erikpmort

erikpmort

Well Known Member
Ok I am looking at two different rv6s please give me your vote and justification.

#1. 180hp cs 3blade hartzell Empty weight 1150. Placarded gross 1850

#2. 160hp FP 2 blade wood. Empty weight 985 lbs. placarded gross 1600

I live in Utah 4500ft. If that was all you knew and had to decide. What would you choose ? Thanks !
 
Around here (Utah), there are many more C/S equipped RV's, than not. The C/S easily has the climb advantage for higher altitude airports. I know of no RV owners, who'd switch for a fixed pitch, around our airport area. But I do know of many RV F/P owners, who would prefer a C/S........if they could just switch.

L.Adamson --- 180HP C/S on a six.

BTW--- the 180 6, should out perform that 160, both in climb, and top speed, even at the weight difference.
 
Last edited:
As the owner of a 160hp RV-6 with fixed pitch wood prop (cruise pitched), I strongly recommend considering only the one with 180hp and CS prop for the field elevations you'll have there in Utah. When I've got two on board, loaded with fuel and stuff to full gross, my takeoff and climb performance even in the flatlands of Texas (1000 MSL) is kinda sluggish. On hot summer days with high density altitude, it feels more like my old Cherokee than an RV.

I might be needing to fly with a buddy from Texas to SLC and back in a couple weeks and I'm worried enough that my RV-6 might not have enough oomph, that I'm seriously considering borrowing a friend's 190hp CS-prop RV-8 instead.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a 6 owner, but my vote is with simple and light. Partially would depend on the price as well. I've never had an issue with my 9 at altitude. Yes, the CS prop will climb better, but I'm not convinced it will give you better top speed than a FP. Compared to any cessna or piper or the like, the RV will way outperform them.

By the way, the placarded weight is up to the individual builder. I don't know what Vans recommended gross weight is (1600?) for a 6 and it doesn't depend on engine size. There is unlikely to be any significant difference in construction to justify an extra 250 pounds increase in gross weight.

Greg
 
So it sounds like the extra 150+ lbs is not worrying anyone. No one has any objections to flying 1850 gross then ? What about aerobatic gross ? If I'm at 1150 and its technically 1300, I jump in without gas and I'm overweight. No problem ? Again just getting clarification, I'm very appreciative of the responses.
 
Short answer? "Depends what you want to do with it". :D

Long answer: For my two bob, I would choose the FP -6, it is easier to maintain, you will be legal for aero's - if you have an incident in the 1850 Lb CS -6 that could be traced to you doing aero's watch how fast your insurer will drop your case - and all else being equal, the lighter -6 is likely to "fly" nicer than its' heavier stablemate. It's also likely to be significantly cheaper to run, both in fuel burn and prop maintenance when it falls due.

When I had my KR2 i was intrigued how the original 800 Lb MTOW grew into 900 lbs, 1000lbs and in some cases 1200Lbs. That's 50% more than the designer intended! The -6 is designed around a 1600Lb MTOW, and 1850 is 16% over gross as it is, and while it may fly perfectly well, the only thing you're likely to gain is a few knots airspeed and a bit better climb rate, both at the expense of fuel burned (=$$) and range.

These things are important to some, and I would like them as much as the next person, but there comes a point when enough is enough. My -9 will be 160Hp swinging a FP wood prop. That's enough for me. ;)
 
erikpmort said:
If that was all you knew and had to decide. What would you choose ? Thanks !
Click to expand...

I'd choose the one that exhibited the better build quality, had a greater proportion of new components when built (specifically the engine), and had the better documentation (full set of electrical schematics etc). You can always add features but second rate workmanship is cast in stone. A better built aircraft constructed from new componentry will be cheaper to run in the long term....and safer. A few more horsepower and a constant speed prop are nice to have....but quality of construction is paramount in my view. :)
 
Last edited:
KRviator said:
Short answer? "Depends what you want to do with it". :D

Long answer: For my two bob, I would choose the FP -6, it is easier to maintain, you will be legal for aero's - if you have an incident in the 1850 Lb CS -6 that could be traced to you doing aero's watch how fast your insurer will drop your case - and all else being equal, the lighter -6 is likely to "fly" nicer than its' heavier stablemate. It's also likely to be significantly cheaper to run, both in fuel burn and prop maintenance when it falls due.

