|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-03-2019, 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NC
Posts: 136
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie
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.
|

01-03-2019, 12:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
|
|
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
|

01-03-2019, 12:34 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie
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.
|

01-03-2019, 03:28 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
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.
|

01-04-2019, 10:45 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
...
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.
|

01-04-2019, 10:13 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 882
|
|
Aerobatic Gross
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooshball
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
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 AM.
|