M

Mike Raviv

Member
Just by the pix posted, it seems that the majority go for no steps. Am I right?
And if yes, how easy is for the occasional passenger to get in / out without the step?

TNX and
BSTRGRDS
Mike Raviv
RV-7A s/n 70434
Fuselage
 
You may be looking at a 6A without steps.
The 7A is quite a bit higher. If anyone over
50 yrs old wants to get in he may need a step.
I can't picture getting into my 7A without steps.
I also carry a stool for some people to use as
well as the step. Go and try to get up on the
wing of a 7A to be sure.
Tom
 
6A step

Best addition I made to my 6A (pilot side only)

I just saw that you have a 7A. Add at least one on pilots side then have passenger get in on that side.
 
tomwebster said:
You may be looking at a 6A without steps.
The 7A is quite a bit higher. If anyone over
50 yrs old wants to get in he may need a step.
I can't picture getting into my 7A without steps.
I also carry a stool for some people to use as
well as the step. Go and try to get up on the
wing of a 7A to be sure.
Tom
Click to expand...

Most 6A's that I'm familiar with, have the steps too. I've have "both" of them, and wouldn't want to risk damage, getting on or off the wing without.

L.Adamson RV6A
 
INSTALL TWO STEPS....

Mike Raviv said:
Just by the pix posted, it seems that the majority go for no steps. Am I right?
And if yes, how easy is for the occasional passenger to get in / out without the step?
Click to expand...
They will keep the plane balanced if you land gear up!:cool:

No really, you do want two steps.
 
Mike, nice to see you on the forums - please greet the whole gang I met at P.Tiqua.

I agree with the other posters. I have a 6A and have the steps, and am very glad I put them on. The 7A is much higher at the trailing edge of the wings.

I'll let you know next time I'm in the neighborhood, maybe I can see your project.
 
I am getting steps for my 9A, both sides. The old knees don't bend like they used to.
 
Clear cut decision

TNX guys.
It is a 7:0 victory for the steps so far. Pretty clear.
Steps going in then.
BSTRGRDS
Mike
 
I vote for steps. Besides all of the above, they make great handles when you are on "creeper" cleaning the oil off the belly of the beast. ;)
 
Last edited:
Not on Mine

I ordered them with the kit, looked at how ugly and draggy and prone to rust they were and sold them. My wife (age 66) is small and has a bad knee. She couldn't have used them anyhow. I got a folding stool ( 4 pounds) from Sporty's and it stays in the plane. She uses it well. I am 65 with failing knees but I'm 6' more or less and can get on the wing with a hand-hold on the rollbar or rail. I'm happy I did not put them on. Your mileage may vary.

BTW - I can put the stool, folded flat, on the floor on either my side or the passenger side to help the W&B when fully loaded. I have not done the computations but I'll bet my W&B is greatly improved over having steps because they are heavier and much farther back.
 
hevansrv7a said:
I ordered them with the kit, looked at how ugly and draggy and prone to rust they were and sold them. My wife (age 66) is small and has a bad knee. She couldn't have used them anyhow. I got a folding stool ( 4 pounds) from
Click to expand...


Personally, I like "retracts". Just imagine those great looking P-51 taildraggers zooming past the spectator stands with "gear down"..... :eek:

I suppose that's why I really don't notice steps that are hanging down along with the landing gear; but I certainly notice them in, "in flight" photos when the landing gear is tucked up out of sight.

L.Adamson -- RV6A - with two steps & draggy nose wheel

P.S. --- the steps are there to counter balance that nose wheel, way out in front! :)
 
What actually puzzles me is that no one did develop a retractable / foldable contraption, or did they? With so much $$$ paraphernalia flowing into the aircraft, this one thing sure seems to be neglected.
 
Mike Raviv said:
What actually puzzles me is that no one did develop a retractable / foldable contraption, or did they? With so much $$$ paraphernalia flowing into the aircraft, this one thing sure seems to be neglected.
Click to expand...

You mean as Mooney did? I suspect the "mini-gain" in top speed isn't worth the complexity, and hence the time/expen$e to build, and the future repair bills. Same rationale for Retractable Gear.:rolleyes:
 
Step Option

Mike Raviv said:
Just by the pix posted, it seems that the majority go for no steps. Am I right?
And if yes, how easy is for the occasional passenger to get in / out without the step?
Click to expand...


