Training a family member in your RV?

[JGRick]

First off…hello! First post. “Experienced” in aviation, but very new to the intersection of training and experimental aircraft.

I’m considering getting an RV9A to use for training and time building (if he goes that route) for my son with the idea that if he doesn’t, the relative speed makes it attractive for my own intended cross-country uses.

Read quite a bit here about people buying planes to do their own training…but not this scenario.

I think I understand the limitations on being able to find a CFI to do the instruction and a DPE to do the check rides…and I believe that’s workable.

What I can’t get is any clarity on is how to insure this potentially financed airplane so that an un-certificated pilot who is not the owner (but would not be paying for use of the airplane) could operate it AND be insured…and I’d rather not have this conversation with a broker since I’m not sure where to start with that either.

I can’t be the first person to go down this road, so I’m here looking for the voices of experience! Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge.

BTW…if the kid doesn’t take the leap, I’m absolutely getting an RV8 instead!

 

[rockyfatcat]

Call Gallagher insurance +1 (636) 449-2878.

Ask the question. They probably have been asked before.

 

[rolivi]

Pay for the kid to get his ppl in someone else's trainer. Then pay for transition training to the -8 you actually want.

You'll save a heap of money.

 

[YellowJacket RV9]

Pay for the kid to get his ppl in someone else's trainer. Then pay for transition training to the -8 you actually want.

You'll save a heap of money.

Agreed. The 9A is easy to fly and a great low-time airplane, but is not built like a trainer. Let him thrash an old 152, re-sell it, and then get the RV.

 

[BobTurner]

Call Gallagher insurance +1 (636) 449-2878.

Ask the question. They probably have been asked before.

+1. Call Leah at Gallagher, they’ll answer your questions. No obligation. Note Gallagher is a broker, with access to most aviation insurance companies. The insurance company will likely put some restrictions on the cfi (e.g., 5 hrs in type, etc). While you’re at it they will likely want you to get a couple of hours dual, if you have zero hrs in type.
There are no faa restrictions on cfi’s in EAB aircraft, but some DPEs decline to fly in an EAB; others are okay with it.

 

[scrollF4]

Pay for the kid to get his ppl in someone else's trainer. Then pay for transition training to the -8 you actually want.

You'll save a heap of money.

^^^^^^ This!

 

[71459]

Like you, I wanted to get my new private pilot son "checked out" to fly our RV-4. It turned out to be such an expensive, time-consuming hassle that it never materialized. Point being I guess, to fly experimental airplanes is something you really, I mean really, want to do. It takes real devotion.

 

[Dugaru]

Pay for the kid to get his ppl in someone else's trainer. Then pay for transition training to the -8 you actually want.

You'll save a heap of money.

This is the way. The RV nosegear is fine, but it wasn’t designed for student pilots.

 

[Dugaru]

Agreed. The 9A is easy to fly and a great low-time airplane, but is not built like a trainer. Let him thrash an old 152, re-sell it, and then get the RV.

This x 1000.

 

[lr172]

First off…hello! First post. “Experienced” in aviation, but very new to the intersection of training and experimental aircraft.

I’m considering getting an RV9A to use for training and time building (if he goes that route) for my son with the idea that if he doesn’t, the relative speed makes it attractive for my own intended cross-country uses.

Read quite a bit here about people buying planes to do their own training…but not this scenario.

I think I understand the limitations on being able to find a CFI to do the instruction and a DPE to do the check rides…and I believe that’s workable.

What I can’t get is any clarity on is how to insure this potentially financed airplane so that an un-certificated pilot who is not the owner (but would not be paying for use of the airplane) could operate it AND be insured…and I’d rather not have this conversation with a broker since I’m not sure where to start with that either.

I can’t be the first person to go down this road, so I’m here looking for the voices of experience! Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge.

BTW…if the kid doesn’t take the leap, I’m absolutely getting an RV8 instead!

Both of my sons got their ppl in my 6A. Make sure you are sitting when you read the insurance quote. My insurance went from $950 to $4600 to add a student. Only one carrier does this, so they can charge whatever they want. Good news is that you can cancel the policy as soon as he gets his cert and other carriers will pick him up for around $2000. After he gets 100 hours, it drops right down.

