A

airrap

I'm New Here
Am considering the purchase of a flying RV. How do the two seat models handle turbulence? Thanks for the help.
Eric
 
Bumpy

Hi Eric,
At the speeds these little rockets fly, rough air can be very bumpy, kinda jolting at times. However, with their climb rate at or above 2000 FPM, smooth air can usually be reached quickly, as in 5 minutes :D

The short wings can be rolled easily by turbulence but then again, the highly responsive ailerons on all the models allow quick returns to level if the wings are upset.

The comforting feature I find with the 4,6,7 and 8 models is the structure being designed for 6 G's anytime....a nice reassurance. ;)

Regards,
 
Dittos on what Pierre stated. Very solid cross country planes able to get around weather in a good hurry.

Roberta
 
I crotch strap makes them much more comfortable in turbulence, IMHO. I have found what the others have said to be true, but being cinched down really makes turbulence a non-issue. I have ridden in RV's without the 5th point, and at least for me, it is uncomfortable. I'm speaking specifically about the side by side versions (the lap belt angles are sub-optimal without the crotch strap). Don't recall the lap belt angles on the front/back models.
 
They are a definitely a rough ride at times BUT if you pull the power back and slow down it's not so bad. We don't like turbulence but wouldn't trade for anything. 1600 Hrs in an RV6. Larry
 
If I remember correclty, an RV-6 at 1,600 pounds has the same wing loading as a Cessna 172 at 2,300 pounds. At the same speed, they should have the same ride. Since the RV travels about 50% faster in cruise, the ride will be worse if you do not slow down.

No one likes turbulence but I would rather be in my RV than any other General Aviation aircraft when I enounter turbulence. I have seen turbulence that registerd 5.5 on the 'G' meter. Once slowed down, the ride was ok. Once it smoothed out, I increased speed back to cruise.

When I put the RV back in its hangar after the last flight, it has 1,978.9 hours on the hobbs meter.
 
I'll echo what was said earlier about structural integrity -- lots of psychological comfort there.

Everybody seems to be happy in general with how RVs ride in turbulence compared to other planes. I'm on the other side of the fence. The Mooneys I used to fly had a noticeably "better" ride imho since they didn't really have any adverse tendencies in bumps.

My RV-7 and several other RVs I've flown in have a tendency to fishtail in turbulence. Not all that badly most of the time, but enough that I feel the need to keep both feet firmly on the pedals and proactively dampen out any yawing action. I've heard too many theories as to why this happens...could be any number of aerodynamic effects. FWIW, I notice that it's worse right after I lube my controls. Don't tell me to add friction in the control systems...

Since the short wing RVs tend to be more or less neutrally stable in roll, in turbulence a bump can and will leave you with some degree of bank. The short wing RVs are NOT hands-off & feet-off airplanes in turbulence. Sure, most of the time you can just let go and it'll eventually end up wings level, but often it won't. Leave in a little bank, the nose is dropping slightly...enough for the altitude to deviate. Speed picks up, now the nose is coming up...another bump, back into a bank, nose is coming down. It's not unstable per se, but it does require attention (some just flip on the autopilot).

I'm just being honest about my ONLY pet peeve about the RV's handling. I *love* everything about it EXCEPT for the "ok" (but not great) ride in turbulence.
 
Solid as always

airrap said:
Am considering the purchase of a flying RV. How do the two seat models handle turbulence? Thanks for the help.
Eric
Click to expand...
Very nicely. I flew Cessna's in turbulence so bad it tweaked the door frame enough to pop the door open.

A friends wife flew with him may be a 1000 hours in spam cans. When he got his RV-6 flying the wife made comment how much more comfortable the RV was in turbulence how it felt solid.

The RV is not a long plane and will fish-tail in turbulence like many planes. Fly a Cessna 310 twin with fuel in tip tanks, oh my gosh. The thing wallows around the sky with the slightest turbulence. One trick RV drivers is rest your feet on the rudder peddles verses letting it float.

RV's are not immune to turbulence. I take it you never flew a RV? What makes it a joy to fly in smooth air transfers to bumpy air. Go fly a Cessna or Piper than get into a RV. Its like driving a 1970's station waggon or truck verses a late model sports car. RV's just handle better in any condition.

One thing that helps is high wing loading (more weight per square foot of wing area). RV's are not particular high wing loaded but a tad more than a Cessna C172 or about the same at gross. So the RV will cut through the bumps a little better. The heaver the plane the better for riding the bumps.

