What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Flying the RV in the rain and clouds

Lemos

Active Member
I spoke to a gent last night who is considering selling his RV9A. As we spoke about my plans he casually mentioned that I’d be crazy to fly my RV in the clouds or rain. I asked him to expand on that and he just said it’s a bad idea in the RV.

Do others avoid clouds and rain, even if the airplane is IMC equipped? And what’s so treacherous about flying in the rain?
 
Yea, all the time ... nothing wrong with a well equipped and well built IFR RV .. although if the rain gets heavy I slow waaaaaaaaay down to avoid chipping paint :p

"it’s a bad idea" isn't an explanation of his opinion it's just an emotion .. fake news

Edit: I trust my 14 over a 30 y/o Cherokee any day ... and folks fly those quite regularly IMC ...
 
Last edited:
There’s nothing wrong with flying an RV in the clouds. That said, of course it may have some or all of the single point of failure issues that many other single engine aircraft have as well.

The only issue I have heard about flying in the rain is prop erosion.
 
My RV-9A (bought, not built) leaks in rain through the aft canopy.

And in cumulus clouds, with the light wing loading, it has a rough ride unless you slow way down, sometimes even then.

Yes, it's doable, and I do it, but that's not the plane's forte.
 
Speaking as a guy who's currently working on his helicopter instrument rating... I'd rather be flying a nice stable RV. ;)
 
I think most RV’s leak to some extent. I know some have had people tape them in before engine start. There is also the issue of icing. No RV should be flown in cloud at temps were icing might occur. You will chip paint and see some prop wear also.
 
I spoke to a gent last night who is considering selling his RV9A. As we spoke about my plans he casually mentioned that I’d be crazy to fly my RV in the clouds or rain.

Many people also believe that you shouldn't walk under a ladder and should limit your riskier activities on Friday the 13th. Toads cause warts, etc, etc, etc. Without well founded rationale for this kind of opinion, you are wise to ignore it.

Larry
 
I don’t like flying any single in the clouds with low ceilings or at night. Having said that, the rv is not quit as stable a platform as a Bonanza or 210, so it would require a little more pilot proficiency than others. I’m speaking only from an rv8 standpoint. Can’t speak for other models. Actually, Ihave flown the 12 and it seemed as stable as other certified aircraft. Stable may not be right word for the 8....let’s just say it’s very responsive.
 
Last edited:
I fly IMC whenever necessary without any concern. In rain I do reduce RPM since I do not have a NLE on my Catto prop.
I believe the comment about not flying in IMC has more to do with that pilot than the airplane.
 
Pilot comfort levels vary between pilots. I have no issue flying IMC in the RV-8 BUT I will not do so without both roll and pitch AP servos functioning. I also will not fly with any panel degrade, either battery not fully up, etc.

As I gain experience I find myself much more risk adverse on my flying decisions - as in weather go/no go, approach minimums, fuel reserves and such.

Carl
 
I don’t like flying any single in the clouds with low ceilings or at night. Having said that, the rv is not quit as stable a platform as a Bonanza or 210, so it would require a little more pilot proficiency than others. I’m speaking only from an rv8 standpoint. Can’t speak for other models. Actually, Ihave flown the 12 and it seemed as stable as other certified aircraft. Stable may not be right word for the 8....let’s just say it’s very responsive.

I agree, the RVs tend to be less stable (more finicky?) then some certified counterparts. I've got a few hours under the hood hand flying a Cessna with a 6 pack and it doesn't scare me at all. Hours of hand flying an RV like that would probably wear on me though. Throw an autopilot into the mix and they become very similar pilot workloads.
 
Well said Carl 👍

I agree with Carl, the older I get the more risk averse I am becoming, mainly because of the company in the plane with me, wife... son etc. however, the 8 with our garmin autopilot is dialed in! To the runway! I wouldn’t hesitate to take her into hard IMC to get the flight done
 
9s in visible moisture

I've had exactly the same experience and agree with all Ed's observations.

My -9A appears to be fairly watertight except for a drip that scoots up the top of the canopy and into the baggage area from the rear of the canopy. I only get this when I'm in actual rain, which doesn't happen often. It's nothing compared to the Sportsman I used to fly, for what that's worth - that thing was like a rain forest. I'd say it's roughly equivalent to what I used to get through the door "seal" of my old Warrior.

