What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Looking into RV-6A as a fairly new pilot

Turbo69bird

Well Known Member
My good Freind turbo and I were recently discussing RV6As. As a possibility. I'm a low time pilot who pretty much only got my ppl because TURBO got me hooked on his RV6a.
I did my training mostly in a 172 and have been club flying a different 172 and a piper archer.

I'd eventually like to go to a 6A but would be buying a lower priced plane, Looking for: 7 tail, no sloshed tanks, top mounted pedals, dual toe brakes and a slider not a tip up. Don't think a tail wheel is a good Idea even if I could get ins which I probably couldn't,

I was inquiring about one in Florida the other day, but the owner wasn't very forthcoming with log books, pictures or info.


I'm located in CT,

First question is: would you guys suggest waiting to get into an RV until I've got more hrs. Currently at about 100 hrs. Total.

Second question: am I missing anything I should look out for other than what I've stated?

Third question: anyone know of any good 6As in the lower end of the pricing?

Mission for this plane is currently VFR to local $100 hamburger flights, fairly local island runs, and some local fly ins etc.

Will probably go for my IFR in the near future, mainly for safety's sake.
I don't see myself flying intentional IFR except to get "actual " experience which I feel is important.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
 
Don't dismiss the standard low profile RV6 tail. It works just fine as long as you avoid spins. The short tail IMHO has less tail-wag in turbulence than the taller tails, and looks sexier too. My 6 has no shortage of rudder authority with the short tail.
 
My good Freind turbo and I were recently discussing RV6As. As a possibility. I'm a low time pilot who pretty much only got my ppl because TURBO got me hooked on his RV6a.
I did my training mostly in a 172 and have been club flying a different 172 and a piper archer.

I'd eventually like to go to a 6A but would be buying a lower priced plane, Looking for: 7 tail, no sloshed tanks, top mounted pedals, dual toe brakes and a slider not a tip up. Don't think a tail wheel is a good Idea even if I could get ins which I probably couldn't,

I was inquiring about one in Florida the other day, but the owner wasn't very forthcoming with log books, pictures or info.


I'm located in CT,

First question is: would you guys suggest waiting to get into an RV until I've got more hrs. Currently at about 100 hrs. Total.

Second question: am I missing anything I should look out for other than what I've stated?

Third question: anyone know of any good 6As in the lower end of the pricing?

Mission for this plane is currently VFR to local $100 hamburger flights, fairly local island runs, and some local fly ins etc.

Will probably go for my IFR in the near future, mainly for safety's sake.
I don't see myself flying intentional IFR except to get "actual " experience which I feel is important.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

1. Answer to question 1: Formal training is essential! I too am a low time pilot. I got my license May 2014. Nearly all of my training was in a C172. I had about 120 hours when I started earnestly looking to buy an already flying RV-8. Quality training with a qualified experienced instructor is very important in my opinion (yeah, I said that twice). I used Mike Seagar in Oregon. Flew in his RV-7 for ten plus hours. Got my TD endorsement. That convinced me I can do it. Now I own and fly an RV-8.

2. Answer to question 2: You stated, " Don't think a tail wheel is a good Idea even if I could get ins which I probably couldn't". I have insurance. It's not cheap but I'm worth it.

3. Answer to number 3: My hangar mate just sold a beautiful RV-6 with under 200 hours TT on the engine and airframe. I think he took $60,000 for it. It needed nothing but fuel, oil and someone to love it.

You're in the right place.
 
I bought my RV right at 100 hrs PPL time. I first had 10 hrs transition training with Mike Seager in Oregon. It's definitely the right thing to do and It will help qualify you for insurance at a reasonable price. I transitioned in the 6a. It's definitely more challenging to land than a Cessna, but 10 times more fun to fly. I love the 6 . I ended up buying 9a and I'm content , it's all the plane I need for now .
 
Low time

Why limit the field to the 6? All the models are awesome. Just get a thorough pre buy from a skilled RV mechanic and plenty of transition training.
I'm a low time pilot too with plans to get tons of training before taking my Lucy up.
 