Rvs have relatively weak nose gear legs, so it is critical to find or train an instructor not to let the student land flat and learn from that mistake, like they do with the spam cans. They have to proactively correct this error, even if that means a bit longer of a training cycle. If you drill landing on two wheels from the very beginning all the way to the end, it sticks just fine.

Neither of my sons did ANY damage to my plane nor added any wear and tear. There is no reason to go through the hassle of buying and selling a plane just to get a rating. I doubt the insurance is a whole bunch cheaper for a 172 with a student pilot. You also run the risk of getting hit with a 5 figure annual while you own it.

Also transition training a newly minted pilot is not a couple hours like the rest of us. You don’t want to take a 40 hour 172 pilot And put him in an rv. Wayyyy better to train him in that. As he learns to fly, he will be learning how to fly and respect an rv. This is way safer imho.

 

[AN23]

I bought a nice Champ. I got recurrent in TW and my son got the endorsement. We flew it a hundred hours or so while looking for a 8. Found the right 8 and sold the Champ for more than I paid for it. It was a simple, cheap to run airplane that acted as a great transition trainer for us. BTW, both ex-military, flew GA earlier in our flying lives and then corporate for me and airlines for him. The transition from the Champ to the 8 was a breeze.

 

[Ezburton]

My wife and I are both pilots, so naturally we thought our daughter would also share our enthusiasm for flying. She started at 15 with an instructor in a 172 but after about 10 hours of training, she said she didn't want to continue (wanted to put more time and effort into her sport). In the subsequent years she flew with me in the Velocity. After her first year of college studying chemistry with the ultimate goal of becoming an MD, she came home and declared she was changing her major, joining AFROTC to be a fighter pilot. I had just seen that my local EAA chapter was getting another Ray scholarship, which she won ($10k then, now it's $11k). PPL followed 8 months later.

Conversely, I have two friends who bought a plane together to train their sons... one had little interest in flying and the other got close to a check ride and quit. Plane was sold.

My thoughts; I wouldn't invest in a plane until your child found their own passion for flying. Spend time with your kid enjoying flying in whatever you own and see what happens. Check out EAA scholarships and let them pay for the training in something slugish and forgiving. No maintenance, insurance, hangar costs or hassles with getting a check ride.

Epilog: My daughter commissions in May and goes to Undergraduate Pilot Training at Laughlin in June. All USAF basic flight training is now done in civilian aircraft (DA20, Archers) to get their (PPL, IFR, Multi and Commercial ratings, before they ever get into a T6 (UPT 2.5 I think they call it). I don't know if I did it right or not... but it seemed to work out okay.

 

[SmokeOn]

My wife started training in our 9A. Insurance was as stated $4k+. Instructor availability was limited to just a couple friends who I trusted. She ended up going to 172 to get her license, which opened up available instructors, DPE, etc.

My son has talked about it. If I bought a plane for instructions, it would be an rv12 for him to learn on, sell it when done.

 

[rmartingt]

Also transition training a newly minted pilot is not a couple hours like the rest of us. You don’t want to take a 40 hour 172 pilot And put him in an rv.

For whatever it's worth...

I trained at a local flight school up to PPL and a few hours beyond in C-150s (totaling ~50hr). At that point Dad's RV-6 was flying, and as soon as Phase I was over I started my transition training with him (including tailwheel training with the endorsement being a "checkride" with a trusted CFI friend of his). That process lasted a while--probably 30 hours or so of Dad imparting wisdom from his Navy and airline career, getting used to an airplane that could outclimb the curvature of the earth, basic aerobatics, basic formation, a few spins, and various other "stuff" he figured I should see and do before running off with his new airplane. That said I have no idea how (or even if??) he did the insurance side of things. And thinking back on it... he must have trusted me a whole lot, becuase I was a dumb 19 year old college kid.

With 20+ years of hindsight I don't think I'd do it differently, other than perhaps doing my initial training in a taildragger had one been available. It might have saved me from having to buy a new set of tires. I definitely don't think "a couple of hours" would have been sufficient.

