What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Buying an RV-4

R

RV4ME

Member
Hi Everyone,

I am looking for some advice on the purchase of a RV-4. I am a low time tailwheel Pilot (10 hours) and was wondering if the 4 would be a handful. I have been in an 8 at seems pretty docile. Most if not all landings will be on pavement. Second, I am seeing some 4s with 1700-2000 hours on the airframe up for sale. Is there definitely one area to inspect if I consider a purchase.

Thanks for your time,

Tony
 
Welcome to VAF, Tony. A -4 is very docile during landing/takeoff ops...no problem. You really should have an EAA'r or someone familiar with RV's, do a pre-buy inspection. Wrinkled lower firewall corners, for example, are as a result of very hard landing at some point.

Best,
 
The -4 almost shouldn't count as tailwheel time it's so easy. Saying that.... Do not put anyone in the back until you have many hours in the -4. When it is tail heavy it is touchy at best when landing.

Like Pierre said, the firewall gussets and firewall are common problems on the -4. I don't think my -4 has had a hard landing but the firewall can oilcan now from years of use.

One of the greatest airplanes every made. Enjoy it.
 
Welcome to VAF!

Tony,
welcome.gif
to the good ship VAF.

Ditto what Pierre said.
 
RV-4 as initial Tailwheel Airplane

Tony,

I also previously bought an RV-4 as my first tailwheel airplane. At the time I had barely 25 hours in a 7KCAB Citabria. I then got 5 hours in an RV-7 as a way to transition to the RV-4. It took me about 10 hours until I finally started feeling comfortable, but I found the RV-4 to be a very forgiving and nice taildragger. To me, it was easier to land than the Citabria, and certainly easier than the RV-7 because you have great visibility on landing.

I now have an RV-6, which fits my current mission a little better (and is harder to land nicely consistently), but I must admit I miss my RV-4 a lot. Maybe I will get back into one sometime. [[ STAN, if you are reading this -- and if you ever decide to sell my old RV-4, you got to give me first dibs!!]]

Don't be afraid to get into one. Go get some more tailwheel time, and you will find the RV-4 to be a great taildragger.

Good luck.

Fernando
 
I had about 20/hrs total TW from ~5/years prior before I stepped in the -4 for some insurance required dual prior to purchase. By hour 3, I was more or less back in the saddle. By hour 4, the CFI let me solo and I felt at home. Truly an easy plane to fly, in my opinion. When I purchased in June (first plane) I had read a lot on these forums and found these to be the general things to look out for:

Elevator skins cracking. Early skins were .16, generally later builds use .20. Read all the speculation you wish but most agree that it was poor build/installation that lead to this as there are plenty of older -4's without any signs of cracking.

Weldments cracking. This was a weak area of the -4; the cause typically being hard landings.

Fuel Tanks Sloshed. This was the early procedure for sealing the tanks. Later it was found (again, read all the speculation you want on these boards) from improper surface prep that lead to flakes chipping off. From what I've seen, it's usually white in color and fairly obvious to see in the tanks. General procedure is to monitor closely unless you notice it's starting to flake off; a lot of builders/owners simply chose to remove the tanks & strip them.

Vans Service Letters: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/service-rv4.htm
 
Me too

My first tailwheel airplane was also an RV-4. Like others, I didn't find landings in it a problem, much like the Super Decathlon I now fly. Be aware that with the short gear legs on the older RV-4s (mine was a 1987) the stall AOA attitude sets the tailwheel down first, and then the mains come down with a clunk. Wonder how much this contributes to the lower firewall weldment problems and motor mount cracks. I found the best approach was to perform a tail low wheel landing, holding a bit of power through the flare (I had a CS prop - makes a difference).

If I were to buy another one I would definitely get the longer (newer) legged version. I would also spend a few more dollars and get as new as possible. New does not necessarily mean low hours. Mine had only 450 hours and I still ended up replacing the engine because of excessive oil consumption (1 qt/hr) and corroded camshaft, alternator failed in flight, exhaust broke in flight, added electric flaps, built new fuel tanks to eliminate the slosh, motor mount cracked, firewall cracks, CS prop needed overhaul........ sold it for about half of what I had into it!
 
Maybe, maybe not...

RV4ME said:
Hi Everyone,

I am looking for some advice on the purchase of a RV-4. I am a low time tailwheel Pilot (10 hours) and was wondering if the 4 would be a handful. I have been in an 8 at seems pretty docile. Most if not all landings will be on pavement. Second, I am seeing some 4s with 1700-2000 hours on the airframe up for sale. Is there definitely one area to inspect if I consider a purchase.

Thanks for your time,

Tony
Click to expand...

Tony,
Welcome to Doug Reeves amazing "RV World" website. I still get a big grin when I remember a few of us signing up in his first Yahoo RV Group back in the 90's. Send me an email offline, I consult a bit on RV's and would be glad to help you. I don't recommend the RV4 to low time pilots, nor will your insurance company.
However comma, compared to others The 4 is a pussycat TD...

