What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Suitability of RVs for Instument Training

T

Tango Mike

Well Known Member
Let's say you're at a fly-in with your IFR-equipped RV and you've just slipped a pair of FOR SALE sleeves on the prop blades. A pilot walks up, asks you a few questions about the airplane, then says something like:

"I had a RV6 some years ago, only used it VFR. Currently, my daughter just received her PPL, and is wanting to go career. Next step is an instrument ticket. My question is that many say the Van?s are not stable enough for IFR, and for sure not for training. I've asked pilots about the IFR training aspect of RVs and I get mixed reviews, but mostly it is not ideal, and, that it may be hard to find a CFII to train in it as well. What is your experience and opinion?"

My response might include the following points:

1. My guess is that the "many" detractors probably have little or no time in RVs.

2. To compare the stability of an RV to a run-of-the-mill certificated airplane commonly used for instrument training is to highlight the difference in wing loading, light and more agile as opposed to heavier and more sluggish.

3. From the pilot's seat, an instrument approach looks the same regardless of the airplane type.

4. At the end of the day, instrument training in an RV has the potential for creating a more proficient IFR pilot because the airplane doesn't tolerate over-controlling well. It demands precision, and isn't that what instrument flying is all about?

5. Why would a CFII care what type of airplane is being used? If the instructor isn't comfortable in an experimental, that has nothing to do with the suitability of the airframe for the training objective.

6. To purchase an airplane other than an RV specifically for your daughter's IFR training allows faulty reasoning to prevent you and her from enjoying the many advantages of these airplanes.

7. With regard to any aspect of aviating, comparing total performance and the RV grin with a standard trainer boils down to two words: No comparison.

I'd appreciate hearing from pilots who fly IFR in their RV, and particularly from CFIIs on the question of suitability of the airplanes for instrument training.

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions.

Tosh
 
I did all my IFR training in an RV-10, but would not hesitate to do it in a 2 seater. I found an instructor that was willing to instruct in the RV as well as an examiner that gave me the checkout in the plane.

For me, learning to fly IFR in the plane I planned to use going forward was important. I suspect the RV would also better prepare you for faster planes (staying ahead of the plane is always a challenge in single pilot IFR), and teaches you the importance of small control inputs.

Having an autopilot was valuable as well. It takes off the workload during the busiest portion of the flight.

Aaron
 
RVs and IFR

I have an RV-7A with a three screen G3X panel, Garmin GTN 650 and a TruTrak autopilot.I am also currently working on my instrument rating using my airplane. I found an instructor who had no problems with training me in my airplane. The bigger challenge might be finding a DPE who is willing to examine you or your daughter. It's true that the RV is a very good airplane for this. It is very sensitive and responsive. An autopilot however is very helpful. I think we all know what a fantastic airplane this is but there is a bit of a lag from people not really understanding what an experimental is. If you look up the FARs, there is no longer a regulation stating that it has to be a certificated airplane. My experience is that examiners don't really understand what we can do as far as maintenance on our aircraft. In other words, it is a personal issue with the instructor as well as the DPE.

Best of luck
Bill Near
 
I instructed the owner of a popular EFIS manufacturer :D for his instrument rating and found it challenging at first being a fairly nimble airplane (and having only instructed in C-172/182 previously). We spent a fair amount of time initially on basic aircraft control and transitions to different phases of flight: climb to level, level to climb, level turns, climbing/descending turns, descent to level, constant airspeed climbs/descents, stalls...etc. We probably spent more time under the hood getting those basics mastered in the RV-10 than we would have in a spam can, but beyond that it was no different than any other aircraft. The RV's are extremely capable aircraft but they are also very nimble and can be over controlled pretty easily. Two fingers with light input is all that is required to remain stable. If you can hand-fly an RV under IMC, you can fly just about any single-engine airplane IMC.
When I signed him off, not only was I extremely comfortable with his abilities in his RV-10, but I also knew he would be an extremely safe and competent IFR pilot in any other airplane.
 
Thanks for the inputs

I've been unable so far to practice enough to get really comfortable with the integration between my two G3X setup, G400W, and SL-30.

Another reply mentioned the necessity for being able to push a button with confidence and know exactly what the systems will do in response. Confusion and a "Why did it do that?" thought can be the first link in a chain of events leading to trouble.