I will fly through big summer cumulus solo, or with experienced passengers, but not with a newbie in the right seat. Even if you slow down, and you may well have to, it can really be Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. It's noticeably more roller-coastery than my old Warrior.

My autopilot lost consciousness once just before I entered some impressive summer cumulus, and it was a full-time job maintaining heading, attitude, and altitude. Definitely doable, but not trivial. Even with George doing the work, you're likely going to be on the throttle.

My guess is that the -9 squeezes a lot of its sterling performance out of the fact that it doesn't weigh much, and physics being physics, you have to pay for that at some point. :)

My RV-9A (bought, not built) leaks in rain through the aft canopy.

And in cumulus clouds, with the light wing loading, it has a rough ride unless you slow way down, sometimes even then.

Yes, it's doable, and I do it, but that's not the plane's forte.
 
I apologize for the thread drift. I failed to put any sealant on the rear of my slider canopy between the glass and the metal skirt. Is there anything that will work to seal it now?
 
however said:
Call me old school, but I never trust automation to do something that I was not comfortable doing by hand. That was also true of work and Cat3 approaches. Everything will fail - it's just a matter of when....
 
And there is nothing wrong with old school. I remember doing a hold on an NDB, but we don’t do that anymore praise Jesus ����
 
Last edited:
And there is nothing wrong with old school. I remember doing a hold on an NDB, but we don’t do that anymore praise Jesus ����

Only hold I've ever been given other than just practicing proficiency was last year in the -10 at Sondre Stromfjord NDB in Greenland. 12,000ft and left turns no less...

On OP's question of IMC and rain in an RV, I guess it depends on the model. The -10 is a superb instrument platform, single engine and FIKI limitations notwithstanding of course.
 
Call me old school, but I never trust automation to do something that I was not comfortable doing by hand. That was also true of work and Cat3 approaches. Everything will fail - it's just a matter of when....

You’re not “old school”....you’re smart and experienced.

The 2 seat RVs were never designed by Vans with serious IMC flying in mind. They’re light, responsive VMC sports planes. For the most part they are terrible instrument platforms...insufficient mass and way too twitchy in both pitch and roll. And yet more and more builders are installing panels for IFR. This phenomenon has coincided with the advent of cheap experimental autopilots.

My best guess is that most IFR RV flyers would be unable to maintain an ATC altitude instruction within the required vertical limits in cumulus cloud without George doing the flying for them. Many also completely depend on their autopilot for serious IMC approaches. In my opinion if you can’t comfortably hand fly the procedure in IMC either you’re not competent or the plane is an unsatisfactory platform ( or both).
 
Last edited:
I haven't heard of an autopilot referred to as "George" in quite a while. Gave me a chuckle and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one sufficiently nerdy.

On the topic of autopilots, one needs the proficiency to hand fly, autopilots do fail and with some frequency. However I wouldn't consider single pilot IFR without an autopilot. Just too hard to write down clearances and weather, read approach plates, set up avionics, solve problems etc. Interrupting the instrument scan to read an unfamiliar approach plate at the alternate could lead to some rather large heading and/or altitude deviations. Alternatively, it could lead to missing important details on the approach plate.
 
Autopilots

Hmm.. there seem to be some pretty strong assumptions here that Instrument Rated RV pilots are dependent on their autopilots to get the job done... I don't know about other countries, but in the US, if you can't demonstrate that you can comfortably fly approaches, missed approaches and holds by hand, whilst reading approach plates, talking on the radio and copying clearances, you're simply not going to get your ticket. Same goes for IPC checkrides. I get that people get rusty (hence the IPC) and George does a fine job in reducing the workload, but I suspect that assertions that instrument rated pilots can't do without him tend to come from people without the rating ;)
 
Last edited:
Call me old school, but I never trust automation to do something that I was not comfortable doing by hand. That was also true of work and Cat3 approaches. Everything will fail - it's just a matter of when....

I’m not an ATP nor have I ever flown a million dollar autopilot - but I thought that you were not allowed to hand fly a cat 3 approach.
 
Hand flown cat III

Hand flown CAT III approaches with the heads up display has been the standard at my airline for years.