One of the advantages of transitioning to an RV early in your flying life is that your Cessna flying habits are less deeply ingrained, and therefore easier to unlearn. Good transition training is definitely very important; RV's do not fly like spam cans. I thought that my time in a (for a factory built plane) responsive Grumman Tiger would be a good bridge to my 6A, and it was - compared to my Cherokee and 172 time - but the control response of the RV was another order of magnitude higher than the Tiger. The difference between an RV and a 172 or Archer is significantly greater again. Is that a problem? Not at all as long as you get transition training from someone who knows these aircraft. The RV makes it very easy to adapt to it's athletic, responsive nature, partly because it also possesses an inherent stability that makes it very easy to fly straight and level. These are not difficult aircraft to fly, just different from what you're used to. Find your plane, get good transition training, and have fun! You'll never look back.
 
Had a Freind ground loop a Pitts after flying it for 16 years and that made me think twice about tail wheel, not to mention insurance for a low timer

A Pitts is a hard plane to land well and smoothly. An RV6 is a lot easier. Still, the RV6 is the most difficult one of the RV tailwheel planes to land consistently well IMHO. It's taken me a couple years of ownership to learn to land mine well and consistently.

Is it insurmountable for a low time pilot? No, but it does take training, practice, determination and focus. You can't expect it to be as forgiving as a Cessna or Cherokee.

I know a very high time pilot who owned and flew his Pitts for many years and thought he'd mastered it, but totalled it in a ground loop one windy day.... its a much meaner animal than an RV6 though.
 
6A

I don't think a 6A would be that hard for an average 100 hour pilot to transition into with good transition training. You have to take care not to let the nose wheel hit the pavement hard. It's not as strong as a Cessna or Piper nose gear.

A well built 6A that's not too heavy and with the right CG can carry two average size people and plenty of baggage a long way for very little money. It gets you there fast and is fairly comfortably. Many 6A's have very capable autopilots which won't add much to your purchase price and which is really nice for VFR flights and a necessity for IFR IMHO.

I think of my 6A as a 2 seat sports car versus a sedan. It corners better than the sedan, but isn't really any harder to drive. It's a short tail, by the way, which I wouldn't change.

John
 
Last edited:
1. Answer to question 1: Formal training is essential! I too am a low time pilot. I got my license May 2014. Nearly all of my training was in a C172. I had about 120 hours when I started earnestly looking to buy an already flying RV-8. Quality training with a qualified experienced instructor is very important in my opinion (yeah, I said that twice). I used Mike Seagar in Oregon. Flew in his RV-7 for ten plus hours. Got my TD endorsement. That convinced me I can do it. Now I own and fly an RV-8.

2. Answer to question 2: You stated, " Don't think a tail wheel is a good Idea even if I could get ins which I probably couldn't". I have insurance. It's not cheap but I'm worth it.

3. Answer to number 3: My hangar mate just sold a beautiful RV-6 with under 200 hours TT on the engine and airframe. I think he took $60,000 for it. It needed nothing but fuel, oil and someone to love it.

You're in the right place.


I got my ppl in April 2014, One reason I want the 7 tail is spin recovery, just added insurance. I do like the 6 tail and it's better looking but spins kill and anything that increases those odds to me is a plus. I'm sure that comment will open a can of worms though. :)


I'm glad I posted,
the encouragement and comeradere here is awesome and it's nice to hear of successful low time transition.

Another thing I really appreciate about the RVs over the other planes is its added visibility. While the tip ups probably even have better visibility I think they cause other concerns.

I'm also not terribly interested in the speed aspect of the RV as much as I am the agility of it. I've had 1000 hp street cars, so that feeling of speed / power is never going to match the cars anyway. Yes it cuts the flights shorter but it's not really what I'm after, it's the handling that got me hooked. 172 to an RV is like a suv to a Porsche 911.

Why RV6 Vs other models?

Don't like to fly solo I'd prefer to share the experience with friends., I know a bit more about 6s than other models, I dont really care for front to back seating, prefer side by side, and a 6 is a better bang for the buck than other side by sides , due to other expensive hobbies, family obligations and this wonderful 8 year+ housing economy, I'm on a tight budget. 😀
 
I got my ppl in April 2014, One reason I want the 7 tail is spin recovery, just added insurance.

It's not a can of worms, but in the hope to dispellrumors or old wives tails.....

The spins that most often kill people are unintentional spins at low altitude. They are usually 1/2 to 1 full turn at the most (because of the low altitude).

If an immediate recovery is initiated, you wouldn't detect much of any difference in the two tails on an RV-6. This means that a difference in recovery time from a 1/2 to 1 full turn spin will probably be undetectable by most pilots.

Where the (slight) difference is apparent is when recreationally doing spins and allowing them to fully develop (3+ turns). In that case, the larger rudder will terminate the rotation just a little bit sooner.
 
