What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-4 aerobatics

kostick

Member
I'm trying to decide between a -4 and a -6. I'm pretty set on a O-360 C/S as well. I've seen many times on this forum that the -4 is a solo aerobatic only bird. Is that true even with the 360 in it or am I limited more so by C/G? If that's the case I'll definitely go with the -6 since I'll have someone with me quite often.

Thanks, Lee
 
In my case (RV-4, O360, Hartzell prop) I can take 10 gallons and a 110 lb passenger and would be on the aerobatic limits of both weight and CG using the Vans recommendations.

Some people will tell you to disregard fuel weight, as that offsets wing bending moment, both + and -ve G. I understand the argument, but have never seen an official view on the matter. G limits are not purely mandated on the basis of wing strength, so I would be cautious of exploring that argument.

The CG aft limit is principally about the low stick forces per G at aft CG locations. That shouldn't be a concern to a skilled aerobatic pilot, most would see it as an advantage. But theres also spin behaviour to consider, which can change considerably with an aft CG, so tread carefully.
 
If you follow Van's standard recommendations for the aerobatic weight in the RV-6, you'll find that it's practically a solo aerobatic bird too. You *can* find a combination that lets you carry a light passenger and minimal fuel, but realistically you'll be happier carrying more fuel than that.
 
Thanks for the words of wisdom gents. I'm not sure 10 gallons is enough for what I'd have in mind. I'd basically have to find a piece of airspace within glide distance of Ellington Field where I'll be keeping it most likely with such little fuel. Regarding the aft CG spin characteristics, I'm guessing it would be similar to the old school T-37 we used for training in the AF. That thing would drop into a spin full aft where the plane would level out like Maverick and Goose dropping Hollywood style. Luckily you just throw the stick through the front dash (figuratively) and it slams the nose down breaking the spin momentum. Would the -4 be similar with someone in the back or would it tip backwards into a tail down spin that's almost unrecoverable?
 
Thanks for the words of wisdom gents. I'm not sure 10 gallons is enough for what I'd have in mind. I'd basically have to find a piece of airspace within glide distance of Ellington Field....
Hi Lee - You already have a plane at EFD? I'm over on the SE corner. 5-6 other RV people in the city hangars I fly with also under the Lone Star Squadron call sign. So you don't have a plane currently?? One thing to consider (didn't see it mentioned already) is the CG shift with the tandem seat airplane. I have no idea what a T-37 flies like, but the -4 (& -8) will behave quite differently with a full size person in the back. -6/7 is a nice flying plane - but you'll be best suited in a conventional gear plane with right hand stick, left hand throttle quadrant. ;) That ought to get the discussion going... HA!

Seriously, you're in a similar boat with respect to aerobatic loading in the -4/6/7/8. RVs aren't excellent aerobatic planes. Don't seriously pursue advanced level acro. And seriously don't pursue high level acro dual. Go get a Decathlon.

The (extensive) acro I've flown has been gentle, positive stuff. It is fun for this type of flying. 3 Gs or less. I will fly acro with a passenger. But no snaps or spins. Just my thing.

Come by sometime (hangar AB, or write me). I can relate some other flying experience with the -8 & -7 that I believe will help you make your decision.
 
I will fly acro with a passenger. But no snaps or spins. Just my thing.

What if you got into a spin doing acro with a passenger? Have you done spin testing with the plane loaded the same as having the heaviest passenger you'd be willing to fly acro with?
 
What if you got into a spin doing acro with a passenger? Have you done spin testing with the plane loaded the same as having the heaviest passenger you'd be willing to fly acro with?

Good question. Maybe I'll load up the baggage/back seat with ballast and give it a shot. The odds of an inadvertent spin are very slim based on my flying style and experience level in the -8. But you're point is well taken.
 
My thoughts

I have a -4, and do "gentleman" aerobatics regulaly. I almost always do them by myself. It is very good for rolls, loops, hammerheads, etc. I have snap rolled it but do not recommend. I don't do outside maneuvers, since I don't have inverted fuel or oil. A good way to think about it is that you can do stuff like you see a P-51 do at an airshow. If mine is light, I can almost do 3 inside half loops before it quits flying going up. I limit myself to 4 g's. I have done aerobatics with my kids in the back, and they love it. As long as the cg is OK, and limit your self to 4 g's, life is good.

One of the original things that sold me on the plane was that Van used to do an airshow in the factory 4 with his daughter in the back. She probably weighed about 70-80 lb at the time and Van does't weigh much either, so he was probably within the recommended weight and CG. It was a really impressive demonstration of Van's skill as a pilot and the true capabilities of the plane. However, all the above being said, DO NOT do aerobatics with the CG out of range. Stick forces are very light, and you could easily change the stick into a wing removal lever. I would not want to try to exit a spin with a rear CG either. The more aft the cg, the lighter the stick force and the closer to neutral or negative stability you are. My experience tells me that Van's numbers for CG are not conservative, they are right where they should be. Don't go messing with the physics, you will lose.

