[Jerry Cochran]

There is a -6a out there that has an empty wt listed as 1195 lbs. This seems very high even given the fact that it has an angle valve engine, CSP, leather, and so forth... I don't recall one this heavy before...

Thoughts from anyone?


.

 

[L.Adamson]

There is a -6a out there that has an empty wt listed as 1195 lbs. This seems very high even given the fact that it has an angle valve engine, CSP, leather, and so forth... I don't recall one this heavy before...

Thoughts from anyone?


.

Since you asked................mine is 1172. It's a very spirited machine, light at the touch, trims very well...........and is as fast or faster than some, with the same engine & lighter weight.

Mine isn't a lightweight, but I prefer the leather seats and constant speed prop. Includes weight of the oxygen tank behind the seat. O360 A1A & Hartzell 2 blade C/S. 1850 lb. gross BTW--- there are several I know of, that are heavier.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Jerry Cochran]

Thanks Larry, that's good info. I've also seen a number of 6a's listed around 1050 empty. of course with 320's, wood or composite props, basic panel, cloth.

Great aircraft either way for sure.


.

 

[Bavafa]

My 7A one could say fully loaded, though not a direct comparison to a 6A, came out to 1168 lb painted with base/clear coat type paint.

 

[Jeff Vaughan]

My 7A unpainted 1120 lbs
Painted 1136 lbs

For kicks I weighed it with all the stuff in it I normally fly with. Some tools, extinguisher, maps, bottled water, hand held radio etc.. etc.. 1167 lbs

Simple paint job, Flight line interior

 

[Vlad]

Thoughts from anyone?


.

Bathroom scales maybe?

If I remove my full leather interior and Big Bear Clock I could go easy under 1000 ##. Unpainted, no primer, Catto, O320.

 

[gerrychuck]

There is a -6a out there that has an empty wt listed as 1195 lbs. This seems very high even given the fact that it has an angle valve engine, CSP, leather, and so forth... I don't recall one this heavy before...

Thoughts from anyone?


.

I am currently shopping for an A model RV, and have looked at the ad for this aircraft; I have to say the weight freaks me out a bit. Great looking plane, but awful heavy. Very interesting to hear from others with comparable planes and their perspective on the issue.

 

[L.Adamson]

I am currently shopping for an A model RV, and have looked at the ad for this aircraft; I have to say the weight freaks me out a bit. Great looking plane, but awful heavy. Very interesting to hear from others with comparable planes and their perspective on the issue.

In light of the "other" thread, currently running..........in which gross weights are a major subject........

---What if the RV6 wing just turned out to be a lot stronger than original estimates---

Perhaps Van's aircraft was just very conservative....way back then. Afterall, his designs were simple panels and light. Most didn't have C/S props either.

I wouldn't freak out, one bit. But that's all I'm going to say...

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

 

[N941WR]

An RV-6 with an EW of 1196 is one of the heaviest RV-6(A)'s out there.

In looking over a copy of Dan's W&B list, there are only two heavier RV-6's (four if you toss in RV-7(A)?s) out there.

That significantly reduces your useful load, if the aircraft's GW is based on Van's number.

Having had the pleasure to fly the exact same airplane with two different engines and two different EW's, the handling difference between the two is significant.

Just like in cars, but more so; the lighter it is, the better it feels.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

An RV-6 with an EW of 1196 is one of the heaviest RV-6(A)'s out there.

In looking over a copy of Dan's W&B list, there are only two heavier RV-6's (four if you toss in RV-7(A)?s) out there.

That significantly reduces your useful load, if the aircraft's GW is based on Van's number.

Having had the pleasure to fly the exact same airplane with two different engines and two different EW's, the handling difference between the two is significant.

Just like in cars, but more so; the lighter it is, the better it feels.

I agree with this sentiment. Heavier weights compromise the delightful handling of the RV series, particularly at low speeds. My -6 is a vastly different flying airplane at 1225 lbs vs 1675, which is the heaviest I've flown it.

 

[L.Adamson]

An RV-6 with an EW of 1196 is one of the heaviest RV-6(A)'s out there.

In looking over a copy of Dan's W&B list, there are only two heavier RV-6's (four if you toss in RV-7(A)?s) out there.

That significantly reduces your useful load, if the aircraft's GW is based on Van's number.

Having had the pleasure to fly the exact same airplane with two different engines and two different EW's, the handling difference between the two is significant.

Just like in cars, but more so; the lighter it is, the better it feels.

I get a bit annoyed, and I will not say why...........but I'm not going to base my 6's useful load............on Van's 1650 gross spec. Note: this does not apply to other models.

