1013 empty weight on my RV-6. Using Van's 1600 gross weight, that gives me 587 useful load according to "book" numbers.
 
RV6

MAXIMUM WEIGHT (Normal Category): ???????? 1800 Lbs
EMPTY WEIGHT ????????????????. 1078 Lbs
MAXIMUM USEFUL LOAD: ???????????? 722 Lbs
 
How well does a -6 with original small tail handle when flown at the high gross weights?

I've only had mine up close to 1600 and it flew and handled perfectly normal although takeoff distance and initial climb rate felt more like my old Cherokee than an RV... but once in the air it felt like it could easily handle more weight than Van's original 1600 lb limit.

I'd bet if it had 180hp and a CS prop, that the 1600 limit is way too de-rated of a number and at least 1700 would be more honestly representative of the -6's real capability.
 
Roll Your Own

Neal@F14 said:
How well does a -6 with original small tail handle when flown at the high gross weights?

I've only had mine up close to 1600 and it flew and handled perfectly normal although takeoff distance and initial climb rate felt more like my old Cherokee than an RV... but once in the air it felt like it could easily handle more weight than Van's original 1600 lb limit.

I'd bet if it had 180hp and a CS prop, that the 1600 limit is way too de-rated of a number and at least 1700 would be more honestly representative of the -6's real capability.
Click to expand...

Neal, (ps it was 108F on my fuel stop at KCWC Wichita Falls the other day, WOW)

First, I have the -7 counter-balanced tail on my -6.

While I have seen 1850 used as a gross weight for RV-6's it seemed to me like really pushing the envelope. I think Van set a 1600 gross as the ideal weight.

Accordingly, with my empty weight at 1037, I set my gross weight at 1700. To arrive at this figure I used my weight, average co-pilot weight, full fuel for travel latitude and a reasonable amount of baggage for trips. That came in just under 1700 lbs., and provides a useful load of 663 lbs.

To prevent ramp check issues, I used the 1700 figure. YMMV but that's what I did, right or wrong.

Pilot - 180
CoPilot 150
Fuel 38g 228
Baggage 64

Total 1659

Forgot to add that it handles much more like a certified low wing when fully loaded on take off and landing. In the air it is still agile, with great flying characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Those are my numbers too...

rolf said:
MAXIMUM WEIGHT (Normal Category): ???????? 1800 Lbs
EMPTY WEIGHT ????????????????. 1078 Lbs
MAXIMUM USEFUL LOAD: ???????????? 722 Lbs
Click to expand...

These are my numbers too. They work great just about everywhere because we have an o360/variable pitch prop combination.

I realize that you only asked about the useful load, but you should also be interested in the engine/prop combo. The higher useful loads are dangerous at higher altitude airports on hot days without a higher horsepower and variable pitch prop combo. This has been covered in other posts as well.

Vans choose lower gross weights for lots of reasons, but he designed the original with an o320/fixed pitch power plant combo....which once at altitude is pretty darn fast.

Here is a demonstration of what can occur with an aircraft on a warm day at higher altitudes without enough horsepower.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=835_1344412426
 
RV6A o320 with catto prop.

I'm pretty light on the nose and hit aft cg issues at 1650lb with me and my wife on board so that's what I used for my gross weight limit. Works out nice. Flew all the way to Alaska and back loaded near gross. Noticed slightly more sensitive pitch control and less sensitive roll. No autopilot. Still no problem.
 
The 1600 max gross choice by Van for the RV-6 does make sense for O-320/fixed pitch prop... and probably the landing gear loads came into his calculation as well. The takeoff performance at full weight has got to be the biggest factor though.

I had mine loaded up pretty good on the Oshkosh trip, with a full 60 lbs of stuff in the baggage area too and it did not feel tailheavy at all, in fact the plane felt quite nicely balanced in flight. I do have a Landoll inertia ring on the flywheel, and installed a composite tailwheel which saves a few ounces back there, and that probably helps the balance out a fair bit.
 
Set my gross at 2000 (it will take off and climb over 500'/minute with full flaps there).

Empty weight is 1088. Useful load becomes 912 (660 with full fuel).

Would allow for 2x225 passengers plus 150 pounds of baggage (200 pounds puts the CG would 2 inches aft of limit). Nevertheless, that brings it within 60 pounds.

Dan
 
DanBaier said:
Set my gross at 2000 (it will take off and climb over 500'/minute with full flaps there).

Empty weight is 1088. Useful load becomes 912 (660 with full fuel).

Would allow for 2x225 passengers plus 150 pounds of baggage (200 pounds puts the CG would 2 inches aft of limit). Nevertheless, that brings it within 60 pounds.

Dan
Click to expand...

Why would you do that? Full flaps create all drag and no lift.

I guess, if you were trying to prove a point......
 
Gross weight and therefore useful load is set by the structural design limits. It should not be set based on weight empty as built plus a desired useful load.
Just saying.
 
Neal@F14 said:
How well does a -6 with original small tail handle when flown at the high gross weights?

I've only had mine up close to 1600 and it flew and handled perfectly normal although takeoff distance and initial climb rate felt more like my old Cherokee than an RV... but once in the air it felt like it could easily handle more weight than Van's original 1600 lb limit.

I'd bet if it had 180hp and a CS prop, that the 1600 limit is way too de-rated of a number and at least 1700 would be more honestly representative of the -6's real capability.
Click to expand...

The 6's small tail, with a 180/CS prop handles very well. Actually, it's surprising "lively", even compared to some lower weight variety.
 
plehrke said:
Gross weight and therefore useful load is set by the structural design limits. It should not be set based on weight empty as built plus a desired useful load.
Just saying.
Click to expand...

Of course, when it comes to the "6"............it's "real" structural limits have been in question for the last 20 years or so. In other words, it's a whole lot tougher than the original design specs.

1850 GW, here.
 
I admit, I flown my 6A over gross a few times and it doesn't change a thing honestly... I have an O-360 with fixed pitch prop.

595 pounds usefull for me. I agree that the 6 could have a 1700 pounds gross... It's a tough bird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.