Airliners can be fairly sensitive at speed and the same arguments for autopilot usage can be made for them. The RV platform is fantastic in every way. I routinely fly IFR, aerobatic routines, grass field operations, formation ops, etc. If anyone doesn't feel comfortable doing something with their airplane then don't do it, but blanket statements that it shouldn't be done just sound to me like that person either needs extra training or has made a personal risk assessment that is more restrictive than other people's.

It's a single engine airplane with fantastic capabilities and in my mind one of the best, if not the best, line of aircraft ever produced. The singe engine night and IFR risk assessment is no different than any other single engine airplane, i.e. Mooney, Bonanza, Malibu, Pilatus, Caravan, yada yada...

I'd suggest grabbing a fun to fly with safety pilot, some foggles, and go practice approaches a few times. I do believe in using all available tools and love my flight director and autopilot, but they're certainly not mandatory. Go have fun and practice with what you've got until you're comfortable with it. You might surprise yourself at what you and your machine are capable of. (With all that I just said, I'm not advocating anyone do anything outside of their capabilities or comfort zone and strongly encourage whatever training appropriate for the individual).
 
Hmm.. there seem to be some pretty strong assumptions here that Instrument Rated RV pilots are dependent on their autopilots to get the job done.

I’ve been flying IFR for decades and as far as I’m concerned the rating, like all ratings, is just a licence to start learning. JFK Jnr. was rated to fly at night...except when the crunch came he couldn’t.

When TruTrak brought their experimental solid state Digitrak product to the market in 2002 they ushered in a whole new world of low cost autopilots that ultimately opened the door for coupled instrument flight in amateur-built aircraft. But it is completely naive to imagine that many of the low time RV pilots now flying IFR behind these systems are not largely dependent on them in adverse conditions....not all...not most...but many.
 
Last edited:
Hand flown CAT III approaches with the heads up display has been the standard at my airline for years.

Thread drift :eek:
Yep, some airliners do, but only a handful of them (Bombardier C-Series, Saab 2000 and a couple more), but the majority are flown by a dual AP system.
The design of the aircraft and its certification dictate if hand flown or not, not the airline nor the individual pilot.
And there are categories within CAT III approaches themselves, different required minimas and equipment for say a IIIA vs a IIIB, etc.
To top it all, the crew, the aircraft, and the airport must be certified and in CAT III ops to permit such approaches to be conducted...

Now back to our little RV toys :D
 
Lots of misspent dollars

Interesting thread here. The split being I don’t trust singles in “hard” (no such thing as soft) IFR, or night, or clouds, or rain. (they all leak)
I suspect many, many thousands of dollars of gee whiz panel equipment is installed in a lot of RV’s just to look cool if you don’t trust it in “hard” IFR.
Now, I may be wrong,,,

Oh, and on the old 737NG at Delta, I flew, legally, CAT III approaches with the HUD by hand.

Flame away!!
 
I don't know about every RV, but my 14A is pretty good in IFR and rain. I haven't noticed any leakage around the canopy top, and the only place I might get some rain in the plane is if I open the vents too far. The AP does a good job of flying the approach, but the needles are there on the G3X to fly by hand if you don't want the AP on. I'm not interested in flying in a storm.... but basic rain and fog no problem. If my plane was VFR only then there are a lot of days I would just sit home and that's no fun. I worry more about getting in and out of the plane in the rain on the ground than in the air.

I think if you train for IFR in your RV then your RV is a great platform for it.
 
My best guess is that most IFR RV flyers would be unable to maintain an ATC altitude instruction within the required vertical limits in cumulus cloud without George doing the flying for them. Many also completely depend on their autopilot for serious IMC approaches. In my opinion if you can’t comfortably hand fly the procedure in IMC either you’re not competent or the plane is an unsatisfactory platform ( or both).

I did my IFR training in my 6A. With the right skill and practice, it is absolutely possible to hold an RV to the 100'/10* standards, by hand, even in Cu clouds. While I have never flown a spam can in IFR, I am sure that it can be done with significantly less effort and precision than the RV. However, that doesn't make it impossible in an RV.

