VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:12 PM
Kooshball Kooshball is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NC
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie View Post
To the OP,

Just typed a longer message, but my computer ate it.

Short version: I'll let others debate legalities and wisdom, but *if* you know what you're doing, you can fly pretty much all the 'gentleman's acro' positive maneuvers in an RVx at well under 3.5 Gs. (The 'acro limit' weight is for 6 Gs.)

If hard core acro is your goal, an RV probably isn't the plane you want.

FWIW,

Charlie
Thx, I doubt I will be pursuing any hard core acro but if I do it wil be in something else. “Gentleman’s acro” is a good description of what I am after right now. It is always nice to be able to go out and loop / roll something without it falling apart.

Looks like the RV6 to 7 cost difference is substantial. For my mission I’m not sure that I should pay $40k+ more for an extra 125bs of gross aerobatic weight allowance.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:29 PM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
Default

I'd have to agree, and since any -7 you're likely to find will be loaded up with more empty weight, the weight benefit could be even smaller.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's flown lots of 2-up acro in a -4, and I'm also sure that it happens in -6s pretty frequently, too. You just have to 'know your limitations'. :-)

Charlie
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:34 PM
JonJay's Avatar
JonJay JonJay is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie View Post
I'd have to agree, and since any -7 you're likely to find will be loaded up with more empty weight, the weight benefit could be even smaller.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's flown lots of 2-up acro in a -4, and I'm also sure that it happens in -6s pretty frequently, too. You just have to 'know your limitations'. :-)

Charlie
100% agree.!

The first two times I was in a 6 we went upside down. (Pre-RV7).
One was with a Vans employee.

However, I deny any knowledge of me doing any of that
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.

RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:28 PM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
Default

I did not eyeball the plane but it was online. It looked nice, $42K for an RV-4. It looked nice. I think it had a Dynon D-10 and mix of mechanical gauges... It had a fixed sensenich, recall 160HP... The RV-4 flies as well or better than later model RV's. Yes the cockpit is smaller but so what. Unless you are up there in the bubba scale it's not bad. Yes it has less fuel (unless you put in aux tanks). Dave Anders has a 244 MPH RV-4.

An RV-6 is but basically a clip wing RV-7 (shorter wing span) with less fuel. The fuselage is the same. The big change was the RV-7 had the pre punched parts, the RV-6 layout and drill your own holes...

RV-3,-4,-6 have been out for +30 years, The RV-8 and RV-7 have been out for over 20 years I believe. You want a bargain don't expect an Oshkosh award winner with a full GX3 panel, 2 axis autopilot and custom show paint job... Older models with tired paint, analog panels are the best deal. Everyone is demanding glass, autopilot... which is about $12,000 to $20,000 or more, not including installation (which I assume you would do yourself).

Then there is the prop and engine. Most people want 180HP or 200HP or more. A 160HP RV-4 scoots along very nicely. Prop? I am a C/S fan, so that would be on my list. Of course engine condition, compression, hours is critical as well. On the other hand buy a used RV and leave it as is, with less than perfect paint and panel... fly and have fun....
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767

2020 Dues Paid

Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 01-03-2019 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:45 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
...

An RV-6 is but basically a clip wing RV-7 (shorter wing span) with less fuel. The fuselage is the same. The big change was the RV-7 had the pre punched parts, the RV-6 layout and drill your own holes...
...

Just a different point of view.......
The -7 has a longer fuselage than the -6, in addition to the longer wing. It also has a larger VS and rudder.

The center section is significantly different between the two as well

The -7's tend to be more uniform in their construction as the come from pre-punched match hole kits; whereas, the -6 is built in a jig created by the builder.

The -6 was designed for the O-320 150 HP and O-360 180 HP engines. The 180 HP engine was considered the "big" engine and aircraft with this engine tend to be on the heavier side. The -7 was designed to accept engines ranging from the 160 HP O-320 to the 200 hp IO-360 angle valve engine. The 180 HP (I)O-360 parallel valve engine has become the "standard" engine of choice, with some builders installing larger or smaller engines based on their finances and desires.

I have a theory that the average builder only has about 2200 hours in their soul. The early builders have simpler planes because it took longer to build the basic structure and the newer models have more complexity (and weight) because they spend less time in the structure and more time on their panels, options, and interiors.

Good luck finding what you want / desire.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html

Last edited by N941WR : 01-04-2019 at 10:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:13 PM
skylor's Avatar
skylor skylor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 882
Default Aerobatic Gross

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooshball View Post
Thx, I doubt I will be pursuing any hard core acro but if I do it wil be in something else. ?Gentleman?s acro? is a good description of what I am after right now. It is always nice to be able to go out and loop / roll something without it falling apart.

Looks like the RV6 to 7 cost difference is substantial. For my mission I?m not sure that I should pay $40k+ more for an extra 125bs of gross aerobatic weight allowance.
Actually, the -7 has 225 higher gross aerobatic weight than the -6.

1600 vs 1375.

Skylor
RV-8
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.