My 2 cents.
 
Don't have the exact numbers, but as above, RV-4 and RV-6 are essentially the same as per "solo only" aeros. To be strictly within the limits, you need a lightly built aircraft and only a teacup of fuel to do aeros 2 up.

You could "take a view" on 1375lbs being good for 6g, so if you limit your aeros to 4g (more than enough) that gives...

Disregarding fuel weight would be valid if the sole limiting factor was wing root strength. However, most aircraft, including RVs, have tapered spars. The RV-8 prototype accident, which the report determined was due to 'g' overload, saw the wings break outboard of the fuel tanks. Therefore fuel weight did add to the loading at the point of failure.

CG - the RV-8 has a fairly valid aft aerobatics CG limit, both for light control forces and spinning still OK. If the RV-4 has an aft aeros limit, I would not advise operating aft of it. It is more under your contorl than weight, according to loading / engine / prop type etc.

My 2ps worth ;)

Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
[URL="http://www.rv8tors.com"]RV8tors
[/URL]
 
I have a -4, and do "gentleman" aerobatics regulaly. I almost always do them by myself. It is very good for rolls, loops, hammerheads, etc. I have snap rolled it but do not recommend. I don't do outside maneuvers, since I don't have inverted fuel or oil. A good way to think about it is that you can do stuff like you see a P-51 do at an airshow. If mine is light, I can almost do 3 inside half loops before it quits flying going up. I limit myself to 4 g's. I have done aerobatics with my kids in the back, and they love it. As long as the cg is OK, and limit your self to 4 g's, life is good

My 2 cents.
dido that. i also always enjoyed explaining that it's basically the same as a spit or mustang for the manouvers I do.lol
 
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not...

Lee,

First, RV's are sportsman-level aerobatic airplanes, period. It was designed to yield "total performance" across the board, STOL. exceptional power to weight and excellent cruise speed along with aerobatic capabilities. It is not a Pitts S-2, Extra or Cap-10.
The 0-360 RV4 with C/S prop is less of a CG issue for dual acro unless you have a big, over 200 pounder squeezed in the trunk. The Rocket is better suited for that chore! As mentioned above, the 0-360 C/S birds are a bit heavier so adjust your load accordingly. I normally fly acro with 10-12 gallons on board or less and keep my sorties down to 15 minutes or less. Despite rumors to the contrary, you don't need inverted fuel and oil systems or a flop tube to have fun. All three of my airplanes have used a stock setup with a Carb/injection and an air-oil separator added to catch errant crankcase spillage. The IAC sportsman routine can be flown without inverted systems. To quote Clint: "A man's gotta know his limitations" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOp37rVr_s

The RV6 is equally adept at aerobatics and easier to instruct out of if you are so inclined. If you fly more solo than dual, buy a 4. If you have a spouse who likes to fly and wants to learn how, go with a six. If you're doing serious acro, buy something else.

My choice would be the lightest weight RV4 or 6 you can find, 0-320 wood or composite prop.
Both are great airplanes.

Have fun!
Smokey
RVX

Competition? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-53520.html

I built a lightweight, 0-320 wood prop -4 in the 80's (in a base housing shed!) and enjoyed 1500 wonderful hours, many doing positive G aerobatics. 50 lb tailwheel weight has always been my goal for a nice aerobatic RV. My rule was no more than 100 lbs in the back seat for acro, no more than 200 lbs ever. The RV4 gives you the most absolute bang for your buck in a personal airplane. My HR2 delivered "lots more bang for lots more bucks!" Personally, the lighter weight RV's (like any airplane) just fly better. By definition, they also have a higher useful load.
 
Last edited:
The IAC sportsman routine can be flown totally positive G.

This is true, but you won't score well...if you care about that. :) Maintaining positive G, you'll run into problems drawing the inverted 45 lines and rolling during the wedge/cubans...or doing a proper level roll period. But RVs roll fast enough that you could draw a proper negatively-loaded line with minimal time spent flying a glider (if you have a carb) and dumping oil out. There are several zero G up/downlines that can throw oil as well. Unless you use a separator, you might just be spending some time cleaning the belly after a flight. :) But even if you're willing to do a wipe down, without a separator, you can lose a significant amount of oil. This is the biggest concern. I heard of one of the TEAM RVers losing 4 qts or so during a flight. Of course this depends on the duration of the flight and number of zero to negative G maneuvers.
 
In a flat spin, headed out to sea...

Absolutely Eric, totally agree. Which leads me to my previous link which you so eloquently posted and raises the question: Maybe there should be an RV category similar to the one they use in South Africa. It would stimulate interest from the largest sport flying group in the US, generate some revenue and develop skills many pilots need. It's a win win in my book...but I digress from the original post...:)

Smokey
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-53520.html
 
Last edited:
I too am looking at an RV4 for 'sport acro'

I did a W&B and found that with me (160) and my wife (120) and 20G fuel (120#) that I am under the Aerobatic limitations. But I did this on someone else's XL sheet and having some exp with W&B I'd really rather do the math myself.

