speyers

speyers

Well Known Member
Was curious as to the comfort level of an RV side-by-side cabin. How similar in space is it to a C-172 or a C-150. I remember training in a C-150 were you have to syncronize breathing to not bust the doors off the thing. How much more room is there in the RV's? Not keen on always rubbing sholders so would the tandem -4 or -8 be the way to go? Thanks for the input.
 
The RV-6,7,9 cabin width is 43". If I remember right the C-172 is 40 or 41".
And I believe the C-150 is closer to 38".
 
I just measured the elbow width on my 7 at 43".
Contrast this size to several of the popular twins from 1981 manufacturer brochures.

Beech Baron B55 42", B58 42"
Piper Aztec 45"
Piper Seneca III 49"
Cessna T303 48"
Cessna 340 46.5"

And a small car
VW new beetle 52"


Don
RV-7 finish kit
 
Subjectively..

I have a C-150 and a -7A. The RV has enough extra width to make it comfortable. I agree about how tight the 150 is. I admit, I'm slim, but I've had some passengers with extra width. In the 150, the seats have zero gap between them. In the RV, you have the width of the flap mechanism tower. Also in the RV you have another inche or so for the outboard elbow. I think the seats widths are pretty similar, but have not measured. I also have more room between me and the panel in the RV.
 
If you're a size 54" I'd consider an 8.
IMHO

I'm a 6ft 2, 230 and I always bump shoulders unless it's a 170lb or less pilot. Non pilots always bump shoulders, pilots seem to know how to sit just right.

But sometimes you have to have a side by side for family reasons.

7a
 
width

Went for a fam ride at Vans last week and was interested to see how much elbow room there was.
Ken took me up in an RV-9A. He's a pretty big guy... about 6'2" maybe 210lbs and I am 5' 11" and 175lbs. We both had pretty heavy coats and while it was tight it was not uncomfortable.
My wife wants side by side and she is 5'6", 150lbs so I think the -7 or -9 will work fine for us. ;)

Dave
Still thinking.
 
sat in mine

sat in mine the other day to set the rudder pedals and found that gear tower to be a pain in the leg. how does this work out in flight for those a drivers
 
I think it has a lot to do with the length of you legs. I'm 5'4" and short legged. The gear towers of the A model bother me quite a bit. Longer legged people don't seem to mind.
 
Covers over the gear weldments

I think you need to have all your final installs in place before you assess the fit. I never had everything in place until I installed the seat covers and floor panels in my 7A. The geometry of the seat pads has a lot to do with how much interference you'll feel from the gear leg towers. FWIW, Luke at Classic Aero Designs has a nifty molded fiberglass cover that fits over the gear leg tower and is finished with vinyl and carpet to match the rest of your interior. Although I installed the complete interior kit (the gray and red interior on CAD's site), they may sell you just the gear covers alone. Besides looking great, they make a big difference in comfort. I highly recommend them.
 
that's interesting Mel. I have much longer legs probably, I really like the looks and the function of my Classic Aero gear covers, people step on them for getting in. (although the big bolt without a cover offers good grip)

I've noticed that what bothers me are my calves after an hour or two.

I have also noticed that my seats restrict a bit of movement and if passengers have large legs-- restricts left and right movement. i.e. most guys 260lb or greater will get stick slapped or bumped. I removed my passenger seats completely the other day and it was like I had a new airplane, I got another inch or two of stick travel and lots of stick force went away.

Also, when I ride as a passenger-- you have to keep your feet on the pedal, or one in the middle and the other on the pedal or slightly off of it. If the passenger has long legs, it's not comfortable raising them up and back.

Definitely not comfortable like a Cessna 182-- but these don't fly like a Peterbuilt either. After flying the RV, I can't understand how my 182 stays in the air. It's so HEAVY. And it won't turn downwind to base either. ;) And my Cessna 140, that thing frightens me now. With 90hp, I don't see how IT stays in the air.

Geez, Van has spoiled us.
 
Last edited:
mark manda said:
that's interesting Mel. I have much longer legs probably, I really like the looks and the function of my Classic Aero gear covers, people step on them for getting in. (although the big bolt without a cover offers good grip)

I've noticed that what bothers me are my calves after an hour or two.

I have also noticed that my seats restrict a bit of movement and if passengers have large legs-- restricts left and right movement. i.e. most guys 260lb or greater will get stick slapped or bumped. I removed my passenger seats completely the other day and it was like I had a new airplane, I got another inch or two of stick travel and lots of stick force went away.