That puts me in the current position of making some hard choices about how to move forward. But one thing comes across loud and clear: 47 years of professional flying in big airplanes mean virtually nothing other than being able to instill an abundance of caution.

Qualification and currency are two entirely different things, and if I've learned anything over the years, it's to fully appreciate the dangers inherent in overconfidence.

As for the autopilot comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Last week I flew a couple of practice approaches in typically turbulent conditions below scattered cumulus and watched the GX Pilot nail the approach.

The specific issue here, however, is not how well an autopilot can do in the real world of IFR flying, but teaching someone how to do it themselves.

Tosh
 
This is just my opinion, but someone that flies an RV-6 IFR and bigger airplanes professionally for over 30 years. This is also from the perspective of seeing my son and nephew get all of their tickets the past few years and are now flying corporate.

I think you will answer your questions by finding the CFII that is going to do the instrument training in the RV and have him take you up for a simulated Instrument check ride that your daughter will be taking after only 40-50 hours of instrument dual. You can count on the autopilot being inop for the bulk of the flight and several modifications to the original intended flight. In the most simple, stable platform ie. C-172 or similar the checkride for an instrument student can be difficult with plenty of opportunities to stumble. While I agree that learning to fly instruments in an RV will sharpen your skills I also think for a checkride of this importance you would want every advantage going your way since the examiner has nothing to compare to except the other students taking an instrument checkride in airplanes that are more stable. The PTS standards are set by the FAA without regard to airplane type and become the basis for the pass / fail criteria.

If your daughter is considering a professional pilot career it is very important that she is given every opportunity to complete her training without a busted FAA checkride. While she might be a better pilot because of her RV instrument training the bust would follow her and would be something she would have to explain away at the job interviews.

Again just my opinion but I would recommend finding a club airplane and CFII to do the training and buy the RV for all the other right reasons.

Good luck to her in her flying. We need more people flying for the right reasons.
 
I've been lucky enough to help several guys get an instrument ticket in a 9A and a 10. If anything I would say they are better instrument pilots because they learned in an RV, much easier for them to fly a 172 IFR than a 172 pilot to fly an RV IFR. No issues with the DPE, in fact he was very impressed with the airplanes especially the 10.
 
I have mixed emotions about this topic. I just did 2.5 of actual this AM. The weather has been perfect IFR lately - 700-1000 ceilings. I decided to reset my currency so I did a round robin with 6 approaches and some holding. First off, a round robin is always very busy; you're usually setting up for the next arrival before established in cruise off the missed, etc. I also hand flew almost the entire flight - only used the autopilot when briefing/setting up the avionics for the next approach.

I will say that at times I was concentrating very hard to keep tight tolerances. I will also say that a few times I had altitude deviations, that while not worthy of ATC's attention, I would not want to have had a CFII next to me - let alone a DPE. These deviations happened VERY quickly.

I learned flying instruments in helicopters, so I know about squirrelly birds in the clouds, but I would have a hard time recommending beginning in an RV (perhaps the 9 or 10 would be different). At the very least I would spend some time in a traditional trainer getting comfortable with basic scan, procedures, etc then move into the RV.

That all being said, using an autopilot is a whole different ball game. Once the switchology is down cold, nothing could be easier than flying instruments in a TAA. By the end of flying 6 approaches by hand, I appreciated having the AP more than you can imagine.
 
Last edited:
I'm a cfii, fly my -10 in imc, and have instructed one pilot in his -10 to completion for his instrument rating.
The -10 is less stable in both pitch and roll than, say a 182; and the -6 or -7 is less stable than the -10. What this means is that the pilot must be very proficient at all other tasks besides basic control. In a 182 you might get away with staring at an approach plate, or a gps, for 30 seconds while you try to find what you are looking for. That won't work in an RV. Starting from scratch in a well equiped RV will take more time to get to check ride ready status than if you rent a 172, not only because of the lower stability of the RV but because you must be able to BOTH hand fly the airplane on just back up instruments AND demonstrate mastery of all the fancy equipment. Do not under estimate the latter. Learning to fully use ifr gps, and autopilots, is a big deal and takes time.
So my opinions:
Can you get the rating in an RV? Yes. Around here finding a cfii and an examiner for an RV is not difficult.
Is it quicker and easier to get the rating in a 172? Yes.
What is the total time to competancy in the RV? Is it quicker to go in the 172, then transition, or do it all in the RV? IMHO either way is about the same.
Daughter plans to get cfi. Will she be able to fly the 172 okay if she does her training in the RV? No, she will need training. Going from glass to 6 pack seems to be harder than 6 pack to glass. Also, with no gps, position awareness is awful with pilots who learned with a moving map.
The choice really depends on the pilot. If your preferred method of learning to swim is to start in the shallow end, then start with the rental 172. If you liked learning to swim by jumping into the deep end, then starting out in the RV is okay.
 
