Bryan Wood

Well Known Member
Have you flown a production plane since finishing your RV? By chance this weekend I got to fly two different high performance complex production planes belonging to friends. One I got about two hours left seat, (V-Tail Bonanza) and the other about 40 minutes at the controls from the right seat. (Turbo Lance)

Certainly the Bonanza was the premier single for what 45 years or so and the dreams of many. From doctor killer, to slippery, to fastest, to luxurious these planes have been something that you work you way up to and are not to be flown by low time pilots according to insurance companies. While quiet and smooth it also felt heavy and sluggish in the air. The take off roll seemed to be about triple that of my RV while climb was less than half. For a cruise speed similar to that of my 9A gas was flowing thru at a rate of 14 gph and I found my eye finding it's way back to the fuel flow guage often. At current prices this puts fuel over $50 an hour to fly this plane. Landing was easy, maybe even as easy as the 9A once the brain accepts and corrects for the very heavy pull to flare. Takeoff also takes a heavy control inputs. While finding myself looking out the windows at the wings and the cool shape of the cowl top and thinking wow I'm flying a Bonanza, there was also the realization that this plane is simply for transportation. Jumping into it after having flown an RV for the 400 hours now the fun factor just simply isn't there! Don't get me wrong here, while it is fun to be flying, the Bonanza simply has no "WOW" factor after the RV.

Next the Turbo Lance. As a passenger on takeoff and landing for this plane my friend was talking me thru what he was doing. He has plans to talk me into selling my RV and buying into his. I keep telling him that his plane is very nice, but I lived in my garage for almost 3 1/2 years to have an RV and this transaction will never happen. With that said, off we went. On the runway with brakes locked he brings power up to 22"s and releases the brakes. As we started to roll he is face down and we are screaming down the runway as he brings power up to 33". By the time he looks up and calls 60 knots we are past the control tower and there is no sign of impending flight. It has been years since I've been in an airplane at this airport and accelerating with so little runway ahead of us. As I begin to sit up very straight and begin to wonder if we will be driving thru the fence and into the busy street he called 80 knots and pulls back. We veer left and then the big plane starts to come off the runway. We cross the fence around 30 or so feet in the air and I am thankful there are no semi trucks crossing at the time. Now the trees and the mall rushes under the wings at what feels like 50', but could have been 75'. At this point I breath realizing that I'm acting like my wife did the first 2 or 3 flights in the RV. My friend sets up for a nice cruise climb and engages the autopilot. The mixture is set for a nice 28 gallon per hour burn as we climb out at 500 fpm. :eek: We level off at 3500' and he sets power to 24 squared and leans for around 18 gph. I told him that he didn't need to run it so hard to impress me if he wanted to save some gas and he showed me a chart claiming 65% power with this setting. I had trouble believing this, but then again I'm not familiar with turbos so I just accept what he says. At this point I realize how the Bonanza got the reputation of being sporty. As he turns the plane over to me we went over to the coast and just played. Again, this plane is built for traveling, not playing. It has a Garmin 430, MX-20, traffic avoidance, etc... As we cruise around at 18gph the ground speed never exceeded 150 knots. What did impress me was the smoothness of a six cylinder and a 3 bladed prop. Also the mufflers were fantastic! This could also be said for the Bonanza. The reduced noise levels inside the planes were a wonderful feature.

So what did I learn from these rides? First I learned that Van has ruined flying if it means going back to production planes. I can't even imagine flying a production plane again that isn't high performance and possibly complex. I also learned that the gear coming up and going down adds absolutely "0" to the fun factor!!! For some reason I always wanted a retract, but I'll take twice the climb any day and the wheels out in the wind. Third, if a 4 place is a must have along with speed, and comfort a 10 is the only answer for anybody who has flown RV's for any length of time at all.

What do you think, have you jumped into a production plane lately?

I love my RV!
 
Apples and Oranges

Bryan,

If you need to carry 6 people, I would choose the Lance over an RV-9, wouldn't you? Divide the fuel flow by the number of seats, and you will see similar economy, possibly even better.

I love my 9, but let's not be comparing Porsches to stationwagons.
 
I don't think I'd be building an RV-7 if I didn't have the option of flying my Dad's Cessna Cardinal for solid IFR and >1 friend flights....
 
I ended up buying into a 4 person partnership for a '57 straight tail C-172 just to keep flying and to shave off 3 hours each way to the coast once a month.

It flies, it can us mo-gas @ $2.50/gal, it burns 8 gal/hr on cruise (at 100kn), and I can throw the dog and baggage in the back seat, and it cost me slightly more than what a dual GRT Sport will cost me for the 9a.

That being said, it is a dog, requires significant control inputs, is heavy, and 'finesse' is not a word I would use when flying the C-172.

It makes flying a RV a breeze, I'm used to keeping a CLOSE eye on airspeed in the pattern with the C-172 for the opposite reasons- too slow versus too fast in the RV.
 
20060930_skytypers1.jpg


I hop into an AA5B Tiger from time to time for Skytypers work. That plane is everything I built my RV-7 NOT TO BE. Castering nosewheel with only brakes to steer...ugh. Sliding canopy...ugh, it's constantly in the way (Skytypers is formation flying). Yoke...ugh. Center power controls...ugh (depending on my position in the formation I sometimes fly from the right seat to make it more comfortable). Adverse yaw galore with those "long" wings. Fixed pitch prop...ugh. And it takes us like half an hour to climb to 11,000', even with O-360s.