I got my ppl in April 2014, One reason I want the 7 tail is spin recovery, just added insurance. I do like the 6 tail and it's better looking but spins kill and anything that increases those odds to me is a plus.

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I suspect you've made a bunch of decisions already that might be closing off some good options for no good reason.

1. Whether the rudder pedals are hinged from the top or the bottom doesn't make much difference. You won't notice in flight, you won't notice on the ground either.

2. Whether it's a tricycle or taildragger doesn't make much difference either. Every RV needs to be flown 'til it stops moving, regardless of which end has the little wheel. Do your taildragger rating to become a better pilot and open up some options, then you'll at least be qualified to have an opinion for the forums on whether you're more likely to flip or groundloop :D

(It wasn't THAT long ago that every pilot was a taildragger pilot, because there weren't any tricycle trainers in existence. They seemed to cope from ab-initio onwards. You can probably cope too, it's just a training and confidence issue)

3. Whether the fin is old style or new style doesn't matter. You're going to crash if you spin close to the ground. If you don't want to crash, don't spin close to the ground. The size of the splat-mark on the ground made by your fin in your wreckage will make literally no difference whatsoever.

Have a good think about whether those criteria you've described are objective or just based on "the vibe." You're probably currently ignoring excellent options for reasons you might not fully understand this early in the game.

I'm sure that comment will open a can of worms though. :)

Meh :)

- mark
 
Regarding "low time" pilots taking on an RV.

IMHO

Its all about the attitude of the pilot and the instructor.

In the 1950s the USAF used T6's as PRIMARY trainers - as in your first solo was in a 600hp, 4500 lb, taildragger. In WWII kids with maybe a couple hundred hours strapped on a P51 or a Hellcat.

So its not the number of hours per se but the instruction that goes into flying the plane.

So flying an RV (either TW or A model) with, say, 110, total hours is not that big a deal and should not scare you off. Key to that is getting a good instructor to give you the transition training for the type,

RVs are very docile taildraggers BTW so letting that be a determining factor alone limits the availability a suitable planes to buy.

Go find the plane that fits your budget and an instructor who can help you get comfortable in it. Its not that big a deal.
 
I started transitioning to Dad's -6 at 18, with a whole 50 hours of C150 time under my belt. It took 30 hours over a year and a half (being away at college made it hard to fly a lot at one time) to transition and get signed off--but then, that wasn't just a regular transition-training or tailwheel transition program, either. A lot of that was him imparting 20 years of military and airline experience and teaching what I'll call "aeronautical decision-making"--stuff my instructor didn't know or teach because he didn't have the experience. We also did spins, formation, basic aerobatics, and a bit more cross-country. Basically, he wanted to cover everything I might want to do before he'd let me run off with his brand-new airplane.

I don't think you'll have any problem transitioning.
 
FWIW, I cant remember the exact number, but I was a 50hr pilot when I took the first flight in my 6A. Managed to survive the process. There was not much for formal transition training like there is now. Looking back, that would have been useful. I would have no trouble recommending the 6A or 6 to a low time or no time pilot. Flying is relative. You will adapt very quickly.
 
Unlearning the 172 control response should come quickly if you have some Piper time and a couple hours in a Grumman.

The 6A is an easy plane to fly, even for low time pilots. Fly it by the numbers like anything else and respect it. Too many people here make way too much of this IMO assuming you have reasonable stick skills. Get some dual time with another RV pilot for sure but an RV is not something to be scared of assuming you are not doing stupid things with it down low.

Be sure of treating the nose gear with care is the main thing to be aware of.

I like the comment about the old days here. My Dad soloed in a T6 after 12 hours or so if I recall. That airplane is a beast compared any RV. He stepped into a P51 after that with just a cockpit checkout.
 
I got my ppl in April 2014, One reason I want the 7 tail is spin recovery, just added insurance. I do like the 6 tail and it's better looking but spins kill and anything that increases those odds to me is a plus. I'm sure that comment will open a can of worms though. :)
If you want insurance against anything that can go wrong, stay home on the couch. :)

As others have said, the larger rudder won't do much for you in a practical sense. The killing spins aren't ones that having a slightly faster spin recovery time will save you from. When you stop paying attention and invert while turning base to final, your goose is probably cooked regardless of which tail you have.

When you're practising aerobatics at a safe altitude and flop out of something into a spin, the correct recovery inputs will do the right things.

