RVs vs Spam Cans for IFR

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

After flying the RV-9A mostly with autopilot, I've started trying to bring my hand flying skills back up to where they ought to be and where they used to be.

One thing I noticed today is that it takes very little pitch attitude change to establish a vertical velocity. I learned originally in a Cessna 172, and when I started flying Cherokees, I noted that the Cherokee was easier to fly IFR because there was more of a pitch change required for a comparable vertical velocity, so small pitch errors did not generate much vertical velocity. Seems to me that the RV-9A is gives more vertical velocity for a small pitch change than the C172.

Yes, the RV-9A handling is great for VFR, but it seems a bit pitch sensitive for IFR.

So here's the question: looking at how much pitch change gives how much vertical speed, how do RVs compare with other planes? I've not flown a C182 or C210 in decades, so I can't answer my own question...

Ed

[airguy]

Nothing beats seat time doing it.

I did the large majority of my IFR training hand-flying my 9A after I demonstrated mastery of the autopilot coupling to my instructor. The first 10 or 12 hours were a little rough, then next 10 were better, and by the time I took my checkride I was downright smooth.

You get used to whichever tool you have - it just takes time in the seat. No substitute for that.

[BobTurner]

The 182 and 210 are like driving a truck, but because of that very good for IFR. Once the trim is set, it takes a big effort to move the nose up or down. In contrast, the RV's are harder to trim just right, and a very slight push or pull is all that's required to move the nose and the airspeed.

[ChiefPilot]

Originally Posted by Ed_Wischmeyer

So here's the question: looking at how much pitch change gives how much vertical speed, how do RVs compare with other planes? I've not flown a C182 or C210 in decades, so I can't answer my own question...

Less pitch change for similar vertical speed in comparison to an Archer or similar. On the other hand, I recently had to hand-fly a much larger spam can from Detroit to Toronto due to autopilot failure and that is very pitch sensitive in relation to vertical speed as compared to the RV. But then again, the CRJ-700 was filed for 300kias at FL230.

And that right there, I believe, tells the tale. Going 150kts at a 2º pitch will result in about half the vertical speed of going 300kts at the same 2º pitch. An Archer droning along at 110kts and climbing at 200fpm would have the same pitch attitude as an RV doing 160kts and climbing at 290fpm. During the approach into Toronto, at 150-ish knots, I don't believe the CRJ was any more or less pitch-vs-vertical speed sensitive than the RV at that same speed.

[Chattin35]

Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

[BillL]

Originally Posted by airguy

Nothing beats seat time doing it.

I did the large majority of my IFR training hand-flying my 9A after I demonstrated mastery of the autopilot coupling to my instructor. The first 10 or 12 hours were a little rough, then next 10 were better, and by the time I took my checkride I was downright smooth.

You get used to whichever tool you have - it just takes time in the seat. No substitute for that.

+1 Yes, no matter what your total time. I joked that my first 5 instrument recurrence training flights I improved 100% each time. Mostly true actually. I found the small movement advice for my 7 was tiny and very very frequent movements. Just don't let the indicators stray and all is good. My stick is not short and the top moves maybe 1/4 inch constantly to maintain desired. Not good for reading a map though. The most difficult learning for me was the huge amount of information on the panel and learning what to monitor, getting it all set right. Then there is buttonology. Huge amounts of study and testing how stuff works in many difference scenarios. All great fun!!

One thing, you know all the RV's tend to climb when turning, but when flying with the HSI my dot (attitude) is about 3-4 deg over the horizon, but when turning I have to push to down to the horizon line or it will climb.~120kts no flaps. Is that real or a result of some EFIS characteristic? Do you guys see the same thing hand flying?

[Capt]

Originally Posted by Chattin35

Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

I tend to agree with all that. I found the heavier the plane the more stable it was. ALL flying is a risk, what is acceptable to one pilot is not to another. I've flown 150's to buses, personally I'd never fly at night or IMC in a single, I value my life too much! Each to their own I guess��

[Auburntsts]

Originally Posted by Chattin35

Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

Originally Posted by Capt

I tend to agree with all that. I found the heavier the plane the more stable it was. ALL flying is a risk, what is acceptable to one pilot is not to another. I've flown 150's to buses, personally I'd never fly at night or IMC in a single, I value my life too much! Each to their own I guess��

To each his own. Yes there is more risk flying single engine IMC but it still can be done safely--thousands of pilots, myself included, do it all the time. It just boils down to proper planning, aeronautical decision making, and proficiency to mitigate those risks to an acceptable level.

As Clint said, "a man's got to know his limitations", and I'll add "and his plane's as well."

[RV10inOz]

The RV series are quite fine in IMC, remember IFR flying is still done in CAVOK brilliant conditions so what you really mean is yucky IMC.

The deal on pitch sensitivity is simple, TRIM and use the IVSI. Trim is everything in an RV and the best way to hold an altitude in any aircraft is to follow the VSI, most of our modern EFIS machines are actually not the old school VSI but an IVSI.

Keep that in check and your life becomes far betterer!


PS........probably 1000+ hours of IFR flying an RV10, of which 10% will be in IMC.

[paul330]

Originally Posted by RV10inOz

the best way to hold an altitude in any aircraft is to follow the VSI

Couldn't disagree more......

Whilst the VSI must come in your scan, the key to good IF is to set attitudes. Having done that, check your performance instruments to see the effect and then correct. It's called selective radial scan. AI - speed - AI - heading - AI altimeter - AI - VSI ..etc etc.... You should not move the control column in response to what is showing on a performance instrument - limited panel being the exception.

This from someone who flew night visual idents under radar in the F4 where the Nav would ask for changes of 1 degree, 1kt or 10' ...... Pitch attitude changes would be 1/2 degree .....