Should my son one day decide to take up flying, I think I will still have him do it through a separate flight school. He'll probably listen better to someone else anyway.

 

[scard]

Find a 150 / 172.
I watched a very low time pilot come up to speed in our -9A. I can't imagine using it as a primary trainer.

 

[airguy]

There are going to be a lot of awful landings and some sketchy runway antics in the process of "learning to fly". Do that in a rental 172, then transition over to the RV. The RV is not built to be a trainer.

 

[JGRick]

The room has spoken, and I thank you all for your replies!

Apparently the sturdiness of the gear during training is an issue that was considered when designing the -12is. Too bad that it doesn’t accommodate a little more useful load, in my opinion.

I would be curious to know how much “beefier” the -12is gear is compared to, say, a -9a with a nose gear stiffener modification. I’m sure that’s not easy to quantify, but not impossible either.

Also…anyone have any thoughts on how much time/proficiency (not the same) one would need to make a tricycle gear RV a good option?

Thanks!

 

[YellowJacket RV9]

The room has spoken, and I thank you all for your replies!

Apparently the sturdiness of the gear during training is an issue that was considered when designing the -12is. Too bad that it doesn’t accommodate a little more useful load, in my opinion.

I would be curious to know how much “beefier” the -12is gear is compared to, say, a -9a with a nose gear stiffener modification. I’m sure that’s not easy to quantify, but not impossible either.

Also…anyone have any thoughts on how much time/proficiency (not the same) one would need to make a tricycle gear RV a good option?

Thanks!

I had maybe 150 hours or so when I finished my 9A. I found the transition to be fairly easy - I think this was because at the point I was comfortable enough to be able to really focus on the specifics of how to fly the RV vs just how to fly in general, if that makes any sense. Over 500 hours in the RV now and it feels like I am strapping it on as an extension of my body. Best feeling ever.

 

[Vern]

There used to be a blurb on the old Vans website about the Air Beetle, a fleet of about fifty 6As sold to the Nigerian Air Force as trainers. Over the years I’ve written a number of letters in vain trying to determine the outcome of that venture.

Anyone got any info?

 

[Dugaru]

I would be curious to know how much “beefier” the -12is gear is compared to, say, a -9a with a nose gear stiffener modification. I’m sure that’s not easy to quantify, but not impossible either.

Also…anyone have any thoughts on how much time/proficiency (not the same) one would need to make a tricycle gear RV a good option?

I confess I know bupkus about the -12is gear. But stiffened or not, I just think the nosegear of a -9a is too delicate for a primary trainer. Maybe some students never hammer the nosegear once or twice in primary training, but I sure did, and the -9A just doesn't seem built for that.

On the other hand, the DA-20 certainly survives as a trainer with a (roughly?) similar nosegear setup, so perhaps I'm too cautious. The CFIs here will know more.

Meanwhile, I think anyone (including a student) who can regularly land a 152 or 172 on the mains, and really understands how and why to make that happen, can probably transition to an RV-9A without much trouble. It's a very, very easy airplane to fly, and has no bad habits I've come across. Definitely stalls more gently than a 152.

What a student or newer pilot coming to an RV-9A will probably notice most is (a) it basically leaps off the runway, (b) the flap extension speed is pretty low compared to its top speed, and (c) altitude increases can happen very fast compared to legacy spamcans due to higher speeds and lower weight. The latter feature was eye-popping to me as a (relatively) experienced Warrior pilot.

 

[jrs14855]

My first task at my first aviation job was helping to replace the nose gear on a Cherokee 140. For 2 1/2 years I replaced the nose gear on that same airplane approximately every three months. The instructors did not know how to land a nose wheel airplane so how could they properly instruct a student. The 152 and 172 nose gears
are much more fragile than the Cherokees.
In the era when the insurance companies were not so involved people learned to fly in a wide variety of airplane. Bonanza and Cessna 195 just a couple of examples.
Then there are the WWII er trainers. No nosewheels but they sure did go thru a lot of wings and main gears.