But what really gets me is the relative lack of responsiveness. And yeah, yeah, we all say that about spam cans, and it's true. But here's the best way I can describe the tangible difference in handling...

When flying formation in the RV-7, I just "think" the change and it happens. If I'm low relative to my lead and I need to scoot up a couple of feet, it just kinda happens. I don't see any change in pitch. In the Tiger, if I need to scoot up that couple of feet, I apply back pressure on the yoke, and I can actually SEE the pitch change before any altitude change occurs! That is the most bizarre sensation after flying the RV...seeing and feeling the pitch change, having a brief but distinct DELAY, and only then achieving the desired response. I can't get over that. In the RV there's no visible pitch/delay/move -- it just moves...right now!
 
Love that Grumman

I instructed in Grummans for several years. Absolutely loved the Tiger! Carried four people at retract speeds with only a 180 hp and fixed-pitch prop. Talk about efficiency.....2.5 gallons per seat per hour! Didn't take students long to adapt to the castering nosewheel and the visibility from canopy was superb. Great cooling on the ground too with the canopy open. Probably one of the best production planes I ever flew.
 
Yukon said:
I instructed in Grummans for several years. Absolutely loved the Tiger! Carried four people at retract speeds with only a 180 hp and fixed-pitch prop. Talk about efficiency.....2.5 gallons per seat per hour! Didn't take students long to adapt to the castering nosewheel and the visibility from canopy was superb. Great cooling on the ground too with the canopy open. Probably one of the best production planes I ever flew.
Yukon, you are gonna LOVE LOVE LOVE your -9!! :D
 
I played

safety pilot to another IFR student in a C152 the other day...Oh my Ga**...What a piece of...

However, flying a C152 is a breeze in IFR compared t the RV (assuming your not using the autopilot), you can look down, tune the radios, bang the DG, AI a few times, eat a sandwich and the darned thing will still be on altitude and heading!

For a good laugh have the same student take his first RV ride and while he's still got this grin wrapped from ear to ear, pass him your foggles and say..here you go, fly me a hold...

What fun, can we say +/- 500 feet? This guy was like, "how on Earth do you fly this thing?"..tee hee.

Of course at this point he has about 15 minutes of RV7 stick time.

Then you look like a superman flying the same hold within 50 feet...:)

Speaking of which, checkride take two happens in 3 hours time!

Frank
 
Having not yet flown IFR yet in an RV, I can only conjecture, but this might be why Van is always recommending against IFR in his airplanes. What makes them light and responsive VFR probably makes them a handful in the clouds. I'm thinking a good autopilot is a must for single-pilot IFR.

What say you Danny Boy???? What's the 7 like on a minimums ILS? Fun or frightful?
 
Yukon said:
What say you Danny Boy???? What's the 7 like on a minimums ILS? Fun or frightful?
Guess it depends on the chimp holding the stick. :rolleyes: I can only speak for this chimp. I don't fly a lot of IFR but I do hand-fly my approaches. I may be wacky, but I find that the approach is the easiest part of IFR flying. You're already stable, situational awareness is simplified (imho), you probably don't have to do much other than scan your instruments, and all you gotta do is keep the needles centered.

For me, departures (SIDs) and transitions ("RV 14D, turn left heading XXX, descend and maintain 3000 until established on the approach, cleared for the XXX approach") are more challenging than flying down the chute. Not hard, but there's more going on. And imho, when there's a lot going on, THAT is when the RV can be a handful. Worst case is when you have to copy an amendment to your clearance and then you need to go hunting down that intersection you can hardly spell, let alone picture in your head. But that's what autopilots are for, right?

Imho, as long as you're ahead of the airplane and have studied your charts, none of it is all that difficult. It's only the moments where you have to fiddle with things in the cockpit (maps, charts, clearances, etc.) where if you're not careful the RV can get ahead of you. Again, the autopilot earns its keep in those moments.

Just my 2 cents.
 
IFR

That makes a lot of sense. Guys need to realize it only takes a couple of seconds of inattention to go inverted in IFR turbulence. I'd sure stay coupled up when copying a clearance or looking at a chart!

PS: What kind of day job do you have that allows you instant response to the groups 24/7? I'm envious!
 
Over the mall...

KRHV. My instructor told me of some friend of his that flies a jet out of that airport with its puny 3000 ft runway. Yikes! I didn't even like flying a 172 out of 13...
 
I agree with Dan

I am about ( i hope) graduate with my IFR ticket. The RV7a is the only airplane I have flown IFR in, and we got plenty of actual conditions up here in the Pacific NW....I'm actually biting my fingernails cus the weather is extremely marginal right now an I don't think the DE will do the checkride in actual conditions....!

THE APPROACH IS EASY! but the enroute, hold thing or a change can have the airplane ahead of you very quickly...As other have said, don't even touch the radios without the A/P engaged.....

In training of course you have to do everything by hand but its a different story when your in the soup by your lonesome scared witless...:)

Frank