As to "feel".............and the feel of a sports car, my 6A has won against every 9 it's come up against. Even my former aerobatic instructor, remarked on the pleasant "feel" of my 6A during a recent BFR. He owns a Pitts M-12, and flew numerous smaller Pitts before that.

Perhaps my bathroom scales were wrong.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[gerrychuck]

In light of the "other" thread, currently running..........in which gross weights are a major subject........

---What if the RV6 wing just turned out to be a lot stronger than original estimates---

Perhaps Van's aircraft was just very conservative....way back then. Afterall, his designs were simple panels and light. Most didn't have C/S props either.

I wouldn't freak out, one bit. But that's all I'm going to say...

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

Duly noted, and I really appreciate your experienced perspective in what is clearly territory littered with landmines for a noob like myself with no real world RV experience. Thanks.

 

[L.Adamson]

Duly noted, and I really appreciate your experienced perspective in what is clearly territory littered with landmines for a noob like myself with no real world RV experience. Thanks.

More info...

1190+ lbs. is a bit on the upper side for an RV. At 1172, I have the heavy starter motor from 1996. My "six pac" panel instruments are heavier than glass panels. My leather seats are heavier, but I wouldn't trade them. There is NO way, that I'd trade my heavier Hartzell constant speed, for a lighter fixed pitch. If I was to install a lighter composite constant speed, then I'd give up some cargo capacity...........as everything balances out well, now.

L.Adamson

 

[BillSchlatterer]

My name is Bill and my airplane is FAT....

Well, my RV7a weighs in at 1187. I tried to make it light but the math caught up with me. It has:

CS prop + 35 pounds
Prop Govenor + ?? pounds
7ah Backup Battery for EFIS + 8 pounds
Backup 8 amp alternator + 8 pounds
Oregon Aero Seats + 20 pounds (best pounds ever loaded)
Extra glass on canopy and windshield + 3-4 pounds
Extended baggage compartment structure + 3-4 pounds
Dual Screen EFIS plus backup instruments + 4-5 pounds
Full Garmin 430W stack with SL40 PMS8000 etc + 8 pounds
Other "necessary" stuff + ??

Airplane is fast, climbs better than any spamcan on the field, and very light on the controls. The only thing I would cut out is the backup alternator which would only save about 8 pounds. Everything you do adds pounds even if you are only adding "necessary" equipment.

Bill S
Got the grin!

 

[java]

I get a bit annoyed, and I will not say why...........but I'm not going to base my 6's useful load............on Van's 1650 gross spec. Note: this does not apply to other models.

As to "feel".............and the feel of a sports car, my 6A has won against every 9 it's come up against. Even my former aerobatic instructor, remarked on the pleasant "feel" of my 6A during a recent BFR. He owns a Pitts M-12, and flew numerous smaller Pitts before that.

Perhaps my bathroom scales were wrong.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

By "won," what do you mean? How do you "win" against another plane when comparing feel, and why would you do the comparison against a different model of aircraft with a different wing when having this "feel" contest and use it to justify a question on weight?

To me, a better comparison with only one variable (weight) is easy to do. When I fly my 6 with half tanks, just me, and no baggage, it flies differently than when at gross. I like the "feel" of it better when it is light, and frankly, that's all I need as proof. That is not to say that I think it is a poor flying aircraft at gross, or that it doesn't still feel better than any certified aircraft I've flown... just that it is better when it is light.

All of us get to choose what we like (light and nimble vs. heavier) and how important feel is compared to other weighty options, and that is where the opinion comes into the equation, so there is no wrong or right (within bounds, of course). Sure, I'll make tradeoffs since "feel" reaches diminishing returns at some point and other values become more of a priority (i.e. I love my C/S Hartzell), but weight is absolutely a factor when it comes to feel.

My two cents (or 2.04 cents US, since mine are Canadian ).

 

[gasman]

Having had the pleasure to fly the exact same airplane with two different engines and two different EW's, the handling difference between the two is significant.

Just like in cars, but more so; the lighter it is, the better it feels.

My mission is local evening flights almost daily... Very few X country flights. Therefore I want an aircraft that has GREAT FEEL and response. It is at it's best when the tanks are down to 5 gal in each tank.

Now if I spent most of my time at alt going from point A to point B at least 300 miles away, then I would want a C/S prop and oxy etc,etc. The feel of the aircraft in cruse at alt is just not the same. You are now just a passenger.

P.S. I weigh 178# ready for flight.