The thing is.... I have found the Aerobatic Aft CG limit listed, but it is listed in % of cord or aft of LE. What is the Aft CG limit in aft of datum?

So, what is the Aft CG limit in inches aft of Datum?

And does my above statement seem true that with me (160) my wife (120) and 120 #s of fuel we would be within Aerobatic CG calcs?
 
passenger acro

Call me chicken, very old and not bold, but I won?t do aerobatics with a passenger in my RV-4. Now clearing maneuvers without significant changes in altitude and airspeed with low positive Gs are exceptions occasionally. As mentioned many times, when the C.G. goes aft with a passenger, the pitch is very light and super sensitive in a -4. When I had a very temping offer to take two cute young ladies up for a thrill ride (with parachutes), I loaded a tote bag and back pack full of magazines to 110 lbs, and strapped them in the back seat to slowly explore the acro envelope before taking them up. The change from zero and low negative Gs to positive Gs really changed the aircraft pitch angle even when I was expecting it. It scared me, so I didn?t take them up, but then I didn?t get puke on the back of my neck either.
FrankH on this forum has a lot of acro experience in his RV-7 with passengers, but he?s had a few unanticipated exciting moments such as an over pitched hammer that got into an inverted spin. Thanks FrankH for writing that one up. The idea of the RV category for IAC events (Smokey) has been tried before, but the RVs just don?t seem to have the interest. For gentleman aerobatics, RVs without inverted systems can participate in the IAC Primary category, which includes a loop, roll, ? Cuban 8, 180 degree turn, and a spin. One of IAC Hall of Famers, Giles Henderson, is flying a Cassutt racer in the primary category, and having just as much fun as the other participant. Eric Sandifer is our best source for acro info, and would be glad to help other RVers join in the IAC fun .

Bill McLean
RV-4 Slider
Alabama
 
I hate to bring this up but....

does the weight of the fuel matter? Fuel is pretty much the only thing that you can put in a -4 to move the cg forward and since it is in the wings, it actually reduces the g load on the center spar. The big question is how Vans did the engineering.
 
"Inviting the Undertaker"

"Inviting the Undertaker" was an automobile safety cartoon series that ran in the New York Daily News until 1969, penned by one, Clarence D. Bachelor, gaudily depicting driving practices that would ultimately lead to the grave. Had C.D. been alive to this day, no doubt he could draw an interesting cartoon representing the hazards of two up, cavorting in aerobatics in the RV-4.

Barney, in Memphis
 
does the weight of the fuel matter? Fuel is pretty much the only thing that you can put in a -4 to move the cg forward and since it is in the wings, it actually reduces the g load on the center spar. The big question is how Vans did the engineering.
It has been said anecdotally that Van once said that fuel in the wings does not count towards aerobatic weight. It has never been put in writing by the factory. If nothing else, it flies in the face of common sense... at 1600lb gross, take away the weight of full fuel tanks in the -6, and you're left with the aerobatic gross weight (roughly). So why have separate aerobatic and non-aerobatic gross weights?

While the fuel unloads the bending moment at the wing root, it does not unload the bending moment at the outer tip of the tank. I wouldn't trust it without sound engineering documentation supporting it.
 
Light nose = great BFM machine...

A light nose -4 or -6 is a delight to fly (Smokey nailed it)--a classic case of "less is more." Both are limited in the payload they can carry for aerobatics and neither one is an Extra. "Solo only" is about right in most cases. A handling difference between the two is stick force gradient or the number of G's per inch of stick travel. The tandem configuration of the -4 means that a typical example will have a more forward CG/higher stick force than a -6 with a similar load; but again, it's aircraft specific (the scales [if they are properly calibrated] don't lie).

The spin characteristics of the two are different as well. The -6 handles more like a T-37 than the -4. In the -6 (or any of the side-by-side airplanes), just about all of the variable payload is relatively close to the CG and the shape of the fuselage likely contributes to the tendency of the -6 to flatten out a bit more than a -4; so these characteristics make sense.

The other thing about RV's is that once the nose is down, they acellerate fast; so you need to balance G, AOA and nose rate to keep the speed under control (especially if you have a light weight fixed pitch prop). They will easily scoot past redline, and a quick stick snatch above about 135 MPH or so will cause an over-G (I like idle RPM once I'm on my back and starting to pull, and always cross check airspeed before I commit the nose down). With G, the -4 has better buffet cues than it does during a 1 G stall, and if you do pull too hard, the the nose simply stops tracking if you encounter an accellerated stall. The airplane responds immediately to an unload.

