RV-4 Low Time Pilot

I've been looking for some "in the meantime planes" for flying and building time while I build a 9 or 7. Right now I'm a student pilot.

I've been looking at C150/152, PA-28-140/180, C172, AA-1A/B/C. My price range is probably in the $20-$40k range. Going over some of these options her general response thus far has been, "that seems kind of slow". I think she is over the cost issue (see previous posts) but now still has some adversion to me building my own plane. However, she doesn't seem to have as much of an issue with buying another kit built aircraft.

I've noticed that there are "some" RV-3/4s in this price range (or a little higher) on TAP, Barnstormers, etc. What would your opinion be of a low time pilot flying a RV4 or RV3? Anything in particular that would make that a bad idea? Obviously transition training is critical, but would I have a deathwish to think that I could get my TW after my PPL, transition into an RV-4 and then fly it on my own?

Just curious what your thoughts were. To me it would a whole lot more satisfying to pay $45k for an RV3 or 4 and have a great flying machine as opposed to paying the same amount for a C172 and have a dog to fly while I pound rivets.


-Chase

Experts will probably disagree...

.... BUT, I can tell you that the RV3/4 is a fabulous aircraft that is almost as easy to fly as any other taildragger. It's definitely easier than a Pitts. As a student, you'll need to look for a -4 as the -3 is just a single seater (and you won't get a CFI's endorsement) You will become a much better pilot in a taildragger as they will not accept sloppy airwork. When I bought my -4, I spent time in a Citabria for transition training and then had no problem at all in the -4.
By the way, I flew my -4 over 2000 miles in two days this past weekend and averaged 6.5 gallons per hour fuel burn, at up to 211 mph ground speed (winds aloft were good). I had it up to 15,500 feet over the mountains and landed in serious crosswinds and wind shear in Utah. I would not have wanted to try landing in those conditions in a Cessna. If interested, I'm probably selling my -4 and looking for a -6 to buy.

Mike

Yes

Hi Chase,
My buddy has a student pilot's license and just finished his -4 two months ago. I gave him time in my -6A to the point where I considered him safe to solo it. I couldn't because of insurance concerns but he had a Zenith CH100 then which he flew almost daily.

After several hours in the back seat of his -4 with me up front, he landed it quite well, despite the lack of view, he just learned to use his peripheral vision. He practised taxiing often and later at high speed with the tail up and gradually slowing down.....yes, he's soloing it now, doing three-point landings and he's a very happy guy. You can do it too but find someone to give you a TD checkout. The airplane is remarkably easy to control under calm conditions and with time, crosswinds are not a problem. It's a very responsive airplane that needs very little control input to fly or land.

Regards,

I second Pierre's comments...

... the -4 is a remarkable aircraft to fly and not too bad to land. It is not affected by crosswinds as badly as most aircraft with very little weathervaning tendancies. Taxi visibility is great and flying it is easy. I personally think the stall and spin characteristics are much better in a -4 than in a cessna/piper/beech....

Hope that helps.

Recommend additional training

Chase,

I'd seriously disagree that the 4's stall/spin characteristics are "better" than Cessna/Piper/Beech.

First off, the RV4 has almost no pre-stall buffet. This is due to its forward-loaded airfoil, and wing with no wash-out. I did extensive stall/spin testing of my 4 throughout its flight envelope. I had a hard time discerning any prestall buffet, at any speed, flaps up or down. If stalled at 1g, the airplane will break without warning. Recovery is immediate if back pressure is relaxed. When stalled at greater than 1g (accelerated stalls) the 4 also presents the pilot with no discernible buffet and will aggressively roll if yaw is present.

Uncoordinated stalls: If inadvertently snapped or spun, the RV4 will positively respond to recovery inputs. If simply ham-fisted into a stall with yaw present, it will sharply stall and roll. But if entered from an accelerated stall at 3-4 g's the airplane is easily capable of snapping through 90 degrees of roll. Recovery is simply a matter of taking out the inputs that got you there, but this can be counter-intuitive if you're not trained properly.

Fully developed spins: My airplane would take about 3 full turns to stabilize in a fully developed spin. When spun at forward CG (fixed pitch aircraft: pilot with 3/4 fuel only) my 4 would stabilize at about 45 degrees nose low and spin rate was about a full turn per second. The elevator and rudder would aerodynamically lock against their stops nose-up and pro-spin respectively. The first time I did this, it was an eye-opener (good thing I started at 14000 feet). Positioning the controls neutral, which took more force than I thought, did not recover the airplane within one full turn. So, I decelerated the spin (full aft stick) and then quickly gave it full-opposite rudder followed by full-down elevator, which did produce a recovery. I paid out about 5000 feet and broke an exhaust mount in doing all this. This is not a docile spinning airplane, in my opinion. It would never pass FAA certification criteria for its stall/spin behavior.