As a civilian trained PPL who did his instrument training in two touchy airplanes without autopilots (T-6B / T-45C) I'll say this;

A jet (which your daughter will eventually fly) will deviate from an altitude faster than any RV will. Learning to fly in a sensitive aircraft such as an RV that takes a constant instrument scan builds the skills required to fly any jet.

As long as the aircraft is instrument equipped, and you can find a CFI/DPE who is willing to train/check in it...go for it. You'll rise to the challenge. IFR in an aircraft like an RV is more demanding of a quick scan, but so are the higher performance aircraft that a career pilot will fly in the future.
 
i think it would take an exceptional pilot to do the rating in an rv 2 seater. plus a lot of them have complicated panels that regular owners cant figure out. let us know how this turns out. it is not an easy rating.
 
IFR Training

I got my ticket in a 9A, first test. It's a TAA, GRT boxes, a 480, SL 30 and Tru Trak AP. I had a really good instructor but took quite a lot of time to get the button pushing down. My examiner told me he failed more than 50% of IFR candidates in TAA aircraft because they had trouble demonstrating the capabilities of the aircraft, i.e. coupled approaches, etc. I think the 9 is a great IFR platform. By the time you really learn the panel your hand flying is greatly improved. Worth the extra effort to fly such a good plane.

W.
 
I've had the pleasure of acting as safety pilot for a local 9A owner who was doing his instrument rating, from ab initio right through to the check ride in that aircraft. It's do-able, doesn't require super-human skills. Knowing switch-ology is important. Having an autopilot would be, for me, a "must". The airplane moves fast over the ground so one has to plan ahead. The airplane can rapidly deviate from clearance parameters, so one has to stay on top of the situation with constant instrument scanning. The only break you get is when George is flying the airplane. I wouldn't want to be copying a clearance amendment, programming the new flight plan into the GPS, looking up the approach plate etc without George holding heading/altitude for me. BTW, this sentiment isn't unique to the RV... Single pilot IFR in general has high workload and thus seems well suited to the use of an autopilot.

One other aspect of the 9 is that, if the world is whizzing by too quickly for you to keep up, just pull the knob back and slow to a more relaxed pace - 100kts for a hold is a snap. The airplane flies along very nicely at this speed, still has huge safety margin above stall, and burns less gas while you get your situational awareness sorted out.
 
Average pilot can do it

Did my IFR training in a Cessna 172 and did the checkride in my 6a after a few months practicing approaches
My RV has a 430w, one Vor/Loc, and only one com but it was doable
Think it is important to have a plane that is built good enough to fly hands off
 
IFR in an RV

I've got hundreds (453 Hrs.) of hours of actual IFR logged in RV-6A's (round gauges) and an RV-7A (TAA). I got my IFR rating in my first RV-6A, using an instructor that had never flown an RV, but was also ATP rated. We first had to establish climb and decent engine RPM setting (fixed pitch) for the correct air speeds, building confidence in the aircraft and proficiency. The RV's are not a C-172 or Bonanza, they are a breed of their own. Once you learn IFR on an RV, you'll be a much better trained pilot for anything else in GA, and be better prepared for more advanced aircraft.

I stay IFR current in my RV-7A in actual IFR conditions. I use the autopilot to relieve high work load periods, but still hand fly most of the time. With today's technology, it's VERY important to understand the complex buttonology of a TAA panel, and to know multiple methods of achieving the same IFR approach goal, and to understand and be able to quickly overcome wrong button inputs. If an airport has both an ILS and a GPS approach to the runway I'm using, I have them BOTH setup, (and sometime even have a synthetic approach setup for verification of the other two approaches), so that I can easily switch between them if necessary. I'll do both hand flown and coupled approaches, but always try and setup an approach for both situations (mainly so that I practice the whole range of button inputs).

