Which would you choose ?

[erikpmort]

Ok I am looking at two different rv6s please give me your vote and justification.

#1. 180hp cs 3blade hartzell Empty weight 1150. Placarded gross 1850

#2. 160hp FP 2 blade wood. Empty weight 985 lbs. placarded gross 1600

I live in Utah 4500ft. If that was all you knew and had to decide. What would you choose ? Thanks !

[L.Adamson]

Around here (Utah), there are many more C/S equipped RV's, than not. The C/S easily has the climb advantage for higher altitude airports. I know of no RV owners, who'd switch for a fixed pitch, around our airport area. But I do know of many RV F/P owners, who would prefer a C/S........if they could just switch.

L.Adamson --- 180HP C/S on a six.

BTW--- the 180 6, should out perform that 160, both in climb, and top speed, even at the weight difference.

[Neal@F14]

As the owner of a 160hp RV-6 with fixed pitch wood prop (cruise pitched), I strongly recommend considering only the one with 180hp and CS prop for the field elevations you'll have there in Utah. When I've got two on board, loaded with fuel and stuff to full gross, my takeoff and climb performance even in the flatlands of Texas (1000 MSL) is kinda sluggish. On hot summer days with high density altitude, it feels more like my old Cherokee than an RV.

I might be needing to fly with a buddy from Texas to SLC and back in a couple weeks and I'm worried enough that my RV-6 might not have enough oomph, that I'm seriously considering borrowing a friend's 190hp CS-prop RV-8 instead.

[Greg Arehart]

I'm not a 6 owner, but my vote is with simple and light. Partially would depend on the price as well. I've never had an issue with my 9 at altitude. Yes, the CS prop will climb better, but I'm not convinced it will give you better top speed than a FP. Compared to any cessna or piper or the like, the RV will way outperform them.

By the way, the placarded weight is up to the individual builder. I don't know what Vans recommended gross weight is (1600?) for a 6 and it doesn't depend on engine size. There is unlikely to be any significant difference in construction to justify an extra 250 pounds increase in gross weight.

Greg

[erikpmort]

So it sounds like the extra 150+ lbs is not worrying anyone. No one has any objections to flying 1850 gross then ? What about aerobatic gross ? If I'm at 1150 and its technically 1300, I jump in without gas and I'm overweight. No problem ? Again just getting clarification, I'm very appreciative of the responses.

[KRviator]

Short answer? "Depends what you want to do with it".

Long answer: For my two bob, I would choose the FP -6, it is easier to maintain, you will be legal for aero's - if you have an incident in the 1850 Lb CS -6 that could be traced to you doing aero's watch how fast your insurer will drop your case - and all else being equal, the lighter -6 is likely to "fly" nicer than its' heavier stablemate. It's also likely to be significantly cheaper to run, both in fuel burn and prop maintenance when it falls due.

When I had my KR2 i was intrigued how the original 800 Lb MTOW grew into 900 lbs, 1000lbs and in some cases 1200Lbs. That's 50% more than the designer intended! The -6 is designed around a 1600Lb MTOW, and 1850 is 16% over gross as it is, and while it may fly perfectly well, the only thing you're likely to gain is a few knots airspeed and a bit better climb rate, both at the expense of fuel burned (=$$) and range.

These things are important to some, and I would like them as much as the next person, but there comes a point when enough is enough. My -9 will be 160Hp swinging a FP wood prop. That's enough for me.

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by erikpmort

If that was all you knew and had to decide. What would you choose ? Thanks !

I'd choose the one that exhibited the better build quality, had a greater proportion of new components when built (specifically the engine), and had the better documentation (full set of electrical schematics etc). You can always add features but second rate workmanship is cast in stone. A better built aircraft constructed from new componentry will be cheaper to run in the long term....and safer. A few more horsepower and a constant speed prop are nice to have....but quality of construction is paramount in my view.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by KRviator

Short answer? "Depends what you want to do with it".

Long answer: For my two bob, I would choose the FP -6, it is easier to maintain, you will be legal for aero's - if you have an incident in the 1850 Lb CS -6 that could be traced to you doing aero's watch how fast your insurer will drop your case - and all else being equal, the lighter -6 is likely to "fly" nicer than its' heavier stablemate. It's also likely to be significantly cheaper to run, both in fuel burn and prop maintenance when it falls due.

When I had my KR2 i was intrigued how the original 800 Lb MTOW grew into 900 lbs, 1000lbs and in some cases 1200Lbs. That's 50% more than the designer intended! The -6 is designed around a 1600Lb MTOW, and 1850 is 16% over gross as it is, and while it may fly perfectly well, the only thing you're likely to gain is a few knots airspeed and a bit better climb rate, both at the expense of fuel burned (=$$) and range.

These things are important to some, and I would like them as much as the next person, but there comes a point when enough is enough. My -9 will be 160Hp swinging a FP wood prop. That's enough for me.

I can tell you, as a fact, that a RV6 at 1150 lbs, is capable of matching fuel burns, when the power is pulled back. My 6A could easily match a lighter 160HP powered 9A, at the same speeds. Yet, I could climb faster & outrun the 9A. Both have C/S props.

As far as the 1850 GW is concerned, we need to go back about 18 years, and read everything concerned. To keep it short, it's a non-issue. However, I would keep aerobatics at Van's listed weight.

[L.Adamson]

Some more, to think about. Last week, a group of us RV'ers, were at southern Utah. We often fly from airports such as Bryce Canyon (7590'), Cedar City (5622'), Canyonlands (4555'), and so on. At these airports, the difference between a constant speed and fixed pitch is astonishing. Only those who think they'ed be content with a fixed pitch, will tell you different. F/P owners who have flown at these higher altitude airports with others using C/S.............seem to be always aware, that the C/S is SO much better. They never dispute this fact! We take off shorter, climb higher, fly faster, and land shorter. Many C/S props are also have good braking qualities for slowing in the pattern. The only time a FP prop will outrun a C/S is if it's "compromised" for crusing speeds. I use the term compromised, because it will climb like a snail... Unlike a C/S, you can't have it both ways.

L.Adamson RV6(was an A, and now non- flying) 180HP, Hartzell C/S

[erikpmort]

However, I would keep aerobatics at Van's listed weight.[/quote]

So I'm buying an rv 9 then. Sigh. Can't seem to win unless I spend a whole lot more and get a 7