Can't really go wrong with either airplane flown within the design limits that has been properly tested to those limits...or you could be like Smokey and splice a -6 with a -4 and get the best of both worlds!

Cheers,

Vac
 
So maybe I am looking in the wrong direction.

1. Still waiting on someone to provide aft GC numbers for Acro based on Datum... Anyone?

2. Lets assume I am not a total idiot (you guys don't know me, so I might be able to fool you). And that I stick to my standard new plane checkout routine (Actually get a checkout, only fly on nice days at first, no passengers till about 10 hours.. etc)... So even with me (160) and my wife (120) and 20 G of fuel.... I should not ever expect to do basic (loop, roll) with my wife in the plane?

Cause if I should never expect to fly acro with her in this plane, I might have to look at a different plane (my original search was for a Citabria)
 
So maybe I am looking in the wrong direction.

1. Still waiting on someone to provide aft GC numbers for Acro based on Datum... Anyone?

2. Lets assume I am not a total idiot (you guys don't know me, so I might be able to fool you). And that I stick to my standard new plane checkout routine (Actually get a checkout, only fly on nice days at first, no passengers till about 10 hours.. etc)... So even with me (160) and my wife (120) and 20 G of fuel.... I should not ever expect to do basic (loop, roll) with my wife in the plane?

Cause if I should never expect to fly acro with her in this plane, I might have to look at a different plane (my original search was for a Citabria)

How many times do you think your wife will actually want to go on a dedicated aerobatic flight in the RV-4? How much acro have you done on your own? How many acro rides has she been on? How many have you given to others? Have you done enough to understand how few passengers have an interest in going for an acro ride...more than once? Something to think about. I think it would be mistake to cross out such a sweet airplane only because you are concerned about the ability to give acro rides.
 
Last edited:
How many times do you think your wife will actually want to go on a dedicated aerobatic flight in the RV-4? How much acro have you done on your own? How many acro rides has she been on? How many have you given to others? Have you done enough to understand how few passengers have an interest in going for an acro ride...more than once? Something to think about. I think it would be mistake to cross out such a sweet airplane only because you are concerned about the ability to give acro rides.

All good questions:

1. Do not know how much Acro she will want to do... But it would suck for her to want to do it and not be able if it is not safe. She is a skydiver with >1200 jumps to her credit... She is not the squeamish type. Plus the argument that the aft CG makes the plane more touchy is valid even in a XC flight.

2. I have 4-5 Hours acro time. I want to do more, hence why I was looking for a Citabria (Actually, I was looking for a Pitts but it was suggested to get an intermediary TW plane to do some light acro to build exp. Another camp just told me to buy the Pitts and learn to fly it.... I decided on the safer route). My recent internal debates were between a 150hp Citabria and an RV4 thinking that both will give me TW time and will allow me to do some acro to lead up to the Pitts. The RV4 had the edge since it is also a pretty good XC plane. The downside to the RV was that it is too fast to realistically compete with.

3. I have never given an acro ride to someone else.... All my acro has been duel in other peoples planes. Also, I have not met my personal standards to give acro rides to others. That would change once I have a plane capable of acro and I fly it a bunch.

4. Most of my friends are Cave SCUBA divers, deep wreck divers, pilots, or skydivers. So, many of them have expressed an interest in acro. But I am also a skydiving instructor and know that the majority of the population has zero interest in doing whatever it is I think is cool. I never force, and I don't mind having ground bound friends.

Now, I am not getting an acro plane for anyone but myself.... But if the RV4 is not able to eventually take my wife up once certain conditions have been met and within the safe CG/GW range..... Then it may require more thought thus why I asked the question.

It seems there are two clearly defined camps here:
1. Acro is solo only.
2. Acro can be done two up.

Since I know exactly nothing other than what I have read and done some W&B calcs with (still trying to find the aft acro limit from datum)... this is why I am asking questions.

Do you know how much it would suck to go fly a great acro flight and when my wife wants to try it, not be able to take her? She has already started flying my current plane and her only rule for planes is that they have two seats or I always have a plane with two seats.
 
Last edited:
The downside to the RV was that it is too fast to realistically compete with.

Are you talking about competition aerobatics? If so, then you are mistaken. The success of Willyeyball (RV-4) and Ron Schreck (RV-8) in competition aerobatics has been well-documented on VAF.
 
Are you talking about competition aerobatics? If so, then you are mistaken. The success of Willyeyball (RV-4) and Ron Schreck (RV-8) in competition aerobatics has been well-documented on VAF.

I don't know, hence why I ask questions.

I have had several competition aerobatic people tell me the RV4 was too fast to score well. I approached all of them with my list of planes:pitts, Clipped wing cub, Citabria, Rans S-10, and an RV4

One won Sportsman in his Pitts and also has an RV6. He said Get the Pitts you will learn to fly it, skip the Cub, you will get tired of the Citabria, he knew nothing about the Rans, and the RV is great, but too fast for competition.