I was put in the left seat of a very new -6 when I had about 100 hours. About 50 of that was tailwheel, but none of it was in an RV. It wasn't a problem, as the RV's are very docile tailwheels compared to some others, and the owner who was also a flight instructor and airline pilot was in the right seat ready to take over if needed. The Pitts is known to be a very short-coupled, tricky plane to keep straight. The RV isn't.
 
Higher speed

What, to me, is an important difference between RV's and Cessna's, and a consideration for all pilots, is that you tend to be 20+ knots faster down low where the birds are. I was flying into New Braunfels, TX last week and dropped down to 2000 AGL to get below a scattered layer. I was watching for buzzards, and sure enough, passed very near a large flock circling tightly in a thermal. The higher speed of most RV's means you have to really be watching for birds below 2500' AGL. You come up on them quickly and don't have a lot of time to respond. On the other hand, the quick response time of the plane is a real benefit because you can turn away from danger quicker. The smaller size of the RV means there's a better chance of missing birds you don't see but you really have to be watching. John
 
Last edited:
I went from a 172 to an Ercoupe then to my 6A with around 130hrs total. Ercoupe flying resulted in my feet going to sleep so to speak, so that was a hurtle I had to get over. The other thing that took some time to get used to was going from a yoke to a stick. Getting the feel for control inputs in the flair and landing, especially in cross winds took some time to develop for me.
 
spin the couch

If you want insurance against anything that can go wrong, stay home on the couch. :)

As others have said, the larger rudder won't do much for you in a practical sense.

Agree with the couch/spin assessment. :) - Also you would be limiting yourself to about 5% of the 6A market. There are very few of the 7 tailed 6's out there...
 
As for the couch scenario,

if 1/2 turn is the difference between life and death you'll find yourself **** happy about that 1/2 turn less it took to get out of a spin.

How many people who ended up in a low altitude spin do you think got into one intentionally?

Every pilot makes mistakes, the majority of accidents are in the landing configuration or take off, rarely in cruise, and many of those accidents are high time pilots who got complacent.


Doing the best you can to reduce that risk is just a smart thing to do. IMO.

Now, I've got no experience with rv6s and spins, but my decision to look for a 7 tail comes right from the suggestions in this very forum. Another poster asked what to look for in an RV Sloshed tanks, top mounted rudder pedals, thicker tail skin due to cracking , the 7 tail and the slider were all recommendations.
 
...Now, I've got no experience with rv6s and spins, but my decision to look for a 7 tail comes right from the suggestions in this very forum. Another poster asked what to look for in an RV Sloshed tanks, top mounted rudder pedals, thicker tail skin due to cracking , the 7 tail and the slider were all recommendations.

Having preferences is normal and I think some of those preferences have a lot to recommend them, particularly NON-sloshed tanks. Some of the others are strictly personal preference and some are trivial in my opinion.

From experience I can say it is very unlikely that you can find a used RV configured exactly the way you want it. The way to get one exactly like you want is to build it. Otherwise I think it is wiser to look at things like build quality and accept some variances from perfect in the details.

I helped someone RV shop and found a lot of airplanes were not as represented and good build quality was a bit hard to find in the desired RV-6A. This person settled on an old, well built, RV-6, with an obsolete panel. Their few piloting hours were mostly in C-172s and a Cherokee. I think they are very happy with the choice in the end and the airplane has been upgraded considerably from that humble start.

DSC05821.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had 52 power hours when I made the forth flight on my brand new RV-6A. My instructor made the first three flights for me and reported no issues. We borrowed a friend's -6A and made two flights and about six landings. He endorsed my logbook and I finished up the phase 1 test period. This was in 1999 and I got insurance without any issues.

I did have about 1,200 hours in high performance gliders so flying and unplanned landings in farmers fields were well known.

I think all the RV flown to date are very easy to fly and land. Get a bunch of hours in a RV with a good instructor and tell him to make it hard! Stalls from all attitudes, lots of slow flight with the airspeed covered up, x wind landings, mild aerobatics, etc.
 
What, to me, is an important difference between RV's and Cessna's, and a consideration for all pilots, is that you tend to be 20+ knots faster down low where the birds are. I was flying into New Braunfels, TX last week and dropped down to 2000 AGL to get below a scattered layer. I was watching for buzzards, and sure enough, passed very near a large flock circling tightly in a thermal. The higher speed of most RV's means you have to really be watching for birds below 2500' AGL. You come up on them quickly and don't have a lot of time to respond. On the other hand, the quick response time of the plane is a real benefit because you can turn away from danger quicker. The smaller size of the RV means there's a better chance of missing birds you don't see but you really have to be watching. John

This is precisely what I'm talking about, low altitude, turn increasing stall speed you pull up to miss a bird or something, without applying throttle and boom your in a low altitude spin scenario.