I shoot all approaches by hand, except for the occasional situation where I am tired in actual and feel better letting George do it. I fly them all by hand to be sure that I can get down if George takes a nap.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Several have made the corrections, yes CAT3 with a HUD is done by hand all over the US in the 737NG. All legacy+SW do this except UAL. In addition, there is reduced minimum requirements with EFVS, these will all be hand flown and go to lower mins and vis than a CAT1. Regardless, you can't fly CAT3 in an RV so it really doesn't matter, maybe get the relaxed minimums with EFVS.

Fighters all over the world fly in the clouds all the time, and they are more responsive than an RV usually flying much faster approach speeds, almost always in cockpits not primarily designed to fly approaches or instruments. If you can't hand fly in the clouds and maintain an altitude then probably shouldn't fly instruments, but I'd say if you can't maintain your desired flight path maybe some practice is needed. I agree the workload goes up hand flying, but you trim to an AoA and attitude (wings level) and then set a power to maintain altitude; none of that is affected by clouds or night time (excluding the affects of turbulence). The airplane doesn't care, only the pilot.
 
I’m not an ATP nor have I ever flown a million dollar autopilot - but I thought that you were not allowed to hand fly a cat 3 approach.

Do it all the time Bob down to 600 RVR per our companies FAA ops specs. Now in the real world the equipment, crew training and ground based lighting and other criteria make it a costly venture. Having several thousand hours of hand flown IFR in the cargo world I would say that hard IFR in an RV would require an AP just to reduce fatigue. The old adage just because it can be done, should it? Applies. JMO
 
Do it all the time Bob down to 600 RVR per our companies FAA ops specs. Now in the real world the equipment, crew training and ground based lighting and other criteria make it a costly venture. Having several thousand hours of hand flown IFR in the cargo world I would say that hard IFR in an RV would require an AP just to reduce fatigue. The old adage just because it can be done, should it? Applies. JMO

Now there's an inkling of common sense, tucked into all the "can't/shouldn't" nonsense.

I fly my 9A quite a bit in IFR, and I do use the AP for enroute and sometimes even the approach - but I certainly enjoy hand-flying the approaches as well. In fact I've hand-flown four in the last couple weeks. A couple years ago I had a trip to make to Arkansas, ended up being right at 3 hours each way with a dead autopilot, so that was all hand-flown, with an actual approach on one end. I definitely was not as sharp at the end of 3 hours hand-flying in cruise as I would have been with the AP handling that task.
 
Thanks to all the replies about cat III. l just recall, years ago, going into ATL on Delta when it was very foggy, and the captain bragging to the passengers about how we were going to land when a lot of others were not, because we had a fancy new plane with a fancy new autopilot. Maybe it was cat IIIb or c?

I've hand flown both a -7 and my own -10 on instruments; the -10 is definitely more stable. I'm in the "you must be able to hand fly in IMC; but an autopilot is a great fatigue relief" camp. Some time ago I was right seat to an instrument student in a -10. I had him hand-fly the first two legs of the cross-country, including an ILS in actual with a ceiling at 230'. He did a good job. On the last leg, home, I let him use the autopilot. After just 5 minutes, he said, "I can't believe how much easier this is!". OTOH, on his instrument check ride, everything went well until they returned home. The DPE almost forgot, but then remembered, that he was supposed to check him on autopilot use, so at the last minute he asked to see a coupled approach. Somehow a wrong button was pushed, and the candidate didn't detect it in time, and flew thru the final approach course. The next day he and I did the same approach, and everything worked. So he clearly had pushed a wrong button at some point. Flew again with the DPE and all was well. The point being, these autopilots are great, but you do have to do some studying and really understand how they work. They'll only do what you tell them to do.
 
In keeping with the original posters IFR question, I would love to know what approach speeds are you using on an instrument approach. I’m currently flying with an instrument rated pilot in his new 7A. Being a retired NASA aerospace engineer he’s a real stickler for precision approaches. “No pun intended “. I suggested turboprop speeds in the range of 110 to 130 knots and final configuration at breakout between two and 500’. It’s actually worked out great and allows us to mix better with traffic at the more congested airports in and around Houston. Just curious. Thanks
 
Speeds

I use exactly what you just described, Mark. Generally use 120 knots or so as I'm approaching the marker, slow as I'm going down off on glideslope and at the most half flaps until I break out, then full flaps on speed. If diving and driving without a slope, I stay at 120 and slow when it feels right.
 
