What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NW vs TW for big guys?

danielhv

danielhv

Well Known Member
Not trying to start a war here, so please keep the replies related to CG, flight/takeoff/landing/taxiing characteristics, etc. We already know which one looks cooler...

Im looking for opinions on which configuration would be better for heavier pilots?

Im 6'4" & 270lbs. Not fat, just stalky. My dad is around 250ish and 6'2" and I would imagine he would be flying with me quite a bit.

My initial thought (and I'm no engineer) is that the -A model would just have even more weight on the nose wheel with me and/or my dad on board...

Which configuration would handle the pilot / passenger load better? Nosewheel? Tailwheel? or Treadmill? lol :D
 
danielhv said:
My initial thought (and I'm no engineer) is that the -A model would just have even more weight on the nose wheel with me and/or my dad on board...
Click to expand...

When a passenger sits in my 6A, the nosewheel weight is less, as most of the body weight is aft of the mains.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
just a thought

Not sure you will have much issue with the CG of a side by side. But the biggest difference between the TW and NW for big guys is the getting in and out of the plane. For a NW two people can?t get in at the same time or the tail will go down and go bang on the ground.:eek: If you were fully loaded (baggage) and you tried to climb up to get into a NW, a heaver person would have a greater tendency to make the tail go down. With the TW it is already down.

Just one consideration.
 
Mike D said:
Not sure you will have much issue with the CG of a side by side. But the biggest difference between the TW and NW for big guys is the getting in and out of the plane. For a NW two people can?t get in at the same time or the tail will go down and go bang on the ground.:eek: If you were fully loaded (baggage) and you tried to climb up to get into a NW, a heaver person would have a greater tendency to make the tail go down. With the TW it is already down.

Just one consideration.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point and one that I mulled over for quite a while. I decided to go with the A model, but I will have to be very careful getting in and out.
 
For the RV-6, Van's specified max Gross weights of 1600lb for the TW and 1650lb for the NW models. As the airframes are almost identical (only differing in the parts for the gear configuration, near as I can tell), I would interpret that to mean that the landing gear is the limiting factor on the -6, and the NW version can take more weight because it's gear is a tiny bit stronger.

That's purely speculation on my part, though. I don't know if it's true.
 
Snowflake said:
For the RV-6, Van's specified max Gross weights of 1600lb for the TW and 1650lb for the NW models. As the airframes are almost identical (only differing in the parts for the gear configuration, near as I can tell), I would interpret that to mean that the landing gear is the limiting factor on the -6, and the NW version can take more weight because it's gear is a tiny bit stronger.

That's purely speculation on my part, though. I don't know if it's true.
Click to expand...

Hey Rob,

In researching getting a gross weight increase from TC (haven't done yet), I ran across a thread where a fellow "supposedly" called Van's to query them on this, only to find that the gear was equivalent to what they went with for the 7, with a gross of 1800. True or not? I don't know. Another interesting fact is that there are many (I counted but can't remember the number... something like 20) RV-6's registered in Canada at 1800 lbs or higher. Probably >100 in the US I'd bet.
 
java said:
In researching getting a gross weight increase from TC (haven't done yet), I ran across a thread where a fellow "supposedly" called Van's to query them on this, only to find that the gear was equivalent to what they went with for the 7, with a gross of 1800. True or not? I don't know.
Click to expand...

There are rumours that Van used to give an "authorization letter" to increase the gross weight on the RV-6, too. But despite repeated requests here and on the Matronics lists, nobody has been able to show a copy of such a letter. I think the letter is a myth, because I have yet to hear first-hand from someone who has one.
 
Snowflake said:
There are rumours that Van used to give an "authorization letter" to increase the gross weight on the RV-6, too. But despite repeated requests here and on the Matronics lists, nobody has been able to show a copy of such a letter. I think the letter is a myth, because I have yet to hear first-hand from someone who has one.
Click to expand...

After being around the 6's since 1994, I'd say the letter is a myth too. Is increasing the gross weight to 1850 or so a problem? I'd say no, considering what I've heard in the background all of these years.

L.Adamson --- RV6A, 1850 Gross weight
 
Have you checked out the interior width?

danielhv said:
Not trying to start a war here, so please keep the replies related to CG, flight/takeoff/landing/taxiing characteristics, etc. We already know which one looks cooler...

Im looking for opinions on which configuration would be better for heavier pilots?

Im 6'4" & 270lbs. Not fat, just stalky. My dad is around 250ish and 6'2" and I would imagine he would be flying with me quite a bit.

My initial thought (and I'm no engineer) is that the -A model would just have even more weight on the nose wheel with me and/or my dad on board...

Which configuration would handle the pilot / passenger load better? Nosewheel? Tailwheel? or Treadmill? lol :D
Click to expand...

I am 6'4", 235 lbs. After purchasing a flying -6A in 2009 I took my wife up in it. She was willing to fly routinely in our Cherokee 180. She had numerous complaints: too hot, too much sun, plane too small, etc. But the one I can't address is not enough interior room, especially interior width. My wife is 5'8", 140 lbs, and she complained about shoulder width. She feels strongly enough about the confinement that the first flight was her only flight so far. Just recently she said she would be willing to give "short" flights another try.

It is hard for me to imagine you and your father in a side-by-side RV. If you haven't attempted to sit in one together, I suggest that you do so as soon as possible. BTW, the fuselage width is identical for 7,7A, 9, 9A. If you do convince yourselves that you both fit, be sure and build nose-heavy - pilot weight is located behind the empty aircraft CG, so occupant weight moves the CG aft.

