerline in the 6, it sure feels a little squirrelier than the 4. Landing any of the tailwheel models in a crosswind requires you to acquire the proper technique thru hands-on experience and training, so from that perspective, if you're not already good at taildragger crosswind landings, of course the -A models will certainly be easier to do crosswind landings... but once you acquire the skills, then neither nosewheel nor tailwheel offers advantage as long as you're not tackling a crosswind that's beyond your personal skill level.

I think there is great value in the older rv6, as you've found. I've had a 6+ foot passenger in my rv6a no problem. It's a small cockpit, but comfortable. I'm sure you can find one locally to sit in for comparison with the rv9.

I think the biggest thing you will find looking at the older used rv6 market is a wider range of build quality. I spent a long time looking at rv4's before settling on an unfinished rv6a kit. Saw a few scary airplanes in the used market that I wouldn't buy at any price. Don't skimp on the pre-buy inspection!

Hope that helps!

On cockpit room...

To be precise, the RV 6, 7, and 9 are the same width. The seat pan of the 7 & 9 have been lowered to give additional head room and the "foot wells" are longer to accommodate taller pilots. These changes are somewhat minor and can be controlled to some extent with varying the cushion thickness on the -6.

The -6's are super good buys!

Jack, I flew my -6A for 5 years and 500 hours, giving around 75 transition trainees checkouts. To a man, they loved my airplane...180 horse, 3 blade Catto and they had -7's -8A's and 9A's completed and ready to fly.

The -6 or -6A's can be bought for way less than the sum of their parts and are exceptional airplanes.

You would do well to contact Jan Bussell near Orlando and fly both a -6 and -6A since he uses both for transition training.

Res 863 467 9354
Cell 561 628 2105.

Best,

Jack Tyler said:

...is the 6 more 'twitchy' (one notch past 'responsive', let's say) than the later side-by-side models?...

Click to expand...

It is difficult for me to think of any properly built RV as anything close to twitchy. They just aren't. What they are is wonderfully responsive and slop free and those are attributes that contribute to making many phases of flight easier than in typical airplanes. A good example would be a cross-wind landing in strong and gusty wind conditions. That control authority and precision give a confidence I just don't have in a factory airplane where you have to horse it around. Another example would be formation flight. When you see how steadily and precisely 10s of RVs can fly together in bumpy conditions you can see they aren't twitchy.

Sorry, I just hate it when people use "that" word about RVs. I think Curtis Pitts said something like he "has never seen a twitchy airplane but he has seen twitchy pilots." Well I almost feel that way but have flown a couple of airplanes that did indeed seem a little twitchy, a term I would use when the an airplane is very sensitive but not very stable and without much feedback in the controls.

As to the tailwheel, I recommend against buying an airplane with a tailwheel until you have gotten some tailwheel instruction and decided how you like it.

The RV-6 is a terrific bargain today.

I somewhat agree with n51p

I owned a Piper Archer II for 22 years and accumulated over 4,000 PIC hours in it. When I got a ride in Old Blue (RV-6) with Ken Scott in 1996 at North Plains, OR I was surprized at how it flew just like the Archer as far as smoothness is concerned. There was absolutely no tendency to overshoot the desired attitude with any control input, it just gets there faster. With the same engine I think it is faster than any RV except the RV-8. I took me 8 years to build our RV-6A and I have been flying and modifying it for speed for another 6 to 7 years. I love our RV-6A it like Burt Munro loved his Indian Scout.

Build quality - the areas where you are going to find dangerous builder problems are not those that are going to be eliminated by prepunched rivet patterns. One can build a poor quality RV-9 or a 7 or 8 just as surely as an RV-6.

I am interested in speed and travel (and good looks) and nothing else so my views are slanted that way.

If you are interested in speed of the various models you can go to www.sportairrace.org, click on "Records and Stats" then "League Statistics", then "All Speeds by Aircraft Type" and an Excel file will be down loaded to your computer with 1,073 cross country air race flights sorted by aircraft type and speed. This will allow you to get a good idea of how they rank in performance (to me that is speed!).

Bob Axsom

I've flown a -4, -6, -6A, -7, -8, and -9A at various times. The one I have the most time in is my -6, that I bought used. I find that with the exception of the -9, all the RV's perform pretty close to the same. The -9 loses a bit in roll responsiveness, and seems to refuse to descend when you throttle back... It feels like it will glide forever.

So far, my wife and I have no problem getting ourselves and camping baggage into the -6 with full tanks. We're both active people and not particularly heavy, which helps a lot. But if your weights tend to the higher end of the scale, you may want the -7 for the extra carrying capacity.