When I had my KR2 i was intrigued how the original 800 Lb MTOW grew into 900 lbs, 1000lbs and in some cases 1200Lbs. That's 50% more than the designer intended! The -6 is designed around a 1600Lb MTOW, and 1850 is 16% over gross as it is, and while it may fly perfectly well, the only thing you're likely to gain is a few knots airspeed and a bit better climb rate, both at the expense of fuel burned (=$$) and range.

These things are important to some, and I would like them as much as the next person, but there comes a point when enough is enough. My -9 will be 160Hp swinging a FP wood prop. That's enough for me. ;)
Click to expand...

I can tell you, as a fact, that a RV6 at 1150 lbs, is capable of matching fuel burns, when the power is pulled back. My 6A could easily match a lighter 160HP powered 9A, at the same speeds. Yet, I could climb faster & outrun the 9A. Both have C/S props.

As far as the 1850 GW is concerned, we need to go back about 18 years, and read everything concerned. To keep it short, it's a non-issue. However, I would keep aerobatics at Van's listed weight.
 
Some more, to think about. Last week, a group of us RV'ers, were at southern Utah. We often fly from airports such as Bryce Canyon (7590'), Cedar City (5622'), Canyonlands (4555'), and so on. At these airports, the difference between a constant speed and fixed pitch is astonishing. Only those who think they'ed be content with a fixed pitch, will tell you different. F/P owners who have flown at these higher altitude airports with others using C/S.............seem to be always aware, that the C/S is SO much better. They never dispute this fact! We take off shorter, climb higher, fly faster, and land shorter. Many C/S props are also have good braking qualities for slowing in the pattern. The only time a FP prop will outrun a C/S is if it's "compromised" for crusing speeds. I use the term compromised, because it will climb like a snail... Unlike a C/S, you can't have it both ways.

L.Adamson RV6(was an A, and now non- flying) 180HP, Hartzell C/S
 
However, I would keep aerobatics at Van's listed weight.[/QUOTE]

So I'm buying an rv 9 then. Sigh. Can't seem to win unless I spend a whole lot more and get a 7
 
Guess ill show ya which two I'm looking at now.

http://vansrv6forsale.yolasite.com/

VANS RV-6 160HP LIGHT & FAST ? $52,000 ? OFFERED FOR SALE ? Professional Built. 1050 TT Lyc O-320 160HP. Glass Panel. Beautiful Paint. ? WEB SITE FOR MORE INFO & PICS ? Contact John A. Nielsen - FLIGHT RESOURCE LLC, Owner - located Bloomer, WI USA ? Telephone: 715-829-6512 . 715-568-3980 . 866-717-1117 ? Fax: 866-517-5047 ? Posted October 12, 2012 ? Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser ? Recommend This Ad to a Friend ? Email Advertiser ? Save to Watchlist ? Report This Ad ? Finance New Lower Rates!





The second one is on barnstormers as well-

RV 6. 1993 ? $47,000 ? ASKING PRICE SLASHED ? 1374 Hrs TT. Lyc 0-360 584hrs Harts ell CS Prop. El.Flaps. El. Trim. GPS-Trio AP.KIng-Bendix 125 Nav-Com w.Glide sl..Garmin GTX 320A Transp. DME. Strobes. Ldg + Taxi Lts. 60A Alt. Lg. Oil filter. Rocky Mtn Engine Mon. Rocky Mtn. 7 Fun. Enc. Speed brake. VG's. Dual stick and brakes ? Contact Chris B. Huber located Medford, OR USA ? Telephone: 541 613 2877 . 541 772 2592 ? Posted October 11, 2012 ? Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser ? Recommend This Ad to a Friend ? Email Advertiser ? Save to Watchlist ? Report This Ad ? View Larger Pictures ? Finance New Lower Rates!