I would advise getting some good unusual attitude recovery training and good basic aerobatic training if you intend on flying the 4 (in addition to the TW checkout). I guarantee, you WILL want to do aerobatics in it. I would not advise doing this without proper training.

The point of my post, then, is that the RV4 is lots more than a simple experimental taildragger. Its a fast, aerobatic, higher-powered tandem taildragger. It would be a good airplane for you - with proper training.

Buy the RV4

I am currently building an RV7a and bought an RV4 with a fellow builder. At the time I had about 140 hours of total time. I got my tailwheel endorsement in a citabria with heel brakes in about 7 hours then got some fantastic dual instruction from RV8 builder Scott Jordan.
I found the RV4 is much easier to fly than the citabria, what a great plane. The only thing I had to get use to was the faster speed and learning how to slow this slippery plane down.
I think the only problem you might have is finding an instructor with experience in an RV4 that can give you a proper check out.
I would also try to find an RV4 with rear rudder & throttle controls or add them after the purchase.
Insurance maybe another issue, I was required to have 15 hours of dual instruction followed by 10 hours of solo time.
I think if you get the proper training the RV4 can be a great plane to build time in and would probably lower your insurance rates when you get to flying your RV9 or 7.

Rob

no worries

Heck, I understand Nigerian Air Force "cadets" start from scratch in the -6A. I don't think hrs. matter too much. Regarding the -4 being a taildragger, I disagree that it's "much easier" to handle than a Citabria or any other tailwheel trainer. It's no harder, either. Easier to FLY, maybe (miniscule adverse yaw). If you're competant in any tailwheel airplane, you'll have no trouble with any other...at least with the ground handling issues. Go for it.

Regarding spin characteristics, true, they may not spin exactly like some of the docile certificated birds, but if you're at risk of dying from your inability to recover from a spin in a RV-4, you'd probably be at the same risk in any other airplane. It's just a matter of training. It's true that the RV-4 will probably tempt you into aerobatics or flight envelopes you'd not otherwise find yourself in if flying a GA plane. If you think that's the case, then get intro acro/spin/upset training, because that's appropriate regardless of the type of plane you're flying. RVs just happen to be very common now and are likely the first break from GA planes for many folks...with all implied risks.

you'll love the four

Get a T/D sign off, and a few hours in whatever you trained in. When you feel comfortable in that, you can fly a four.
While I do NOT recommend trying it, I think a non T/D pilot could ALMOST get away with flying one with no training. They are that straight forward. (off the grass anyway) I think your first hurdle will be the speed. Going fast is optional. Slowing down is mandatory. Slow down or go around.
Get training, ask for advice...push yourself to learn. ;-)

DM

build time and have fun in another taildragger

A year ago I was in a similar position as you. I am building an HR2 that should fly late this year. I wanted to start flying and thought an RV-4 would be the right choice. I found a few things to be true: I found it difficult to find a flying -4 that met a standard I was comfortable with, I found it difficult at best to find an instructor willing to finish my training in a -4, and I found it impossible to buy insurance for this endeavor. I wound up buying a Super Decathlon and this has turned out to be a great move. I finished my transition (from sailplanes) into SEL; I get to have tons of fun flying, and my wife has taken to the Super D and has now solo'ed it (she is now studying for the written). I would highly recommend building flight time while you build and preferably in a tailwheel and preferably in something you own; the experience you gain is exponential.

Citabria / Decathlon / Super-D a GOOD move

Larry J and others here have pointed out the similarities in flying a Citabria, or Decathlon, or Super-D as a first step toward TW proficiency. I'll whole heartedly agree with them. I've done a fair amount (100 hrs or so) of back seat dual in these aircraft and think they're a good choice for a learning RV'er for a few reasons:

First, they're roughly the same cost as a nice RV4. A Citabria should be even a bit less.

Second, they make much better tailwheel trainers - I know because the last Private Pilot student I trained from the ground up was in a Decathlon. (a grandmother who was nearly deaf in one ear and blind in one eye) Citabrias are also a bit harder to handle in crosswinds than the RV; makes for a more proficient student in some ways.

Third, their flight characteristics aren't as nice as the RV's but they are close. These aircraft all require a deft touch on the rudder, they don't have flaps, and they take a bit more to coax through basic acro than an RV. All in all, they take just a bit more to handle well - IMHO - making a better working platform for a learning student.

Finally, they're certified aircraft. Insurance problems don't play a role here. And its easier to find a CFI who will teach from the Decathlon's back seat (where they'd shy away from the back seat of the 4).

Having done your thing in a Citabria, Decathlon, or Super-D you should be able to make the RV transition without any problems.