Jets handle turbulence better because of high wing loading. A RV will bounce around, but with excellent handling and controls giving a solid feel, the RV is reassuring in the bumps.
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
Hi Eric,
At the speeds these little rockets fly, rough air can be very bumpy, kinda jolting at times. However, with their climb rate at or above 2000 FPM, smooth air can usually be reached quickly, as in 5 minutes :D

The short wings can be rolled easily by turbulence but then again, the highly responsive ailerons on all the models allow quick returns to level if the wings are upset.

The comforting feature I find with the 4,6,7 and 8 models is the structure being designed for 6 G's anytime....a nice reassurance. ;)

Regards,
Click to expand...

I went to Van's website but could not find any info on the 9 and G's under specs or performance.

I know it is now designed for aerob. [and I've seen threads here talking about light aerob.] and I know it has a larger wing but in turbulence does it fly substantially different than the other RVs?

How much different is the 9 than the rest in bumpy weather?

Thanks

John
 
Not sure what you mean when you ask how they handle turbulence. Wing loading can be compared to a boats ability to cut thru waves. You also need to look at roll rate to get an idea of the stability of the vessel and its response to control movements, whether induced by the pilot or the environment. Finally, you should also consider the maneuvering speed of the aircraft. If the AC can handle heavy turbulence at 120kts, perhaps you should consider your own tolerance level.
 
After 400 some odd hours in a Challenger ultra light I am looking forward to the smooth ride the RV will provide in comparison.
 
Negative

Paul Tuttle said:
After 400 some odd hours in a Challenger ultra light I am looking forward to the smooth ride the RV will provide in comparison.
Click to expand...

Paul,
The speed is going to make the ride a lot bumpier in rough air than in your slower Challenger. The speed of the RV will more than make up for the sometimes bumpy ride :D

Regards,
 
I find my 6A noticeably rougher riding in turbulence than any other GA aircraft I have flown. While wing loadings may be similar, it must be something to do with the short, stiff wings. While a Piper or Grumman wing might flex as it goes through the bump, the RV just whams through solidly, transmitting to the occupants. As others have suggested, use the good climb performance to find a smoother altitude. Won't take long. :)
 
Yup, sometimes it's like riding a bicycle down the railroad tracks. A bump at 100 kts in a 172 feels a lot harder at 150 kts in an RV.

I've had to abort flights because I was above my comfort level in turbulence. Changing radio frequencies was very difficult... a reasonable threshold in my experience. If it's not fun, why fly?

V
 
I've said it before and been jumped on about it. The RVs are the roughest riding planes I have been exposed to. It is no mystery why. It is simple physics.

There can't be many planes that have the same combination of speed and low wing loading that these do. I heartily embrace the resulting low landing speed and slowing down is an option, although not one I like.
 
Not true....

Deuskid said:
I know it is now designed for aerob. [and I've seen threads here talking about light aerob.] and I know it has a larger wing but in turbulence does it fly substantially different than the other RVs?
Click to expand...

The -9/9A is NOT designed, intended, or approved for aerobatics. Not sure where you heard that, but forget it in the -9's.

Take care,
 
The -9/9A is NOT designed, intended, or approved for aerobatics. Not sure where you heard that, but forget it in the -9's.
Click to expand...

After rereading his post, I think he meant 'not' not 'now'.
 
RV9A - C172

Comparing my RV9A to my C172 (it for sale, the 172), the 9 has a much more solid feel when you hit a bump. The Cessna if I hit strong turbulence, I start looking at the wings just to make sure that they are still there. The 9 just feels more solid. That may be because I know how much more metal there is in the wing of the RV.
As someone else posted the 9 fish-tails in the bumps.

Kent
 
An aspect of handling turbulence

Most of what was said about how the RV feels "harder" because of the rigid wings and the higher speed, compared to, for instance, a Cessna is true in my experience. But manuvering speed is only 120 Kts anyhow.

But, one of the things I like about the RV in such conditions is the stick and the quick response. In my C-150 the bumps are simply more work to deal with. But with the RV, it's a twitch and it's done. I came back to Detroit from Sun&Fun with a very sore wrist both times because of the yoke on the 150 and its tendency to follow every little air current.
 
Question for the engineer types

I now have 11 whole flying hours on my 7 now. My last flight was in some fairly bumpy conditions.

Like others have said, it?s a rough ride. The only other plane that I have flown that seemed rougher was a T-Craft (BC-12D), which has a HUGE wing but flies much slower. The T-Craft and the RV have the same airfoil though. Does the airfoil shape play any part in how a plane ?rides? the chop?
 
my statement:

I went to Van's website but could not find any info on the 9 and G's under specs or performance. I know it is now designed for aerob.



mdredmond said:
It is? Where did you hear that?
Click to expand...