Now Im Not sure if a 7 tail will be enough to make the difference, but at some altitude a slight difference might be the edge you need.

Only someone who's flown both really knows how much better one is than the other. Does the 7 tail have more area under the elevator? A recent Aopa (Plymouth mass) seminar I was at stated that it's the area under/below the elevator that makes the difference.
 
This is precisely what I'm talking about, low altitude, turn increasing stall speed you pull up to miss a bird or something, without applying throttle and boom your in a low altitude spin scenario.

I had a birdstrike at about 500' in a turn (see it here.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPoFH5ON_E ) and you really don't have time to pull hard IMHO. My RV6 is a small tail and I didn't spin in. To me a larger tail in more likely to put you in a spin in that situation as you would need to be flying uncoordinated to start with. I wouldn't worry about a bird strike so much for a spin on a turn to final - I would worry about overshooting final more and that is a training issue.

I don't think insurance would be too much more for a 6 vs 6A. My first tailwheel airplane was a Cessna 180 and I only had 5 or so hours tail wheel when I got it (and about 500 hours TT). The insurance was about $1500 I think.

RV6s are pretty tame tail wheel airplanes in my opinion. Get tail wheel time now and it will make you a better pilot for the rest of your career. Just keep a tail wheel airplane straight and you will never ground loop - it is pretty simple really.

Find a good RV6 or RV6A and you will have lots of fun!!

Nigel
KCCR
 
Don't guess, and don't rely on other's past history. Just call an insurance broker and ask for an estimate for tail wheel coverage for you in a -6. You may be surprised, you may be shocked. But then you'll know for sure.
 
How many people who ended up in a low altitude spin do you think got into one intentionally?

Every pilot makes mistakes, the majority of accidents are in the landing configuration or take off, rarely in cruise, and many of those accidents are high time pilots who got complacent.


Doing the best you can to reduce that risk is just a smart thing to do. IMO.

Now, I've got no experience with rv6s and spins, but my decision to look for a 7 tail comes right from the suggestions in this very forum. Another poster asked what to look for in an RV Sloshed tanks, top mounted rudder pedals, thicker tail skin due to cracking , the 7 tail and the slider were all recommendations.

If a bigger tail on an RV-6 would make the difference between turning what would have been a 1 turn spin recovery (RV-6 with smaller tail), into a 1/2 turn (RV-6 with larger tail) I would agree with you, but that is not true (as I tried to convey in my other post but I guess I wasn't very clear).
If that is the idea you have gotten from others here in the forum, you are making your purchase decision based on incorrect info.

As I tried to say before, the difference in ability to recover from a spin when comparing the two tail sizes, when a recovery is initiated immediately after the spin begins would probably be undetectable by most pilots.
You would only notice a difference after the spin has been allowed to fully develop (3+ turns), and even then it would be a small difference.

If that is important to you, then you should search for what you want. Just be properly informed... But it will not make the difference that you seem convinced that it will.
If a difference it is important, then maybe the RV-6 is not the right choice for you. An RV-4 or 8 has an even quicker recovery than the RV-6 (with either tail).
 
Last edited:
Does the 7 tail have more area under the elevator? A recent Aopa (Plymouth mass) seminar I was at stated that it's the area under/below the elevator that makes the difference.

A marginal amount larger on the RV-8 tail version (the reason for my other post saying there is very little difference in spin recovery between the two)
An RV-6 built with the larger tail doesn't actually have an RV-7 vertical tail. It is actually the RV-8 vertical tail. The RV-7 has the same vertical stab as the RV-8 but its rudder is larger.

I have not seen an RV-6 built with an RV-7 vertical stab and rudder. Not saying there isn't a few out there, but it would be very rare I would guess.
 
New RV-6A driver

I'm a new RV-6A owner. I had 250 hours in Cherokee, 172, and 177RG and the insurance was a non-issue.

Did about 5 hours of transition training and I'm loving it!

Two things I've noticed --
Take off goes quickly. Like 6-10 seconds and your up.
On landing you REALLY drive it down to to the ground. I'm still working on not rounding out too early.

For your slider vs tip up comment... I went tip-up and I like visibility. Good ground airflow when you leave it propped on the catches.
 