I just purchased a flying 6A, and went through a lot of the same debate that you are now. I never really considered a tailwheel aircraft, so I can't really comment on that, but certainly spent a lot of time comparing the 6A and 7A, and to a lesser extent the 9A (I do want to do some acro eventually). Build quality was one issue, for sure, and I can only echo what others have said and the advice I was given, namely that the odds any given 6 having build quality problems may be higher than with a 7 or 9, but ultimately it will always come down to the individual aircraft and builder. My 6 is beautifully built and has impressed everyone who has checked it out, including a friend who has built 2 7's himself, and the inspector who granted me my C of A.

As for interior room, this was a huge concern for me, as I am 6'4". My friend just purchased a flying 7, giving me the chance to sit it in and compare it to my plane; the way the seat pan and pedals are set up in his 7, I fit better in my 6. If you are taller than average, that can apparently be better accommodated in the 7, but my understanding is that most of that leeway has to be addressed during the build, so if you're buying a flying 7, if it wasn't originally set up for someone of that size, you won't be any further ahead. For me, with my seatback in the furthest aft position and my cushions at minimum thickness I have lots of headroom and very adequate legroom.

I can't comment on flying qualities relative to other RV's, as I have only flown my 6A. The airplane is supremely controllable; it is wonderfully responsive in both roll and pitch, but is the easiest airplane I've ever flown to maintain course and altitude; stays right where you put it until you ask it to do something else, at which time it does it IMMEDIATELY, but very, very predictably and controllably. Not twitchy at all, and as others have noted, that control response and authority make it confidence inspiring in crosswind landings. For me the biggest adjustment was the elevator response; I definitely did a bit of overcontrolling in that axis for the first 20 minutes or so of my first flight; after that I was used to the authority and have had no issues since.

Value for money: No contest, the 6's are probably the best buy in the RV world. Amazing amount of airplane for the money. You give up so little compared to the 7, and pay so much less. I wouldn't hesitate to make the same choice again. Good luck with your search!

Bought a flying 7a this spring, couple of things for you:

- We wanted the 7a for the additional gross, more fuel and more room. Plus in the A model, they sit higher on the gear and just look more substantial to me. If a nice 6a came along would we have bought it, absolutely!
- Great time to buy, as Pierre says you can buy a flying plane for well less than the cost of the parts. I thought it was a great investment. We thought the 7a would hold its value better, but who knows.
- twitchy, not even close. Very easy to fly, very stable and predictable. It is normally pretty calm in our part of NC, but Sunday I had a 90 degree crosswind of 12 gusting 21, no issue at all in the 7a.
- My opinion there is much more variability in the older 6s than the newer models. Many were built before matched hole, quickbuild and the information sharing of this site. You will see some beautiful ones and some that look pretty rough.

Sixes Varied a lot towards the end

The 6's changed over the years. My 6A manual says 100 lbs baggage capacity and 38 gallons of fuel, which is different than Van's website indicates for 6. A lot of 7 parts and instructions came towards the end of the kit.

The 6's are an amazing bargain right now.

Hans

Sixes are in existence because sevens were not available.

I took my transition training with Pierre in his beautiful 6A. Shortly after, I flew my RV-7A for its first flight and I could tell no difference between the two planes. Both planes were O-360 180 hp with 3 blade Catto props and they both handled exactly the same.

6V 7A

I'm flying both my 6(for sale)and my 7A and find the 7is a better cross-country, more head room. The 6 is better for yankin n banking, much lighter on the controls. Both have 0-360s. In the end, it would be tough if I had to chose, well, I guess I have as the 6 is for sale. Dave

I built a 7A, and took transition training in a 9A and a 6A. Prior to flying an RV almost all of my 80 hours of flying was in a Cessna 152. To make matters worse I hadn't flown in 18 months when I started transition training, and I remember the 9A being quite a handful or it seamed. Thanks to Dan and his great piloting skills I got adjusted back to flying and really enjoyed flying his 9. I later took some additional transition training in a RV-6A, and later flew my RV-7A. I just flew the 200th hour as a pilot and have to say it is a great community to belong in and a absolutely awesome airplane to fly!! I can say from my little experience that you will hardly notice the difference in flying charcteristics between the 9,6, and 7, and you will throw rocks at the spam cans after flying an RV.

David-aviator said:

Sixes are in existence because sevens were not available.

Click to expand...

The six is to date, the most popular kit aircraft ever built.... (Big $$ in Van's pocket.)