 

[planenutz]

There used to be a blurb on the old Vans website about the Air Beetle, a fleet of about fifty 6As sold to the Nigerian Air Force as trainers. Over the years I’ve written a number of letters in vain trying to determine the outcome of that venture.

Anyone got any info?

I look forward to receiving that email telling me some Nigerian Prince has died and left me an RV-6A in his will.

 

[KMMUflyer]

FYI

New Engine Mount and Nose Gear Option for RV-7A and RV-9A Finish Kits - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes

People interested in seeing the new mount and gear in-person can do so at the Van’s Aircraft booth during the AirVenture 2019 convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. June 20, 2019 – Van’s Aircraft has announced availability of a new engine mount and gear option for specific configurations of the RV-7A...

www.vansaircraft.com

 

[rockwoodrv9]

I know it isnt the question you asked but I built my 9A and then got my license in my plane. I did do some training in a 172 through solo and several flights after but the balance of my training was in my 9A. My insurance was high - I think about 5k but now with about 350 hours I am at a reasonable rate. I found the 9A easier to land than the 172 as long as it wasnt too much x wind.

 

[Desert Rat]

This isn't the question the OP asked, but I'll just say that as a relatively high time CFI, I wouldn't want to train a PPL in an RV. I had that opportunity when a friend asked me to work with his daughter and I steered them into a 172 instead.

I know that people have done it successfully, but from my point of view, part of being a CFI is letting the student get themselves in progressively worse situations so that you can coach them into getting themselves back out of said excursion. In a 172 or equivalent, I can let a student get much deeper into a bad landing before I have to rescue them without having to worry about bending something.

It also makes it easier to see the consequences of your bad judgement. You're a pre-solo student in a 172 and you want to go practice touch and gos in 18g25 right across the runway? Okay, let's go try that and see how it works out for you. In other words, the more robust the airplane, the wider the guardrails can be.

Finally, I've never flown an RV9, but I suspect it's more like the RV7 than it is a 172 with respect to pitch and roll sensitivity, and it's certainly faster than a more traditional trainer. Unless you're just a born super pilot, it's likely going take longer to be able to perform within PPL practical test standards than it would in a more benign airplane.

Just my opinion, and probably worth what you paid for it.

 

[BobTurner]

I know that people have done it successfully, but from my point of view, part of being a CFI is letting the student get themselves in progressively worse situations so that you can coach them into getting themselves back out of said excursion. In a 172 or equivalent, I can let a student get much deeper into a bad landing before I have to rescue them without having to worry about bending something.

It also makes it easier to see the consequences of your bad judgement. You're a pre-solo student in a 172 and you want to go practice touch and gos in 18g25 right across the runway? Okay, let's go try that and see how it works out for you. In other words, the more robust the airplane, the wider the guardrails can be.

This ^^^ is exactly why initial training in an RV will take longer than in a more rugged trainer.

 

[Ironflight]

This ^^^ is exactly why initial training in an RV will take longer than in a more rugged trainer.

I agree! Remember…the “Greatest Generation” guys generally started in Cubs before getting in the Stearman, the T-6, and then something to go fight with!

Kevin Garrison wrote a great column a month or two back about starting a fight school with nothing but Cubs and Champs at a grass runway with no radios. Start them from scratch, take them through solo - then let them go to a regular flight school with airplanes that have radios, and airports that have traffic and towers. Maybe I’m just showing my age…but I like that idea! Of course, it’s how I learned….

 

[Vern]

I agree! Remember…the “Greatest Generation” guys generally started in Cubs before getting in the Stearman, the T-6, and then something to go fight with!

Kevin Garrison wrote a great column a month or two back about starting a fight school with nothing but Cubs and Champs at a grass runway with no radios. Start them from scratch, take them through solo - then let them go to a regular flight school with airplanes that have radios, and airports that have traffic and towers. Maybe I’m just showing my age…but I like that idea! Of course, it’s how I learned….

As an AF IP we trained T-37 jet students after only 20-30 hours in a C-172. There were also some total jet classes with zero prior time. I agree though that a progressively more complex series of aircraft would be more suitable
Vern

 

[ronrapp]

I agree! Remember…the “Greatest Generation” guys generally started in Cubs before getting in the Stearman, the T-6, and then something to go fight with!