Yep, Larry is right. I thought I had to have an -A model. Turns out that I couldn't (at that time) find a well-built -A model within my price range. Price and well-built were the critical criteria. I ended up with Mikey and love the plane. No regrets after some 1300+ hours with its tailwheel, sloshed tank, bottom-mounted rudder pedals, and tip-up canopy. Couldn't have picked a finer plane!

Having preferences is normal and I think some of those preferences have a lot to recommend them, particularly NON-sloshed tanks. Some of the others are strictly personal preference and some are trivial in my opinion.

From experience I can say it is very unlikely that you can find a used RV configured exactly the way you want it. The way to get one exactly like you want is to build it. Otherwise I think it is wiser to look at things like build quality and accept some variances from perfect in the details.

I helped someone RV shop and found a lot of airplanes were not as represented and good build quality was a bit hard to find in the desired RV-6A. This person settled on an old, well built, RV-6, with an obsolete panel. Their few piloting hours were mostly in C-172s and a Cherokee. I think they are very happy with the choice in the end and the airplane has been upgraded considerably from that humble start.

DSC05821.jpg
 
This is precisely what I'm talking about, low altitude, turn increasing stall speed you pull up to miss a bird or something, without applying throttle and boom your in a low altitude spin scenario.

Now Im Not sure if a 7 tail will be enough to make the difference, but at some altitude a slight difference might be the edge you need.

Only someone who's flown both really knows how much better one is than the other. Does the 7 tail have more area under the elevator? A recent Aopa (Plymouth mass) seminar I was at stated that it's the area under/below the elevator that makes the difference.

Relax about the tail. Others on this thread have offered good advice. The 6 recovers from spins with normal inputs - it just takes slightly longer than the 7 once fully developed, and the spin rate is faster. Unless you have spin experience, you may not appreciate how long it takes (while you sit there with the controls fully deflected doing nothing) for a spin to fully develop. It takes several seconds of inaction. It's not something that will happen accidentally to a pilot who is generally competent with spins. Less than fully developed, recovery is more typical. But if your skill level is such that you're in danger of hitting the ground in a fully developed accidental spin, your choice of tail style will not help you any. And as mentioned, if you accidentally enter a spin at typical base to final altitudes, you're probably not going to make it regardless of tail type.

So - you know the best way to avoid spinning into the ground in a developed spin? Get comfortable and competent with spins. Find a good airplane in your price range and don't sweat the details so much.
 
The 6 recovers from spins with normal inputs - it just takes slightly longer than the 7 once fully developed, and the spin rate is faster.

Sorry to seem like I am picking the details to death (I guess it is the engineering mind trapped inside me), but if the information on this forum is going to be of value, it must be correct.

The above statement is not true.

The only reason the RV-7 got a bigger rudder than was offered with the late delivery RV-6 kits is because it had a slightly slower recover from a fully developed spin than the RV-6 did.

Before the RV-7 was developed, an RV-6 was modified to simulate an RV-7 (Added temporary wing extensions to increase span, etc.) for doing some preliminary flight testing (including spins). All indications at that time were that the spin recovery would be the same with the longer wings. Unfortunately it was a partial simulation (the RV-7 has a longer fuselage). When the RV-7 was introduced it was advertised as having the same spin recovery traits as the RV-6. When detailed testing was able to be done later on on an RV-7, it was discovered that the rate of recovery from a Fully Developed spin was slightly slower than the RV-6. Since this didn't match the original claim, a larger rudder was offered to all customers and then was made standard for all kits delivered from that point on.

So the correction to above would be... The RV-6 and RV-7 have about the rate of recovery from a fully developed (3+ turns) spin, and the rate of rotation is about the same for both.
 
Sorry to seem like I am picking the details to death (I guess it is the engineering mind trapped inside me), but if the information on this forum is going to be of value, it must be correct.

The above statement is not true.

The only reason the RV-7 got a bigger rudder than was offered with the late delivery RV-6 kits is because it had a slightly slower recover from a fully developed spin than the RV-6 did.

Before the RV-7 was developed, an RV-6 was modified to simulate an RV-7 (Added temporary wing extensions to increase span, etc.) for doing some preliminary flight testing (including spins). All indications at that time were that the spin recovery would be the same with the longer wings. Unfortunately it was a partial simulation (the RV-7 has a longer fuselage). When the RV-7 was introduced it was advertised as having the same spin recovery traits as the RV-6. When detailed testing was able to be done later on on an RV-7, it was discovered that the rate of recovery from a Fully Developed spin was slightly slower than the RV-6. Since this didn't match the original claim, a larger rudder was offered to all customers and then was made standard for all kits delivered from that point on.