Another person is the guy that runs the club where I live. . His answers were basically: Pitts - You will kill yourself, Clipped Cub - Not enough power and a dog, Citabria - A good starting point, S-10 - 2 Stroke motors and long down lines lean out the mixture and risk a seizure, RV4 too fast.

The rest I asked fell into those same lines.... Get the Pitts and learn to fly it or get the Citabria and fly it for two years/150 hours then get the Pitts. Not one person I asked said to use the RV for competition till now.

I also did some research and found that not a single RV was at the IAC nationals in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012 (I was actually looking to see if the S10 had placed at all).

As for Willyeyball and Schreck, I am sure people have competed with RV's and done well.... Bob Hoover also flew acro with a Shrike Commander and Alvin M. "Tex" Johnston rolled a 707, but that does not mean that either are a good aerobatic plane for me. I am not Willyeyball, Schreck, Hoover, or Tex; I am a guy with a few hundred hours and only 4 hours acro time looking for a plane to learn more and hopefully not make my wife rich with my life insurance payout.

So all the data I have gotten so far has told me that an RV is not good at competition acro. I am more than willing to look at other data... Do you happen to have scores from IAC competitions where an RV placed?

Further, my real fear is that people seem to think acro 2 up is 'death on a stick'.... This is not something I knew about before and I have done some acro in an RV6 (with the guy that won in the Pitts). But a 6 is not 4.
 
Last edited:
Do you know how much it would suck to go fly a great acro flight and when my wife wants to try it, not be able to take her? She has already started flying my current plane and her only rule for planes is that they have two seats or I always have a plane with two seats.
If she enjoys flying, how about encouraging her to get her PPL and then she can then go fly her own acro? It's a lot more fun that way! Plus you wouldn't have to worry about pushing the CG/weight envelope doing two up acro in an RV-4....which is exactly what you'd be doing. I've done a few aileron rolls with weight in the backseat, but I was never comfortable doing anything vertical. It's a whole different airplane with someone in the backseat, even if they only weigh 100lbs.
 
If she enjoys flying, how about encouraging her to get her PPL and then she can then go fly her own acro? It's a lot more fun that way! Plus you wouldn't have to worry about pushing the CG/weight envelope doing two up acro in an RV-4....which is exactly what you'd be doing. I've done a few aileron rolls with weight in the backseat, but I was never comfortable doing anything vertical. It's a whole different airplane with someone in the backseat, even if they only weigh 100lbs.

She was going to get her sport pilots license in my current Challenger 2. But she is on a competition skydiving team and is more interested in that than learning to fly. But she likes flying with me.
 
Last edited:
RV's are great airplanes, they probably aren't as good as a pitts for competition acro.

However, a Pitts is *definitely* not as good as an RV for cross country.

Citabria's are all around OK. Not real good for cross country because they are slow, but they are comfortable enough. I looked at Citabria's before getting my RV. Flew my uncles for 4 hours or so and basically decided that they are a good general purpose airplane, kindof ho-hum to fly. Not nearly as exciting as an RV or a Pitts.

my $0.02

P.S. - my profile pic is me in front of my uncle's Citabria.
 
Last edited:
So maybe I am looking in the wrong direction.

1. Still waiting on someone to provide aft GC numbers for Acro based on Datum... Anyone?

My figures are that the CG limit is at station 75.95 (15.95" aft of wing L.E.) and aerobatic gross weight of 1375 lb.
 
I don't know, hence why I ask questions.

I have had several competition aerobatic people tell me the RV4 was too fast to score well. I approached all of them with my list of planes:pitts, Clipped wing cub, Citabria, Rans S-10, and an RV4

One won Sportsman in his Pitts and also has an RV6. He said Get the Pitts you will learn to fly it, skip the Cub, you will get tired of the Citabria, he knew nothing about the Rans, and the RV is great, but too fast for competition.

Another person is the guy that runs the club where I live. . His answers were basically: Pitts - You will kill yourself, Clipped Cub - Not enough power and a dog, Citabria - A good starting point, S-10 - 2 Stroke motors and long down lines lean out the mixture and risk a seizure, RV4 too fast.

The rest I asked fell into those same lines.... Get the Pitts and learn to fly it or get the Citabria and fly it for two years/150 hours. Not one person I asked said to use the RV for competition till now.

I also did some research and found that not a single RV was at the IAC nationals in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012.