Kevin Garrison wrote a great column a month or two back about starting a fight school with nothing but Cubs and Champs at a grass runway with no radios. Start them from scratch, take them through solo - then let them go to a regular flight school with airplanes that have radios, and airports that have traffic and towers. Maybe I’m just showing my age…but I like that idea! Of course, it’s how I learned….

I don't think it has anything to do with age. The idea is good because Skyhawks today are filled with glass and radios and cellphones and cameras and GPWS and traffic systems and they end up putting less attention on the actual flying. With a Cub or Champ, there wouldn't be anything to look at inside. No distractions. And the light weight and tailwheel configuration would ensure they learned properly, lest they end up in the weeds.

--Ron

 

[Dugaru]

Unless you're just a born super pilot, it's likely going take longer to be able to perform within PPL practical test standards than it would in a more benign boring airplane.

Fixed that for you. But point taken, and I agree completely.

 

[lr172]

This isn't the question the OP asked, but I'll just say that as a relatively high time CFI, I wouldn't want to train a PPL in an RV. I had that opportunity when a friend asked me to work with his daughter and I steered them into a 172 instead.

I know that people have done it successfully, but from my point of view, part of being a CFI is letting the student get themselves in progressively worse situations so that you can coach them into getting themselves back out of said excursion. In a 172 or equivalent, I can let a student get much deeper into a bad landing before I have to rescue them without having to worry about bending something.

It also makes it easier to see the consequences of your bad judgement. You're a pre-solo student in a 172 and you want to go practice touch and gos in 18g25 right across the runway? Okay, let's go try that and see how it works out for you. In other words, the more robust the airplane, the wider the guardrails can be.

Finally, I've never flown an RV9, but I suspect it's more like the RV7 than it is a 172 with respect to pitch and roll sensitivity, and it's certainly faster than a more traditional trainer. Unless you're just a born super pilot, it's likely going take longer to be able to perform within PPL practical test standards than it would in a more benign airplane.

Just my opinion, and probably worth what you paid for it.

I agree that it will take longer in a fast and sensitive airplane. However, when you factor in the lengthy transition training involved in taking a freshly minted ppl and putting them in an rv, it is a wash. There is a reason that most insurance companies won’t cover a pilot in an rv until they have 100 hours

My first son had a good instructor. He loved doing the training in the rv. In fact, they were upside most flights; he was also an aerobatic instructor . Somehow, that instructor taught him to land correctly without bending the nose gear, so it is possible. Though i agree it is harder on the instructor. Much easier to let the student slam it down on the nose wheel and say “see, that was bad. Don’t do that again.” Instructing someone to do something without letting them make fatal mistakes is more difficult, no doubt , but far from impossible. How do you think they train doctors? They don’t let them kill patients as part of the learning experience. Sure, the teacher gives you rope and lets the students make mistakes. However, they jump in just before the damage is done.

My first son was certainly not a super pilot, but he had a good instructor and was signed off for the check ride in 45 hours. Shortly after his check ride , i was with him when he landed in a 25 kt crosswind. He did fine and could easily handle the sensitivity of the rv 6, as that is what he learned on. No bad habits to correct.

Not trying to convince anyone to do training in the rv, but wanted to offer actual experience contrary to some of the guidance here. I will reiterate that this only works with the right instructor who is trained not to allow flat landings. I spent several hours with the instructors showing them how the rv is to be landed and how they were to correct mistakes. I suspect many instructors would nor accept such guidance from an owner.

 

[riobison]

Isn't there now a new engine mount/gear with the rubber donut thats stronger to reduce your exposure somewhat? Or a good Citabria would be perfect and fun

 

[fangohang]

My wife and I are both pilots, so naturally we thought our daughter would also share our enthusiasm for flying. She started at 15 with an instructor in a 172 but after about 10 hours of training, she said she didn't want to continue (wanted to put more time and effort into her sport). In the subsequent years she flew with me in the Velocity. After her first year of college studying chemistry with the ultimate goal of becoming an MD, she came home and declared she was changing her major, joining AFROTC to be a fighter pilot. I had just seen that my local EAA chapter was getting another Ray scholarship, which she won ($10k then, now it's $11k). PPL followed 8 months later.