Yes, the RV?s are demanding to fly IFR when compared to the C-172 or a Bonanza. But if are able to achieve that level of capability, you will be more ready for more advanced aircraft.
 
More to Consider When Acquiring an Instrument Rating

Some very good posts here, particularly CFII Bob Turner and another comment about slowing down. My added thought here is for those with recently minted instrument tickets and those (some long time pilots) with limited recurrent training.
Unfortunately for many, the month they take their flight exam may be the height of their skill level. Instrument flying skills are PERISHABLE. Even pilots who fly for a living typically spend little actual time in the soup and may only fly a few approaches to the bottom in a year's time. Interestingly, they're typically the only ones getting recurrent training. I find most recreational pilots, if they practice at all, typically look for a "nice" day. What's the expression? "Anyone can steer a ship in a calm sea". An RV is a HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRPLANE, even if the FAA doesn't classify it that way. A "responsive" airplane in turbulence can be a handful, and an autopilot is an aid, not the answer. Once you have your ticket, pick a crappy day and go practice with someone with good skills. It might really help you to set some realistic personal limits.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Tango Mike said:
Let's say you're at a fly-in with your IFR-equipped RV and you've just slipped a pair of FOR SALE sleeves on the prop blades. A pilot walks up, asks you a few questions about the airplane, then says something like:

"I had a RV6 some years ago, only used it VFR. Currently, my daughter just received her PPL, and is wanting to go career. Next step is an instrument ticket. My question is that many say the Van’s are not stable enough for IFR, and for sure not for training. I've asked pilots about the IFR training aspect of RVs and I get mixed reviews, but mostly it is not ideal, and, that it may be hard to find a CFII to train in it as well. What is your experience and opinion?"

My response might include the following points:

1. My guess is that the "many" detractors probably have little or no time in RVs.

I currently fly for a major airline, the Navy, and my own RV-8 several times a week... stand by for opinion :D

2. To compare the stability of an RV to a run-of-the-mill certificated airplane commonly used for instrument training is to highlight the difference in wing loading, light and more agile as opposed to heavier and more sluggish.

Everything you mention is what makes trainers like the 172, good trainers. There is a reason flight schools use C-172's for Private Pilot training, and not a Pitts S-2. Can it be done in an RV? Sure. You can teach someone to fly the space shuttle with enough time and money. But that's just it, time and money. A more challenging airplane introduces it's own set of issues, and detracts from the training itself. Kind of hard teaching a student how to fly a stable ILS, when the airplane itself is a challenge.

3. From the pilot's seat, an instrument approach looks the same regardless of the airplane type.

4. At the end of the day, instrument training in an RV has the potential for creating a more proficient IFR pilot because the airplane doesn't tolerate over-controlling well. It demands precision, and isn't that what instrument flying is all about?

Yeah... just like the University of North Dakota tries to recruit students by saying "Why learn to fly in sunny Florida, when you can come up here and learn to fly in all seasons and be a better pilot!" Sure, an instrument pilot MAY come out the other side more proficient with a quicker scan, but in my years of instructing I'd say the higher likelihood is that it will take a given student longer, and their frustration level will be much higher throughout training. That can also serve to kill self confidence in a student, and now you really start having problems.

5. Why would a CFII care what type of airplane is being used? If the instructor isn't comfortable in an experimental, that has nothing to do with the suitability of the airframe for the training objective.

As an instructor, I can't teach you a skill, if the airplane itself is presenting it's own problems and nuances. There is a reason stable airplanes like the Cherokee and Skyhawk have been the stalwart trainers for 50+ years. You can introduce more challenging high performance airplanes once the fundamentals of a skill have been mastered.

6. To purchase an airplane other than an RV specifically for your daughter's IFR training allows faulty reasoning to prevent you and her from enjoying the many advantages of these airplanes.

If I had a kid, that wanted to earn their instrument rating (and this is getting off topic) I would have them do it in a rental. Better suitability as a trainer, wear and tear on someone elses airplane, I don't have to worry about keeping everything up to date, no questions about whether a DPE is going to be able to administer the practical in said airplane.