So all the data I have gotten so far has told me that an RV is not good at competition acro. I am more than willing to look at other data... Do you happen to have scores from IAC competitions where an RV placed?

ssmdive,

IMO, the information you're getting is a little biased. First, an airplane is an airplane, whether it's a Pitts or a Cub. Ignore the people who say you'll kill yourself in a Pitts. They probably haven't flown one, or haven't had good training themselves. I have friends who got their tailwheel endorsement in a Pitts after buying one. Took about 20 hrs, but worked out fine. You can kill yourself equally dead doing aerobatics in a Citabria, RV, or Pitts. You can start out in a Pitts. The key is good transition training and also good advanced spin training (in the Pitts)...and not the kind of spin training your local CFI does in a 172. You need to experience all spin modes and learn emergency and positive recovery techniques. Do that, use a little judgment, and fly at conservative altitudes, and it's extremely unlikely you'll ever become a statistic in the Pitts.

Regarding RVs doing well in competition, that's a pilot factor, not an aircraft factor. Keep in mind that you can't expect a Pitts pilot to get too excited about using an RV for competition. But that's only because it's a step down in performance, not because they're not suited. Again, it's a pilot issue. But if you have an RV and have the interest, you can sure as **** do well if you put in the work and practice. Take a look at all these results below that include top 3 finishes in the Primary and Sportsman categories in an RV. The last one was the equivalent of Nationals in 2000.

Just because you rarely see RVs in competition doesn't mean they're not well-suited for it. It just so happens that the vast majority of RV pilots did not buy them for the sole purpose of doing aerobatics, and very few RV pilots have a serious interest in the art of precision aerobatics. Most just do lazy fun "flopping around" positive G aerobatics, which is fine. Keep in mind that Clipped Cubs, Stearmans, Buckers, and Chipmunks are also rarely seen in competition, but they also have recent top finishes in the Primary and Sportsman categories. Fly any of those, and then fly the RV and tell me which one you'd rather do aerobatics in. :)

Keep in mind that there are (5) categories - Primary, Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, and Unlimited. The RV becomes a less realistic competition mount beyond Sportsman, but would fly Intermediate OK if you don't mind snapping them. Likewise, a stock Pitts is not a very realistic competitor in Unlimited these days due to the performance requirements of the sequences. RVs have their place and they do just fine in them. The results speak for themselves.

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=410

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=373

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=312

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=349 Plane not listed, but RV-7 (Darren Scarlett) is 2nd place Primary.

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=230

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=180

http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=189

http://members.iac.org/contestresults/chapter/results_applecup.html

http://members.iac.org/contestresults/results_032400_cota.html IAC Championships, equivalent of Nationals in 2000:

And regarding the current Nationals, they've been in Denison, TX for a number of years. Given that only 2 or 3 RVs a year compete across the country, and only a small percentage of competitors make the trek to TX for Nationals, it's not surprising that you don't see RVs there. It doesn't imply anything about their capability.

But you don't need to take my word for it. Don't listen to the naysayers either, who have never flown an RV in competition. Your friend who won Sportsman in a Pitts has a lot of learning left to do about aerobatics and competition...same as all the rest of us, to different degrees. Talk to the guys who've actually done it and have done well - Bill 'WillyEyeBall' McClean and Ron 'Smokey' Schreck. They're both here. They both fly their RVs at the top level in Sportsman. I'm an IAC judge and fly my Pitts in Advanced and can assure you that flown well (like any other airplane), an RV looks great in the box, is not "too fast" (that's a pilot factor...you may notice the trend) and can score very well. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
On a different note.....I am planning to buy an RV-4 in the next couple of years. My intention is to do some acro like rolls, four point rolls, loops, hammer heads. What should I be looking for in an airplane as far as installed options to be able to do these things. I have read about oil separators, flop tubes. What would an essential list of items be for these types of aerobatics?
Thanks!
Dom
 
On a different note.....I am planning to buy an RV-4 in the next couple of years. My intention is to do some acro like rolls, four point rolls, loops, hammer heads. What should I be looking for in an airplane as far as installed options to be able to do these things. I have read about oil separators, flop tubes. What would an essential list of items be for these types of aerobatics?
Thanks!
Dom

All that stuff can be kept positive and you don't need anything special for that. Don't bother with inverted oil, flop tubes, oil separators, accumulators, or any combination of these items unless you have interest aerobatics involving negative G. If you don't know the answer to this, get with an acro instructor and find out what style of acro suits you.
 
RV's are great airplanes, but I agree that they probably aren't good for competition acro.

However, a Pitts is *definitely* not good for cross country.

Citabria's are all around OK. Not real good for cross country because they are slow, but they are comfortable enough. I looked at Citabria's before getting my RV. Flew my uncles for 4 hours or so and basically decided that they are a good general purpose airplane, kindof ho-hum to fly. Not nearly as exciting as an RV or a Pitts.

my $0.02

P.S. - my profile pic is me in front of my uncle's Citabria.
Thats why I bought a Giles 202! I wanted a RV and a Pitts and got the very best of both and more!
 