Not instrument rated but I practice ILS approaches in my RV7A at 113kts (gps speed on a 3 degree slope). This makes for a 600fpm descent which also works if I use the AP (which is limited to 100fpm increments). Works good for me.

Bevan


In keeping with the original posters IFR question, I would love to know what approach speeds are you using on an instrument approach. I’m currently flying with an instrument rated pilot in his new 7A. Being a retired NASA aerospace engineer he’s a real stickler for precision approaches. “No pun intended “. I suggested turboprop speeds in the range of 110 to 130 knots and final configuration at breakout between two and 500’. It’s actually worked out great and allows us to mix better with traffic at the more congested airports in and around Houston. Just curious. Thanks
 
My "approach"

I currently use 100 knots for ILS's and other approaches to long runways, and 90 knots for everything else. No flaps in either case, of course, given the -9's relatively low flap speeds.

I also land from approaches without flaps, unless I break out really early. Keeps things simple, makes a go-around easier, no danger of over-speeding. The -9A, which is ridiculously easy to land generally, is also very easy to land without flaps. And I've experienced no problem slowing my no-flaps 9 (with CS prop) down for landing.

As my instrument instructor likes to point out, "bad instrument approaches tend to hit the ground short of the runway. Relatively few seem to run off the far end of the runway."

It occurs to me that I could probably use 100 knots for everything, even relatively short strips. Once the current unpleasantness ends, I'm going to grab an instructor and try out 100 knot speeds into New Kent International.

In keeping with the original posters IFR question, I would love to know what approach speeds are you using on an instrument approach. I’m currently flying with an instrument rated pilot in his new 7A. Being a retired NASA aerospace engineer he’s a real stickler for precision approaches. “No pun intended “. I suggested turboprop speeds in the range of 110 to 130 knots and final configuration at breakout between two and 500’. It’s actually worked out great and allows us to mix better with traffic at the more congested airports in and around Houston. Just curious. Thanks
 
I spoke to a gent last night who is considering selling his RV9A. As we spoke about my plans he casually mentioned that I’d be crazy to fly my RV in the clouds or rain. I asked him to expand on that and he just said it’s a bad idea in the RV.

Do others avoid clouds and rain, even if the airplane is IMC equipped? And what’s so treacherous about flying in the rain?

Yep...fake news.

Canopy can leak a bit depending on build quality and sealing. Know how your electrical and avionics system is designed and look for single-point failures. My -9A was VFR and I installed the necessary equipment for IFR but didn't do hard IFR until my I electrical system was segregated to support an E-Bus that could be isolated from everything else and run straight off the battery.
 
With respect to instrument approach speeds: I'm with most others here, +/-120 KIAS with flaps in trail, in my -10. Except, when visibilities get low. If I expect close to genuine 1/2 mile vis (especially at night) then I'll slow to 80 Kias and 20 deg flaps on the approach, and not change anything (except for reducing power) until touchdown.
 
I spoke to a gent last night who is considering selling his RV9A. As we spoke about my plans he casually mentioned that I’d be crazy to fly my RV in the clouds or rain. I asked him to expand on that and he just said it’s a bad idea in the RV.

Do others avoid clouds and rain, even if the airplane is IMC equipped? And what’s so treacherous about flying in the rain?

What is the issue???? There is nothing aerodynamically about an RV that is an issue with rain or clouds. Some laminar flow airfoils famously changed in rain. I flew a 414 Cessna flying checks long ago. It had a laminar flow airfoil. It did not like ICE. This is not an RV with the excellent NACA 23013.5 airfoil. This is a thicker 23012. However ICE is bad for an RV... flying in cloud you have chance of icing if temperatures are right.

I assume you have an instrument rating? SINGLE PILOT IFR FLIGHT is a challenge in any aircraft, RV9 or not. Flying in hard IFR, icing and convective weather in a single or multi engine plane solo pilot is "sporty". Of course flying in known icing is illegal in an RV or any plane without known ICE certification. I did it a lot of single pilot IFR in my younger days both part 91 and 135. Yes ANY single pilot ops IFR is a challenge, especially without an autopilot. It can be done safely with currency and flying with in the limitations of plane and pilot. I'd say if you are serious about IFR (flying in clouds) you better consider at least a wing leveler autopilot. Two crew Part 121 is far safer.