BIG typo... I meant NOT.. rather than now...

sorry

John
 
And the answer is...

cwoodyfly2001 said:
What are the 9/9A able to handle in G's? I have not been able to find this anywhere...
Cwoodyfly2001
Click to expand...

I though that I would be able to find it on Vans web site, but it only indicates for the aerobatic models +6 and -3Gs.
Being local, I call tech support and got the answer:
"The 9 is classed as Utility throughout it normal weight and CG, which is +4.4 and -1.8Gs"

Kent
 
Kent:
You should re-confirm from your builders handbook, but the maximum Utility Category (4.4g) gross weight for an RV9 is 1600 pounds. Van's recommends a maximum gross of 1750 for the "normal" category, but the builder is allowed to specify this weight.
 
Something I'm surprised that nobody has brought up yet but definitely has direct bearing on RV turbulence is the quality of your seats. Are you sitting on towels, styrofoam, regular foam, temper foam/confor foam? Good quality seats help make a turbulent ride a little easier on the body ;) Rosie
 
Strapped down

The key on any flight is to be strapped down TIGHT. On a flight to Socal last month I hit turbulence so hard I still hit the canopy and my knee hit the underside of the instrument panel. I was 'hands off' with the auto pilot flying. The turbulence was so violent that it took a couple of seconds to get the throttle back and the auto pilot off. After slowing from 188kts to 135kts I got things smoothed out.

In nearly 4000 hours of time this is the worst I've ever encountered. I was really strapped down and still moved around. The crotch belt would not have made any difference.

Everyday turbulence (just rough air) is handled quite well with the RV.
 
RV7Guy said:
SNIP

In nearly 4000 hours of time this is the worst I've ever encountered. I was really strapped down and still moved around. The crotch belt would not have made any difference.

SNIP
Click to expand...

Darwin, just out of curiosity, why do you believe a crotch strap would not make any difference? It appears from your post that you don't have a crotch strap in your plane.

Just for grins, I have pushed mine negative g's with and without the crotch strap connected, and there is no comparison. It simply is difficult to get everything tight enough without the crotch strap to prevent significant motion out of the seat during negative g situations. When the shoulder belts are tight, the lap belts end up against the ribs.

Each can certainly build how they desire, but for those deciding 4 vs 5 pt, go get a ride with someone who has the 5th point, and try it with and without in turbulence and make your decision.
 
Fellow Challenger flyer agrees

Paul Tuttle said:
After 400 some odd hours in a Challenger ultra light I am looking forward to the smooth ride the RV will provide in comparison.
Click to expand...
I am there with you on this one. I too have built and am currently flying a Challenger II. With a wing area of around 164 sf and normal cruise weight of about 785 lbs the wing loading on this airplane is 4.79 lbs/sf! So I agree with Paul, I am looking forward to the day when my RV is flying and I can trade riding a bucking bronc with something a little more stable in rough air.

Pierre said:
The speed is going to make the ride a lot bumpier in rough air than in your slower Challenger. The speed of the RV will more than make up for the sometimes bumpy ride.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine it being worse. Not disputing the speed issue but the huge wing and light loading of this Challenger that I fly is a real bucker (pun intended). When flying so slow in air that is throwing me up then down in a short span of a second or two and then shoving me up 100 or 200 feet before I can blink an eye, I cannot believe the RV could be worse.
 
Last edited:
Low n Slow said:
Does anyone know what the maneuvering speed is or where the top of the green arc is on a RV4 ASI?
Click to expand...


Not quite the same.
Blue line Speed - 134 MPH or 116 KIAS.
Top of the Green arc - 180 MPH or 156 KIAS.
Full Aircraft/ASI limits are available as a download from the Van's web site.
 
We'll see

Steve,
In your Challenger at a sub-100MPH airspeeds when you encounter rising or descending air, you penetrate it much more slowly than you will in the RV. Now you get a sort of marshmallow rise and a similar descent, kinda squishy. When you start penetrating that same air at near 200, it hits like a sledgehammer at times because the change of air stability is instantaneous, from still to rising or vice-versa.

Just you wait... ;)
 
Didn't get this from the builders handbook

terrykohler said:
Kent:
You should re-confirm from your builders handbook, but the maximum Utility Category (4.4g) gross weight for an RV9 is 1600 pounds. Van's recommends a maximum gross of 1750 for the "normal" category, but the builder is allowed to specify this weight.
Click to expand...

I talked to Scott at Vans and was quoting him. He is one of the engineers there. I don't have the construction manual at the office. Is the G loading indicated in it?