SSMDIVE,

I have about 90 hours in a Super Decathalon and about 60 hours in the Pitts S2C, and just a few hours in the RV4 as a backseater (220 pounds). I am told that the Citabria does not fly nearly as well as a Decathalon, so I would lean towards a Decathalon, if you are going that route. But given a choice between the Decathalon or the Pitss.... Pitts all the way. It is not difficult to fly, and only a little tricky to land (you can't see the runway once you flare- just look straight ahead and use peripheal vision to keep it centered). When I was given rides in two different -4s, we did loops and rolls with no issues. The -4 is a better all around machine than either the Pitts or Decathalon.
 
RV's are great airplanes, but I agree that they probably aren't good for competition acro.

Why not? It doesn't appear you have experience with competition acro. Keep in mind what you are saying, and whether you are qualified to say it...and how many impressionable people you are reaching on this very well-visited forum. Sorry about the way that comes across, but shooting from the hip on certain subjects touches a nerve with me.
 
All that stuff can be kept positive and you don't need anything special for that. Don't bother with inverted oil, flop tubes, oil separators, accumulators, or any combination of these items unless you have interest aerobatics involving negative G. If you don't know the answer to this, get with an acro instructor and find out what style of acro suits you.

Thanks Eric!
Dom
 
Why not? It doesn't appear you have experience with competition acro. Keep in mind what you are saying, and whether you are qualified to say it...and how many impressionable people you are reaching on this very well-visited forum. Sorry about the way that comes across, but shooting from the hip on certain subjects touches a nerve with me.

I humbly bow before your superior experience and knowledge of competition acro. You are correct in that I've never flown competition, have zero experience and only know what i've read in books. I try to use words like "probably" and "might" when i'm really not sure but suppose that doesn't always come across in a forum.

Hopefully relating my experience with Citabria's, and why I chose to get an RV instead, has some value.
 
I humbly bow before your superior experience and knowledge of competition acro. You are correct in that I've never flown competition, have zero experience and only know what i've read in books. I try to use words like "probably" and "might" when i'm really not sure but suppose that doesn't always come across in a forum.

Hopefully relating my experience with Citabria's, and why I chose to get an RV instead, has some value.

Not trying to flame you, it's just that people with no exposure to it really have no clue what competition is really like. I hear peoples' misconceptions about it all the time, so sorry if I'm a little sensitive to statements and assumptions made based on lack of actual experience. If you're unsure of something, or have no experience with something, it's much better to ask questions than to make "probably" statements. Those "probably" statements have no more credibility, have no value, and can only continue to spread the wrong ideas...about any subject. Internet chat is especially prone to this, of course. VAF is pretty good at avoiding the chaff, mostly...unlike other forums. :) Of course your direct experience with Citabrias and RVs qualifies you to compare the two.
 
Hopefully relating my experience with Citabria's, and why I chose to get an RV instead, has some value.

Thanks, I found your opinion valuable.

One thing I have noticed is that exp people often disagree. One group things I should just get the Pitts, the other get something else. One group tells me the RV series is not good at comps, the other says it is fine.

I take all of the info, look at it.... and then pretty much do as I **** please anyway. :D
 
One group tells me the RV series is not good at comps, the other says it is fine.

Here's an interesting stat - I didn't just cherry pick the high-placing examples of RVs in competition...those are just about all the RVs that have participated in the last few years. So by percentage of total participants, RVs are the winningest type out there! :)

And regarding the two groups you mention, there are those who have flown RVs in competition, and there are those who have not. ;)
 
Decathlon with 2 up

Just a note on the desire to take a passenger on an aerobatic flight in a Decathlon - my '03 has an empty weight of 1383# with pants, oil, unuseable fuel, header tank fuel, etc.

Add to that a 170# pilot and a 15# chute, a 120# passenger and a 15# chute, and 120# of fuel and I am over the aerobatic gross of 1800#. However still well forward of the aft CG limit.

I flew a few aeros in my -4 before it had issues that grounded it (I am definitely in the "Flopper" category with ~10 hours of aero dual and ~15 hours solo). I found even zero g's would cover the belly with oil.

I am really enjoying the Decathlon for the aeros I am doing. I may "outgrow" it someday and look for a Pitts, but for now it is great!
 
Logging Acro Time

I see several on here quoting their acro time. What is the protocol for logging acro: includes transit to/from the box or exclusively the acro? Is there a reason to record it other than brag rights?
 
I see several on here quoting their acro time. What is the protocol for logging acro: includes transit to/from the box or exclusively the acro? Is there a reason to record it other than brag rights?

I don't know any official hobbs measurement for recording acro. If the flight is a pure acro flight then I log like I would log any XC time. This may not be "correct" but it is not like you need acro time for a rating.

Why record it... Well, I don't really record it. It is not like I have a section on my logbook for acro. I do log TW time, complex, HP for insurance reasons.

Why bother trying to keep any record? Well, it comes up in acro conversations. Me telling people I am looking at an RV4 for acro and letting people know I have 4-5 hours time lets them know where I am coming from.... If I was a guy that had never looped a plane and I was asking Acro questions.... The best advice might be to take a lesson or two before I lock myself in to an acro plane. Telling the group I have some time lets them know that I at least know that I want to do it.

