Prepping for my flight review and question came up regarding the demonstrated x-wind performance of the RV10. I didn't do the build or flyoff and there isn't one in my POH. I feel it would have to be above 22kts for me to give it consideration but I haven't gone out in really windy days and looked for the limit. Could a few of you chime in what your experience might suggest.
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Demonstrated Crosswind Performance - RV10
- Thread starter toddespn
- Start date
For direct cross winds:
- 15 kts, manageable for most pilots.
- 20 kts, sporty. Work up to this.
- 25 kts, my personal limit (and tested).
Carl
- 15 kts, manageable for most pilots.
- 20 kts, sporty. Work up to this.
- 25 kts, my personal limit (and tested).
Carl
I have done around 25 knots direct cross wind landings in the 10.I have done more in the 6. Not all cross wind is the same . The non gusty stuff blowing across an open runway with no obstructions is quite easy, even at 25-30, just keep the wing down all the way. Once it gets gusty, things get harder and you need to adjust faster. When there a a bunch of obstructions like trees and buildings near the runway edges, that is when the necessary skill level really goes up. I base at an airport like that and it requires a decent amount of practice to handle 25+ x winds. I am one of only 2 people that will fly on days like that on my field. The prevailing wind at our fiel is a direct x wind. The 10 is heavy with long wings, so easier to manage in tough winds than all the other rvs. When we get strong winds, landing the 6 is like a roller coaster ride due to all of the rotors caused be the obstructions along the edges.
Last edited:
He’s asking about the RV10 I believe.
There’s no standard in Experimental aircraft. You could use the .2 Vso required for certification, apply that to your real stall numbers and then test it to that or beyond. You could then call it a “demonstrated crosswind component.”
That doesn’t mean it can’t be controlled well beyond that, but it’s a conservative number and starting point.
Much depends on the skill of the pilot and actual conditions. You need to establish your own limits.
Also, when reporting winds, it’s just a guesstimate. There are many factors. Wind guage location, obstructions near the runway, topography, reporting time, etc… Everyone just reports what they believe it is based on their experiences at a given time.
I read these all them time and marvel at posts that claim abilities beyond the capability of the aircraft’s inherent design imitations.
So, be wary….
There’s no standard in Experimental aircraft. You could use the .2 Vso required for certification, apply that to your real stall numbers and then test it to that or beyond. You could then call it a “demonstrated crosswind component.”
That doesn’t mean it can’t be controlled well beyond that, but it’s a conservative number and starting point.
Much depends on the skill of the pilot and actual conditions. You need to establish your own limits.
Also, when reporting winds, it’s just a guesstimate. There are many factors. Wind guage location, obstructions near the runway, topography, reporting time, etc… Everyone just reports what they believe it is based on their experiences at a given time.
I read these all them time and marvel at posts that claim abilities beyond the capability of the aircraft’s inherent design imitations.
So, be wary….
Flap position ? I find the 10 for me has lower demonstrated cross-wind than my 14. The flaps proportionally on the 10 are longer than the 14 and flap position makes a big difference where I lose the ability to keep the fuselage in line with the runway. I typically transition from a crab to a slip around 300 ft and that gives me enough time to evaluate if I can get it aligned. If not I go around and try half flaps. (I have 10, 25 and full flaps programmed in my system). Normally anything over 15 knots gusting to 20 cross wind component I use 25 degrees and don’t even try a full flap landing on either airframe. I’m not sure if that’s even the correct technique but seems to work. Speed seems to scrub off pretty quickly with a decent cross wind so getting it slowed down not an issue. Plus I have Beringer brakes on both airframes which helps if needed. CFI inputs welcome.
The strongest I've ever landed in was 35g48, quartering. That was a wild ride. 70-80 kts tailwind all the way back to Ohio from N Texas. Caught ice on the way down. Not something I would have intentionally flown into; forecast was less wind and broken ceiling.
The choice of runway makes a huge difference. I landed at an old ANG base with a 9000'x150' runway. Certainly easier than my home airport that's 3500'x60'.
The choice of runway makes a huge difference. I landed at an old ANG base with a 9000'x150' runway. Certainly easier than my home airport that's 3500'x60'.
I recommend new folks find days and runways with a good steady crosswind and set up on final. See if you can hold alignment. It will give you a pretty good sense of what may be possible. If you can, take it to the landing. Build that experience.
Can’t speak for the 10, but my 6 is completely out of rudder around 18-20kts, estimated. Can I land in more? Ehhh, Ya, I’ve done it, in reported higher wind, but part of “demonstrated crosswind” definition is the aircraft is controllable. If you’re out of rudder, you’re out of rudder.
The 10 has the advantage of being a trike so there may be more wiggle room. However, at what point does a 10 run out of rudder? I’m curious.
Can’t speak for the 10, but my 6 is completely out of rudder around 18-20kts, estimated. Can I land in more? Ehhh, Ya, I’ve done it, in reported higher wind, but part of “demonstrated crosswind” definition is the aircraft is controllable. If you’re out of rudder, you’re out of rudder.
The 10 has the advantage of being a trike so there may be more wiggle room. However, at what point does a 10 run out of rudder? I’m curious.
Yea, this is kind of the issue. We all say we landed at X knots of wind, but what was REALLY happening at 5' above the runway at the moment we flared? I have had some landings in windy weather that took two or three attempts to get it down. Clearly the feeling was different on each of them, though the reported wind was identical. This is especially true on runways with obstructions near the runway edges.
My advice to the OP is to be certain that your mind is fixated on the abort vs the landing and have a backup field with a more preferred runway orientation untill you get a feel for the plane. You DO NOT want get-down-itis on your first windy day in a new to you 10.