I'm working with a 50k budget.
 
The 160 HP plane in Wisconsin has been for sale for a long time. It was for sale when I was looking back in 2010. It was priced much higher then.

The Oregon plane seems heavy, and that is an unusual prop. A speed brake? Hmmm.

Both have the floor mounted rudder pedals, which can be changed, but for me that was a reason to keep looking.

Gun to my head and sight unseen, I would choose the 180 hp c/s plane.

Real world though, since there is no reason to rush, I would choose to wait. There is NO reason you have to buy a plane this week, or next. There WILL be other planes. I don't think prices are going up on the 6's, and each week/month you wait should be adding to your 50K budget.

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, build quality is paramount.
 
Last edited:
Mile High Relic said:
The 160 HP plane in Wisconsin has been for sale for a long time. It was for sale when I was looking back in 2010. It was priced much higher then.

The Oregon plane seems heavy, and that is an unusual prop. A speed brake? Hmmm.

Both have the floor mounted rudder pedals, which can be changed, but for me that was a reason to keep looking.

Gun to my head and sight unseen, I would choose the 180 hp c/s plane.

Real world though, since there is no reason to rush, I would choose to wait. There is NO reason you have to buy a plane this week, or next. There WILL be other planes. I don't think prices are going up on the 6's, and each week/month you wait should be adding to your 50K budget.

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, build quality is paramount.
Click to expand...


Hey tell me about the difference between floor and new rudder pedals. Sounds important to you so it must be important to me. What other new items should I be looking for ?
 
Normally I'd lean to the 180 CS - a setup I have in my -7A and it's really nice. If I were starting a 7 or 8 today, that's the way I'd go. However, the 160 FP will give you good performance and should keep up if the prop is pitched correctly - you'll just lose some takeoff and climb performance.

As someone else mentioned, probably the build quality is most important - everything else can be changed to suit your preferences. (You can do it yourself - you don't need a mechanic rating nor a repairman certificate. You only need one of those for the annual condition inspection.)

Two things I'd probably think about for down the road -

The future of 100LL - which engine would tolerate substitutes better? (I'm not sure what the future would bring, but there always seems to be a lot of noise about this and one day we could have to deal with it.)

Which of these would be easier (more cost effective) to make comply with ADS-B "out"? (It's not just over the horizon, but it's not that far off.)

Dan
 
erikpmort said:
Hey tell me about the difference between floor and new rudder pedals. Sounds important to you so it must be important to me. What other new items should I be looking for ?
Click to expand...

It isn't important to me. I have top mounted pedals and that lets you stretch out a bit by putting your feet under the pedals. The bottom mounted ones have springs that keep the cables taut, which is important to some people for some reason. I wouldn't put a premium on either style and I have flown both.
 
erikpmort said:
Hey tell me about the difference between floor and new rudder pedals. Sounds important to you so it must be important to me. What other new items should I be looking for ?
Click to expand...

I've had the floor mounted pedals for 20 years. If I had my choice I would rather have the "hanging" pedals, but in my opinion, it's not worth the conversion.
 
As an inexperienced buyer, I relied heavily on a few people during my search. I can't stress enough how important it was to me to have people to talk to that were experienced in building/buying/owning RVs. They can help you get yourself educated.

A good friend and co-worker, and former RV-6 owner, steered me away from the floor mounted rudder pedals. Maybe some of the more learned folks here can recollect the specific reasons why Van's made the design change, but the fact is they did indeed change to hanging rudder pedals. I also just think they look clunky compared to the new style. If everything else was good about the plane I may have been OK with them, but it was a factor.

Maybe I overstated it as a negative, but as a beginner plane buyer, I took my friends' advice to heart.
 
When listening to advice, listen to people with open minds.

Be wary of the people with a mindset of "It's my way or it's wrong!"
 
Mel said:
When listening to advice, listen to people with open minds.

Be wary of the people with a mindset of "It's my way or it's wrong!"
Click to expand...

Yep!