So the correction to above would be... The RV-6 and RV-7 have about the rate of recovery from a fully developed (3+ turns) spin, and the rate of rotation is about the same for both.

Can't argue with any of that since I haven't spun a 7 with either the original rudder, or the 9 rudder, or a 6 in the original configuration. Aside from the RV-3, I've only spun a 6 with a 7 tail...though I'm not sure whether it had the original 7 rudder or the 9 rudder that came with 7 kits starting in '02. Recovery fully developed on that one was within 1/4 turn - and I know this doesn't precisely replicate the true 7 configuration with either rudder style. Vans bulletin states the 9 rudder on a 7 recovers a spin equal to or better than the 6, and I was only basing my statement on that hinting from Vans as well as other pilots who I've heard say the current rudder on a 7 spins a little slower and recovers a little quicker than a 6, fully developed. Maybe that's not true, maybe it is, maybe these are issues of perception, maybe there are differences among aircraft of the same model and rudder...I don't know. But I think we're both saying to the OP that any possible spin differences between the 6 and 7 are unimportant from a practical standpoint.
 
Training and Test are Key

Scott and Eric's posts immediately above sum this up well.

The full bulletin that Scott referred to (02-6-1, published 8 Jun 02) can be found on the factory site. Additionally, there is excellent information available in the flight test section of the builder's manual. This information that was incorporated in the spin discussion(s) in the draft transition training syllabus available on the safety page. Builder's manuals are part of the preview plans sets available for any of the RV-types and are an inexpensive, outstanding resource for folks that are buying or contemplating buying a "new to them" RV-type.

Due to differences in individual aircraft even of the same type, it is difficult to pin down precise handling and performance characteristics. Although generalities can be drawn from informed study and discussion, receiving proper transition training and then testing an individual aircraft is the only way to determine precise characteristics for a particular airplane.

With proper training, low time pilots are capable of confidently transitioning to any of the RV-types, regardless of landing gear configuration. The basic portion of the draft transition training syllabus is designed to do that and can serve as a familiarization reference (or just light reading) for folks thinking about transitioning to any of the Van's RV types. Working with any of the cadre of transition trainers or a local instructor familiar with RV's is the next order of business. Time spent learning and money spent on training are the best investments anyone can make on the most important component in the airplane: the pilot...far more important than agonizing over the tail configuration or avionics suite.

I had only 82 hours of military flying time when I transitioned to the T-38 and less than 200 hours when I first checked out in the F-4...the point being the quality of the training and experience is what matters, not total flying time.

Fly safe,

Vac
 
Which tail is this:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=948094

Also reference this thread for 7 upgrades others are going to some trouble to add to 6s

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=123778

Also another adding a 7 tail:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=123964


Must be a reason people are going through all this trouble no?

I've built a lot of cars, no planes😀. With the cars if you see multiple people making the same mod. It's usually for a pretty good reason.

We do get the trick part of the week guys too, who think a bolt on will compensate for lack of skill but of course it won't.

I know the cars though, so I know which mods work and which don't. I'm trying to learn that before purchase here, so as not to make big mistakes in the buying process.
 
Must be a reason people are going through all this trouble no?

I've built a lot of cars, no planes��. With the cars if you see multiple people making the same mod. It's usually for a pretty good reason.

I think you're going in circles at this point. Buy whatever makes you feel good. That's pretty much why some people chose the larger rudder on their 6. But if you read the posts from the most experienced pilots, they all basically say the same thing - that the original 6 rudder is fine and there is no need to increase the rudder size on the 6. Not only that, but many even prefer the original 6 tail.
 
Which tail is this:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=948094

Looks like an RV-7 large rudder vertical tail. This is even larger than the big rudder shipped with some RV-6 kits. Very unusual... might be the only one in existance

Also reference this thread for 7 upgrades others are going to some trouble to add to 6s

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=123778

Nothing in this thread talking about benefits of bigger rudder on an RV-6 other than a recommendation against it.

Also another adding a 7 tail:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=123964

The discussion in this thread about a 7 tail on a 6 is for the horizontal stab and elevators (not the vertical and rudder). I think it was being considered as a replacement for one that got damaged, not because it would make the airplane better.





