Define this. You're more than likely ok, but....
panel includes G3X, G5, Garmin autopilot, panel mounted i-pad, GMC 507 controller, GSU 25 ADAHRS, GTN 625 NXi, GTX 45R 1090ES, GNC 255A Nav/Com, GI-260Angle of Attack Indicator, GSA 28 Pitch/Roll Servos, GMU 11 Digital 3 Axis Magnetometer, GEA 24 Digital Engine Interface, Stratus 2S Portable...
I got my IFR ticket in a 9a with the a 430 non-WAAS and a decent autopilot. It flew approaches fine, but I was never comfortable flying IFR other than getting through a layer when needed. My opinion would be to add some form of back-up electrical system if you intend on flying in the clouds regularly. Icing is another concern. A friend who is an experienced pilot and talented builder, just sold an IFR equipped RV 10 and bought a TTX because of icing concerns in the PNW.
Can't speak to the 7, but I fly my 6 ifr all the time. I've also flown a 9, and think it would be quite a bit more stable. The 6 is a handful without using the AP. It can certainly be done, but its a fair amount of work. As far as icing, none of these planes should even launch if there is known icing. And, yes, that does restrict you in certain areas. Eg. The PNW in winter or shoulder seasons. But it wouldn't matter then if it was a 6, or a 6, or a 9, or a Cherokee, or whatever. Without de-icing, you're staying on the ground.
In most respects, I don’t find flying IFR in my 9 to be materially different from flying IFR in my previous plane (a Warrior). But hand flying a 9 in summer cumulus is more difficult. That’s where you really notice how much less it weighs.
Yes it does.
Although I think the wing loading is about the same as my Warrior, it’s a bit more sprightly in crosswinds. Probably a combination of the wing design and lighter weight. I’ve never felt the difference was material, however. One advantage of the 9 versus the Warrior is that if a landing starts going south, you can get back in the air in no time in the 9. Just cram and go.
I believe Yellowjacket came close to answering the OP's question, regarding the "mass" of the plane. Going from a Baron to an RV9 in IMC will certainly take getting use to. I do not own an RV9 but have flown one. I've also flown a Baron, as well as Cessna 310 for many years and when I switched over to the RV world, the stability of the flying in the soup was not there when comparing to a larger airplane like C310 or a Baron. That's going to be obvious to you even the first time you go through a puffy cloud on a VFR day while flying IFR. You just get thrown around more when flying a plane with 1/3 of the gross weight from what you are use to flying. With that said, as you can see from the feedback here, plenty of folk with different risk tolerances fly the RVs in IMC. I think the RV9 and RV10 are probably going to be most stable for IFR due to the wings (and maybe even the RV14), but with the right fancy avionics and autopilot, pretty much all of them will fly down to 200 & 1/2 mile . . .
No doubt it is possible and safe for a proficient pilot to hand fly IMC in the RV's. What the A/P provides is an insurance policy when there is suddenly an extra workload that could distract the pilot. It can also mean you are fresher after a long flight and need to shoot an approach. Whether you want that insurance policy is an individual decision. At work I fly in very capable Bell 429 helicopters (with 2 redundant 4-axis A/P's, Heli-SAAS, etc) with some of the most experienced pilots in the game, and having both A/P's functional is still mandatory for IFR flight, and although not a hard-stop, considered a significant risk factor if not operational for night VFR.
Those are good points and i agree. I would not take an xc flight without my AP. It is mentally taxing and that makes you less sharp on an approach and makes for a real workload challenge at times. My primary point is that it is possible to fly without it and that us non professional folks should endeavor to keep our hand flying skills sharp.
True. Hand flying my -9A through puffy, building clouds is a real chore. I consider an autopilot to be minimum equipment for those conditions, and if the autopilot fails early in a trip (which it once did!) it’s basically time for Plan B—because hand flying that way for hours would be zero fun. There would be times when copying a full route change, which is not that unusual where I fly, would be extremely difficult.
This is the way. I train so that I can hand fly to minimums—and then I fly trips with the autopilot, and only in weather that is VERY unlikely to be at minimums.