At first I planned to have a step free -9 but after talking to several other members here at the forum, I have decided to add steps to my -9:eek:. I looked at some pix from another -9 and the step up to the wing was still a fairly high step up. The flaps can't be used as a step and I'm over 50. I want to be able to get into my plane as easily as possible. I also understand that the slope on the -9 wing is fairly steep. Might have to sacrifice a mph or 2.
 
Retract Steps

Mike, someone did develop a retracting step for the 6A. Russ Kamtz, here in Fort Collins, CO. The stems slide up into the fuse and the horizontal trails the flap. Simple design and I suppose they remove some small amount of drag. If anyone is interested, I'll put you in touch with Russ. (N820RC)

Dennis Mitchell
6A flying
 
Retractable step design.

Please do put me in touch.
I'm not sure I'll implement the design but I sure want to see it.
TNX in advance
Mike
 
In Retrospect

I put them on as I built the RV-6A in response to my wife's request. I knew the would cause drag but the airplane was so much faster than my Piper Archer II that I didn't believe it was something to cause my wife to feel that she had no say in the configuration of the plane. It was very important to me that this tens of thousands of dollar investment be ours and not just mine. My friend Ken Knowles is well into his 80s and he and I finished out RV-6As in the same hangar at the same time. He did not put steps on his and he had no trouble getting in or out of his plane. Now I know that I could have put a stool in the plane and place it in the appropriate spot for mounting and dismounting like I do with the small customized rug that I put on the seat for entry and exit.

Knowing what I know now I would not install the steps. There is always a reasonable solution for getting in and out of the airplane but once you put the steps on they are there forever with their full crossection being dragged through the air. I have the plane up to 177.8 kts now so most would not consider it a problem but I consider it a mistake on my part.

Bob Axsom
 
9A

I went almost a year without steps got tired of the BIG step and added them, they were easy to add just make the baggage floor removable.
 
Perhaps someone with a 9A and a 7A could measure the height from the ground up to the trailing edge of their wings, ahead of the flaps. Those contemplating the decision, who don't have access to a plane to try, could build a stand of the appropriate height. BTW, in case it was missed, the 6A is significantly lower.

Some quick calculations show that, at sea level, the drag force of two steps, at 180 knots, is around .6 pounds. This takes about 3/10ths of a horsepower at that speed. This is 2/10th's of one percent of the output of a 180 horse engine. At typical cruise speeds and altitudes, the drag and power loss would be quite a bit less.
 
Try looking at it another way. Vans performance numbers are pretty much spot on. Look at the top speed difference between the 7 and 7A, it's only two MPH (210 vs 208 for the 7A). So the combination of that nose gear and two little steps, assuming you put two on, is only two MPH. How much of that do you think the nosegear contributes to the speed reduction and how much of that is the itsy weeny little steps?

As far as the W&B is concerned, the steps are under the baggage compartment and I cannot get my 7A out of CG range either empty with only me and minimal fuel or full up gross weight.

Just another look at it.
 
walter said:
Try looking at it another way. Vans performance numbers are pretty much spot on. Look at the top speed difference between the 7 and 7A, it's only two MPH (210 vs 208 for the 7A). So the combination of that nose gear and two little steps, assuming you put two on, is only two MPH. How much of that do you think the nosegear contributes to the speed reduction and how much of that is the itsy weeny little steps?

SNIP

Just another look at it.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the difference Van's states does not contemplate steps. So, the comparison needs to contemplate nosegear vs tailwheel, longer mains on the TD vs trike. Apparently, that difference is about 2 knots.

I'd be fairly confident that steps only cost a small fraction of a knot at typical cruise speeds.
 
walter said:
Try looking at it another way. Vans performance numbers are pretty much spot on. Look at the top speed difference between the 7 and 7A, it's only two MPH (210 vs 208 for the 7A). So the combination of that nose gear and two little steps, assuming you put two on, is only two MPH. How much of that do you think the nosegear contributes to the speed reduction and how much of that is the itsy weeny little steps?

SNIP

Just another look at it.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the difference Van's states does not contemplate steps. So, the comparison needs to contemplate nosegear vs tailwheel, longer mains on the TD vs trike. Apparently, that difference is about 2 knots.

I'd be fairly confident that steps only cost a small fraction of a knot at typical cruise speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.