Also, when I ride as a passenger-- you have to keep your feet on the pedal, or one in the middle and the other on the pedal or slightly off of it. If the passenger has long legs, it's not comfortable raising them up and back.

Definitely not comfortable like a Cessna 182-- but these don't fly like a Peterbuilt either. After flying the RV, I can't understand how my 182 stays in the air. It's so HEAVY. And it won't turn downwind to base either. ;) And my Cessna 140, that thing frightens me now. With 90hp, I don't see how IT stays in the air.

Geez, Van has spoiled us.
Click to expand...
182 cabin width is measured as 39" (I think it's at the shoulders?) and the Cardinal is 40.75". Both of these airplanes 'feel' roomier than the -7 and -6 I've flown in. I'd compare a -6 to a 152 in terms of cabin room, and the -7 more like the 182 (A bit better than 172..)
 
osxuser said:
182 cabin width is measured as 39" (I think it's at the shoulders?) and the Cardinal is 40.75". Both of these airplanes 'feel' roomier than the -7 and -6 I've flown in. I'd compare a -6 to a 152 in terms of cabin room, and the -7 more like the 182 (A bit better than 172..)
Click to expand...


I believe the -6, -7, and -9 are essentially identical in the cabin area...
 
osxuser said:
I'd compare a -6 to a 152 in terms of cabin room, and the -7 more like the 182 (A bit better than 172..)
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. The 6, 7 and 9 are all the same width inside (43 inches.) The only differences are that the 7/9 has one more inch of legroom and one more inch of headroom. They're all MUCH better than a 152. The legroom is not a factor unless you are really tall, 6'5 or better.

There is a misconception that the 7 is roomier than the 6, but the physical dimensions are right there on Van's website.
 
I've ridden in Dan's -7, which seemed WAY roomier than the -6's I've flown in. It could be the installed in them, I don't know for sure. Are the seats/sticks setup at all differently? That could affect it as well. I do know the C177 is like a limo compared to the "wider" side-by-side RV cockpits. So seat placement and where the measurements take place could be a big factor.
 
One of the big cockpit improvements on the 7/9 was getting rid of the center console. This takes up a lot of space and makes it seem more cramped. Also, getting the battery box out of the cockpit by putting it forward of the firewall ads a lot of foot room. On my 6, I eliminated the console and moved the battery forward, and also raised the canopy height 3/4 inch, so mine might be more "roomy" than a standard 6.
 
Relative size-6A vs 7A

I am 5'6" and am quite comfy in my 6A. My wife is 5'2". I fly my friends 7A. He is about 6'2" or so. We each made the interiors to suit our tastes. For example, I drilled three sets of rudder bar mounting holes so I could adjust them if I ever sold to a shorter or taller person. My cushions are thicker since someone mentioned that pilots are supposed to see over the cowling .
{ It's remarkable how much better I can fly now that I can see forward!} ;)

Anyway, the 7A seems much more spacious than my 6A. I do not know the exact dimensions, but it seems that the bend in the longerons is spaced differently between the two birds. Anyone know for sure?

My other point is that upholstery, cushions,etc can make a major impact on the cockpit configuration.
Just my observations....
 
One thing nobody's mentioned yet is that it's not really the elbow room that is the limiting factor... it's the shoulder room, at least for me. I just measured my fuselage and at the aft canopy decks it's about 39 inches where the shoulders rub. This, to me, makes the RV feel about the same width to me as maybe a 172, but substantially smaller than a 182. My wife, who flew with me in the 182 picked up on how narrow the shoulder room was right away. And she's only 5'3" and 110# and myself 5'11 and 170#. Still, it's a great plane. Something's gotta give somewhere I suppose.
 
More space in C182

I do a lot of flying in a C182 and there is absolutely no comparison between the room available in that plane and any side by side RV. The C182 is hugely more spacious.
 
the 172 is bigger...

My RV9A is a little wider, but when you start looking at the room (ignoring the back set) the 172 gives you more room. The more up-right seating helps a lot toward making the plane feel more spacious. You have a lot more head room also and don't have to slip into the plane.

I love my RV9A and enjoy flying it. My wife is sensitive to the more confining space and I have been trying to convince her the the 9 is bigger, but it is not.

Anyone interested in buying my C-172?

Kent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.