If you're a hobby pilot, looking to add a rating to your ticket and become a better pilot, then **** yes use your own RV for the training. If however this training is part of a bigger goal of becoming a professional pilot, you want it done as cost effectively as possible and saying that the RV is perfect for that roll is not accurate.

7. With regard to any aspect of aviating, comparing total performance and the RV grin with a standard trainer boils down to two words: No comparison.

If you're speaking as a trainer, there are a million comparisons. From a stability stand point the 172/cherokee line are light years better as a teacher. I've soloed about half a dozen students in the RV-6A, and probably a hundred others in everything from Bonanza's to Skyhawks... if we remove the human variable from student to student the RV took much more time to solo a student in.

I'd appreciate hearing from pilots who fly IFR in their RV, and particularly from CFIIs on the question of suitability of the airplanes for instrument training.

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions.

Tosh
Click to expand...

So that's my CFII opinion.

Interesting timing for this conversation...
So the other night, I took my 8 out for some night/instrument/equipment proficiency. Did some holding, shot several GPS approaches, and a handfull of ILSs. Skyview/GTN650 equipped, autopilot, etc. The more I fly it "under the hood" (metaphorically speaking) the more I realize that I really want to have no part of flying the thing around in solid IFR if it can be avoided. If I have to, the autopilot SHALL be operational. The capability is there, and I'll stay proficient, but it is a challenging and unforgiving IFR platform.

It's not that's its impossible, it's that everything that makes the RV so sweet to fly, are the things that make it a very challenging airplane to fly IFR. It's nimble, is neutral in the static stability aspect, and responsive. WRT to static stability, you have the added risk of getting violated if your inattention goes more than a few seconds. I can trim a 172 up and ignore it for probably several minutes and it'll hold altitude. I don't let my eyes stray from the panel for more than 5-6 seconds in the RV. These are all things that make it very tiring to fly as an instrument ship. All things that make it hard to use as an IFR trainer as well. To boil it down, from a "spam can trainer" to an RV... your typical spam can may only tap say 15-20% of your full attention to fly, leaving the rest of your mental capacity available for learning. The RV is going to utilize more of that attention for the basic stick and rudder skills, leaving far less attention span available for learning and situational awareness.

Again I'm not saying it can't be done... but there are better/cheaper/easier airplanes to teach an instrument pilot.


Tango Mike said:
That puts me in the current position of making some hard choices about how to move forward. But one thing comes across loud and clear: 47 years of professional flying in big airplanes mean virtually nothing other than being able to instill an abundance of caution.

Qualification and currency are two entirely different things, and if I've learned anything over the years, it's to fully appreciate the dangers inherent in overconfidence.
Click to expand...

Truest words of wisdom on this forum.
 
Last edited:
terrykohler said:
....pick a crappy day and go practice with someone with good skills. It might really help you to set some realistic personal limits.
Click to expand...

In reality, that goes for any RV owner, not just the instrument rated. Competently flying the airplane by reference to attitude instruments is the basic private pilot standard, and as a practical matter should include simple navigation.
 
60av8tor said:
I have mixed emotions about this topic. I just did 2.5 of actual this AM. The weather has been perfect IFR lately - 700-1000 ceilings. I decided to reset my currency so I did a round robin with 6 approaches and some holding. First off, a round robin is always very busy; you're usually setting up for the next arrival before established in cruise off the missed, etc. I also hand flew almost the entire flight - only used the autopilot when briefing/setting up the avionics for the next approach.

I will say that at times I was concentrating very hard to keep tight tolerances. I will also say that a few times I had altitude deviations, that while not worthy of ATC's attention, I would not want to have had a CFII next to me - let alone a DPE. These deviations happened VERY quickly.

I learned flying instruments in helicopters, so I know about squirrelly birds in the clouds, but I would have a hard time recommending beginning in an RV (perhaps the 9 or 10 would be different). At the very least I would spend some time in a traditional trainer getting comfortable with basic scan, procedures, etc then move into the RV.

That all being said, using an autopilot is a whole different ball game. Once the switchology is down cold, nothing could be easier than flying instruments in a TAA. By the end of flying 6 approaches by hand, I appreciated having the AP more than you can imagine.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my feeling and sentiments. I learned and got my IFR ticket in my 7A and believe it can be like drinking from a fire hose. But once you learn it and able to manage it than you can do far better in other and less agile plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top