More importantly, it lets people give advice based on what my perceived experience is.... And it lets me weigh what they tell me if they let me know their experience. I have zero time in an extra, so I would not be the best person to ask a question about them. But if you had a skydiving question..... I'd be a pretty good person to ask (~6k jumps, three instructor ratings, a boat load of medals).

In the end, you can't really blindly trust any info from people you don't personally know, IMO. It would be way easy for someone to claim knowledge and there really is no easy way to verify it.

And yeah some bragging might be going on as well:cool:
 
Is there a reason to record it other than brag rights?

Nope. I've never cared or even thought about it. I don't know anybody who records strict aerobatic maneuvering time only. Anything else will give you a meaningless number on an already irrelevant subject. Recording basic dual instruction obviously has insurance implications, but that is a time-in-type issue only. Nobody, insurance companies or otherwise, cares about 'acro time'.

Quality and depth of acro experience is much more relevant than pure hours spent maneuvering. A Citabria pilot who has spent 1,000 hrs. doing nothing but lazy +G loops, rolls, and spins has a whole lot less aerobatic skill, knowledge, and experience than someone who has spent 50 hrs obtaining some advanced dual, ground critiquing/coaching, and intense solo practice while progressively pushing their skills in a capable aerobatic airplane.
 
Last edited:
It is what it is...

Eric, several years ago I entered my then new, unpainted 100 hour RV4 in a local IAC competition. From the moment I arrived the reception was well, chilly to say the least. From the inspection to registration to the flying, the disdain felt by me from the "good ole boys" was resplendent. Not to mention I had just returned from a rotation in Iraq dodging SAMs at night and supporting Special Forces in the F16. The stage was set for a good old southern butt whooping.
Needless to say I kept my cool, followed the rules and placed 3rd of 6 in the sportsman on my first try in my RV4, the only non-Pitts in attendance. I didn't have to shoot anybody, call in an air strike or dissect any judges with a K-Bar although that thought crossed my mind. :) Fact is, it soured me on competing and I'm sure others have similar tales. Aerobatics should be fun and competitions should reflect that attitude.


V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
RVs welcomed

Smokey,
That?s really unfortunate your first acro contest experience was BAD. I?m sure Eric will agree that was very unusual for any new participant not to be welcomed with open arms. At my first contest, the first person that greeted me was Hector Ramirez, who I didn?t know, but is now on the US World Team. By the way, I scored in the bottom third, but had the best time of my life, and felt like a member and friend of a very great organization. Before the contest I had been invited and joined a subgroup of IAC chapter 3 in the gulf coast club. That probably made a little difference, but if you ever come to another acro contest, whether a participant or an observer, and I?m there, I assure you that you?ll be treated and respected like the hero you are, and that goes for any other RVers.
Also V/R
Bill McLean
RV-4 Slider
 
Recording Acro Time

In Canada you are required to either have 10 hours of acro dual or 20 hours of acro solo before you are allowed to carry a passenger on an acro flight. I have been recording my time for that purpose - if I have an incident during an acro flight with a passenger it is certainly in my best interest to be able to prove sufficient acro time to meet the requirement.

My acro flights are usually made solely for that purpose, and I have been recording the entire flight including transit time to the practice area and back. Right or wrong? Don't know.
 
Eric, several years ago I entered my then new, unpainted 100 hour RV4 in a local IAC competition. From the moment I arrived the reception was well, chilly to say the least. From the inspection to registration to the flying, the disdain felt by me from the "good ole boys" was resplendent. Not to mention I had just returned from a rotation in Iraq dodging SAMs at night and supporting Special Forces in the F16. The stage was set for a good old southern butt whooping.
Needless to say I kept my cool, followed the rules and placed 3rd of 6 in the sportsman on my first try in my RV4, the only non-Pitts in attendance. I didn't have to shoot anybody, call in an air strike or dissect any judges with a K-Bar although that thought crossed my mind. :) Fact is, it soured me on competing and I'm sure others have similar tales. Aerobatics should be fun and competitions should reflect that attitude.


V/R
Smokey

I have heard this a couple of times . My experience was completelly the opposite. I am foreign born with a heavy accent and fitted right into it immediatelly! in the last 4 years i have competed with 4 different chapters and all 4 were as good and as friendly as you can expect. In 2012 i visited 2 new chapters and the welcoming wagon was normal at its worst! One thing for sure, when I go to a competition, im there to compete and do try to get in the "zone" right after my arrival... however, the camaraderie and all around friendship is just being overwelming. Sorry for your bad experience! Come on over to a IAC19 competition. We will prove you wrong as we have done to a couple of acro flyers already! iAC 3 is good too and many national guys fly for that chapter!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top