I'm certainly of an open mind. If you don't mind a compromised prop, that's either too sluggish on the climb, or too slow in cruise.........then a fixed pitch is just fine.

If you don't mind grabbing a manual flap handle squeezed against the flab of the person already pressed next to you..........then manual flaps are just dandy, instead of electric. :D

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
We take off shorter, climb higher, fly faster, and land shorter. Many C/S props are also have good braking
Click to expand...

How high do ya' wanna go, Larry? I've had my Sensenich-equipped -6 to 16,500 and was still climbing 600 fpm. I still can do 176 kt TAS @8,000' so I'm willing to live with the compromise. There may well be a C/S prop in my future but not for that reason. As far as the original question goes, the F/P -6 sounds well equipped otherwise and will still be light with a C/S prop, if it has a hollow crankshaft and a governor drive pad. Buy it right and converting it might work out for you. There's some fuel payback if you take some trips because the C/S will allow more efficient cruise for a given TAS.
 
Last edited:
Floor mounted rudder pedals

Regarding floor mounted. A friend of mine with a very early kit had floor mounted. He was taking a friend for a ride when one of his pedals broke at the bottom, and he had no rudder. Fortunately his passenger had a little tail wheel time and rudders on his side so the out come was good. It was a long time ago so I don't remember all the details, but I think there were no gussets on the back of the tubes on his. Make sure, if you buy the floor mounted to check the pedals carefully.

Steve
 
Sam James Cowl

Looks like it has a Sam James Cowl. That could be a good thing but check to see if the plane has had a history of cooling issues The RV 6/A wasn't designed to accept a 200 HP engine (angle valve), but shouldn't be a problem if done right.

Steve
 
I gotta question. If its io-360 why does it have a red knob ?

Everybody ok with injection, or are there cons to it besides the hot starts
 
L.Adamson said:
As far as the 1850 GW is concerned, we need to go back about 18 years, and read everything concerned. To keep it short, it's a non-issue. However, I would keep aerobatics at Van's listed weight.
Click to expand...

Non-issue to many, not Van. I'd go with the designer.
 
plehrke said:
Non-issue to many, not Van. I'd go with the designer.
Click to expand...

Yes..............the 6 was designed a long time ago. Back in the days when simple light weight props & little navigation equipment was installed. We argue about this year after year. But try to get a statement from Van's.........that says definitely do not go to 1850 lbs. I seriously doubt you will. In reality, the 6's wing has withstood much more weight, than it was "conservatively" designed with.

L.Adamson

P.S......it's my observation, that some early Van's aircraft, could have used more navigation equipment. It's why I bring it up. Sometimes, light and simple, just didn't do. Good thing, that light "glass" is now available.
 
erikpmort said:
I gotta question. If its io-360 why does it have a red knob ?

Everybody ok with injection, or are there cons to it besides the hot starts
Click to expand...

Fuel injection is a more precise means of delivering fuel to the cylinder, but it doesn't eliminate the need to control the amount of fuel per given volume of air. You still need to control the mixture with the red knob as the density of the air decreases (or increases).

The plane looks interesting, and worth a call. I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the lower left of the # 3 picture showing the rear bulkhead. There is seam or panel I don't recall ever seeing before. Maybe a golf club mod or something.
 
L.Adamson said:
In reality, the 6's wing has withstood much more weight, than it was "conservatively" designed with.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I must take issue with that thought.

It's all well and good saying "the wing is good for XX G's" or so many pounds before you reach the limit, but that is not the holy grail when it comes to design limits.

Certainly, I wouldn't expect a -6's wing to fall off at 4G, but a great many pilots see a plane designed as aerobatic and figure "well, if it is rated at 5G at 1000Lbs, surely that means it can take 10G at 500Lbs" or similar variations on this theme - and when they are talking of the wing, they are probably correct.

Many of these pilots do not consider the various sub-structure throughout the aircraft - will the seat pan support your average pilot while this 10G yanking and banking is going on? What about the HS attachment bolts - or even the HS itself?