Kent
 
pierre smith said:
Steve,
In your Challenger at a sub-100MPH airspeeds when you encounter rising or descending air, you penetrate it much more slowly than you will in the RV. Now you get a sort of marshmallow rise and a similar descent, kinda squishy. When you start penetrating that same air at near 200, it hits like a sledgehammer at times because the change of air stability is instantaneous, from still to rising or vice-versa.

Just you wait... ;)
Click to expand...
Very aptly put. But I will say that "marshmallow" rise or descent you describe would imply it is a somewhat mellow occurrence. I can assure you it most definitely is as disconcerting as the rough experience you describe in the faster planes. Even though encountering turbulence in the Challenger may be at a slower speed it is, none the less, very uncomfortable.

I am not looking forward to the jarring "sledgehammer" feeling you describe either. However, the speed at which I can travel hopefully means that I will not have to endure the effects as long when traveling x-country. Usually in the Challenger if I encounter turbulent air I am stuck flying in it as I usually am flying closer to the ground, slower and I cannot necessarily climb out of it in enough time to make the climb worthwhile. Hopefully the RV will give me the opportunity to outrun or climb out of the turbulence.
 
Tuttle Oklahoma, Really!!! must be named after a distant relatve or something :rolleyes:

I have been for a few rides in rvs and there is little comparison to the beating you take flying a Challenger in a 20 kt wind. A little flick of the stick to put yourself level again will be a real treat I'm thinking

RVbySDI said:
I am there with you on this one. I too have built and am currently flying a Challenger II. With a wing area of around 164 sf and normal cruise weight of about 785 lbs the wing loading on this airplane is 4.79 lbs/sf! So I agree with Paul, I am looking forward to the day when my RV is flying and I can trade riding a bucking bronc with something a little more stable in rough air.

I can't imagine it being worse. Not disputing the speed issue but the huge wing and light loading of this Challenger that I fly is a real bucker (pun intended). When flying so slow in air that is throwing me up then down in a short span of a second or two and then shoving me up 100 or 200 feet before I can blink an eye, I cannot believe the RV could be worse.
Click to expand...
 
Kent:
The numbers I refer to were taken directly from the wt./bal. section of the RV9A construction manual. I know of no practical reason to certify your experimental AC in the utility category. The lower GW will limit your loading options. My own 9A is certified in Normal cat. with an 1800 lb. GW. This allows me full fuel loading as well as over 500 pounds for people and baggage. Almost impossible to get out of CG limits.
 
terrykohler said:
Kent:
The numbers I refer to were taken directly from the wt./bal. section of the RV9A construction manual. I know of no practical reason to certify your experimental AC in the utility category...
Click to expand...
I know what you are talking about but we should keep in mind that there is no such thing as utility, aerobatic or normal categories, with RV aircraft. I think we are talking about the equivalent load limits of factory airplanes.

The vast majority of homebuilts are certified Amateur-Built Experimental with whatever maximum gross weight the builder decides on and the inspector agrees to.

Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact the the builder, not Van's Aircraft, is the manufacturer and we decide what uses the aircraft is appropriate for. When we decide, it would behoove us greatly to make use of the engineering knowledge of the Van's staff, but it is our decision.
 
ratc said:
Not quite the same.
Blue line Speed - 134 MPH or 116 KIAS.
Top of the Green arc - 180 MPH or 156 KIAS.
Full Aircraft/ASI limits are available as a download from the Van's web site.
Click to expand...
The top of the green is much higher than I would have guessed. I couldn't find the ASI limits on the download page of the Van site, what's the RV4 red line? It must have a very short yellow band. I assume the 'blue line' is maneuvering speed? I haven't flown that many planes, but now that I think of it, I don't remember ever seeing a blue line or arc on an ASI.
 
Rosie said:
Something I'm surprised that nobody has brought up yet but definitely has direct bearing on RV turbulence is the quality of your seats. Are you sitting on towels, styrofoam, regular foam, temper foam/confor foam? Good quality seats help make a turbulent ride a little easier on the body ;) Rosie
Click to expand...


Is that stuff the same as memory foam?

I see Van's $300 seat foam and it basically looks like a build up of cheaper foam on bottom and comfor foam on top. I need to save money on my seats and not going with an $1800 full package or $300 for $50 worth of foam seems to be a good place to start.

In the Big Lots ad. this week they had a twin size pc of mem. foam for $30. Got me thinkin it might work for my seats.
 
Flew into my first real turbulance in my 7A while descending below 2000 msl for an approach to landing. This ocurrance had followed a cold front in the area. Winds calm on the ground but 40 aloft. As others have stated, I tightened the belts and was very active on the rudder pedals. There was a very noticeable fishtailing while flying crosswind. Pulling the throttle back softened the ride significantly. The stick control was far superior and relaxed than my previous yoke plane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.