In 15 years over 2,450 RV6's have been completed.

In 10 years over 1,110 RV7's have been completed.

Even with the speed of assembling a pre-punched kit, the RV7 line will need to complete over 1350 aircraft in the next 5 years to take the top of the hill from the 6. I don't think that will happen. There are still many 6's that are being completed.

I have seen enough hacked up 7's to know that a pre punched kit does not guarantee a perfect aircraft. A well built 7, 8, or 9 was built by a craftsman.

A well built 6 was built by a craftsman that had to layout and drill every hole from blueprints and instructions that were......
well let's just say.....

Gross weight

Keep in mind that for your mission, namely cross-country flying, the number one practical difference between the 6s and 7s will be the max gross weight. With a 180-hp engine and constant speed prop (which is common), it is quite easy to go over gross with 2 normal people, baggage and a full load of fuel. The extra couple of hundred pounds of useful load on the -7 make it easier to stay within published design limits.

The fact that you realize there is a learning curve is great. My #1 piece of advice is to be patient and methodical. It can take a long time to find the right plane.

About 18 months ago I was in the same spot as you. I was weighing almost all the same issues.

I ultimately decided on an RV6, although I would have bought a 6A, 7/7A, or 9/9A if the right plane/price appeared.

The tailwheel is a challenge, but I love it. I had just 3 hours t/w time before I bought the 6. One of the biggest things that I did not consider in the tailwheel/nosewheel deliberations, but realized later, is the portion of the A model gearleg that intrudes into the cockpit. It is partly because I have short legs, but having the top of the A model gear legs in the cabin bugs the heck out of me. I realized that while flying too/from KOSH in the right seat of a friend's 7A.

PM a phone number if you want to talk about the plane buying experience.

The comments you folks have offered so far have been both generous and helpful, especially given their variety and the fact so many of you are familiar with multiple models. I don't mean to shut off further comment...but thanks very much to those who have responded.

Based on the comments (so far), it appears our #1 issue would likely be build quality. We total 310# (notice how I'm being a gentleman... <s>) and we have 2.5 hr bladders...so payload and endurance seem adequate. I think we need to 'try on' a 6 and I'll begin asking around at the EAA meeting tonight. The described flight characteristics were reassuring and I will now use 'complete absence of slop' and 'immediate but completely controllable response' rather than using that other word.

As you all know, it's one thing to plan upfront for a full pre-buy inspection and, on the other, to get one of high caliber from a shop at a distant airport in another state. BTW I'm thinking that, for an RV purchase, a pre-buy should be a combo of a full Condition Inspection and also an examination by an experienced RV builder/owner). That can take some doing re: logistics, however, and some owners/sellers are more flexible and understanding than others. And then there's the possibility that a pre-buy doesn't just reveal things the seller needs to address, but rather things the buyer really should walk away from. From some of the above comments, I conclude that could happen when looking at a given 6. So my 'last' question is this: What if anything can I ask upfront, during the 'vetting process', that might help improve the odds that the 6 being considered won't be a disappointment when the inspection and 'exam' are underway? (It's obviously easier for me to ask Q's than to be able to evaluate the A's...but thought I'd ask anyway).

Again, many thanks folks.

Jack

Jack Tyler said:

So my 'last' question is this: What if anything can I ask upfront, during the 'vetting process', that might help improve the odds that the 6 being considered won't be a disappointment when the inspection and 'exam' are underway? (It's obviously easier for me to ask Q's than to be able to evaluate the A's...but thought I'd ask anyway).

Again, many thanks folks.

Jack

Click to expand...

Ask who built it. If it was self built, was it their first. This does not guarantee anything nor does it mean it was not well built, but I would ask. There is a chance that it was built by reputable known builder and that would weigh huge on my decision.
Contact the EAA chapter nearest to the aircraft in question. See if you can find out if anybody knows the person and the airplane. I have asked around on certain airplanes I was looking at and when two or three people commented the same; "that airplane has gear issues" or "I know that airplane and it is very nice"...etc...that means something. I walked from an airplane based on a few comments from people that knew the bird.
Get references from the owner but take them with a grain of salt...
As noted, above all, get a qualified, in type person with a good reputation and experience with pre-buys. These people are worth thier wieght in gold!
If you can't find one local, buy a guy like Mel a ticket once you vetted the opportunity out first.