V/R
Smokey

PS:Talking is free, inspections....not so much :)
 
Last edited:
SMO said:
...Be aware that with the short gear legs on the older RV-4s (mine was a 1987) the stall AOA attitude sets the tailwheel down first, and then the mains come down with a clunk. Wonder how much this contributes to the lower firewall weldment problems and motor mount cracks. I found the best approach was to perform a tail low wheel landing, holding a bit of power through the flare (I had a CS prop - makes a difference).

If I were to buy another one I would definitely get the longer (newer) legged version...
Click to expand...

I agree that the long legged version of the RV-4 is desirable but in my experience all tailwheel RVs are easily landed tailwheel first at some loadings. If one does that the mains do tend to clunk down. This is the voice of experience talking.
 
Thanks to All!

Thanks everyone for the great input. I do feel more confident now on purchasing/flying a -4 as a stepping stone to an -8. I look forward to many conversations. I recently sold my Grumman AA-1 and I am very excited about owning and flying an RV!

Thanks again...

Tony
 
Stepping stone to an 8?

Tony

You seem to be a little confused..... the RV4 is all the aeroplane you will ever need..... unless you get too big fat that is...... then you can consider an 8.

Steve is now heading for cover........... only teasing you 8 guys!!:D
 
Thats a good one!

Thanks for the laugh Steve,

Nothing like a good chuckle 1st thing in the morning! I have to relay this statement to my -8 friends, which by the way admit to not fitting "well" in a -4 and said a -4 would be fit me perfectly.

On with the search!!

Regards,

Tony
 
Rear seating limits?

I'll admit a bias to the 6/6A, but haven't some of the VAF posts referred to RV4 CG challenges depending on front/rear seat people weights? Is the RV4 more of a solo ship with limited pax capability?

Carl
 
Rear seat passenger

Hi

There are many threads on carrying weight challenged people in the 4 ( Hey, I was trying to be politically correct...... most unlike me!!), and some guys lift some fairly heavy passengers in their 4's.

On monday I did the final flight test on my 4 for the full UK permit to fly and took up a 200lb passenger as observer. I weigh 165 so the C of G was shifted about 2 inches back from where I normally fly but still well within limits. The shift and the weight were really noticable. With full tanks we were at gross which is 1550lb in the UK.

1. She accelerates much slower.
2. Much more of a push is needed to get the tail to raise.
3. 200 fpm slower climb. Normally get 1500 fpm at 120mph.
4. Cruise about 6 mph slower at 2400, normally get 175mph was struggling to make 169.
5. Much quicker in roll and less stick force required.
6. Pitch much more sensitive.
7. More likely to land tailwheel first but the mains just plonk on.
8. More care needed in the flare because of pitch sensitivity.


All of the above is to be expected so no surprises there, but the good thing about the 6 is because there is less movement in the c of g 2, 5,6,7 and 8 either do not apply or are no where near as noticable.

I absolutely love my 4 and never miss not having a passenger but for some reason when flying my 9 I felt I should always have a passenger.... strange but the 4 is more of a personal experience although you can carry a passenger. So, if someone were to offer me a swap with a very good six for my 4 what would I do.......... well I certainly would not pay extra money to get the 6...... but I guess it all depends on your mission.
 
CG Limits

Hi Steve,

Once again thank you for the detail especially around the CG. I usually fly by myself but my wife does enjoy flying with me. She is 5'2 and 100lbs so I don't think this is too big of a deal. However, my pilot friends are somewhat heavier which does make me think a little deeper on whether it is important to carry others.

Tony
 
Heavy friends

Hi

My wife is a similar weight as yours so no problem. Obviously the limit set on my rear seat with full tanks is 200lbs. So, its quite simple if your friends are heavier than this tell them if they want a ride..... loose some weight..... it will do their health good too assuming they are not 200 plus of solid muscle!!

My empty weight initially came in at 1011lbs, I have got that down to 1004lbs now and am in the process of making some carbon fibre wheel pants which should bring it down to about 1002....... so in the UK 548lbs useful load.

If you go for a four look for one 1000lbs or under and one that has been well thought out to bring the c of g forward to cope with passenger weight.

Of course if the pilot is heavier with a light passenger the c of g stays more forward. Fuel has virtually no effect on c of g in my aeroplane.

I think all RV's are great, I really like my friends 7 with a 180 engine in it but he is struggling to keep with my 4 with anything like the same fuel flow even though he has 20 more horses. Six's are great too!! There is though a different flying experience with a four and probably the 8 because of the tandem seating. You are right in the center of the roll axis and almost the c of g so when you manouvre you feel part of the machine. You feel like you are in your own fighter, no distractions from a copilot, or friend. Its just you and this fantastic aeroplane, its very difficult to explain but all the 4 and 8 pilots will know what I mean.

Anyway, I am off down the gym now to keep the weight off and build some more muscle!! I doubt you would regret a 4 and if you bought a 6 you would always hanker after a 4 for that center line seating position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top