If you want to install an IO-360 in the nose of the 6, how many pilots then test to the full G limits specified for the (lighter) 180HP engine? Thus risking failure of the engine mount or the firewall attachment points? Will the heavier engine, aircraft, whatever cause accelerated fatigue in the airframe in normal operations?

An airplane is designed for certain performance while keeping within reasonable limits. If pilots go beyond these design goals, either through weight, speed or otherwise, they fall into the realm of test pilots and while I'm sure we all agree an RV6 will fly at 1850, or even 2000Lbs, you won't have the margins you would have at 1600Lbs should you encounter turbulence or otherwise need to manoeuvre - a fact you may not discover until it is too late....:eek:
 
Last edited:
erikpmort said:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1585473.html

Here's the latest one I'm liking. Anyone have any info on it ?
Click to expand...

I've ridden in an RV-6 with 200hp angle valve engine and CS prop. It won't have any issues at all handling the high elevation airports and mountains of Utah, it'll take off and climb like a rocketship on steroids, but I'd also have concerns about potential cooling issues since Utah can get as hot as Texas in the summertime and the 200hp RV-6 that I rode it didn't handle the Texas summer heat all that well.

I'm not a very big fan of the VM1000 engine monitor, and in my not so humble opinion, the panel looks like a train wreck. The D10 needs to be relocated up higher and I'd rather have backup altimeter and airspeed steam gauges instead of those vacuum gyros. The seat cushions and the rest of the upholstery looks pretty rough too, but that's an easy upgrade/fix.
 
Last edited:
Aircraft to Meet Your Mission

erikpmort said:
OK I am looking at two different rv6s please give me your vote and justification.

#1. 180hp cs 3blade hartzell Empty weight 1150. Placarded gross 1850

#2. 160hp FP 2 blade wood. Empty weight 985 lbs. placarded gross 1600

I live in Utah 4500ft. If that was all you knew and had to decide. What would you choose ? Thanks !
Click to expand...


My decision involved near your described above.
After several years of actually flying my RV6 160hp 2 blade fixed, I did study and debate with other RVer's to a decision that made more sense. The following is what I came up with.

Specifically my mission need was to fly at full gross from 4200ft S21 in summer 105 degree weather and climb out over the Cascade Mountains or fly Palm Springs valley area in summer at 115 degrees and climb out over the mountains. Many planes can do it of course, although I wanted to do it with ease/safety and speed.

My RV6 O-320 160hp fixed pitch prop did it. I liked my RV6
My RV7 IO-0360 180hp C/S prop DOES IT WAY BETTER. I Love my RV7!
My move to the RV7 gave me more safety in design useful load vs. a 6.
The 7 handles the heavier engine and prop better, period. I have had both.

I have seen many pilots move from fixed to C/S prop aircraft over the years. People don't usually move from C/S down to fixed pitch props.
 
Mile High Relic said:
I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the lower left of the # 3 picture showing the rear bulkhead. There is seam or panel I don't recall ever seeing before. Maybe a golf club mod or something.
Click to expand...

Yes that would worry me as well. The rear baggage bulkhead is a structural element of the monocoque construction and having any sort of "openable" penetration in that area would be problematic. And if that is the case it might point to other ill considered "intuitive" mods.

Actually it looks like a pretty rough aircraft to me based on the few photos available. And to make matters worse it seems to have a panel full of basically obsolete avionics that would be sure to be a constant drain on your wallet into the future.
 
Steve Barnes said:
Regarding floor mounted. A friend of mine with a very early kit had floor mounted. He was taking a friend for a ride when one of his pedals broke at the bottom, and he had no rudder. Fortunately his passenger had a little tail wheel time and rudders on his side so the out come was good. It was a long time ago so I don't remember all the details, but I think there were no gussets on the back of the tubes on his. Make sure, if you buy the floor mounted to check the pedals carefully.

Steve
Click to expand...

There have been failures with both styles of rudder pedals and there are service bulletins out for both to add reinforcements. I did the SB on my RV-6.

Service Bulletins
 
You must log in or register to reply here.