Conversely, I have two friends who bought a plane together to train their sons... one had little interest in flying and the other got close to a check ride and quit. Plane was sold.

My thoughts; I wouldn't invest in a plane until your child found their own passion for flying. Spend time with your kid enjoying flying in whatever you own and see what happens. Check out EAA scholarships and let them pay for the training in something slugish and forgiving. No maintenance, insurance, hangar costs or hassles with getting a check ride.

Epilog: My daughter commissions in May and goes to Undergraduate Pilot Training at Laughlin in June. All USAF basic flight training is now done in civilian aircraft (DA20, Archers) to get their (PPL, IFR, Multi and Commercial ratings, before they ever get into a T6 (UPT 2.5 I think they call it). I don't know if I did it right or not... but it seemed to work out okay.

Del Rio by the “C”. Just spent 3 days there in June ‘25. Just like ‘83! Many new facilities, and limited distractions. Good luck & Godspeed tp her.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I agree! Remember…the “Greatest Generation” guys generally started in Cubs before getting in the Stearman, the T-6, and then something to go fight with!

Kevin Garrison wrote a great column a month or two back about starting a fight school with nothing but Cubs and Champs at a grass runway with no radios. Start them from scratch, take them through solo - then let them go to a regular flight school with airplanes that have radios, and airports that have traffic and towers. Maybe I’m just showing my age…but I like that idea! Of course, it’s how I learned….

Richard Bach: The School for Perfection.

They started their <mythical> students building model airplanes, then to gliders, then...

 

[Fffflats]

There is a third way - Start in Gliders! and transition.

 

[texdog]

As an AF IP we trained T-37 jet students after only 20-30 hours in a C-172. There were also some total jet classes with zero prior time. I agree though that a progressively more complex series of aircraft would be more suitable
Vern

I was a T-41 instructor/ check airman at Laredo in the mid 60s, we were able to get a lot of students a good start for the 37. We didn’t washout many including Iranians.

 

[Fffflats]

Epilogue: My daughter commissions in May and goes to Undergraduate Pilot Training at Laughlin in June. All USAF basic flight training is now done in civilian aircraft (DA20, Archers) to get their (PPL, IFR, Multi and Commercial ratings, before they ever get into a T6 (UPT 2.5 I think they call it). I don't know if I did it right or not... but it seemed to work out okay.

While I do agree that the new T-6 is a bit strong for an initial trainer, doing step up training in the civilian world coming subsequently to military has little to do with logical progression and much to do with flawed acquisitions. Navy side, folks went from zero to T-34 to T-2 to A-4 with no problem; then folks went from T-34 to T-45… and they’ve managed from zero to T-6 to T-45 though such has had struggle, yet in Air Force land they have had struggles not in training but in maintaining as they have decrepit T-38s and overly used “new” T-6s that have finicky gear and lots of maintenance per flight hour; Navy isn’t far behind, T-45 has reached its life and they’re making stupid decisions regarding follow-on trainers due to a pressure from haste. Navy is currently running a “direct entry” helicopter program in similar fashion with individuals going straight to civilian helicopter schools to license while never touching a fixed wing primary trainer. As for T-45 replacement, they first scaled down requirements to not need to trap, merely do touch-and-goes to the boat, and have now further scaled down to not even need to land ‘Navy style’ thus only going to down FCLP entries to waveoffs not even full bounces… and they’re mandating PLM or “Magic Carpet” for all boat landings… so much for lessons of Children of the Magenta.

U.S. Navy’s Next Trainer Jet Won’t Need to Land on Carriers

The U.S. Navy released a new Request for Information for the T-45’s replacement, which will only be required to conduct Field Carrier Landing Practice

theaviationist.com

F-35C Crash into the South China Sea — A Case Study

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqSUvntRzkU

medium.com

Cautionary Thoughts regarding Improving Training for Naval Aviation

I recently watched a YouTube looking at the future of Naval Aviation training. It scared me. Beware excessive measurement. And realize in…

medium.com