 

[SteinAir]

The funny thing about these sometimes spirited discussions is the very people having them. I've stood around watching a good sized group of people argue about RV empty weights....all the while many of them were wearing the XL or XXL shirts I gave them. I certainly don't mean that as an insult (because I'm XtraLuscious myself), but moroever to make the point that even though there are a lot of lightweight RV drivers, there are probably more of us that could easily change the operational weight of our RV's solely based on our intake of DQ blizzards and Big Mac's!

That being said, there is a HUGE difference in how RV's handle that is directly proportional to how piggy they are. Go fly a 320 powered RV4 with a FP prop and then compare it to a 200hp angle valve RV4 with a CS prop and you'll know immediately the difference. Same with most any RV. That doesn't make either choice better or worse than the other, just different strokes for different folks. It's why some folks have a G900X in their RV9 and some have round instruments.

My slightly overweight 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

 

[Bavafa]

The funny thing about these sometimes spirited discussions is the very people having them. I've stood around watching a good sized group of people argue about RV empty weights....all the while many of them were wearing the XL or XXL shirts I gave them. I certainly don't mean that as an insult (because I'm XtraLuscious myself), but moroever to make the point that even though there are a lot of lightweight RV drivers, there are probably more of us that could easily change the operational weight of our RV's solely based on our intake of DQ blizzards and Big Mac's!

Cheers,
Stein

Very good point, one that is not only RV specific. My brother spend some large amount of $$$ into his bicycle just to get it a couple of oz lighter. And I ask him, is it easier just to lose that 2oz of weight and keep the redicluse amount of $$$$ ????

My RV with all its nice stuff came heavier then some others but I knew it and didn't minded it as I wanted the comfort and redundancy. Now, I have been working on losing the extra 100lb that my naked RV could have possibly been.

 

[Jerry Cochran]

I've stood around watching a good sized group of people argue about RV empty weights....all the while many of them were wearing the XL or XXL shirts I gave them. I certainly don't mean that as an insult (because I'm XtraLuscious myself), but moroever to make the point that even though there are a lot of lightweight RV drivers, there are probably more of us that could easily change the operational weight of our RV's solely based on our intake of DQ blizzards and Big Mac's!

Stein sure makes a great point here. Van himself, legend has it, was asked by a slightly robust person at one of EAA105's breakfasts how to keep the pounds off his RV. "Just lose some pounds yourself first..." was the alleged response...


.

 

[jbagley]

my $0.02

From the shared Weight and Balance spreadsheet the average weight of RV6's (A models included) is 1082lb. The heaviest weight is 1244lb and the lightest rv6 in the bunch is 987lb.

My personal RV6A weighs in at 1018lb unpainted. Wood prop and O320 powered. It is a delightful aircraft to fly. It took quite a few hours before I could detect a difference in handling between full and near empty tanks. There is a significant difference in takeoff and climb performance, but not much difference in stick forces in my humble opinion.

Ask me again in a hundred hours and i'll probably give you a different opinion.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

There is a significant difference in takeoff and climb performance, but not much difference in stick forces in my humble opinion.

Get it loaded for Oshkosh arrival - full of people and bags, but light on gas. That'll put you at mid weight and a relatively aft CG. Vastly different than solo, IMO.

 

[RV7ator]

It's not just weight to consider. What's the empty c.g., and what happens to the loaded c.g. with fuel burn? A porky 20% over-design-gross RV will still climb like a homesick angel compared to most GA aircraft. Some, though, if built "light" can't carry more than a handkerchief in the baggage area without exceeding the aft limit, growing more critical with fuel burn.

F'instance, I just compared loading scenarios between my 2nd project and the just completed 4th (both -7s). #2 empty is 1105, #4 1138. The difference is mainly in the heavy options in and forward of the panel. I can load much more in the baggage area of #4 and still be well within aft c.g. with 6 gallons remaining. #2 with the same baggage load busts aft c.g. with 32 gallons remaining. One's going to be for sale shortly, probably #2. #4 is more wife-friendly.

John Siebold

 

[Cadstat]

Heavy Weight

There is a -6a out there that has an empty wt listed as 1195 lbs. This seems very high even given the fact that it has an angle valve engine, CSP, leather, and so forth... I don't recall one this heavy before...

Thoughts from anyone?


.

My RV-6A is 1175 pounds. Slider IO-320 engine w/CS, was turbo'd in a past life so heavy heads. Has a super nice Pro paint job and primed every where. Light weight starter, strobes and landing light, s-tec 30. Nothing else of note except lots of sound insulation through out under the completed interior. No leather. Flys slow by RV standards flat out at 8000 is only 170-172 MPH. Wish it would go faster. I'm 285 on the nose wheel. Does this sound nose heavy to anybody?