However flying an RV in RAIN in VFR conditions is fine. Flying in cloud is fine, but you better be (must be) Inst rated and current with a plane equip'ed for legal flight in those conditions and intended flight. The RV is not an issue.
 
Last edited:
The first time...

we flew our RV-14 in rain it began raining as we were taxiing out in Joplin Missouri on our way to the Pacific Northwest. Not long after the rain started we had water dripping onto our feet. We took off and the dripping stopped but water was bubbling out of the air vents (Aerosport aluminum vents) which were closed. We broke out of the weather about 10 minutes after takeoff. An hour and twenty minutes into the flight the autopilot disconnected with a yellow AFCS COMMUNICATION ERROR message displayed on the G3X Touch. We hand flew the remainder of the flight to our fuel stop in Borger Texas. After shutting down and refueling we fired her back up and the error message was no longer displayed and all systems operated normally for the remainder of the trip. We did get some prop erosion so our prop is no longer pristine. I obviously need to work on the canopy seal but in general I will avoid flying in rain if at all possible in the future.
 

Attachments

  • 42D1E52E-1757-4647-A335-1288EB90FAEE.jpeg
    42D1E52E-1757-4647-A335-1288EB90FAEE.jpeg
    989.9 KB · Views: 154
AFCS error

The autopilot issue might or might not have been the rain. I've gotten an "AFCS" annunciation, with an autopilot nap, at least three times, all in clear weather.

we flew our RV-14 in rain it began raining as we were taxiing out in Joplin Missouri on our way to the Pacific Northwest. Not long after the rain started we had water dripping onto our feet. We took off and the dripping stopped but water was bubbling out of the air vents (Aerosport aluminum vents) which were closed. We broke out of the weather about 10 minutes after takeoff. An hour and twenty minutes into the flight the autopilot disconnected with a yellow AFCS COMMUNICATION ERROR message displayed on the G3X Touch. We hand flew the remainder of the flight to our fuel stop in Borger Texas. After shutting down and refueling we fired her back up and the error message was no longer displayed and all systems operated normally for the remainder of the trip. We did get some prop erosion so our prop is no longer pristine. I obviously need to work on the canopy seal but in general I will avoid flying in rain if at all possible in the future.
 
Prop erosion

We did get some prop erosion so our prop is no longer pristine
This is the big downside of flying in the rain. Not sure of how the composite props do in rain but I know that it will eventually strip the paint clean off an aluminum one. Those old freight planes props were always gnarly looking. Of course they saw rain, ice and snow weekly. The occasional flight into a rain shower probably won’t be much of a problem.

Check out what daily flights into weather can do to paint!
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cracked-paint-spinner-cone-jet-engine-1151136473
 
Most composite props have nickel or stainless steel leading edges. This protects them from erosion. On older props, the paint aft of the leading edge strip starts to erode. Reverse and beta on turbines doesn't help with erosion on the blade face, but we don't have that problem on RVs :D
 
I'm on my third RV now (RV-14A, RV-7, RV-8). I have flown in lots of rain and clouds. These airplanes have been my ride to work for several years. None of them ever leaked a drop of rainwater. I've also flown many, many instrument approaches, a handful of them to mins. The airplanes have all been perfectly capable.

If you are trained and retrained and stay seriously proficient, then these fine airplanes--when properly equipped--do great in the weather. Also regarding the autopilot, the serious instrument flyer always uses an autopilot as much as possible in IMC and at night. Single pilot instrument flying is challenging enough. There's no reason to increase your workload by not using an autopilot.

And to answer Mark Malone's question about airspeed, I am fully configured and slowed to 75 KIAS at the FAF, and then I drive it all the way in at this very stabilized and predictable airspeed. Arriving at the FAF and starting down the glideslope too fast or with no flaps out introduces more work, and more work can lead to an unstabilized approach. Better to mitigate that risk by having your ducks in a row before the FAF. I like the world to go by nice and slowly when I'm in the clag.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input gash. We'll try to play around with the lower speeds inside the FAF to mins with 1/2 flaps.
 
Back
Top