RVs vs. The Others

[Jamie]

Lately I have been able to get rides in lots of other airplanes. A few months ago I got a ride in a Sonex and a Midget Mustang. Both are interesting airplanes and the Midget Mustang was the closest in performance and handling to an RV that I have seen. More recently I have ridden in a Skylane, a C-210, an A-36, etc.

This past weekend I got a ride in my hangar partner's new Pitts Model 12 (fun airplane). If you were at Sun-n-fun this year, this is one of the airplanes circling the jumpers with the flags at the opening of the airshow.

The Pitts in interesting. Of course the engine spins counter-clockwise which necessitates left rudder in a climb, etc. It is super cool when that 360hp beast is fired up and you can feel/hear each cylinder pulse at idle.

I found the loops to be much easier in the Pitts than in the RV because the Pitts doesn't build speed nearly as quickly as the RV on the downline. Visibility from the front seat in the Pitts is poor, but I'd imagine it would be better from the rear seat. That big radial up front doesn't leave much room for a windscreen. I found the airplane needed a lot of attention to the rudder just to keep the airplane coordinated in straight and level flight. On the ground, Taxi visibility is almost non-existent.

I guess my point is that these rides have just reinforced in my mind how fantastic the RVs really are. Every airplane is designed with some sort of mission in mind, and I think the RV may just be the most practical weekend flyer there is due to Van's "Total Performance" concept. Unlike a Pitts, an RV will not win an unlimited acro contest, but my RV might just be the perfect airplane for me.

[Toobuilder]

There are airplanes out there that are more fun than RV's, but I have to agree that Van has nailed the fattest part of the bell curve. If you could only have one airplane, you could do a lot worse than an RV (fortunately, there is no law which says you can only have one airplane!).

[pierre smith]

...a few weeks back from Daytona to Sandersville and after a year and a half in my -10, felt like throwing rocks at it!

The visibility would have been great, had they left the top deck continue like the RV's but noooo, they have to build the dash up until it seems you're looking out of a bunker.

Best,

[sandifer]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I guess my point is that these rides have just reinforced in my mind how fantastic the RVs really are. Every airplane is designed with some sort of mission in mind, and I think the RV may just be the most practical weekend flyer there is due to Van's "Total Performance" concept.

As a current Pitts owner and former RV owner, I agree 100%. I do miss the RV in a lot of ways.

Originally Posted by Jamie

I found the loops to be much easier in the Pitts than in the RV because the Pitts doesn't build speed nearly as quickly as the RV on the downline.

Cool experience! It is true that you have more time to fart around on a downline in a Pitts than an RV, but to do an actual round loop in ANY airplane is equally challenging. But for basic level maneuvers, that M14 does pretty much do away with energy management issues.

Originally Posted by Jamie

Unlike a Pitts, an RV will not win an unlimited acro contest, but my RV might just be the perfect airplane for me.

These days, it's extremely rare to see a Pitts win Unlimited either! I know someone who wins in Unlimited at the Regional level in a stock S-2B...and he's the only person I know of in the whole country still flying a stock Pitts in Unlimited. But as talented as he is, the plane's just at too much of a performance disadvantage to hang with the monoplanes at the National level, given the requirements of the sequences these days.

[humptybump]

The Pitts 12 is a great airplane and I am preferential to round engines ... even ones that go the wrong way around :-)

For aerobatics, the 12 is a big, visible performer. However, it is built for aerobatics. It's not as well suited for other missions. It's definitely not going to be as efficient as an RV for going places. At 15-20 GPH for 150kt cruise and a no reserve of 450nm, you'll be landing more often and spending more money with every stop :-(

[N941WR]

Back in October I had the opportunity to do my bi-annual in a 195 hp de Havilland Chipmunk (DHC-1). I was really looking forward to getting some time in the Chipmunk as I have read about what a great flying plane they are, light on the controls, etc.

After spending an hour in that plane, I was really disappointed. My RV-9 is more responsive and lighter on the controls than the Chippy. 195 hp to go 120 knots is crazy. To loop it, we had to point the nose WAY down to have enough energy to go over the top. Rolls weren?t much better.

As for ergonomics, fagetaboutit. The rudder bar was quaint but if you use full rudder, the thing puts on the brakes on that side to aid in taxiing, which does nothing for you when landing in a crosswind. To do the run up, you have to set a hand brake and hope it holds. I kept wondering how far the plane would roll before I could grab the bake, if it slipped out of the detent. My solution was to make sure the plane was pointing in a direction that it wouldn?t hit anything, should the brake slip.

That short flight really brought home what a great job Van?s did designing the RV series of airplanes!

(BTW, I did read the story in either AOPA or EAA regarding the Chipmunk and it made me wonder if the author had actually flown any other plane.)

[ksauce]

Originally Posted by N941WR

That short flight really brought home what a great job Van?s did designing the RV series of airplanes!

I will echo what Bill said; this past summer I did my BFR in a T-6 Texan. To be fair, the T-6 is known as being a handful but I had no clue flying could be so much work. I did two, two hour sessions and by the end of both of them I was mentally and physically exhausted. I'm certainly glad I had the chance to fly a World War 2 airplane, but it absolutely cemented my love of the RVs.

I'm also glad that I didn't get bitten by the warbird bug; that's the kind of addiction that will make a pauper out of you in a hurry.

[scsmith]

Originally Posted by pierre smith

...a few weeks back from Daytona to Sandersville and after a year and a half in my -10, felt like throwing rocks at it!

The visibility would have been great, had they left the top deck continue like the RV's but noooo, they have to build the dash up until it seems you're looking out of a bunker.

Best,

Pierre,

I trust you mean 'throw rocks' at the Cirrus, not the RV-10?!?!?!
Just want to be sure.

The high dash build-up is to make more panel room for the video games! Why would you ever look out the window, anyway, it would destroy the illusion of spending time in the simulator.

[sandifer]

Originally Posted by scsmith

Why would you ever look out the window, anyway, it would destroy the illusion of spending time in the simulator.

Cirrus windows were only there for type certification purposes.

[Tram]

Originally Posted by ksauce

I'm also glad that I didn't get bitten by the warbird bug; that's the kind of addiction that will make a pauper out of you in a hurry.

Most of my warbird drivin' buddies have RV's tucked in their hangars somewhere..