Build quality

There's a whole lot more to build quality than sheet metal and paint. Very few homebuilts are wired properly, and many have problems under the cowling -- chafing wires, things improperly supported and waiting to vibrate loose, wrong hardware, all kinds of things. And if you're conscientious and build your own, you'll reduce -- not eliminate -- these kinds of errors. If you buy a homebuilt, I think it's safe to assume that you'll find bunches of problems unless the plane has had some real TLC by somebody who really knew what they were doing. Don't let this discourage you from getting a used RV, but to really know what you've got, you're going to have to do much more than an annual inspection. I've owned (used) an RV-4, an AirCam, and an RV-8A. I didn't keep the -8A for very long (had nothing to do with the airplane), but the others had lots and lots of projects to be done that showed up on their own timetable...

Ed

Jack, do a search of your county tax records to see who has an 6-6A and give them a call. Let them know what you are looking for........ You might be surprised how friendly we are. I would really try to shop local first. It is so much easier to complete a transaction.

Stay away from anything from Texas..................






Just kidding......................................

Re: gasman's suggestion - and for anyone following this thread who's also looking for local RV models to 'try on' - there's a very nice gal at Vans., Cynthia, who maintains Vans' by-state customer/builder data base. If you email her with a request, she will forward the current listing for your state (tho' only address info is included, no other contact details). Very useful. cynthias at vac dot com

Thanks again for the comments. Build quality seems even more of a critical issue than I'd assumed...

Jack

Jack Tyler said:

I've made a bit of a pilgrimage here at VAF and have surely benefited greatly by the advice so far...and now I find myself here on the '6' forum.

I originally came to VAF because of my interest in building a RV-12, after a great introduction by Mitch Locke. However, I've been troubled by its low value equation (cost + effort vs. the size, payload & level of performance provided). That led me in turn to the RV-9. (We have cross-country plans and, aside from my Navy son who can meet his need in other ways, no one has aerobatic aspirations). I was again provided a very pleasing intro flight in a 9A (beautiful 779RV based at CRG) but, on reflection, both the total kit cost and the build time are higher than I'm willing to accept. And so...we now find ourselves (Patricia is also a pilot) looking at 6's & 6A's out there on the For Sale lots. But other than the Vans website and some unproductive lurking here, we really don't have a feel for what we'd be accepting (relative to the 9 and 7 series) if going with the older design and the no-CNC kit build.

I'm no doubt missing some key topics...but could I please ask some of you to address the following Q's that we have?
-- is the 6 more 'twitchy' (one notch past 'responsive', let's say) than the later side-by-side models? (I realize the 9A I tried on isn't quite like a 7).
-- for those of you who are familiar with the later SxS models, is the 6 noticeably smaller and/or with a less functional luggage area? are there any significant differences in the form factor (e.g. range of seat adjustment, wing loading, slow flight characteristics)?
-- we don't have tail wheel endorsements; just how much more of a handful is a 6 than a 6A in crosswinds, assuming the training is good and the students are capable?
-- and perhaps our main concern: how much more variability in build quality might exist in a 6 model (vs. the later CNC-punched models), and so more of a risk if the pre-buy isn't as thorough as we thought we would be getting?

If there are some other topics worth considering, we'd surely welcome hearing about them. And many thanks for your patience and coaching as we (continue to) climb the RV Learning Curve.

Jack

Click to expand...

Question #1, Properly rigged and flown RV's are not twitchy, very stable.
Question #2, An RV7 is basically a 6 with the 8 wings and tail, interior virtually the same.
Question #3, I have owned both tail wheel and nose wheel RV's, the tail wheel is sexy looking but its nice to have that nose wheel in a cross wind.
Question #4, Find someone to do the pre-buy. The 6 is an outstanding airplane and the best value off all RV's.

There is a lot of good advice on this thread but you need to read through the chaff.

Regarding the comments about buying an RV-7(A) because of the higher gross, while this is true, it does have a higher gross than the -6 or -7 they also tend to have higher empty weights, thus reducing their useful loads.

The same goes with comments regarding the larger fuel tanks of the -7, they are needed to accommodate the large fuel consumption of the 180 and 200 hp engines. With the 160 hp O-320, the 36 gallons in the -9 is more than capable of outrunning your bladder.

Yes, the -6 has the lowest GW of all and if you are looking at buying one, pay attention to the empty weight.

Things like the interior and instrument panel can be replaced fairly easily. So look for a good airframe and engine and upgrade the rest as desired.

Hi Jack

PM sent regarding a very nice IFR -6.

Best,

RV-6

Can't go wrong with the 6!

John Thach
_____________________
RV-6A Flying
180 hp/constant speed

update?

Jack Tyler, any updates?