Must be a reason people are going through all this trouble no?

There are more than 2500 RV-6(A)'s that have been completed and flown. Finding just a couple of cases where someone has chosen to use a different tail is far from any indication that it is a necessary improvement. I think it is fair to say that if it was a big safety bennefit as you are thinking it is, there would be hundreds out of that 2500 that have been converted, not just a few.

And the ones that have been converted, it is often for other reasons......
My personal RV-6A has the bigger RV-8 vertical and rudder. Not because it made it better.... but because I rebuilt the airplane after someone else had wrecked it. The RV-8 tail kit was fully prepunched so that made it much easier/quicker to build. If not for that, it would have the original tail.
 
Hey Scott,

Thanks for keeping folks straight on this :).

I've only built/owned 34-35 RVs now but.....when it comes to the RV6 (A models included) I'll take the standard tail all day long. Flies great and the 'larger' tail just looks BAD on the 6's IMO :eek::D:eek::D!

My 2 cents!
 
Last edited:
Yep, that standard 6 tail sure looks a lot better on the airplane.

I dunno, I think the later tail looks better. I like how the counter balance looks better than the non-counter balanced rudder. And it recovers from a 14-turn spin (pretty sure it's fully developed by then) well enough but I've not done the same in a short tail -6/6A.

But then again, I'm biased:

16755104959_b2960c493f_b.jpg
 
Easy

I think my RV7a is easier to land than aC-172. I don't know what it is about the RVs but they are just really easy machines to operate. The speed means you have to plan ahead but I don't think the transition will be hard at all for a 100 hr pilot.
 
Checklist transitioning to RV

RV's vs. other (certified) aircraft including the off-touted Grumman.

Easier to take off. Check.

Easier (lighter) on controls. Check.

Easier to climb.Check.

Easier to fly at cruise speeds. Check.

Easier to descend, U pick the speed. Check.

Easier in the pattern, ditto on speed. Check.

Mind thy correct speed flaps up or down. Check.

Pattern turns, mind thy speed and banking. Check.

Stabilised on final. Check.

Landing. Mind thy nosewheel, Keep her up into taxi. Check.

Out of the whole experience, the critical part seems to be the last 2 minutes or so.

Mind those, the rest is usually easy. Check.

Tailwheel Pilots are welcome to edit, please.
 
There are more than 2500 RV-6(A)'s that have been completed and flown. Finding just a couple of cases where someone has chosen to use a different tail is far from any indication that it is a necessary improvement. I think it is fair to say that if it was a big safety bennefit as you are thinking it is, there would be hundreds out of that 2500 that have been converted, not just a few.

And the ones that have been converted, it is often for other reasons......
My personal RV-6A has the bigger RV-8 vertical and rudder. Not because it made it better.... but because I rebuilt the airplane after someone else had wrecked it. The RV-8 tail kit was fully prepunched so that made it much easier/quicker to build. If not for that, it would have the original tail.


I think you guys are taking my posts wrong, I was simp,y showing where I got the information in the first place. From this forum.

I could care less which number tail is best, I just want get the best tail I can get if one is in fact better. If that's the 6 so be it. If it's the 7 that's great too. If none are better than the other even better.
I'm not trying to shove the 7 tail down your throats, as some here seem to have suggested. I'm getting that information from the vans airforce forums, not making it up.

I was asking which tail that was on that airplane, so I know what I'm looking at 6, 7, or 8 ? I've little to no experience with vans other models. And very little with 6s in fact.

Kind of wishing I hadn't even brought it up at this point.

thanks to the low time pilots who answered though I appreciate hearing that many, have made the switch successfully at low times. That's very encouraging. Both with insurance and ability to adapt.

I may consider flying with someone locally in a tail wheel version (if I can locate one) to see how it is landing it vs a tri gear. I've never been in anything tail wheel yet.
 
I think you guys are taking my posts wrong, I was simp,y showing where I got the information in the first place. From this forum.

Jeff,
I can't speak for anyone else that posted info in this thread that is contrary to what you seemed to want to believe, but my intention was only to give you correct information.

The VAF forums are a great resource of information and learning about everything RV.
Unfortunately, despite good intentions of many people that are trying to help, a lot of bad advice and incorrect information is spread within the forums also.
That leaves someone like you in a difficult spot. The best you can do is research not only what you are reading, but also what the information source is.

Good luck in your search for an RV. As already mentioned, as long as you are able to find a well built one, you can't really go wrong with any of them.
 
Back
Top