Last edited:
In a lot of our aircraft, the actual crosswind/headwind is available at all times on the EFIS. I would tend to believe that data more than a wind guesstimate off of the sock that is at a fixed point in space.
That said, no-one is going to be fixating on that display during a landing, so it really comes down to use what is necessary to do the job, ie fly the airplane (aviate).
As others have said, you can get an idea of the amount of control you have by picking a crosswind runway or any other ground reference object and flying at approximately approach speed while maintaining the track; you do not need to land to practice technique. When you run out of control authority, that is pretty much the max crosswind (though there are techniques to go above it...not recommended). Then you need to set your personal minimums lower than that value and work up to it.
There are many different techniques, as can be seen in this thread. Some like to begin a side slip at some altitude and fly it to the runway; this method is usually taught early on as it allows you time to get the correct inputs to maintain the centerline. Others like the crab to round out then apply the slip to landing. Or a combination of the two. I prefer the crab method BUT there is a shorter period of time to transition in the flare. One of the reasons the slip from altitude method is taught early on, it give you more time to fine tune your inputs.
If the winds are gusty, add a few knots to the approach speed to mitigate a loss of performance during the round out and flare.
Use partial flaps. I prefer half flap landings in my -10, and use half flaps most of the time. At the places I fly, the couple knot difference in speed is a non issue, and there is less flare transition than with full flaps. Again, personal preference. Of note, my home field is 2800' x 60' with displaced thresholds on both ends.
You asked for cfi inputs and I am a cfi. But that doesn’t necessarily mean my opinions are any more valid than others’. They’re what works for me. So:
IMHO the ‘danger zone’ on crosswind landings is not the approach and touchdown, rather, it’s the higher speed part of the roll out, say around 50 knots airspeed or so, where both main wheels are on the runway and the ailerons can no longer hold much bank angle, so tire friction is all that keeps you on the runway. But the wings are still generating some lift, so there is not full weight on the wheels, limiting friction. For this reason I never land no-flaps, you spend too much time in this higher speed but on the runway depending on friction zone. Obviously, a wet runway makes this much worse. I’ll use full flaps for x-winds of 15 knots or less, half flaps up to 20 or, if I have to, 25 knot x-winds. At 30 knots I wonder what I was thinking. (Note: you’ll notice most modern airliners automatically deploy spoilers at touchdown. This kills the lift, puts more weight on the wheels, to lessen their not enough friction issue during this high speed roll out phase.)
The -10 is a very good crosswind plane, because it has great rudder authority. I used to own a 182 which was pretty good in crosswinds, but the 10 is clearly better.
Transitioning from crab to slip at 300’ agl is what I have student pilots do, because they need practice flying the plane in a slip, with cross-controls, etc. There’s nothing wrong with this. However, it is not uncommon for the wind at 300’ to be different (often stronger) than the wind at 10’ agl, so this conservative approach will often result in go-arounds from approaches which turn out to be quite doable. Note: for long approaches flown in a slip, be sure to position the fuel selector to the raised wing. In uncoordinated flight the fuel will run away from the pickup in the lowered wing. So I personally fly a crab all the way down to, and into, the flare. Usually add 5 knots airspeed to account for the extra drag as soon as I transition to a slip, more if it’s gusty. As the nose comes up above the horizon, and the vertical speed is momentarily zero, I can usually judge if this is going to work out. If the crab angle is excessive, I go around. Otherwise, I swing the nose to point down the runway, lower the upwind wing, and enter the slip just before touchdown (when I get it right). The textbooks call this ‘the combination method’, combining a slip with the ‘kick it straight at the last moment’ technique.
BTW, I’m curious why you don’t have a pre-select position for ‘flaps in trail’ (about 3 deg lower than full up). Vans allows flaps in trail with no speed limits, and the wing designer (Steve Smith, here on VAF) recommends in trail for best Vy, and also for heavy/high altitude cruise.
Flaps in trail for 10 and 14's will go down as a primer discussion but here goes. Since I had not flown complex/hi-performance in 20 years I decided to get my transition training by a well-known CFII in his 10. We discussed reflex and the advantages and disadvantages. He advised when I start flying my 14 to examine both "in trail" and "reflex". He hinted that "reflex might be a waste of a push" but advised me to examine both. After flying multiple flight from Ohio to Florida and back at different altitudes (up to 15,000 ft.) and temps I determined that reflex was indeed a waste of a push. I found zero TAS differences at the two different flap positions after charting probably 10 trips. Yes, I felt a slight pitch difference but at the same power setting/fuel flow (Garmin does a nice job showing efficiencies) and with Savy it's easy to compare showed zero difference. Yes, sometimes in trail would be better and sometimes reflex would be better but only by 2 or 3% at best. I even ditched statistical analysis as this almost never shows very slight differences just not statistically significant. I reprogrammed my VPX to take "+3% reflex" out and assigned it to -10 degrees which is not speed limited (In the VPX) but not used till I get down to 120 knots or less. For my 10 in Phase 1 I documented this. I like being able to extend "-10% from full up" on approach to slow thing down better. So, I happily fly around in reflex (Full up) and use the VPX "reflex" setting to lower my flaps 10% below 120 knots.
Would love to hear from someone who has examined if reflex (-3%) or "in trail" is truly better at what altitude and has DATA.
RV-10, 16,000’ indicated/18,000’ density altitude. AP on. I thought ‘in trail’ was 1 or 2 knots faster than reflex, but hard to tell, as there was just a bit of turbulence/ up-down drafts. This prompted my conversation with Steve Smith, mentioned above .
There almost certainly is a crossover point which coincides with a specific AOA where flaps in trail would be better than reflexed. It isn't just determined by altitude, it isn't just aircraft weight, it isn't just airspeed...it comes at a point on an AOA curve defined by the combination of those things.
