What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Flying Hippos!

Michael Burbidge

Well Known Member
A lot of you probably fly multiple aircraft types. As for me, I haven't flown anything but my RV-9A for the last 5 years (360 hours). I also haven't flown a lot of types before that. I trained in a C172, transitioned trained in an RV-6A. That's pretty much it.

My flight review was due the end of November. Due to Covid and procrastination, I was not able to do it before it expired. So I could not be the PIC. And it then got difficult to find a CFI that could/would do it in my airplane.

I finally just scheduled it with the local flight school in a rented C172.

Wow, wow, wow, flying that C172 gave me a whole new appreciation for my RV-9A. I was exhausted after an hour flight. Maybe it was a particularly sluggish 172. It was like wrestling a hippo.

I didn't quite dare to fly my RV just after flying in that 172. I thought I should let the experience fade a little bit for fear of over controlling my 9. But I can't wait for the next clear day! It's been almost 3 months since I've flown my 9.

After that experience, I can't believe there aren't more Vans aircraft. There should be 40,000.

Thanks goodness for Vans! :):):)

Michael-
 
In 64 years of production, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a 172 have an in flight structural failure. Everything is a trade off.
 
Flew with a friend in a Cessna 310. Could not believe how heavy it was on the controls. It almost took two hands on the yoke to roll it into even a shallow turn. RV sure has me spoiled for flying for the fun of it. The 310 has its mission though - going from point A to B, like on a bus or a hippo.

Edit - sorry for maligning the 310. It’s one of the planes Sky King flew. Loved that show when I was a kid. Probably helped to ignite my passion for flying. If your under 70 you may not know about Sky King.
 
Last edited:
When we trained on cessnas we had nothing to compare with. That was our normal. We tuned our internal control system to adapt to the airplane. Then you get in an RV and wow, it is so responsively. Some don’t even like it at first. Then you get dialed in and you love it and you can’t go back. The cessna seems like a tank.

It is quite well known by handling qualities engineers who deal with evaluations from different test pilots that pilots like whatever they flew last. It makes sense since your internal control system tunes its gains to match, then when you get in a different airplane those gains don’t work as well and you have to readapt.

But the 172 is one of the all time great all around airplanes. Easy to fly, tough, it can stay outside for 40 yrs in Canada or Arizona and it and the 150 have made more pilots than probably any other airplane. It has a reasonable speed range, reasonable short field, it’s comfortable, will take 4 people if they aren’t huge and a used one doesn’t cost a mint. Parts have become stupid though. A flap position indicator, which is nothing more than a volt meter, is $600. I guess you can’t have everything.
 
Don’t lament

When I graduated from a Cessna Agwagon to my Air Tractor, the difference in ‘feel’ was enormous. I asked Leland Snow (Factory owner/designer) why that was.. He replied that it’s not a little Agwagon, that it’s a much bigger, heavier airplane and he wanted to to feel that way.

So are our RV’s...designed to be delightful airplanes with an easy aerobatic capability. My RV-10 was not a ‘delightful’ little airplane. The controls were surprisingly heavier and slower.....by design, for its mission...cross-countries, with little to no input enroute.

So remember when you’re flying a Cessna 310 or Air Tractor, they’re ‘hippos’ by design. An RV-10 with the feel of an RV-6 would be a little disconcerting, I think, because it would be unexpected. So be fair in your assessment of other heavier airplanes.....and consider their mission.

Regards,
 
My 170B was a delightfully flying airplane. Good balance between stability and responsiveness, light on the controls, and very well balanced. It wasn't better or worse than my rv8, just different.

Then I sold the 170 and bought a Cardinal RG. Everyone raved about how nice they fly, saying it was a fingertip airplane. Well, they must have stronger fingers than me. It's a truck!
 
Too bad there ain't more 170Bs around. That said, there ain't nothin' wrong with the 172. It is what it is. I have a F150 and a Corvette, I like 'em both.
 
I had about 10 hours since I had made the maiden first flight in my 7A. I had a cessna 152 I had been flying for 10 years and thought I needed to fly it just to stir the oil etc. When I took off in the 152 I immediately thought something was wrong!!! Scanned the gauges and checked the flaps were up before realizing all my senses had made a full transition to the RV. For a few seconds I was really scared that something was wrong.

These RV's are WONDERFUL machines. I've said it a 1000 times... the best compromise of all things flying.
 
My 170B was a delightfully flying airplane. Good balance between stability and responsiveness, light on the controls, and very well balanced. It wasn't better or worse than my rv8, just different.

Then I sold the 170 and bought a Cardinal RG. Everyone raved about how nice they fly, saying it was a fingertip airplane. Well, they must have stronger fingers than me. It's a truck!
I’ve put over 2000 hours on my 170B and find it very similar in feel to the 150, light on the controls, but a bit sluggish in response. I don’t know what they did to the later 172s but they are definitely more truck-like. I also have about 20-25 hours in a 310J and very much liked the solid feel.

While my 170B was down for rebuild a few years ago, I transitioned to a friend’s RV-6A (O-320 FP) in about an hour, and ended up putting about 30 hours on it. Way more responsive than he 170, but nothing I ever had an issue with.
 
One other factor...

I spent yesterday morning shooting practice instrument approaches in my -9A on a relatively bouncy & gusty day.

I confess that I can see the attractiveness of the hippo in some circumstances. :)

The -9A isn't *massively* harder to handle than a 172 in an approach, but the difference is there. A 182, meanwhile, feels like an airliner by comparison. I suspect this is the result of weight/momentum as well as aerodynamic design.

A lot of you probably fly multiple aircraft types. As for me, I haven't flown anything but my RV-9A for the last 5 years (360 hours). I also haven't flown a lot of types before that. I trained in a C172, transitioned trained in an RV-6A. That's pretty much it.

My flight review was due the end of November. Due to Covid and procrastination, I was not able to do it before it expired. So I could not be the PIC. And it then got difficult to find a CFI that could/would do it in my airplane.

I finally just scheduled it with the local flight school in a rented C172.

Wow, wow, wow, flying that C172 gave me a whole new appreciation for my RV-9A. I was exhausted after an hour flight. Maybe it was a particularly sluggish 172. It was like wrestling a hippo.

I didn't quite dare to fly my RV just after flying in that 172. I thought I should let the experience fade a little bit for fear of over controlling my 9. But I can't wait for the next clear day! It's been almost 3 months since I've flown my 9.

After that experience, I can't believe there aren't more Vans aircraft. There should be 40,000.

Thanks goodness for Vans! :):):)

Michael-
 
Back
Top