LarryT
 
This entire thing almost totally depends on how the airplanes W&B ends up, and has little to do with NW/TW. If you take a TW RV7 with the huge tail on it and put an O-320 with a wood prop along with a heavy leather interior, lots of paint and a light penl in it it you'll have an airplane that is porky on the back end of the CG with very little to no allowance for baggage. Conversely, if you take a NW RV7A and put an IO-360A1B6 on the front with an extended cowl and hartzell prop, and happen to have the smaller tail as well as a huge instrument panel full of goodies you'll end up with a plane that is piggy on the front side of the CG range.

Putting to big boys in the seats of a well balanced airplane even with full fuel is no problem. If the CG of the plane is juist right when you build it, you'll end up with a plane that you can load up dramaticaly without being out of CG at all....

In the end it just depends on a number of factors other than where the little wheel is placed. I can say that if you put two 6'6" guys in one of these it can be a squeeze!

Anyway, just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
SteinAir said:
This entire thing almost totally depends on how the airplanes W&B ends up, and has little to do with NW/TW. If you take a TW RV7 with the huge tail on it and put an O-320 with a wood prop along with a heavy leather interior, lots of paint and a light penl in it it you'll have an airplane that is porky on the back end of the CG with very little to no allowance for baggage. Conversely, if you take a NW RV7A and put an IO-360A1B6 on the front with an extended cowl and hartzell prop, and happen to have the smaller tail as well as a huge instrument panel full of goodies you'll end up with a plane that is piggy on the front side of the CG range.

Putting to big boys in the seats of a well balanced airplane even with full fuel is no problem. If the CG of the plane is juist right when you build it, you'll end up with a plane that you can load up dramaticaly without being out of CG at all....

In the end it just depends on a number of factors other than where the little wheel is placed. I can say that if you put two 6'6" guys in one of these it can be a squeeze!

Anyway, just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
Click to expand...

I see... so is it just a build and hope type scenario? I have no idea what engine, prop, panel, interior, etc im going to use....
 
Yes.....

Brantel said:
Two big guys fit fine in side by side RV's. Sure it is snug but doable....
Click to expand...

.....for 30 minutes or less!

I'm 6' and broad shouldered. When I gave 6' 4" to 6' 5" guys transition training, I cut each session short because it was so tight. Then again, I had the Classic Aero interior with side panels that eat up width by a couple of inches, so that can be left out.

Best,
 
When I did transition training with Jan Bussell in Florida in his 6, we fit fine for a couple hours at a time. Jan is over 6' and about 275, I am 5'9" and made of much lard.

I am guessing the taller both people are this may start to hurt the comfort level some but it is worth it.

The point is you do not have to be FAA normal to enjoy an RV.

To Pierre's point, I would not put interior side panels that consume shoulder room in a side by side RV if you are large or plan to carry large passengers.

Heavy people don't go well with the A models for all the reasons listed above....they will tip back and slam the tail on the ground. Keep the tiedown ring in the back to protect the rudder!!!
 
Last edited:
danielhv said:
I see... so is it just a build and hope type scenario? I have no idea what engine, prop, panel, interior, etc im going to use....
Click to expand...

Not really, there should be enough data out there to help you out. There is some simple rule of thumb to use:

1) If it's going to be a TD with the big tail on it, then try to keep plenty of weight forward. The heavier engine/prop combos work best on these planes for CG purposes.

2) If it's a Trike, then building weigh towards the aft side is best.

Of course you can build each one whichever way you choose and it'll be a good plane, but if you do it right you'll end up with an RV that can be loaded to the hilt, full tanks or empty tanks, full baggage or empty baggage, etc.. and still end up with almost all of the CG being usable.

Interior alone can add or subtract 50 pounds aft of CG, avionics can addor subtract 30+ pouns fwd of CG. Wood or composite props can also make a HUGE difference, as can placement of batteries (along with battery type).

Anyway, that may or may not help, but as a general rule of thumb you can keep that in your head as you build and it usually comes out ok. We've done a lot of these by now and that instinct has treated us well. We'll see here in a week when we weight the RV9 TD that we just completed (catto prop with a 360 on it) and see how my "intuitive guessing" came out on that one! Just remember that the TD's can lean towards being aft CG and some NG the opposite. Not a hard/fast rule, just a generality!

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Exactly my point

Ron Lee said:
The 6 and 7 are the same width. I have measured it.
Click to expand...

If the 6,7,9 is marginal width-wise for 6'4" 235 and 5'8" 140 how well do you think the width will work out for 270 and 220 wide bodies?

Hey if they can make it work to their satisfaction - great. My suggestion was find out sooner rather than later.

Long ago I had a dream that I would take my son flying with me in the -7 I am building. Brett loved to fly with me in the Cherokee when he was a teenager. From flying the same width -6A as the 7/9 I know that it is an impossibility. He is 6'8" tall. Since graduating from college, he has dropped about 20 Lbs. from his basketball playing weight - now back to what he was graduating high school (215). Still - his HS prom tux was 52 Extra Long!!! :-( There is no way width-wise even if we could package his legs.

In my opinion airplanes tend to fit their designers. The original Beechcraft Bonanzas fit Walter Beech perfectly. He was short. My knees were against the panel and there was no seat adjustment.

Richard VanGrunsven is about 6'1" and skinny. There was even an article in the RVAtor "Don't be Fat," which determined that the best way for pilots to increase performance of their RVs was to go on a diet. His quoted response to suggestions to increase cockpit size has been quoted as "it fits me fine."

Just my two cents.

LarryT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top